As we explored in previous chapters, in Plain thinking, “worldliness” is characterized not only by what transgresses biblical standards of holiness (as they are understood in Plain circles), but also by what transgresses man-made, extra-biblical rules of the ordnung. This is again made clear in chapter 3 of Why Be Plain? There, Weaver and Zimmerman define worldliness as “conformity to the non-Christian society, as well as all evil in general—both in the heart and outside the heart” (p. 46).
There are two distinct elements in that definition: (1) conformity to non-Christian society, and (2) to all evil in general. That may sound okay, but why didn’t the authors simply define worldliness as conformity to evil? Why also mention “conformity to the non-Christian society”? The reason is because they are preparing to justify the ordnung—the hundreds of extra-biblical rules that legislate the unique aspects of Plain nonconformity.
Moreover, in their definition of worldliness, they list nonconformity to non-Christian society first, and shunning all evil in general second. That subtle emphasis upon the ordnung continues in their very next sentence: “It is good and necessary that the Plain People shun worldliness by separating themselves from the lifestyle of society” (p. 46, emphasis added).
Separation from the world is the essence of the Plain lifestyle. But in Plain minds, that separation is defined not only by the New Testament but also by the ordnung, which varies in every Plain community.
Of course, all genuine, born-again followers of Christ around the world shun any aspect of non-Christian society that they perceive as evil, based on their understanding of Scripture. The large majority of them, however, don’t live like Plain people, following hundreds of extra-biblical rules.[8] Rather, they do their best, with the help of the Spirit who indwells them, to follow Christ’s commandments. And that is exactly what all followers of Christ have done from the beginning, including the early Anabaptists, as revealed by the 1632 Dordrecht Confession. Not only does that confession not mention ordnungs, but it actually prohibits them, as we saw in the previous chapter.
Weaver and Zimmerman rightly acknowledge that the basis of a Christian lifestyle is God’s Word. However, their interpretation of God’s Word differs from that of the majority of genuine, born-again believers, currently and historically. For example, the authors write:
Our separation must be in tune with the principles of God’s Word, such as modesty, humility, minding not the high things, living like pilgrims, and becoming like Jesus (p. 47).
Note that authors don’t list the two commandments that Jesus called the greatest—“loving God with all our hearts” and “loving our neighbor as ourselves.” Nor do they highlight caring for the “least of these,” a commandment Jesus connected with our eternal destiny (Matt. 25:31–46). Keeping those three commandments would certainly result in a separation from the world, because the world generally does not keep those commandments.
Weaver and Zimmerman, however, focus on Plain distinctives. And even though they list five of those distinctives using biblical language, those who are familiar with Plain doctrine recognize that much more is actually being communicated. For example, in the previous chapter, we explored the Plain understanding of “minding not the high things,” which, according to Weaver and Zimmerman, includes not owning an automobile. All five “principles of God’s Word” that the authors list have unique meanings to Plain people.
Like all genuine believers, I am persuaded that modesty, humility, not loving money, living like a stranger and pilgrim on earth, and becoming like Jesus are all important (among other things). But I don’t need to join a Plain community to pursue those five things. In fact, my pursuit of becoming like Jesus compels me not to join a Plain community, because Jesus lived so differently, in so many ways, from how most Plain people live today. We will explore some of those differences later, but my overall point is that Jesus focused on obeying God’s commandments and was critical of additional, man-made fence laws, particularly when they nullified God’s commandments.
Plain Defined
Weaver and Zimmerman go on to define what it means to be Plain:
Plain basically means “not conformed to the world.” The world, with their love of riches, glamour, and fashion are the opposite of plain (p. 48).
Most Christians, if asked to list the three primary characteristics of “the world,” would not select the world’s love of riches, glamour and fashion. That sounds more like a description of a very narrow slice of “the world,” a slice that might include Hollywood celebrities. More broadly, the primary and universal trait of “the world” is its rebellion against God and His moral law. Here is one of Paul’s descriptions of that world:
And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful (Rom. 1:28–31).
Love of glamour and fashion aren’t on that list. The “love of riches,” also mentioned as a characteristic of “the world” by Weaver and Zimmerman, could be considered equivalent to “greed” in Paul’s list. However, the Plain definition of “the love of riches” amounts to an arbitrary setting by an ordnung standard of what one can or cannot own, a standard that would have no relevance whatsoever to the first-century Christians to whom Paul wrote. Scripture’s definition of greed is different from the Plain definition, as we will see shortly.
In any case, Weaver and Zimmerman’s unique characterization of “the world” seems designed to justify the unique nonconformity of Plain people.
All genuine Christians acknowledge the New Testament’s admonitions not to be conformed to the world. But if asked how one should obey those admonitions, no one outside the Plain community would answer, “By driving buggies, only being passengers in automobiles, and wearing clothing and hair styles that were fashionable a hundred years ago.” Rather, they would say, “By obeying Jesus’ commandments, unlike the world that is in rebellion against God.”
If asked how their use of material possessions exhibits nonconformity with the world, they might say, “We don’t break any of God’s commandments to make money, and we use a portion of what we earn to serve the poor and spread the gospel. That practice is based on Paul’s warning that ‘the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil’ (1 Tim. 6:10) and Jesus’ instructions to lay up treasures in heaven rather than on earth (Matt. 6:19–21). We don’t waste money on clothing we don’t need (see Jas. 5:2), and we dress modestly, particularly our women (see 1 Tim. 2:9).”
“The World” Existed Before There Was Any Modern Technology
By way of reminder, “the world” to which Christians should not conform existed in the apostles’ time, before modern technology existed. Peter wrote:
For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first (2 Pet. 2:20, emphasis added).
Obviously, “escaping the defilements of the world” was equivalent to deliverance from sin, or from breaking God’s commandments. Peter indicated that some of the early believers who had been set free from the power of sin had tragically backslid to become sin’s prisoners again.
Paul similarly wrote, “For Demas, having loved this present world, has deserted me and gone to Thessalonica” (2 Tim. 4:10, emphasis added). Backsliding Demas obviously didn’t yield to the temptation to purchase technology. He yielded to the “passing pleasures of sin” (Heb. 11:25) in which unbelievers indulge.
James wrote, “Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world” (James 1:27, emphasis added). To be “stained by the world” is to be stained with sin, that is, disobedience to God’s commandments, not disobedience to a man-made list of rules.
And John wrote, “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). John affirmed that everyone who has truly believed and is truly “born of God” (that is, born again) “overcomes the world.” That is a biblical fact. So (read slowly here), either all non-Plain, born-again Christians are actually not born again (since they use modern technology and have therefore allegedly not “overcome the world”), or Plain people are mistaken in thinking that using modern technology is “worldly.”
A Separate Christian Culture?
Weaver and Zimmerman continue describing Plain nonconformity as follows:
The Plain People have formed a separated Christian culture in their communities. This is a good thing, because everyone is conformed to a culture. If Christians don’t form their own culture, they will conform to the culture around them—a worldly one (p. 48).
According to them, it can be only one or the other. If Christians don’t form separate cultures as Plain people do, then they will be conformed to the world. There is nothing in between, even though hundreds of millions of Christ-followers, historically and currently, have not formed distinct cultures that resemble Plain cultures.
Historically, where is there an example in the New Testament of Christians forming separate cultures, like modern Plain people? The very first Christians—all Jewish—differed from nonbelievers in just one major way: they believed in Jesus and strove to obey His commandments. Other than that, they remained culturally identical to their Jewish neighbors, even keeping the Mosaic dietary laws (see Acts 10:9–13). But they were not “conformed to the world”; that is, they were not acting like unbelievers from a moral standpoint.
And when the Gentiles later began becoming believers, the same was true of them. They didn’t start wearing outdated clothing or hair styles to stand out from their neighbors as “nonconforming” Christians. They dressed just as they had done before they became believers. Their nonconformity consisted of obeying Jesus.
With regard to hair styles and clothing, perhaps some people made adjustments. Maybe some wealthy converted women—who formerly spent hours braiding their hair in the very complex and elaborate styles that were popular in ancient Greek culture—began devoting less attention to the outer person and more to the inner person (see 1 Tim. 2:9-10; 1 Pet. 3:3-4). Such lifestyle changes by the wealthy were based on biblical, moral principles. But the Christians did not wear required uniforms.
This doesn’t mean that Christian women were ashamed of their God-given attractiveness, or that they didn’t try to please their husbands by their appearance. When Peter admonished Christian women to focus more on the inward person than on outward appearance, he cited Sarah as an example (see 1 Pet. 3:3–6). Sarah was so physically attractive—even though she doubtless dressed very modestly—that her husband feared other men might kill him in order to possess her (see Gen. 12:10–16).
When Paul Conformed to Cultures
The whole idea of a “separated Christian culture” is unbiblical. In fact, the apostle Paul purposely conformed to the cultures in which he traveled (without transgressing any of Jesus’ commandments) in order not to hinder people within those cultures from listening to and believing his gospel:
For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more. To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the [Mosaic] Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without law [Gentiles], as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some. I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it (1 Cor. 9:19–23).
When Paul interacted with Jews, he conformed to Jewish culture. When he interacted with Gentiles, he conformed to Gentile culture. That is, he did not act like a Jew under the Mosaic Law, as he knew that would send the wrong message to them.
We will explore this issue in greater detail in a later chapter, but Plain culture is a potential hindrance to the gospel’s progress, as it sends this message to unbelievers: “If you want to go to heaven, you must embrace and adopt our peculiar culture, one that is characterized by conformity to many rules that have no apparent connection to morality, ethics or the Bible.”
Tragically, many Plain people seem not to understand the gospel themselves, so they have no message to proclaim to others or motivation to do so. Moreover, those among the Plain who do know the gospel rarely share it with anyone else. If they did, the ordnung they follow would be communicating a call to conformity to it, and born-again Plain people know that. In fact, even if genuinely born-again Plain people shared the gospel with unregenerate Plain people who followed a different ordnung, they would still be ineffective, because their unregenerate Plain audiences would assume that to be born again, they would have to embrace the identical ordnung as the gospel preachers.
In any case, if there is such a thing as biblical “Christian culture,” it is the one exemplified by the early Christians as well as the early Anabaptists. What set them apart from the world’s culture was their love for God and neighbor, not hundreds of detailed rules that governed every aspect of their lives and were enforced by threat of excommunication and shunning. That fact is undeniable.
What It Means to Love the World
In support of their view, Weaver and Zimmerman quote 1 John 2:15–17, a passage we considered in a previous chapter. There John warned:
Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world (emphasis added).
Without any scriptural support, Weaver and Zimmerman define “the things in the world” as “possessions that lead to temptation and away from the love of God” (emphasis mine). And they likewise define “the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life” as subsets of the same, again without any biblical evidence for their claims. They pull their definitions out of thin air. For example, they define “lust of the flesh” as
any covetousness or desire for what we do not or should not have. It could refer to lusting after unnecessary luxuries offered by the world. … Might another example be lusting after something church guidelines do not allow? (p. 52, emphasis added).
That is an invented definition of “the lust of the flesh” that is clearly designed to fit Plain ordnungs. By that vague and slipshod definition, no Christian should desire any material thing that they don’t already have. In that case, I suppose we shouldn’t buy any type of food that’s not already in our home!
The authors then describe the “lust of the eyes” as follows:
When we look at the world and desire their entertainment, splendor, and possessions, we are lusting with our eyes. Fancy design and ornaments are only for pleasing the desires of the eye. And what are the world’s eyes drawn to more than “screens”? Through lusting after the evils of the world with our eyes—something made very easy by the smart phone—the world enters our hearts and chokes out the love for God (p. 53, emphasis added).
That is another invented definition, pulled from thin air, that is clearly designed to fit Plain ordnungs.
Finally, they say that “the pride of life”
is often centered around riches, flashy apparel, fancy cars, possessions, status and position. Everything we have or do simply to be admired by others is done for the pride of life (p. 53; emphasis added).
In the four definitions quoted above, I italicized every time material possessions were mentioned. Notice all the italics! They reveal one major problem with all those definitions. The apostle John penned his words in the first century, when there was no modern technology and most Christians were quite poor, especially by modern Western standards. Many were servants or slaves. What John was warning about must have had application to those people, and as the inspired Word of God, it must be relevant to every culture since then until today, not just to 21st-century American culture.
And it did. As we saw previously, the “lust of the flesh” consists of the universal and age-old sinful desires that result in “immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing” and so on (Gal. 5:19–21).
I also briefly explained “the lust of eyes” as likely being biblical greed, which is a transgression of any of God’s commandments regarding the acquisition or use of money or possessions. Poor people can commit the sin of greed. Biblical greed is not defined by an arbitrary, man-made standard of what or how much one earns or owns.
As for the “boastful pride of life,” that is the universal pride held in common by all unregenerate people who see no need to humble themselves in repentance and submission to God (see Prov. 8:13; Is. 2:11–17; 13:11; Luke 18:9–14).
Weaver and Zimmerman have defined biblical phrases based on their own cultural biases. This is unfortunate since, as they write, “The Bible should not be read for justification but for truth” (p. 9).
A Closer Look at Biblical Greed
Any material possessions, whether those available in the first century or today, can tempt us not to love our neighbors as ourselves and thus to sin against God. That is the greed against which Scripture warns. We could be tempted, for example, to gain some material thing, regardless of its value, by theft or deception. Poor people can be guilty of that form of greed. Or we could be tempted not to share with those in need. As John warned his readers, “But whoever has the world’s goods, and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him?” (1 John 3:17).
Obviously, back in John’s time, long before modern technology, there were material possessions that John described as “the world’s goods.” Moreover, he said that some Christians possessed the world’s goods! He referred to them in that way not because only nonbelievers possessed them but because the world is focused on them. For nonbelievers, material things are all they possess (as Jesus said in Matthew 6:32). They don’t have what is most valuable—a relationship with God.
Again, John did not intimate that there was anything wrong with possessing “the world’s goods”—unless those who possessed them failed to share them with fellow Christians in need. Had those who possessed “the world’s goods” not owned anything, they would have had nothing to share! Therefore, it is obvious that these goods are not inherently evil. In fact, they were potentially good, as they could be shared to relieve those in need.
Additionally, “the world’s goods” were not necessarily luxury items. They could have been extra food or clothing that one might possess. As John the Baptist told his audience, “The man who has two tunics is to share with him who has none; and he who has food is to do likewise” (Luke 3:11). Those who followed John’s instruction shared “the world’s goods” with those in need.
All this discussion further exposes Weaver and Zimmerman’s narrow and deficient definition of “the things in the world” by reducing them to “possessions that lead to temptation and away from the love of God,” which most ordnungs arbitrarily and variously define. For Plain people, only some possessions are labeled as “the things in the world.”
John explained clearly what “things in the world” he was warning about: “For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world” (1 John 2:15–17). He was not warning about specific material things at all. Rather, he was warning about wrong desires and attitudes (“lust” and “pride”) that have always characterized the unregenerate world.
Plain Wealth
In comparison to most people around the world, the large majority of Plain people are very wealthy, like most North Americans. We all have much more than we need according to the biblical definition, which limits our actual needs to food, drink, clothing, and shelter.
Paul wrote to Timothy, “For we have brought nothing into the world, so we cannot take anything out of it either. If we have food and covering, with these we shall be content” (1 Tim. 6:7–8, emphasis added).
Jesus, after admonishing His followers not to be concerned about what they would eat, drink or wear (Matt. 6:25–31), told them their heavenly Father knew that they needed all those things (Matt. 6:32b).
As I mentioned earlier, John the Baptist said, “The man who has two tunics is to share with him who has none; and he who has food is to do likewise” (Luke 3:11, emphasis added).
James wrote, “If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,’ and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that?” (Jas. 2:15–16, emphasis added).
Christians who have “the world’s goods”—that is, more money or material possessions than they need— have a responsibility and calling to share. But the Bible does not place an artificial cap on how much one may gain or possess. The biblical prohibition is against greed—also referred to in Scripture as “loving money” or “making money one’s master.” The love of money is the root of all sorts of evil (1 Tim. 6:10). It can lead to breaking God’s commandments, either by how one gains or uses one’s money.
Job was a millionaire by modern standards. He owned 7,000 sheep, 3,000 camels, 500 oxen, 500 female donkeys, and many servants who took care of all that livestock (see Job 1:3). Yet he was, according to God, the most righteous man on the earth during his time (Job 1:8). He didn’t break any of God’s commandments by how he gained or used his wealth.
Could Job’s possessions have led him “away from the love of God”? Certainly, had he allowed them to do so. But He didn’t. Rather, he used his wealth not only to provide employment for many people, but also to care for the poor and oppressed:
Because I delivered the poor who cried for help,
And the orphan who had no helper.
The blessing of the one ready to perish came upon me,
And I made the widow’s heart sing for joy.
I put on righteousness, and it clothed me;
My justice was like a robe and a turban.
I was eyes to the blind
And feet to the lame.
I was a father to the needy,
And I investigated the case which I did not know.
I broke the jaws of the wicked
And snatched the prey from his teeth (Job 29:12–17).
Had Job not been so wealthy, he could not have done nearly as much good for the needy. All Christians who have more than they need (from a biblical standpoint) should follow his good example. Jesus told all His followers (most of whom were not wealthy even by first-century standards):
Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal; for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also (Matt. 6:19–21).
This theme is reiterated throughout the Bible. For example, after delivering the Israelites from Egyptian slavery, God told them:
For the Lord your God is bringing you into a good land, a land of brooks of water, of fountains and springs, flowing forth in valleys and hills; a land of wheat and barley, of vines and fig trees and pomegranates, a land of olive oil and honey; a land where you will eat food without scarcity, in which you will not lack anything; a land whose stones are iron, and out of whose hills you can dig copper. When you have eaten and are satisfied, you shall bless the Lord your God for the good land which He has given you. Beware that you do not forget the Lord your God by not keeping His commandments and His ordinances and His statutes which I am commanding you today; otherwise, when you have eaten and are satisfied, and have built good houses and lived in them, and when your herds and your flocks multiply, and your silver and gold multiply, and all that you have multiplies, then your heart will become proud and you will forget the Lord your God who brought you out from the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery (Deut. 8:7–14).
Obviously, God was not opposed to His people prospering under His blessing. Rather, He was concerned that, once they were blessed, they would lose their motivation to obey His commandments—such as the ones that forbade theft and deception and required compassion for widows and orphans.
King David, also a very wealthy man, understood this spiritual concept. He wrote in Psalm 62:10, “If riches increase, do not set your heart upon them.” God desires and deserves that our hearts should be set upon Him. Those whose hearts are set upon Him obey His commandments. As Jesus said, “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments” (John 14:15).
[8] I have traveled in more than 50 of the world’s nations and often engaged with Christians in those nations.
