Near the end of chapter 3 of Why Be Plain? Weaver and Zimmerman explain what a person must do to become a member of a Plain church:
To become a member of a Plain Church, one must repent of his sins, confess his belief in Jesus as Lord and Savior, and be baptized in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (p. 57).
That, of course, is all very scriptural and sounds supportive of a Plain practice. What the authors don’t say, however, is that for the most part, no one from the outside is joining Plain churches. Only young adults who have been born and raised in Plain families become members. The reason for the discrepancy between outsiders and insiders joining is that young adults raised in Plain communities are under immense social pressure to become church members. Their families and friends want them to become members. They have been taught all their lives about the importance of obeying their parents. They all know that marriage in their Plain church is contingent upon church membership.
They are also under immense religious pressure to become members. They are told that God ordained that they be born into Plain families because He wants them to be Plain. They are told that if they don’t become Plain church members, they have no hope of eternal life but only the dread of eternal hell.
Consequently, many of those young people—perhaps a large majority of them—just go through the motions and do what is expected of them. They are not actually believers in and followers of Christ. They have never been born again. They are not indwelt by the Holy Spirit. They display no fruit of the Spirit. They have simply said some words before their baptism that include a vow to obey the church ordnung. Basically, they vowed to always be Plain. And all their family and relatives were pleased with them rather than displeased, as would have been the case had they chosen not to join the church. And now marriage becomes a possibility. But had they not been born into Plain culture, they would never have become Plain.
I know that this whole system is well-intended. All parents around the world hope that their children will adopt their values, religion and social structure. I had a similar experience growing up. I joined my family’s Presbyterian church as a young adult, making the required public confession of faith. But looking back now, I am certain that I just went through the motions. I was not born again then. That didn’t occur until several years later.
Weaver and Zimmerman continue:
But Jesus did not just say to baptize new believers, but “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” (Matt 28:20).
The Plain People seek to do that. They must teach their members to observe every commandment of Jesus, and they have a set of guidelines called the “Ordnung.” Those guidelines help the members apply the teachings of Jesus to real life (p. 57).
First, referring to the ordnung as “a set of guidelines” is dishonest. The ordnung consists of hundreds of extra-biblical rules that are enforced under the threat of excommunication, shunning, and hellfire. All Plain people are required to pledge—at their baptism and twice annually—to keep all those rules. Thus, the ordnung rules are elevated to equal status with divine commandments. Calling them “guidelines,” as Weaver and Zimmerman do repeatedly, is an attempt to soften the obvious, actual truth about them.
Second, Jesus did not say, “Teach them to observe all things I have commanded you, and then help them to apply My teachings to real life by devising hundreds of additional rules that govern every detail of their lives, down to the width of their hat brims.”
Not only did Jesus not say or imply anything remotely close to that, but His apostles—who heard His “Great Commission” recorded in Matthew 28:20—did not practice anything remotely close to that. The early church had no ordnung. Anyone who states or implies otherwise is either grossly ignorant or patently dishonest.
Most Christian churches in the world today and throughout church history have not had anything that even remotely resembles the ordnungs of Plain churches. The early church, like all Bible-based churches since then, understood that Christ’s commandments, by themselves, are sufficient, and that no other motivation to obey them is necessary other than love for the Lord Jesus Christ (see John 14:15, 21). True followers of Jesus don’t need hundreds of extra rules—enforced under the threat of excommunication, shunning, and hellfire—to motivate them to obey His commandments. If they think they do, that is a tacit admission that they don’t love Jesus.
I am not claiming that there are no members of Plain churches who love Jesus. However, Plain people who actually do love Jesus don’t need an ordnung to help them obey His commandments. If every Plain church discarded its ordnung and its threat of the bann, it would soon be very obvious who loves Jesus and who does not. What is in everyone’s hearts would be revealed by their actions. But because of the ordnung, Plain people can hide what is in their hearts through outward conformity to hundreds of man-made rules.
Weaver and Zimmerman clearly understand this, but they can’t see beyond Plain traditions. They write:
The claim that the Plain People put more emphasis on being plain than on Jesus is hopefully not true. The ministry [bishops and ministers] clearly teaches that Jesus comes first and being plain is simply applying Jesus’ commandments to life. But it is each individual’s duty to make sure that it is that way for him, and that his outer conservatism [that is, his outward adherence to all the requirements of the ordnung] stems from an inner love for Jesus (p. 56, emphasis added).
Note the subtle admission, in the first sentence of this paragraph, that Plain people sometimes may place more emphasis on keeping the hundreds of ordnung rules than on Jesus. But according to the next sentence, that is not the fault of the Plain bishops and ministers, because they teach that Jesus “comes first and being plain is simply applying Jesus’ commandments to life.”
We must ask, however, “How would someone who puts Jesus first behave differently from the person who puts more emphasis on being plain? The only difference between them is the inner motivation of the heart. Obviously, according to Weaver and Zimmerman, one can keep all the outward requirements of the ordnung without having the inward motivation of love for Jesus.
That fact exposes the inherent flaw in all ordnungs: they provide a mask that can hide the inner spiritual reality. They deceive people into thinking they are okay (or hopefully okay) in God’s sight, when they are actually on the road to hell. Their thin, outward veneer, as well as their unregenerate hearts, will be fully exposed at the judgment. I fear not only that many Plain people fit that description, but that many Plain bishops, ministers and deacons may be among them.
Weaver and Zimmerman, and probably most Plain leaders, instinctively understand all this. Near the end of chapter 3, they repeatedly warn against “being Plain” [that is, keeping all the requirements of the ordnung] while at the same time neglecting “the weightier matters of Christianity, such as love, mercy, and faith” (p. 57). That, again, is an admission that one can keep all the ordnung rules and yet ignore what is, according to Jesus, most important (see Matt. 23:23). That is also an admission that the ordnung doesn’t actually help people, as the authors claim, to “apply the teachings of Jesus to real life,” because they have just admitted that one can keep the ordnung and ignore Jesus’ most important teachings.
No amount of ordnung rules, or their enforcement, does anything to change people’s hearts. Rather, ordnungs potentially help people deceive themselves (and others) about what is in their hearts.
Again, Weaver and Zimmerman know this, but they can’t see beyond the box of Plain traditions. They ask, “If we’re plain simply for the sake of fitting into our community, what will it profit?” (p. 58).
The obvious answer to their rhetorical question is, “It will profit nothing.” Clearly, Weaver and Zimmerman believe that some people are guilty of keeping the ordnung just for the sake of fitting into their communities rather than out of love for Jesus. But they can’t see how that very common phenomenon exposes the inherent flaw of all ordnungs. Ordnungs, although perhaps well-meaning, create behavioral motivations based on social pressure that compete with the motivation of love for Christ.
Jesus wants us to obey Him because we love Him and want to please Him, not because we want to please our friends and family. In fact, if our motivation for “obeying Jesus” is anything other than love for Him, it is not “obeying Jesus.”
Weaver and Zimmerman might claim ordnungs exist to “help members apply Jesus’ teachings to real life” (p. 57), but they actually create a competing behavioral motivation to “fit into their communities” (p. 58). That statement is indisputable, because the punishment for transgressions against the ordnung is rejection by the community. In such cases, one’s community is one’s master, not Jesus. The ordnung thus becomes an idol, stealing hearts that rightfully should be devoted to God. Think about that!
The question Plain people, including Weaver and Zimmerman, should be asking themselves is this one: What percentage of Plain people keep the ordnung because of love for Jesus, and what percentage keep the ordnung because of fear of community rejection?
A White-Hat Ordnung
Let’s consider a very simple example. Imagine Jesus saying to a group of 10 friends, “I have one commandment for all of you. Whenever you go outside, you must wear a white cowboy hat. If you love Me, you will keep My commandment.”
From that point on, everyone who loves Jesus would wear their white cowboy hat when outside. Everyone who didn’t love Jesus wouldn’t bother. And it would be easy to tell who in the group loved Jesus and who did not. Consequently, all the consistent white-hat folks would try to persuade everyone else in the group to believe that Jesus was indeed the Son of God before whom everyone will one day stand in judgment. Anyone whom they persuaded would, of course, start wearing a white cowboy hat when outside.
Now, imagine that some white-hat leaders in the group decided to create an ordnung that contained just one rule—a rule against owning any hats other than white cowboy hats. The reason for the rule, they agreed, would be to “help members keep Jesus’ commandment.” They knew people would be much less likely to break Jesus’ single commandment if no one owned any inappropriate hats. Their ordnung would help to eliminate temptation and thereby eliminate sin.
Imagine that they also agreed that anyone caught owning any forbidden hat would be confronted, and if he repented on his knees in front of all 10 families, he would be forgiven, but he still would have to suffer two weeks of shunning. And if he was not willing to repent on his knees in front of all 10 families, he would be excommunicated by a vote of the group, and they would not speak to him, eat with him, employ him, or work for him until he repented. If he never repented, they would shun him for life.
What would the outcome be?
As soon as the one-rule ordnung was announced to the group, all the people who loved Jesus—and who consequently had been wearing white cowboy hats whenever they went outside—would think to themselves, “I don’t need this new ordnung rule to help me obey Jesus’ commandment, because I’ve only been wearing white cowboy hats since I first believed in Jesus and was born again. I love Him!” They would, however, probably discard any other hats they still owned just to keep peace in the group.
All the people who had not been wearing white cowboy hats would inwardly resent the new ordnung, but they would comply outwardly. They would start wearing white cowboy hats to avoid being excommunicated by their families and friends. They might keep all their other hats, but they would hide them in their attics or basements to prevent their discovery by anyone in the group.
From then on, everyone in the group would be wearing white cowboy hats—both the believers in Jesus and the unbelievers. Everyone would appear to be a believer, even those who were not. Evangelism of unbelievers would be a thing of the past. Most unbelievers would start thinking they were believers.
Three generations later, not one of the descendants of the original group would own anything but a white cowboy hat. And it would be possible that not a single one of them would actually love Jesus. Think about that.
Though imperfect, that illustration makes two important points: (1) ordnungs serve no valuable purpose for those who believe in and love Jesus, and (2) they help to deceive those who don’t believe in and love Jesus, especially in later generations. That is exactly what has happened in Plain circles.
The Authors Demonstrate What They Decry
Near the end of chapter 3, Weaver and Zimmerman inadvertently admit both of these points as they list the many ways in which Plain people who keep every article of the ordnung can still be worldly:
If we walk along the fence of the church guidelines looking for a hole to get what we covet [that is, anything forbidden by the ordnung fence], we likely will find what we’re after. But it’s usually our downfall and not a blessing. We can be plain externally and still be worldly in God’s eyes. Here are a few examples. We are still worldly if:
We crowd the church guidelines trying to get as much of the world as we can. [So, do Plain people need a second fence to keep them away from the first fence? A third fence to keep them away from the second fence?]
We avoid living like the world, but still love and desire their ways.
We avoid flashy, immodest clothing of the world, but dress to impress nonetheless. [So such a thing must be possible, even when wearing Plain uniforms.]
We avoid the high things of the world such as sports cars, but take pride in driving a horse that is faster and better looking than our neighbor’s. [So should Plain people always make sure that the horses they purchase are slower and worse-looking than their neighbors’ horses?]
We avoid building a house with all the design and luxuries that the world does, but still build and design to impress. [So Plain people should always make sure the houses they build for themselves aren’t in any way superior to their neighbors’ houses?]
We obey the guidelines of the church but disobey the weightier teaching of Jesus when we can get away with it. [This is a tacit admission that the ordnung does not “help the members apply the (weightier) teachings of Jesus to real life.”]
The list could go on and on, but the point is clear—nonconformity is more than just being a little different in outer appearance. It is having a completely different mind set [sic] and a transformed heart (p. 59, emphasis mine).
The authors repeatedly affirm through these examples that one can keep the ordnung but still be worldly (in the Plain sense) and disobey the “weightier teaching of Jesus.” And in this very passage, the authors actually demonstrate what they disdain. Three times in this passage, the authors refer to the ordnung—which consists of hundreds of rules that are enforced by threat of excommunication, shunning, and hellfire—as “guidelines.” This is a gross mischaracterization. The authors are being deceptive, violating the simple ethic of honesty—which suggests that their own ordnung does not help them keep “the weightier teaching of Jesus.”
And They Do It Again
Just four sentences after the passage quoted above, Weaver and Zimmerman again demonstrate the very thing they decry:
Being Plain gives us no right to be self-righteous. It is well and good that Plain People are not conformed to the world and obey the Bible more literally than many other people. But the moment we become proud of this we are in the wrong. Self-righteous pride is always wrong, regardless of whether we are taking pride in something that is right.
The moment we feel superior to more liberal Christians we have become like the self-righteous Pharisee, saying “God, I thank Thee that I am not like those liberal Christians. I dress much more plainly, I avoid the high things of the world, and my lifestyle is one of humility” (pp. 59–60, emphasis added).
It is astounding that, within the same passage in which the authors decry self-righteousness and the pharisaical attitude of thinking one is superior to others, they also boast that Plain people—like themselves—are “obeying the Bible more literally than many others.” More specifically, unlike “liberal Christians,” Plain people “dress much more plainly … avoid the high things of the world” and live a “lifestyle … of humility.” Wow. While they boast about the humility of Plain people like themselves, the authors warn against being proud about it.
I honestly do not know how any Plain person can avoid the temptation to which Weaver and Zimmerman have succumbed. Recently, I was waiting in the lobby of a medical facility with a number of other people when two middle-aged Amish couples walked in, wearing standard Amish winter garb, complete with black capes and bonnets. They dramatically stood out from everyone else in the lobby, and they, and everyone there was conscious of it. Had anyone asked those Amish couples why they were dressed so differently, if they had been honest, they would have had to say, “We are wearing this clothing because we are not worldly like all of you, and that is why we don’t want to look like you.” How could that not be prideful?
If you are a Plain reader, put yourself in our “English” shoes. Imagine, on a Sunday morning gathering at which everyone is dressed plainly and wearing the ordnung-approved styles and colors, a man and his wife walk in wearing all white clothing. The man is wearing a white suit, shirt, socks, shoes and hat. The woman is wearing a white dress, shoes and head scarf. It would be clear that they were purposely dressing to stand out from everyone else. Then imagine questioning them about their clothing and hearing them reply, “According to many Bible passages such as Revelation 7, God wants everyone to wear white clothing. White symbolizes purity. That is why we dress more biblically than all of you!” What would you think of such people? Might you suspect that they were a little proud?
Were the Early Christians Plain?
In the final section of chapter 3, titled “How Nonconformity was Lost,” the authors claim that the early Christians were like Plain people today:
Many people think that the Plain People’s ways—strict and literal obedience to Jesus’ teachings—started with the Anabaptist [sic]. But the Anabaptist [sic] were not starting something that had never been. They were reestablishing the church to what it had been before it was corrupted by Constantine and Rome. What the Plain People live and believe today is very similar to the first and second century churches started by the apostles. This indicates that they are on the right track (p. 62).
There is no doubt that the original Anabaptists—who lived during the time of the Protestant Reformation—played a significant role in recovering a more biblical Christianity. But to claim that modern Plain lifestyles resemble that of the first- and second-century Christians is extremely misleading. We know a lot about how first-century Christians lived, because we can read about it in New Testament epistles and the book of Acts. They differed from today’s Plain people in many ways.
That same New Testament informs us that some first-century churches drifted from truth and needed correction (see Rev. 1–3 for example). In light of those biblically documented first-century theological and behavioral deviations, it would be risky to assume that all the writings of the apostolic fathers (early Christian theologians who are thought to have had personal contact with or close influence from the original twelve apostles) reflect apostolic faith and practice. Therefore, even if some of the apostolic fathers seem to advocate some of what modern Plain people practice, that is no proof that they learned those practices from the original twelve apostles. We are always safe, however, in sticking with Scripture.
