As we continue in chapter 7 of Why Be Plain?, it becomes clear that Weaver and Zimmerman recognize the virtual impossibility of winning people to faith in Christ through the Plain gospel:
There are other problems with the Plain People going on missions. One problem is that many Biblical ways tend to be dropped by the missionaries, including Plain dress, nonconformity, and avoidance of technology. When they [missionaries] come back the cry is, “We need cars, cell phones and other technology to reach the world. And we need to be more like the world so that the world is willing to join us.” Discouraged with lack of converts, many mission-minded churches drop their nonconformity to the world to join them. Instead of the church winning the world, the world wins the church (p. 136).
That paragraph is enough to make the angels weep. What Weaver and Zimmerman call “Biblical ways” is nothing more than Plain traditions that serve as barriers to the gospel and to the salvation of people for whom Christ died. Why would any Plain people or Plain “missionaries” ever think they could make foreign converts when they make virtually no domestic converts in a nation where they number over 400,000 people? The same barriers that they erect in the United States, and that prevent just about anyone from joining them, would also prevent people of other nations from joining them. Yet for Weaver and Zimmerman, maintaining Plain traditions is more important than the salvation of the lost.
And it only gets worse. After quoting Jesus’ words to His followers that they are “the salt of the earth,” Weaver and Zimmerman twist His sacred words to justify not evangelizing the lost! In the quotation below, I have added my comments in brackets:
Christ calls all Christians to be the salt of the earth, but if we lose our saltiness we are good for nothing. The more we become like the world [meaning, the more we don’t wear Plain uniforms, and the more we use technology that we haven’t historically used, and so on], the less useful we are to God in the building of His kingdom [His “Plain” kingdom]. And if we lose our saltiness [our Plain distinctives] we are good for nothing but to be cast out of God’s kingdom and trodden underfoot by men [if we no longer keep our Plain traditions, we will forfeit heaven!]. If we are concerned about being a witness to the world, let’s remember this: A church that is conformed to the world [that does not follow Plain traditions] is no witness at all. [So all non-Plain evangelism and missions are invalid witnesses to the world, because they aren’t creating converts who conform to Plain traditions.]
History shows that when a group drops their nonconformity standards [Plain traditions of nonconformity that revolve around outward dress and use of some technology, as opposed to biblical standards of nonconformity], in a few generations they have become a worldly church [a church that doesn’t keep Plain traditions] that neglects many Biblical principles [Actually, “ordnung rules.” Notice Weaver and Zimmerman could not write “biblical commandments”]. Add a few more generations and many of them are no longer even Christians. In the light of that, how ridiculous would it be to drop many of our standards [Plain ordnung requirements] to evangelize other countries, only to potentially lose thousands of souls in our own following generations if the Lord tarries? (p. 137).
This passage reveals a common sentiment among most Plain groups. The focus is not on reaching out to the lost, but in preserving Plain culture. Plain groups aren’t trying to attract outsiders. Rather, they are trying to keep insiders from escaping.
This reminds me of when I toured the border between East and West Germany years ago when East Germany was still a separate, communist nation. Along the East German border were multiple rows of high, barbed-wire fences. Guard towers were spaced along the fences, manned with soldiers with machine guns. Those fences were not designed to keep West Germans from entering East Germany, as no West German had any such a desire. They were designed to keep East Germans from escaping their own country. The machine guns were pointed toward East Germany.
If Plain leaders would ever tear down all the Plain fences and guard towers, tens of thousands of people would rush to cross the border, and everyone knows that. Only the strictest Scripture-twisting Pharisees would remain behind, clinging to their sacred man-made traditions. And every departing Plain person who was a true, born-again follower of Christ would not only continue to keep His commandments (as they had already been doing), while abandoning most of the man-made traditions, but would love to tell their story and God’s story to anyone who would listen!
But It Gets Even Worse
After telling their readers that they can be “the salt of the earth” while avoiding any form of soul winning or missions that compromises Plain traditions, Weaver and Zimmerman offer a final caution regarding the danger of Plain churches focusing on anyone but themselves:
And that brings us to another problem. There is much evidence that when foreign missions are the focus, the home church is frequently neglected.
1 Timothy 5:8. “But if any provide not for his own, and specifically for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.”
Galatians 6:10. “As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.”
Those two verses command us to direct most of our energy to those of our own house and to those in the Christian faith. Our adversary, the devil, knows that if he can destroy the family and the church, the light of God’s kingdom shining here on earth would be very dim. And if that’s the case, the world will not be won regardless of how much preaching is done.
These problems are not given as excuses. All these problems we would gladly face and seek ways to make it work if we knew God wants us to go on foreign missions. But does He? We find nothing in the Bible that assures us He does (pp. 137-138).
I wonder what evidence Weaver and Zimmerman could present to show that “the home church is frequently neglected … when foreign missions are the focus.” Most Bible-believing churches around the world are involved in missions on some level because they recognize that God loves the entire world (John 3:16) and that Jesus died for everyone (1 John 2:2). Most of them support missionaries who are called and sent from their groups, or they assist indigenous groups. And their involvement in missions, foreign and domestic, does not result in neglect of the home church. On the contrary, it strengthens their unified obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ.
The two Bible verses the authors quote have nothing to do with foreign missions, nor does either one imply a higher obligation to the local church than to missions. Both verses were penned by Paul, the greatest missionary in world history. The first was written to a fellow missionary, and addressed the obligation of Christians to provide for their widowed mothers and other widows who have no family support (see 1 Tim. 5:3–8). The second is simply an admonition to “do good to everyone,” and it explicitly is not limited only to “the household of faith.”
A Little Backpedaling
Perhaps realizing how biblically unbalanced their downplaying of foreign missions is, the authors do backpedal a little bit, contradicting what they said previously. Under the subheading, “But Are Missions Never God’s Will?” they write:
We will not try to put God in a box and say He never calls a church to plant more churches overseas in areas where there are none. Very likely, He has called some to this work, and we’re not trying to say that it is wrong or unnecessary. We do have reason to question some of the methods and motives of modern missionaries, but we’ll leave that between God and them. It is true that Jesus criticized the Pharisee’s mission efforts, saying they cross land and sea to make one convert, only to turn him into twice as much a child of hell as themselves (Matt. 23:15). Jesus had the right to pass such judgment, but we do not.
Even though missions may well be God’s will for some churches, we believe the Plain Churches are called to be a light where they are (p. 138).
In light of their previous statements, it seems very doubtful that Weaver and Zimmerman are referring to any churches other than Plain churches in these two paragraphs. There are some churches that would identify as “Plain” and are also involved in overseas missions. The authors “have reason to question some of the methods and motives” of modern Plain missionaries, which, of course, is passing judgment. But they quickly attempt to hide their judgment behind a common cliché: “We’ll leave that between God and them.” If they were actually leaving it “between God and them,” they would never have written that they “had reason to question the methods and motives” of modern missionaries.
Then, the authors make another judgment of modern missionaries by referencing Jesus’ condemnation of the mission efforts of the Pharisees, as if that has some application to all modern missionaries. And then they again try to hide their judgment behind yet another cliché: “Jesus had the right to pass such judgment, but we do not.” Then why did they bring it up, especially when they just said they question the methods and motives of today’s missionaries? The reality is that Weaver and Zimmerman are trying to find fault with those who obey one of Jesus’ clear, important commandments which they nullify with their man-made traditions, something Jesus condemned (see Mark 7:1-13).
Having an Answer
Thankfully, at least Weaver and Zimmerman admonish their readers to share their faith with outsiders who question them about it. They caution, however, against sharing their faith when not asked:
Going around asking people, “Are you saved?” or “Are you a Christian?” probably does more harm than good and it does not fit in with Paul’s admonishment to live quietly and mind our own business (1 Tim. 4:11).
If Paul’s admonition to “live quietly and mind our own business” was meant to keep Christians from taking the initiative to share the gospel with others, then he clearly ignored his own admonition. By Weaver and Zimmerman’s definition, Paul certainly didn’t “live quietly and mind his own business.” His Christian life was devoted to proclaiming the gospel, and he “upset the world” (Acts 17:6). Riots broke out when he preached the gospel publicly.
Weaver and Zimmerman claim that because of Plain attire and lifestyles, Plain people are often given opportunities to share about their faith with people who ask them why they dress and live as they do. The authors admonish Plain people who are given such opportunities not to say that they are Amish or Mennonite but to say, “We are followers of Jesus Christ, trying to live out His commands” (p. 140). But the authors don’t tell their readers how to respond to the next logical question: “And does Jesus command people to dress like you and drive a horse and buggy instead of a car?”
Because “actions speak louder than words” (p. 135), it makes no difference if Plain people who are asked that question tell the truth or not, because their attire sends an unmistakable message to everyone: “To be a Christian, you must dress in uniforms like us, stop driving a car, and start driving a horse-drawn buggy. And a whole lot more.”
Dressing distinctively can perhaps attract some friendly inquiries, but implying that to be a true Christian one must dress in a certain way erects massive barriers to the gospel. Ordnung-based Plain tradition doesn’t help God’s kingdom grow; it hinders it. That is obvious from the number of outsiders who join Plain groups every year, which is no more than a handful, if any at all. Think about it—400,000 “Christians” who are allegedly “letting their lights shine” yet who collectively win no more than a handful of converts to their version of Christianity every year. Yet without shame, Weaver and Zimmerman, and all Plain leaders like them, advocate preserving the “Plain gospel” at all costs. We can’t help but wonder if Weaver and Zimmerman have ever experienced an authentic new birth.
German-Language Church Services
Most Plain church services are conducted in German. Moreover, even if one speaks Pennsylvania Dutch—a German dialect commonly used by Amish people—that does not mean he understands formal German. That is, for example, why many Amish people will tell you that God’s first commandment was to “honor your father and mother.” They have heard a bishop or minister quote, from the German Bible, Paul’s words from Ephesians 6:2: “’Honor your father and mother’ (which is the first commandment with a promise).” But they don’t understand the German for “with a promise,” and so they conclude that God’s commandment to honor one’s father and mother was His very first commandment.
In some Plain churches, everyone does understand German. But many participants at other Plain churches do not understand the language in which services are conducted, as former Amish people have explained to me. Nevertheless, tradition trumps the importance of ensuring that everyone actually understands what is said during Plain church services.
Weaver and Zimmerman don’t mention that particular problem when they acknowledge that holding church services in German creates another barrier to reaching outsiders with the gospel. That language barrier, however, doesn’t bother the authors:
If an English person wants to join a Plain Church he has a high barrier to cross [that is, he must learn German].
But in the words of a minister, the language barrier is not the biggest barrier he would have to face. The complete lifestyle change would be an even larger hurdle to face, which is why someone having the world’s comforts [ordnung-prohibited technologies] rarely desires to join us. But anyone is welcome to join. And if missionaries can learn another language to teach in other nations, a sincere seeker should also be willing and able to cross the language barrier (p. 141).
To paraphrase, the language barrier is just one of the many barriers that Plain churches erect to keep virtually all outsiders out, so why even consider eliminating it?
What is so tragic about that previous paragraph, and about all of chapter 7 of Why Be Plain?, is that the authors reveal their complete lack of concern for non-Plain people, for whom Jesus gave His life. Jesus was the consummate missionary and set the greatest example of love for the lost. He ate with greedy and dishonest tax collectors and other sinners because “It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick.” He “did not come to call the righteous, but sinners” (Mark 2:17). He was the Good Shepherd who left the ninety-nine sheep to seek the one that was lost (Luke 15:3–7). And He sometimes told people who wanted to focus on their own family, “Allow the dead to bury their own dead; but as for you, go and proclaim everywhere the kingdom of God” (Luke 9:60). He sometimes told people whose lives He touched not to be quiet, but to “Go home to your people and report to them what great things the Lord has done for you, and how He had mercy on you” (Mark 5:19).
Paul, also a great missionary, removed every cultural barrier he could in hopes of reaching both Jews and Gentiles with the gospel (see 1 Cor. 9:19–23). In contrast, Plain leaders erect scores of cultural barriers to keep their churches “pure” and to keep outsiders away. Weaver and Zimmerman believe all the Plain barriers serve that good purpose. Keeping the English language out of Plain church services also helps to keep “the world” out of the churches. Again, the goal is not to reach the lost but to preserve those who are hopefully “saved.” Weaver and Zimmerman resort to twisting any scripture they can to support Plain exclusivity:
In 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 3:6, the Bible mentions traditions and encourages us to cling to them—referring to traditions that help us live godly lives and remain distinct from the world. German sermons is [sic] such a tradition. It helps us to be separate from the world and cling to our conservative ways (p. 143).
Of course, there is no record that Paul, or any of the early churches, called for using a particular language in church services, let alone a language that some of the believers didn’t fully understand and one that no unbeliever understood—all in order to “keep the world out of the church”! The very idea stands against the most fundamental ethic of the Christian faith, which is to love one’s neighbor as oneself. If I love my neighbor, I will share the gospel of the Lord Jesus with Him, and I certainly won’t do it in a language he doesn’t understand.
When Paul admonished the Thessalonian believers to “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught” (2 Thes. 2:15), he was not referring to hundreds of man-made rules and fence laws, but to biblical, Spirit-given precepts. In fact, the tradition Paul had in mind in 2 Thessalonians 3 was very clear:
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example, because we did not act in an undisciplined manner among you, nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with labor and hardship we kept working night and day so that we would not be a burden to any of you; not because we do not have the right to this, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you, so that you would follow our example. For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either. For we hear that some among you are leading an undisciplined life, doing no work at all, but acting like busybodies. Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to work in quiet fashion and eat their own bread (2 Thess. 3:6–12).
Clearly, the “tradition” to which Paul refers concerns working diligently to earn one’s own living, an application of loving one’s neighbor as oneself. The passage has nothing to do with man-made traditions, must less application to using the German language in Plain church services. But Weaver and Zimmerman continue with further Scripture twisting:
In the light of what happened to other churches that made this switch [from German to English church services], it is really worth the risk? Switch to English to make few converts from the outside and potentially end up losing more to the world than we manage to win for Christ? “For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?” (Matt 16:26).
Here, Jesus’ sacred words about the great value of eternal salvation are twisted to teach that it is better to build walls to keep the unsaved out than to tear down walls and risk being contaminated by others. May God have mercy on anyone who so violently twists Jesus’ words in Matthew 16:26.
Ironically, Weaver and Zimmerman wrote their defense of maintaining German-language church services in English, not in German—which shows that they acknowledge the value of communicating to their readers in the language that they best understand.
Thousands of Converts Every Year?
In their final argument in chapter 7, Weaver and Zimmerman claim that because the Plain people double in number every twenty years, this shows they have “thousands of converts every year” (p. 144). This numerical growth, of course, is because Plain people generally have large families and most children born to Plain parents join the church as young adults.
But what this actually shows is that the only people whom the Plain churches can convince to join them are their own children, whom they program from birth to have a Plain worldview and on whom they place great social pressure in various ways, coercing them to make vows to remain Plain and keep the ordnung for the rest of their lives. Young adults are told at their baptism that they are now born again (when they actually may not be), and that keeping their vows to obey the ordnung is their only hope of eternal life. For the rest of their lives, they must observe hundreds of extra-biblical rules under the threat of excommunication, shunning by their own family members, and eternal hellfire.
What I have just described is not “thousands of Christian converts” but “thousands of children born inside a religious system that holds them captive all their lives.” Not only have Plain people attracted virtually no outsiders over the past 50 years, but thousands of people who were born Plain have left during that same time period, even when the group has done everything it can to stop that exodus—to the point of shunning family members who leave! What does that say about Plain churches?
