As one reads through Why Be Plain? one realizes that practically the entire book is a defense of Plain ordnungs. That should be no surprise, because Plain ordnungs are what set Plain groups apart from all other Christian groups. Ordnungs define distinctive Plain practices and lifestyles.
Weaver and Zimmerman continue their defense in chapter 4 of their book by first addressing a misconception regarding Plain ordnungs that is expressed within another imaginary conversation between cousins Dan and Steve. In that conversation, Dan quotes Jesus’ words in Mark 7:6–8:
Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far away from Me. But in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.” Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.
Dan then concludes, “If a church has man-made rules, they worship Jesus in vain!” (p. 64).
Weaver and Zimmerman point out that Jesus was not condemning ordnungs, but only human traditions that nullify God’s commandments. For proof of this position, they point to the immediately following verses of Mark 7:
[Jesus] was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother is to be put to death’; but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother’; thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that” (Mark 7:9–13, emphasis added).
From what I know about Plain ordnungs, I generally agree with Weaver and Zimmerman that Plain ordnungs do not nullify God’s commandments, at least not directly. I have never seen a rule in a Plain ordnung that requires or allows Plain people to ignore God’s commandments. For example, the requirement to drive a horse and buggy does not require breaking any of God’s commandments.
However, in the passage under consideration in Mark’s Gospel, nullifying God’s commandments by human tradition is not the only thing Jesus was condemning. He was also condemning the neglect of God’s commandments due to an excessive focus on human traditions, something that Weaver and Zimmerman have already admitted exists to some degree in Plain circles. In addition, those ordnung rules are made equal with God’s commandments, as they are punishable by the church under the threat of excommunication, shunning, and hellfire.
Throughout their book, Weaver and Zimmerman consistently defend Plain ordnungs by claiming that ordnung rules help Plain people follow Jesus’ commandments. Here’s one of many examples of that claim from chapter 4:
Do the Plain Churches reject God’s commandments and replace them with their own? No, they simply make guidelines on how to apply God’s commandments to real life (p. 66).
I only wish the authors would give readers some examples of their claim. I am doing my best to obey Jesus’ commandments, but I don’t see how shaving off my God-given mustache but not trimming my beard would help me in that regard. Jesus never said a word to His followers about mustaches or beards. I also don’t see how making sure my hair is not cut above my ears could help me obey Jesus’ commandments.
I don’t see how wearing a straw hat that has a brim width of exactly 3-1/2 inches (or 4 inches if I were a minister) would help me obey Jesus’ commandments.
I don’t understand how following an ordnung rule that allows me to own a riding lawn mower—but only to pull heavy loads and not to mow my lawn—will help me follow Jesus’ commandments. (That is an actual ordnung rule in some Plain communities.) And hundreds of similar rules could be cited—such as the prohibition against smoking white cigarettes but not brown ones—that have no connection to any of Jesus’ commandments.
My wife is also doing her best to obey Jesus’ commandments, but she can’t see how removing all the buttons from her dresses and using only straight-pin fasteners would help her in that regard. Neither can she understand how following an ordnung rule that requires apron belts to be 1 inch wide but not 1.25 inches wide (some ordnungs specify exactly 2 inches) would help her follow Jesus’ commandments. (That too is an actual ordnung rule in some Plain communities.)
Neither can my wife understand how wearing black shoes, black socks, black aprons, black bonnets, black capes (pinned horizontally, not vertically), black sweaters, and black coats will help her follow the God who created millions of colors. Jesus told His followers not to worry about clothing, assuring them that God’s “clothing” of the beautiful lilies of the field (usually white) surpassed Solomon’s glorious attire (see Matt. 5:28–29). Who could read that passage and conclude that God expects His people, created in His image, to continually clothe themselves in black, a color universally associated with sorrow, death, judgment, darkness, and ignorance? In heaven, the saints are clothed in white garments (Rev. 14:9–14).
My wife and I both play the guitar, and we don’t understand how not playing our guitars would help us obey Jesus’ commandments (especially because we play only worship songs). We can’t understand how the prohibition of any musical instruments other than harmonicas could help us better obey Jesus, especially in light of the fact that the Bible urges God’s people to praise Him by utilizing musical instruments (see Ps. 33:1–3; 71:22–23: 150:1–6).
We don’t understand how not reading the Bible “too much”—a caution advocated in some Plain circles where members who studied the Bible on their own decided to leave the community—could help us better obey Jesus’ commandments. Jesus’ commandments are all found in the Bible!
Similarly, we don’t understand how not posting Bible verses on our walls or having them printed on our checks or business invoices could help us better obey Jesus’ commandments. (This is another actual ordnung rule in some Plain communities.)
In light of the hundreds of varied ordnung rules enforced in Plain communities that clearly have no connection to any of Jesus’ commandments, Weaver and Zimmerman, who are certainly aware of those hundreds of Plain ordnung rules, seem very dishonest when they claim that Plain ordnungs exist only to help Plain people follow Jesus’ commandments.
Do Modern Times Require Modern Rules?
The authors continue their defense of Plain ordnungs by asking a rhetorical question that introduces another common justification:
Did He [Jesus] want His church to make no additional guidelines [actually, enforced rules] to compensate for all the problems that would arise with the post-modern age of technology and all sorts of options that tend to lead the church away from God? (p. 65).
Clearly, Weaver and Zimmerman want their readers to believe that modern technology and “all sorts of options” (which are presumably uniquely modern) call for “additional guidelines” beyond Christ’s commandments. They add that “some churches [actually, 99% of all churches] … refuse to have any guidelines [again, enforced rules] not directly given by the Bible.” And the tragic result, according to Weaver and Zimmerman? “Generally, there is no separation from the world” (p. 66).
Of course, what the authors mean is that other churches have no separation from the world as Plain people understand separation, as directed by Plain ordnungs. That is, churches without ordnungs allow their church members to drive cars and own smart phones, and they don’t force people to wear Plain uniforms.
If Christians anywhere obey the commandments of their Lord Jesus Christ, their lives will be profoundly different from the lives of nonbelievers. There may not be a separation from the world in the Plain sense, but there will certainly be a separation from the world in a biblical sense.
Weaver and Zimmerman continue:
Since many of the things we deal with today such as technology was [sic] nonexistent in Bible times, the members have no guidelines [actually, enforced rules] to go by and usually end up accepting everything. Might this also cause them to commit sins directly condemned in the Bible, due to lack of guidance? (p. 66).
So there are “sins directly condemned in the Bible” that church members might commit unless Plain leaders establish extra rules. Clearly, the authors believe church members are incapable on their own of figuring out how to apply God’s commandments when faced with the temptations of modern technology. They need “guidelines” that are punishable by excommunication, shunning, and hellfire.
For example, church members who own a smart phone might be incapable of figuring out how to apply Jesus’ commandment forbidding lust. So they apparently need Plain leaders to create a rule that completely forbids smart phones, punishable by excommunication, shunning, and hellfire. And church members who own a car might be incapable of resisting the temptation of using it to drive to a bar and get drunk, a sin “directly condemned in the Bible.” So car ownership must be prohibited by the ordnung to prevent church members from getting drunk in bars.
Reading these paragraphs from Why Be Plain? gives the impression that Weaver and Zimmerman lead churches of people who are not born again, and thus they are not set free from their slavery to sin. Their perceived need to create “fence laws” to keep Plain people from ignorantly committing “sins directly condemned in the Bible” indicates that Plain people may not truly be Christians.
Weaver and Zimmerman continue:
God gave us principles in the Bible and gave the church [that is, church leaders] the responsibility to apply these principles to the ever-changing world. We have an example in Acts 15 where the leaders had to meet and make guidelines on matters not directly addressed by Scripture. That is the ongoing work of the church today (p. 66).
But Weaver and Zimmerman fail to tell their readers that the gathering of church leaders in Jerusalem, recorded in Acts 15, was not convened to establish new “guidelines” (actually, enforced regulations equal to God’s commandments) that were necessary because of an “ever-changing world.” On the contrary, they met to decide whether Gentile believers should be circumcised and required to keep the Law of Moses. And they decided, based on Scripture and the clear revelation of the Holy Spirit, that the answer was no. Rather than creating new ordnung rules, they effectively abolished old ones. Gentiles needed only to keep the Law of Christ and do a few things to avoid offending Jewish believers. In light of these undeniable facts, it appears that Weaver and Zimmerman are attempting to exploit their readers’ biblical ignorance.
In their next paragraph, they seem to continue in this manner:
Might one example of the traditions of men be the wedding ring worn by members of progressive churches? This ring is worn because it’s society’s tradition. However, the Bible forbids the putting on of jewelry, thus the wedding ring is a tradition of men that makes void the commandment of God (p. 66).
The Bible does not forbid wearing jewelry. In the New Testament passage that I would expect Weaver and Zimmerman to cite, 1 Peter 3:3, Peter simply admonished Christian women to focus more on the inward person than the outward person:
Your adornment must not be merely external—braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God. For in this way in former times the holy women also, who hoped in God, used to adorn themselves, being submissive to their own husbands; just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, and you have become her children if you do what is right without being frightened by any fear (1 Pet. 3:3–6).
If Peter was forbidding Christian women from wearing jewelry, then he was also forbidding them from “putting on dresses” or, if we read the King James Version, from wearing any “apparel.” Does that seem likely?
Clearly, Peter was not forbidding women from styling their hair, wearing any gold jewelry, or from wearing any clothing! Some women in Peter’s time were consumed with styling their hair with elaborate and intricate braiding and other forms of elaborate attire. Women are often susceptible to the temptation to spend excessive time and energy improving their outward appearance. Christian women should resist that temptation and should instead devote themselves to improving their inward character. This, of course, does not mean that they should completely neglect their outward appearance. As in all things, balance is the key.
Regarding Sarah, whose example Peter commends, it is noteworthy that her husband, Abraham, who “was very rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold” (Gen. 13:2), sent a servant to travel to his relatives to find a wife for his beloved son, Isaac. When it was divinely confirmed to that servant that Rebekah was God’s chosen wife for Isaac, he immediately “took a gold ring weighing a half-shekel and two bracelets for her wrists weighing ten shekels in gold” (Gen. 24:22), and he put the ring on her finger and the bracelets on her wrists (see Gen. 24:30).
Several aspects of this story contradict Weaver and Zimmerman’s line of argument. First, engagement and wedding rings do have a biblical basis, and thus they are not “society’s tradition” and do not “make void the commandment of God.” Clearly, it is not true that “the Bible forbids the putting on of jewelry.” Moreover, it seems very likely that Sarah, whom Peter admonished Christian women to imitate, owned and wore jewelry herself, in light of the fact that her husband sent jewelry for his servant to give to Isaac’s bride. Sarah, however, was more focused on her inward character than her outward appearance, even though she was renowned for her outward beauty (see Gen. 12:11, 14).
A wedding ring publicly identifies people as married, which is a godly thing. It also serves as a reminder to all married people of the promises they’ve made to one special person. That is also a godly thing. We have to question why anyone would find fault with that, especially religious leaders, and even more so why religious leaders would twist Scripture to justify finding fault with wedding rings.
Wise Words
Weaver and Zimmerman next turn their attention back to Dan and Steve’s imaginary conversation at the beginning of chapter 4, addressing Dan’s claim that New Testament “Christian liberty” gives believers “the freedom to live as we please as long as we have the correct belief in our hearts” (see p. 64). That idea is often advocated by false-grace preachers, and Weaver and Zimmerman offer a sound rebuttal:
We are not free from the Law of Christ. Obedience to the laws He gave in the NT is what frees us from sin’s chain. James called it the “law of liberty.” The Bible says that Christians are made free from sin and have become servants of righteousness (Rom. 6:18). But many today, claiming their spiritual liberty, do as they please and fall right back into the chains of sin they had been freed from, becoming servants of sin. That’s not freedom in Christ, but freedom from righteousness (p. 69).
But that piece of wisdom ends in their next paragraph, as the authors, once again, endorse submission to hundreds of extra-biblical rules that have no foundation in Scripture:
And we are not free from obedience and submission to the church. The Bible makes that clear. “Obey them that have rule over you, and submit yourselves” (Heb. 13:17). What’s to submit to if the leaders are not allowed to set standards? (p. 69).
That last sentence, italicized by the authors for emphasis, is a “non sequitur,” a Latin phrase meaning “it does not follow.” A non sequitur is a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement. Weaver and Zimmerman’s book is full of non sequiturs, and we’ve just read one of them. It does not logically follow that just because we should submit to spiritual leaders, those spiritual leaders have the right to establish extra-biblical standards and require obedience to them. Spiritual leaders are supposed to teach people to obey God’s commandments.
Suppose that I said, “The law makes it clear that we should obey police. What’s to obey if the police are not allowed to make laws?” Would you think that my second sentence logically follows my first sentence? Of course not. Police enforce the laws made by higher authorities. They do not make laws themselves.
Avoiding Temptation
Weaver and Zimmerman continue to grasp at straws to find justification for Plain ordnungs by yet another misapplication of Scripture:
“Abstain from all appearance of evil” (1 Thess. 5:22). That indicates that we should not only avoid those things that are obviously evil, but also that which is questionable. Much of today’s technology, although perhaps not evil in itself, has the appearance of evil and has led many into evil. Therefore the Plain Churches have heeded the above Scripture and have abstained from it. Many of their rules are made because something has the appearance and potential for evil, and could lead away from obedience to the NT. …
The Plain Churches … seek to avoid and forbid those things that open the door to temptation. The Bible does not only instruct us to resist temptation, but to avoid it where possible so that we don’t even have the opportunity to sin. That’s what our Ordnung is for. It doesn’t make sense to pray “Lead us not into temptation,” and then turn around and pick up a smart phone that is laden with endless temptations (pp. 69–70).
First, to abstain “from all appearance of evil “is to abstain from things that are not actually evil but could appear evil. It is not abstaining from things that can be used for good or evil. An example of the “appearance of evil” would be two unmarried people of opposite sexes sharing a hotel room to save money on hotel expenses. Even if nothing immoral occurs in that hotel room, the man and woman did not “avoid the appearance of evil.” Onlookers will assume that they did evil behind closed doors.
Second, what specific technology has “the appearance of evil”? The authors cite smart phones, an item owned by 99% of all adults in North America and used 99% of the time for things that are not evil, such as phone calls, texts, taking photos, and obtaining news and information. Yes, porn is available on smart phones for those who desire it, just as immoral sex is available in hundreds of places for Plain people who desire it. Some unmarried Plain people have sex in buggies and barns, but even if buggies and barns were banned, those who want to have immoral sex would find somewhere else to sin. Banning smart phones doesn’t change hearts, nor does it keep Plain people who desire to own a smart phone from secretly owning one. In fact, banning them actually makes them more desirable to many people.
Moreover, true followers of Christ who find that they are at risk of sinning due to owning a smart phone will eliminate it themselves, because they love Jesus who said, “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments” (John 14:15), and who also said, “If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off” (Mark 9:43). Jesus did not say, “Church leaders, cut off the hands of every church member to prevent any potential that their hands might do wrong.” Individual Christians have a personal responsibility to avoid what might cause them to stumble.
Most Plain people own guns, a relatively modern technology that can be used for evil. Why don’t Plain leaders ban guns so that church members will avoid the appearance of evil? If a nonbeliever saw a Plain person carrying a gun, he might assume he is a murderer!
Third, smart phones are not “laden with temptation.” Maybe to Weaver and Zimmerman they are, but not to most of us. We use them every day without stumbling, like any other tool, modern or old-fashioned.
Now, see if you can spot any non sequiturs in the three sentences of Weaver and Zimmerman’s next paragraph:
It is true that [man-made] rules and standards cannot produce Christians. However, a church without [man-made] rules is sure to produce apostasy and worldliness! When a church takes no stand against the world, they soon fall for the world (p. 70).
If man-made rules and standards cannot produce Christians, the next logical statement should be, “So because our goal is to produce Christians, we don’t need any man-made rules and standards.” Instead, however, the authors contradict their initial premise. After declaring that man-made rules and standards are of no value in producing Christians, they declare that they actually are of value in producing Christians! They claim that without man-made rules and standards, the result is “apostasy” (falling away from the faith, which disqualifies one from heaven) and “worldliness” (behaving like the world, which also disqualifies one from heaven). Not only are the first two sentences a non sequitur, they are also self-contradictory. Both sentences can’t be true because they make opposite claims.
The third claim, “When a church takes no stand against the world, they soon fall for the world,” sounds like a Plain cliché that has been passed down for generations. It must be interpreted through the Plain lens of “the world,” something we have already considered in earlier chapters.
What Weaver and Zimmerman mean is that when church leaders don’t create and enforce rules against smart phones, car ownership, non-Plain dress, and so on, the members will use smart phones, drive cars, and not dress like Plain people. They would naturally do so because no one would conclude from reading the Bible that there was any reason not to use those things.
As we have noted earlier, 99.99% of the world’s professing Christians don’t interpret the Bible’s warnings against “the world” as Plain people do. Those among them who are born again overcome the temptations of “the world” (as defined by the New Testament) by their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, just as the Bible says: “For whatever is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith” (1 John 5:4). Jesus lives in us by the Holy Spirit and we are “new creations in Christ” (2 Cor. 5:17). The world has lost its attraction to us as we “walk by the Spirit” (Gal. 5:16). Hallelujah! All praise to God!
