As we saw in the previous chapter, when Paul, James, and John warned their readers about “the world,” they were warning about sins that characterize those who are not submitted to the Lord Jesus Christ and His commandments. They did not invent hundreds of fence laws in an attempt to corral Christians into some semblance of obedience while creating a unique culture, the peculiarities of which had very little or nothing to do with biblical morality.
Moreover, they warned about sins that were actually threats to Christians living in the first century, not about modern technologies that make life easier or more comfortable.
Of course, just about any material thing that is used for good could also be used for evil. A hammer could be used to kill someone, but that doesn’t make hammers inherently evil. An automobile could be used to transport illegal drugs, but that doesn’t make autos evil. In fact, 99.99% of the time that automobiles are used, they are used for good purposes.
Why, then, are Plain leaders so fearful that Plain people—who are supposed to be lovers of God and followers of Christ—will use cars for evil? Is that really their concern, or are they just trying to protect a tradition, which they’ve heard from childhood, that driving cars is simply something that Plain people don’t do?
Smart phones have many positive uses. They help us communicate with friends or customers, check the weather or the news, make purchases and donations to charity, read an electronic Bible, schedule an appointment on a calendar, or watch an instructional video on how to repair a broken item. My wife and I greatly enjoy using our smart phones for face-to-face live video chats with our children and grandchildren. A smart phone helps keep our family closer. I can’t imagine why any Plain family wouldn’t consider that a good thing, especially when their large families are scattered across many states.
Of course, a smart phone could be used to view pornography, or it could become addictive (as has been a problem for some teenagers), but that doesn’t make smart phones inherently evil. Just like cars, smart phones are almost always used for constructive purposes. Why are Plain leaders so fearful that their flocks—who are supposed to be lovers of God and followers of Christ—will use them for evil? Millions of non-Plain people own smart phones that they never use for evil.
We all know that Jesus told His followers to “cut off” anything that causes them to stumble into sin (Matt. 5:29–30). If a Christian’s phone causes him to stumble into sin or becomes too great a distraction, he should get rid of his phone. But there is no scriptural basis for Christian leaders to forbid their flocks from owning and using modern technologies that most believers will use in God-honoring ways.
There is, of course, room for prudent parental restrictions. Just as young people cannot legally use guns or drive automobiles until reaching a certain age, there are similar good reasons to prohibit them from using other technologies that could potentially harm them and others. Wise parents will be careful about letting their children use smart phones independently until they are confident that the children will use them only for good.
When my wife and I were raising our children, we did not have a TV in our home, because we recognized its potential for evil influence. We were not Plain, and we had no ordnung. We just wanted to raise our children in a godly environment. All of them grew up to become committed, Christian adults. My wife and I do own a TV now, but we only view what we consider educational or God-glorifying. We don’t view what is ungodly. We do all this based on biblically grounded spiritual discernment, not an ordnung.
What about Entertainment?
Weaver and Zimmerman also decry entertainment available through modern technology. Recall their early statement in chapter 1 of Why Be Plain?:
With all the wonders of modern technology beckoning with its lure of an easy, comfortable and entertaining lifestyle, fewer people want to shun what the world has to offer and live the Old Order and Scriptural lifestyle of nonconformity (p. 3, emphasis mine).
Granted, much of the entertainment available on cable television and the internet is evil and worldly, as it promotes the world’s rebellion against God and His commandments. On the other hand, there is also wholesome, helpful, and Christian content available on the internet. Lots of it.
When I was born again, my inward nature changed, and I no longer enjoyed anything that was contrary to God’s will, including ungodly entertainment. That was a great blessing. God changes the inward desires of those who are regenerated through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. He also breaks the power of sin that once held them captive (see Rom. 6:1–7). For the first time in their lives, “His commandments are not burdensome” (1 John 5:3). Jesus’ yoke is easy and His burden is light (Matt. 11:30). As free moral agents, born-again believers are still capable of sin, but obedience, which formerly seemed impossible, is now very possible.
If religious leaders feel they must prohibit technology that has the potential to convey entertainment that is sinful, when in fact millions of non-Plain, born-again Christian believers use that same technology only for good, perhaps they are admitting that the people whom they are restricting are not born again.
Moreover, restricting non-born-again people from owning cell phones does not prevent them from secretly owning them, as any honest Plain leader will admit. In fact, prohibiting them only makes them even more desirable to those who are unregenerate.
Finally, there is nothing inherently evil about entertainment. In fact, God has provided many means of pleasurable entertainment, none of which are evil.
It is entertaining and pleasurable, for example, to watch children playing, flowers in bloom, autumn leaves changing colors, and glorious sunsets. It is entertaining to fish and hunt, hike in beautiful places, sew quilts, engage in wholesome conversation, and play croquet and volleyball. It is entertaining and pleasurable to make love with your spouse or to enjoy good food. And it is entertaining to view a clean, redemptive movie, to look at photos of beautiful places in the world, or to listen to uplifting, God-glorifying music. The apostle Paul wrote that God “richly supplies us with all things to enjoy” (1 Tim. 6:17). Like all good fathers, our Heavenly Father loves His children, and He takes pleasure in our enjoyment of all He has graciously given us. Praise God!
Recently, my wife and I attended the Sight and Sound Theater in Lancaster, Pennsylvania to watch their production, Daniel. It was very inspiring, biblical and also entertaining. I would recommend it to anyone. Directly behind us sat an Amish couple with their two children. I was quite surprised. They told me it was their first time at the theater, even though they lived only a short distance away. I didn’t have the nerve to ask them if what they were doing was against the ordnung, but I was encouraged by their recognition that some forms of entertainment can be spiritually edifying.
Forbidding Food to Prevent Gluttony?
Contained within Dan and Steve’s fictional conversation in the first chapter of Why Be Plain? is this complaint by Dan:
Almost everything that our church forbids is in no way sin. Just because it could be used wrong surely doesn’t make it wrong to own. The thing is, almost everything in the world that is good can also be used for evil. Should we forbid food because of gluttony? It seems to me our church comes close to making rules as ridiculous as that (p. 2).
Weaver and Zimmerman subsequently address Dan’s complaint:
As for Dan’s statement that some church guidelines are like forbidding food because of gluttony, it must be pointed out that there is a big difference. For one, food is essential for life. The world’s gadgets usually are not. Two, God Himself made food for the stomach and the stomach for food, calling both “good.” God has not made modern technology—man has. God has not called the high things of the world good, but rather, “abomination” (Luke 16:15) (p. 9).
The authors employ the same scripture two paragraphs later:
This deception is not only found among the youth, but also among discontented church members who are subconsciously trying to attain the forbidden while hiding behind a cloak of “Scriptural” reasons. “Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts; for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God” (Luke 16:15) (p. 10, emphasis in original).
Dan’s analogy of forbidding food to prevent gluttony, like all analogies, is imperfect but still appropriate. If you ask any Plain leader why owning or driving an automobile is wrong, they will likely say either that they don’t know or that the prohibition prevents potential sin. “Driving a car can lead to other things,” they might say. But what sins are they trying to prevent? The robbing of banks? All Plain people regularly employ “English”[6] automobile drivers, and those English drivers will take them anywhere that their English consciences allow. So do Plain people need English people to help them avoid sinning?
In any case, Weaver and Zimmerman state that, unlike food, “God has not made modern technology—man has.” They add that, unlike food, God never declared “the high things of the world good, but rather, [an] abomination (Luke 16:15).”
Clearly, the authors view modern technology as one of “the high things of the world” that Jesus condemned in Luke 16:15. Thus, it is an abomination in God’s eyes. Let’s consider the validity of that conclusion.
First, since there was no modern technology when Jesus walked the earth, He obviously wasn’t condemning modern technology when He spoke to His ancient followers as recorded in Luke 16:15. He must have been condemning something else that was “highly esteemed among men” in His own time.
Second, the authors’ conclusion begs the question of why Plain people have embraced 95% of all modern technologies. Why aren’t all those things among the “high things of the world” that Jesus allegedly condemned?
Third, on what logical grounds can the authors declare that certain modern technologies, such as automobiles, could be or are among the “high things of the world”? There are hundreds of millions of automobiles on roads around the world. In North America, vehicles are more common than houses. If cars are an abomination to God, why are Plain people frequently paying to be transported in cars? That does not seem consistent. The money they give to English taxi drivers would be promoting the sin of those drivers as they continue to own and drive what allegedly is an abomination in God’s eyes.
If we simply read the passage in context, we can see exactly what Jesus was condemning. He was warning about the love of money, something that existed in His day—long before modern technology—and that continues to exist in all cultures around the world. Let’s read Jesus’ words in context:
“No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.” Now the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, were listening to all these things and were scoffing at Him. And He said to them, “You are those who justify yourselves in the sight of men, but God knows your hearts; for that which is highly esteemed among men is detestable in the sight of God” (Luke 16:13–14, emphasis added).
The twelve verses that precede the two I just quoted make it even more obvious that Jesus was warning about the love of money. Money is the primary competitor with God for people’s hearts, as Jesus said, “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth” (Matt. 6:24).
Money is the master of those who love it, because money, not God, controls their lives. The Pharisees were lovers of money, which is why they scoffed when Jesus taught His followers about faithful stewardship.
What Does the World “Highly Esteem”?
Long before there was any modern technology, the world highly esteemed wealth and wealthy people. Worldly people gawk at the rich, wishing they could live a similar lifestyle. God, however, considers such a lifestyle an abomination, for at least two reasons.
First, many (not all) wealthy people—today, during Jesus’ time, and throughout human history—gain their wealth by breaking God’s commandments. They have not treated others how they would want to be treated, or they have sinned in other ways to get rich.
Second, many wealthy people—today, during Jesus’ time, and throughout human history— ignore the cry of the poor whom they could easily help if they cared. They are like the rich man at whose gate Lazarus was laid. And they will share a similar fate as that rich man if they don’t repent. (Incidentally, the rich young ruler who asked Jesus what he must do to obtain eternal life likely gained his wealth righteously. Jesus, however, told him he still needed to care for the poor.)
The love of money, also called greed, is manifested in two ways: (1) breaking any of God’s commandments to obtain money, and (2) breaking any of God’s commandments regarding how money is used once it is obtained.
Job gained his wealth without breaking any of God’s commandments, and he faithfully stewarded what God entrusted to him by fairly employing many workers as well as by caring for widows, orphans, and the disabled. I know quite a few wealthy people who are like that.
In any case, to use Luke 16:15 to condemn hard-working Plain people who have decided to use their money—which they’ve previously been spending on horses, harnesses, horse feed, buggies and English taxi drivers—to purchase a car is a complete distortion of its message. My friend Jonas Kurtz, a former Amish minister, previously employed—for his concrete business—an English taxi driver five days a week, paying him about $50,000 per year to drive a truck owned by Jonas (as was permitted in his Amish community’s ordnung). If, instead of employing a chauffeur (as only very wealthy people do), Jonas had driven himself, he could have saved himself $50,000 a year, and he could have given some of his savings to the poor! Now, as a born-again follower of Jesus, Jonas is living less like the wealthy people of the world who employ chauffeurs, because he drives his own used vehicle!
It is not worldly to own and drive a car. It would seem more worldly to spend large amounts of money on a chauffeur when that would not be necessary.
The Twisting of Scripture
Weaver and Zimmerman certainly know better than to twist Luke 16:15 to condemn car ownership and driving. They admonish their readers, “The Bible should not be read for justification but for truth” (p. 9). That, however, is exactly what the authors have done with Luke 16:15. Worse, after finding a solitary scripture to justify their tradition that car ownership is an abomination to God, they exalt their tradition to the level of God’s commandments, excommunicating and shunning anyone from their ranks who buys a car, and telling them they will go to hell for it.
The authors also write:
When we hear criticism against the Plain Churches, the question to ask is not, what does this or that book or person say, but rather, “What does the Bible say on this topic?” The Bible is its own best commentary, often explaining itself in another verse. If a belief cannot be proven by more than one verse correctly taken in context and not contradicted by another verse, then it is very dangerous to build on it (p. 11).
I could not agree more. Why then have authors ignored the context of Luke 16:15, which so plainly reveals exactly what Jesus was condemning? And where are all the other scriptures that support their idea that modern technology, like automobiles, is an abomination to God?
Nonconformity?
In the previously-quoted passage in which Weaver and Zimmerman warn about the “lure of an easy, comfortable and entertaining lifestyle,” they claim that the Old Order lifestyle, in contrast, is a “Scriptural lifestyle of nonconformity.”
But is the Old Order lifestyle scriptural?
There is nothing in the New Testament that remotely resembles the ordnungs of Plain communities, which consist of hundreds of extra-biblical rules. Nothing in the New Testament remotely resembles the vows that Plain young people are expected to make to Plain churches and their ordnungs. And nothing in the New Testament remotely resembles the excommunication and shunning of people if they don’t keep hundreds of man-made rules contained in ordnungs. In short, the Plain lifestyle is not justified by Scripture.
Second, is the Plain lifestyle one of nonconformity?
We have seen that Christians are not to “be conformed to this world, but to be transformed by the renewing of their minds” (Rom. 12:2). But as we have also seen, Christian nonconformity is expressed by obedience to the commandments of Christ, in contrast to the sin and disobedience that characterize the world.
The irony of the authors’ claim is that Plain life is all about conformity—to the hundreds of man-made rules of each community’s ordnung. If you don’t conform, you will lose your family, friends and livelihood. Therefore, everyone conforms due to fear.
Some Amish people have written to ask me if I practice “nonconformity of dress,” as if that is a biblical idea. It isn’t. Jesus and His apostles dressed like everyone else in their culture. So did the early Christians. So did the original Anabaptists in the 16th century. And for the most part, so did Amish folks until sometime in the late 1800s or early 1900s.
Did you think that during their 330-year history, Amish people have always worn distinctive clothing that identified them as Amish? Or did Amish people, at some point in their 330-year history, decide to adopt an entirely new dress code for men, women, and children that then made them stand out from everyone else in North America? Obviously, the Plain idea of “nonconformity of dress” was slowly adopted to resist slowly changing styles. For most of Amish history, Amish people have dressed just like “the world.”
Clothing styles have changed throughout human history. For a few decades in the early 20th century, “coal shuttle” bonnets were the fashion rage. Modern Amish women have preserved the world’s fashion from that era with their black “tunnel” bonnets that they wear when in public. They are dressing just as “the world” did in the early 1900s (or at least at some point in history). Below is a photo of Amanda Hazlett feeding her chickens, taken in the early 1900s, just 50 feet from the home where I am sitting as I write these words. Amanda was not Amish. Take a look at her bonnet.
The 1632 Dordrecht Confession contains nothing about nonconformity of dress.[7] That is because the early Anabaptists had no extra-biblical rules regarding dress, or regarding anything else for that matter.
Ironically, the only nonconformists within the Plain community are the ones who don’t conform in some way to the ordnung and who are subsequently excommunicated and shunned. Some of those nonconforming, excommunicated Plain folks then conform to the world in the biblical sense. That is, they embrace a lifestyle of disobedience to Christ. Others, however, do not conform to the world in a biblical sense, because they adopt a lifestyle of obedience to Christ, even though they no longer keep the peculiar requirements of their former community’s man-made ordnung. I know many of those kinds of formerly Plain people.
Tragically, many Christ-following former Plain people are judged and condemned by their own Plain family members as having “gone to the world” to “travel on the road to hell.” Won’t those family members be surprised to discover in heaven (if they make it there themselves) those whom they condemned, excommunicated, and shunned?
[6] For non-Plain readers: Plain people refer to all non-Plain people as “English” because they speak English. In the Plain worldview, there are only two categories of people, Plain and English.
[7] The New Testament does teach that women should “adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness” (1 Tim. 2:9). We’ll consider that passage in more detail later in this book. But Paul wrote nothing about Christians wearing uniforms that make them stand out among others.
