Amish America

Another look at the Amish and health insurance

The Amish potential-exemption-from-health-insurance-requirement story has shot around the net and become something of a hot sub-story to the health care issue.  Frankly I thought it would get some attention but the amount of media coverage surprised me a bit.

A scan of commentary reveals some upset at what's been called a 'get-out-of-jail-free' card for the Amish (and, presumably other religious groups who meet the criteria), and with the predictable jokes about joining the Amish club to get the exemption.

Some are even wondering if Christians who are against abortion can argue for a religious exemption in the event that a final bill mandates federal coverage for abortion.  I am quite skeptical that would be allowed however, as it would conceivably exempt tens of millions of Americans.

The Amish benefit from being small, relatively obscure, and by garnering public sympathies.  Amish are generally perceived in a positive light, admired for the lives they live.

It's obvious for even those largely unfamiliar with the Amish that they 'walk-the-talk', proven in a very visible and concrete way by their manner of living.  This lends strength to the argument that their beliefs are genuine, and that they are thus worthy of exemption.  So the Amish have a lot working in their favor when arguing for exclusions from government mandates.  It's not so clear, on the other hand, how to discern an intangible such as "religious sincerity" in such a large and diverse group as "Christians."

Amish case weaker this time around?

On the other hand, maybe I'm missing something but it seems to me that the case for Amish exemption is weaker here than it would be in the case of mandatory participation in a program like Social Security.

After all, even under the proposed health care plan, they would have a legitimate out--paying the exemption fine like other Americans, who, for whatever reason, would choose to opt out as well.

By paying the fine, it seems they technically wouldn't be financially supporting what they see as an insurance plan (as would be the case were they forced to pay into Social Security)--simply paying for the privilege to be exempt from it.

Why do the Amish object to insurance programs like Social Security?

There are three main reasons Amish have a problem with participating in government administered programs such as Social Security, and in traditional insurance programs in general, for that matter.

Peter Ferrara, in The Amish and the State, examines the issues Amish had with the program.  Social Security is technically an insurance program, with portions of the program entitled the "Old Age and Survivors Insurance Program" and "Disability Insurance Program" providing funds to guard against hardship of individuals in retirement or unable to work due to disability.   

Amish arguments against participation in government insurance programs include the following:

Firstly, there is the religious belief argument.  As Ferrara writes, participating in Social Security would contradict "the bibilical commands that members of the church provide for their own families and assist those in the community in need.  Participation in Social Security is also seen as lacking in trust in God to provide the necessities of life for his people, promised by several biblical passages."

Secondly there is the importance of maintaining a separation from the world.  Amish see themselves as "a people apart."  Paying into an insurance system would draw the Amish into closer ties with the world and cause them to be "unequally yoked together with unbelievers."  Amish fear that growing closer to the world will threaten their communities and values.   

Finally there is the aspect of need.  With their self-supporting communal aspect, Amish feel that they simply have no need for government assistance. 

The Amish argument

In the 1950's, Amish were originally told by IRS agents that the contributions to Social Security were indeed a "tax", and not technically contributions to an insurance system--despite the fact that "the government has always proclaimed to the rest of the country that Social Security is an insurance system, with its own trust funds, and that payments into the system were not taxes but "contributions."  The Amish saw through the ruse, as Ferrara writes:

The Amish pointed to the numerous government proclamations that Social Security was indeed insurance, including the official legal title of the program--Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance.  The Amish might have chosen to pay the Social Security tax but refuse the program's benefits, just as they pay general government taxes but refuse other government social welfare benefits.  But the Amish could not accept the close link between Social Security taxes, or "contributions," and the program's benefits, proclaimed over and over again by the government.  Amish leaders feared that if their members paid Social Security, future generations would be unable to resist receiving the benefits for which they had already paid.  Payment of the taxes would be seen as participation in the system, and if paying in was allowed, then how could receiving benefits be prohibited?

This seems to be the big issue.  If you are technically paying in, what's to prevent this or future generations from taking out?  The very real possibility in the case of Social Security is a fear that Amish society could be eroded by feeding a worldly system, the benefits of which future generations may be tempted to see as rightfully theirs.

Amish in some limited situations have already succumbed to the temptation of government assistance, most recently in the instance of northern Indiana Amish accepting unemployment compensation, a situation that had previously occurred at least one other time, in the case of some Lancaster Amish laid off from factory jobs during a recession in the mid-1970s (see Amish Enterprise: From Plows to Profits).

Paying for private health insurance, as the proposed bill would require of all Americans--even with the understanding or sincere intention that members of the community would refuse to seek benefits from the program in the case of misfortune--would naturally lead to similar temptations.

There are some variables here, such as, what will the final exemption penalty be?  Will it be $750, as in the Senate version, or 2.5% of annual income, as in the House version?  It seems that that can make a big difference, as in the former case, the amount paid would be likely less than a year's worth of insurance premiums, and thus the cheaper option, while in the latter, depending on the individual, the amount could be much greater, leading some to be tempted to purchase insurance, the cheaper alternative in such a case.  So I think these and other question marks make the issue difficult to fully assess at this point.

But, in the fact that there is essentially an alternate to required participation in the system--the payment of what is essentially an "exemption penalty"--seems to me to make this different from the Social Security issue.

I am curious, what do you think on this issue?

UPDATE: An Amish friend informs me that if a person is exempted from Social Security by way of the 4029 exemption as the Amish are, that person is prohibited from holding health insurance.  Taking a look at the accompanying IRS publication, the following is stated:

As a follower of the established teachings of the sect or division, you must be conscientiously opposed to accepting benefits of any private or public insurance that makes payments for death, disability, old age, retirement, or medical care, or provides services for medical care.

So it seems like the "conscientiously opposed to accepting benefits..." bit would support this idea.  Perhaps there's other language in there as well, but as tends to be the case with IRS docs, my eyes began to glaze over after a few paragraphs.  In any case, sounds like one would be prevented from even having insurance with a 4029 exemption. 

Amish to avoid health insurance purchase requirement?

The health plan which passed the Senate on Christmas Eve provides for substantial fines for individuals who do not purchase health insurance. 

This article examines how the Amish, who do not use insurance outside of some forms of church coverage, may negotiate an eventual purchase requirement. 

A religious exemption exists, and Donald Kraybill explains that a probable requirement for opting out will be “a long-standing historical exemption based on religious beliefs.”  Such a condition would likely be fulfilled by the 1965 exemption of the Amish from Social Security.

Numerous polls show the legislation under consideration as unpopular with the American public. 

Critics contend this is at least partially to do with the additional government control exerted on individuals, such as this proposed fine, which varies from $750 in the Senate plan, to 2.5% of an individual's income in the House plan (with some income-based exemptions).

Amish have come under criticism in the past by those disagreeing with the religious basis for their exemptions from institutions such as the military or Social Security. 

If a bill with such a mandate becomes law, and assuming the Amish do work out an exemption, I imagine opponents of the bill will look on them and other religiously-exempt groups with envy, at the least.

Follow-up on the Missouri Amish abuse case

Three points I wanted to discuss on the Missouri Amish abuse case.  I confess my previous post on the issue was a bit hastily and not too terribly well written.  I also wish I were more of an expert on the Amish approach to two kingdoms doctrine as it would likely come in handy in such cases.  I find the two kingdoms doctrine fascinating but at times confusing, and it is not my strongest point.  So I welcome any contributions from those with a more robust understanding.  But, that said, I wanted to note a few points. 

Transgression and Punishment

First, what was intended in the "no moral question" sentence.  This can be misleading in that I introduced the post as being about the issue of the bishops failing to report abuse, and then made this statement which was in essence referring to something else, and my language was regretfully not too precise either. 

The statement was meant to refer to the idea of a private system by which a religious group, the Amish in this case, would render religious justice for what would be considered by society as criminal offenses.  With punishment for all offenses in such a system typically amounting to a few weeks in the Bann (which may be serious enough for those in the Bann mulling the afterlife, but in one measure pales in comparison to, say, the disruption to a life due to years of incarceration), one can imagine that there would be a highly diminished fear of life-altering retribution deterring abusers, or other potential offenders.  Fear of excommunication is one thing, and Amish have spent short spells in jail in the past when standing up against civil law which has conflicted with religious belief, but as a deterrent I have to imagine that the prospect of six weeks of eating apart would pale in comparison to the thought of two decades detached from your community and deprived of freedom in prison.

The potential for harm to occur undeterred in such a system which delivers what amounts to a comparatively mild religious/social punishment would be huge.  I'm not saying that Amish such as those in this Missouri community would handle all transgressions/crimes in the same manner, but essentially what occurred here was a case of serious abuse known to a significant number of people.  Were the same thing to happen in other societies, and sexual abuse were to become known to a number of people in a given community, the response would likely be much different. 

I assume most would feel a strong obligation to report such knowledge--first and foremost in the interest of protecting children from further instances of abuse--which the people involved here presumably did not due to an understanding that such issues are handled within the church system of discipline.  It's unclear here when forgiveness was rendered, or at what point the bishops became aware, or if Schwartz confessed and then continued in the behavior, and so on.  But what is clear is that Schwartz committed his acts of abuse against his two victims repeatedly over a year's time, indicating that his behavior was recurrent, and thus one could conclude posed a legitimate continuing danger to his community, regardless of whether he had been forgiven by them.

By comparison, the potential for harm done by Amish removing their children from school at grade eight, an area where Amish have achieved an exemption from a legal obligation that most others do not have based in a religious argument, is minimal, or at least of a much different nature.  Some may argue that there could be "harm" done in this area, if one considers lack of school education harmful, but it is of a decidedly different nature to physical and psychological abuse which could result and continue unchecked due to the disproportionally lenient punishment in the theoretical system of justice described above. 

I am not a lawyer, but in the first case, it seems one would be hard-pressed to find an argument that a religious group has a right to resolve what would be considered extremely serious and harmful offenses in such a manner, outside of the established system of justice.  I know that is not what was originally being discussed here so it is not really the issue, but in any case that was the original, not well-explained, and perhaps obvious, point I wished to make.  If I'm still off-track here, I welcome any insights.

But "did the bishops as religious leaders have an obligation to report a confession?"  seems a different issue to whether they should have a religiously-based right to adjudicate serious transgressions off the legal grid.  There may very well be religious grounds in their defense on this point.  And in this aspect, the case has much to do with "religious matters".  Other questions include:  How is the bishops' situation or the Amish congregation's situation when hearing a public confession different from that of a Catholic priest hearing confessions?  Why are four bishops involved?  Do other members of the community who heard the confession or knew of the offenses have an obligation as well? These are issues which I don't have answers on and will leave for now but welcome comments on.  

The Two Kingdoms paradox

A point was raised by reader Jacob in response to the previous post.  Do Amish consider those that render justice immoral, or those acts themselves immoral?  The answer to this question may lie in an examination of the "two kingdoms" doctrine which Amish adhere to.  The doctrine, which I mentioned briefly in the previous post, is on first read seemingly simple.  It is at the same time paradoxical.   

According to Article XIII of the Dordrecht Confession which Amish accept before baptism, Amish view civil government as being instituted by God "for the punishment of evil and the protection of the good as well as to govern the world and to provide good regulations and policies in cities and countries.  Therefore, we must not resist, despise, or condemn the state.  We should recognize it as a minister of God.  Further, we ought to honor and obey it and be ready to perform good works in its behalf insofar as it is not in conflict with God's law and commandment...". 

Amish have resisted the state when they see its law to conflict with God's, as in the case of SMV triangles, Social Security, and so on.  Amish themselves opt out of participating in civil institutions which enforce the law as well as political office, which often requires the assertion of state will upon others by force.  Scholar of the Amish Paton Yoder notes that while accepting the state as instituted by God, Amish readily identify it with coercion, an aspect "which most contradicts their own world-view." 

Obviously Amish do rely on the state's military protection, law enforcement, and agents who render justice to keep them safe.  To take one extreme, in the Ed Gingerich murder case, Amish from Gingerich's community fearing for their own safety pleaded that he be locked away after he was released from a prison psychiatric ward just a few years after brutally killing his wife.  The families of Nickel Mines certainly appreciated the selfless service Pennsylvania police officers performed in the aftermath of the killings of their children.  Do Amish solicit and accept such aid, yet duplicitously hold the private opinion that the state and its agents are committing an immoral act by protecting them from these dangerous people through their 'coercion'?  I find it hard to reconcile the ideas that Amish who are protected by those agents of the world then privately condemn them and their actions as immoral, especially in cases when they seek the aid themselves. 

Yet Paton Yoder notes early Anabaptist Hans Schnell's writing on the issue, which convey the notions that "the kingdom of this world is based on vengeance;  the kingdom of Christ is based on love.  The magistrate who, as an agent of the worldly government, metes out vengeance puts himself outside Christ's kingdom."  Yoder explains that 20th-century Amish leaders, ever-mindful of tradition, rely heavily on the centuries-old principles found within these old writings, leading one to assume that Schnell's words continue to hold particular relevance today.  But in the years following Schnell, Yoder notes, as Anabaptists began to be relieved of a persecution which perhaps originally inspired their brand of two kingdoms thinking, tones toward agents of worldy government seemed to soften and change, with Anabaptists actually expressing a hope that individual agents of friendlier governments may gain an eternal reward after all. 

So what do Amish really think?  Clearly Amish see a division, which results in a tension.  They accept the state, and humbly defer to it when it does not infringe upon the laws of the spiritual kingdom, but do not identify with its ways.  Yet without agents of the state to do the dirty work of keeping worldly laws, chaos, death, and a disruption of God's order would ensue. 

Yoder continues, paraphrasing Amishman Elmo Stoll: "In short, the Amish believe that Christians should respect their government, pray for those in power, pay required taxes, and obey the laws of the land except when they conflict with God's laws."  Yoder goes on to note that "It matters not that the government uses tax money for armaments or other immoral purposes.  Most Amish would agree that "when a tax is paid, it is no longer our money, and it is not our responsibility to dictate how it is to be used"...Similarly, the Christian should not tell the government when it may use the sword."  Yoder explains that this Amish renouncement of political duty has been described as a "strategy of withdrawal."

Some have made a point of criticism of Amish resulting from this paradoxical stance.  Yoder describes the paradox of the Amish view of the two kingdoms as a dilemma inherited from early Anabaptists, and one which is to this day unresolved. I cannot do the issue justice myself here, as this is a very basic addressing of it, but I would direct those interested to Paton Yoder's treatment of the two kingdoms doctrine in The Amish and the State.

How common is abuse?

Finally, there is the remaining question of how common abuse is in Amish communities.  Sexual abuse is an unpleasant topic.  I don't particularly enjoy writing about this on the blog, just as I don't particularly relish discussing issues such as "puppy mills".  But, I felt I ought to address it as a legitimate issue affecting some Amish. 

As I write in the original post, I'd be quite reluctant to say that sex abuse is a widespread problem across Amish society.  It may very well be a problem that occurs in isolation, and even to a significant degree in some communities.  A system of discipline which resolves issues of sin and transgression primarily internally may lead to conditions which allow abuse to occur and persist, especially when key principles of obedience and submission to authority become detached from a guiding core Christian morality.

This article by Legal Affairs senior editor Nadya Labi examines a number of abuse cases in Amish communities.  Labi does not paint all Amish with the same brush, noting in the lead-in that the examples of abuse she cites originate from "some places".  Reading the article I notice that many or all of the cases she describes seem to occur in Swartzentruber or other more conservative communities.  The default operating procedure in the cases she describes is church confession, a short stay in the Bann, and a return to 'normal', but with no alerting of the authorities, and usually with a continuation of the abusive behavior. 

On the other hand, since writing the previous post, I have also received Amish input on the Missouri case that without question Schwartz should answer to the state for his crimes.

As to how widespread abuse is, I simply have no way of knowing concretely.  But if I had to I would guess that the stance of this Amish informant toward crimes such as sexual abuse would be the more commonly-held one, and I'd like to suppose the much more commonly-held one.  I hope that is correct. 

Missouri Amish Abuse Story

This is a disheartening story which I've meant to address, about child abuse in one Amish community. 

Four bishops in a Missouri Amish community have been charged with failing to report sexual abuse inflicted by an adult member of the community upon two children.  Clearly there is no moral question that abuse of any kind is a criminal matter, and not one meant to be handled within the bounds of a local Ordnung.  Yet that is apparently how this matter was "resolved", and authorities are charging the bishops, as people with "responsibility for the care of children", with neglecting their duty towards the abuse victims.

Occasionally you hear of similar cases of unreported crime in Amish communities.  Yet I'd hardly call covering up crimes standard operating procedure among Amish.  Amish subscribe to a 'two kingdoms' theology, seeing a distinction between the spiritual kingdom, and the worldly kingdom of secular government. 

Yet, Amish readily submit to the law of the land in areas where the worldly kingdom does not impose itself on the spiritual one.  While Amish have refused to adhere to certain laws which clash with religious beliefs, such as schooling past the 8th grade, or in some instances, on slow-moving-vehicle triangle requirement for carriages, this Missouri case obviously has nothing to do with religious matters.  

That true crimes may go unreported in some communities I feel is a reflection on local congregations and not upon Amish society as a whole.  For further reading, this was not long ago addressed on the blog, in a post examining Amish cooperation with law enforcement.      

Bush 41, Amish, Mennonites, and drugs

I recently came across a transcript from George Bush senior's 1989 meeting with Mennonite and Amish leaders in Lancaster County.  It's interesting to read not only for those seeking late 80s era nostalgia but for the interesting dynamic between the President and the typically spotlight-shunning Amish and Mennonites as they take the stage in a very high-profile context. 

The event is ostensibly about Bush meeting with Amish and Mennonites to celebrate as well as extract lessons from them on how they keep their communities clean of chemical influences. 

Bush, accompanied by drug czar Bill Bennett and Attorney General Dick Thornburgh, on numerous occasions "salutes" the Mennonites and Amish, and--given typical plain sentiment about receiving accolades--at times perhaps a bit too strongly for comfort, at one point calling them "a shining example of what family and faith can do."

While there may be truth to that statement, it also makes one wonder how comfortable the leaders were receiving such praise.  The Mennonite leaders do the bulk of the talking, with the Amish commenting just a bit at the end.  More recently, Amish were awkwardly thrust onto the world stage after the Nickel Mines shooting.  Some at the time acknowledged that though they may not seek out the spotlight, the forgiveness example could have a positive influence on others.  Perhaps it's in that same spirit the Mennonites and Amish agreed to the forum with the President.

The Mennonite and Amish leaders push family values and the importance of the Bible throughout the meeting with Bush and his contingent acknowledging their importance.  Bush, notably less outwardly religious than his son, nonetheless comes out strongly for prayer in schools, at the time a hotpoint issue.

The tone of the meeting is quite warm and there are a couple of humorous exchanges towards the end, as well as Bush sharing an interesting anecdote from his days as US emissary to China. 

The ironic 'ending' to this story is of course the infamous 1998 Lancaster County drug bust when two young Amish men were caught dealing cocaine.  The aftermath saw drug education meetings in the community as well as a move towards heavier adult involvement in Amish youth 'gangs'.  Later media such as the Devil's Playground film and the Rumspringa book continued to put the lie to the idea of universally pristine, drug-free plain communities.  At the same time it would be quite a stretch to take localized occurences to portray the collective Amish as having a serious drug problem. 

Amish and the law

Interesting article in the Mount Vernon News about the relationship between law enforcement and Amish in a few Ohio communities.

One of the two sherriffs interviewed--hailing from Knox County, an area with a relatively small Amish population--says that law enforcement tries to be sensitive to Amish customs and in particular the Amish system of church discipline.  "I believe a lot of times things get handled within the community," he says, a point his Holmes County counterpart seems to agree with.  Exactly what those 'things' he is referring to are, is unclear from this piece.

When criminal offenses occur, the law must become involved.  As a rule, Amish readily cooperate with law enforcement.  At the same time, that cooperation is not necessarily universal, and as one of the sherriffs points out, "without a victim, there’s little we can do."

The question remains as to how often criminal acts in Amish communities go unreported?  There has been a tendency in some media to play up a supposed 'dark side' of Amish society in a theatrical way.  A long-ago blog post examined one 20/20 piece on an abuse case which painted the Amish with a big brush, in a report complete with ominous music and tired generalizations. 

Assuming Amish communities conceal rampant domestic crime is pushing the idea a bit far.  At the same time, in smaller, more isolated, and often more conservative and 'closed' settlements, the likelihood of a criminal act being absorbed by the community is probably greater. 

Indiana Amish vindicated: 'Daylight savings' actually sucking savings out of Hoosier pockets

A couple of years back I wrote on the Amish aversion to daylight savings time.

I cited an informal survey I'd done among northern Indiana Amish unhappy with the state's forced change to DST in 2006.  Previously only a few counties had followed it. 

Among their reasons for being anti-DST, Amish have pointed to tradition and the extra hour of summer sunlight (translated:  an extra hour to be outside working and for children to be running around) as tiring. 

Turns out there are economic negatives as well. 

The Wall Street Journal ran an article a while back titled 'Daylight Saving Wastes Energy, Study Says' on research showing that the Indiana change has cost households $8.6 million in increased electric bills.

One big reason is the greater use of air-conditioning, less common when DST studies were performed three decades ago. 

Coming home earlier from work means cooling the house for an extra hour.  It may also mean heating it during the cooler morning period.

Though the study seems to prove the case pretty solidly, some caution against applying it to all states and regions, as local factors such as climate may vary. 

Interestingly, it seems this isn't the only time issue for Indiana.  The article closes by noting that 'a separate debate over whether the state should be on Central or Eastern Time rages on.'

(Oh yeah--and if you haven't changed your clock yet today...)

Plus: Donald Kraybill on DST and four Ohio Amish affiliations

Indiana Amish lecture by Professor Steven Nolt

Goshen College has kindly passed along a link to a recent lecture on the northern Indiana Amish given by Professor Steven Nolt. 

Professor Nolt is one of the preeminent scholars on the Amish.  He has written numerous books, including A History of the Amish and Plain Diversity (w/Thomas Meyers) on Amish communities in Indiana.

Nolt explains that northern Indiana is unusual in that it allows much diversity among districts. 

He contrasts this with other communities where uniform standards are required or where differences would more likely result in new affiliations being formed. 

He also discusses the impact of recent economic decline on the region and the unusual situation of local Amish men accepting government unemployment assistance.

Interesting bits from the lecture:

• Indiana is the only state where you'll find license plates on buggies, though not every county requires them.  Thus in the community at Nappanee, some have plates while others do not. 
• Amish population growth has resulted both from having large families as well as an increased retention rate.  Nolt estimates that of children born in the 1930s, less than 80% joined the Amish church.  Today that figure stands at around 95%.
• A few northern Indiana Old Order districts hold biweekly Sunday School, but most do not.
• During the Great Depression, church leaders temporarily allowed young unemployed men to acquire drivers' licenses for delivery jobs, with the stipulation that they be used only on the job and only while working for a non-Amish employer.
• The rates of children joining the Amish church are no lower among factory families than the settlement average.
• The average age of ordained ministers has fallen from 40 a couple of decades ago to 32 today. Professor Nolt has an interesting explanation why.

The northern Indiana Amish and the RV blues

A Goshen News article just out on layoffs among nothern Indiana Amish factory workers brings to light the challenge that local Amish, many of whom are dependent on factory income, are facing as hours and jobs are cut in a limping economy.

Most Amish heads of household work in the local RV industry, and most people would consider RVs a non-essential item. 

Skyrocketing oil prices in the first half of the year certainly did not help RV sales, though one would think that to be less of a factor now that they've subsided to sub-$2 levels.  Of course, what happens once, can happen again...

The Amish in northern Indiana are in a bit different situation occupationally than those in the other two large settlements, Holmes County, OH and Lancaster, PA.  While those two communities are highly entrepreneurial, northern Indiana is less so. 

Entrepreneurial pursuits here are less developed, often comprising 'sideline' work rather than a full-time occupation.  This is easy to see when traveling through the settlement.  You don't find nearly as many shops here as you do in the community's Ohio and PA counterparts. 

Statistically, the local Amish are much more heavily dependent on factory work.  'Farmettes', plots of just a few acres with a small horse barn and not much else, are popular, yet farming itself has dwindled to low levels. 

Selling books in the Elkhart/Lagrange community in the summer of 2006, I had a firsthand look at this community as I visited each of the 120+ church districts. 

Even in that period, temporary layoffs were occurring among the Amish.  Some factory hands were on a four-day a week schedule.  Speaking with Amish breadwinners at the time, it was definitely a concern, but not nearly as serious as it seems to be today.

Thanks to high wages, there is, or at least there has been up til now, a lot of disposable cash in this community.  At this point some, if not many, must be rethinking not only purchasing decisions but also their occupational choices.

 

A shift to small business?

The article cites estimates that 50 to 75 percent of Amish factory workers have filed for unemployment.  To be honest, this seems awfully high, but apparently reflects a change in this community on the acceptability of receiving government financial help.  Government assistance is typically avoided by the Amish, who were first granted federally-sanctioned exemption from the Social Security program in the 1960s.

Small businesses are also affected when the economy tightens, but their owners have the advantage of a degree of flexibility that a factory worker dependent upon a single industry simply does not have.

For example, some Amish home builders have shifted to remodeling work, a sector that tends to prove more resilient when new home building declines.  Other entrepreneurs are able to specialize or to focus on goods and services whose demand is less affected by economic downturns. 

In my opinon, the two most interesting issues here are the unemployment benefits situation and the implications it will have for Amish in this and other communities, and also the question of whether small business among the Amish in northern Indiana will be boosted in the long-term as a result of this recession. 

According to the article, it seems that there has been some new interest among local Amish for small business, but whether it indicates a significant, long-lasting shift remains to be seen.

My gut says that if that many Amish have shown interest in unemployment benefits, there will be a marked change in the perception of factory work vis-a-vis the sustainability of the Amish way of living in this community. 

For a long time, the factory has been seen as a simple way to support a family on a very comfortable income.  But it seems that local Amish are really getting bitten this time due to overdependence on a single industry.  Economic hard times will pass and RVs will likely return, but not without the community having drawn a lesson from the experience.  

So if I were a betting man, I'd bet there will be a significant, long-lasting upward change in the percentage of northern Indiana Amish operating their own (full-time) firms. 

Part Two: An Amish America Q-and-A with a Lancaster County Amishman

In this second part of an interview with an anonymous Lancaster County Amishman, we look at the phenomenon of outsiders joining the Amish, using the Amish name to market and sell products to the public, Amish participation in the recent presidential election, and the meaning and purpose of shunning. 

(And if you missed the first part, here it is: An Amish America Q-and-A with a Lancaster County Amishman, Part 1)

A lot of people express admiration for what they perceive as the 'Amish' way of life. Some even express a desire to join. Yet in reality, outsiders rarely convert to the faith. Why do you think this is the case? And if the Amish feel that Amish living is the best way to pursue the Christian ideal, why do you think the Amish aren't more aggressive in pursuing outsiders with the goal of sharing the community?

The first thing is obviously the huge cultural gap and the differing worldviews.

The next is I am not so sure at all that the Amish feel that Amish living is the best way to pursue the Christian ideal.  Or certainly not in a comparative sense or in a rational weighing of pros and cons.  If the Amish feel it is the best way it is not meant in a superior way meaning all the rest are inferior but rather it is perhaps the best way for the Amish themselves since the way of life is seen as a calling or a gift from above.  It is not a bed of roses but rather entails sacrifice.

As to why the Amish are not more aggressive in pursuing outsiders I think there are two primary reasons.
The first is the martyr heritage which has caused Amish to be somewhat reserved and shy and suspicious of outsiders.

The second is somewhat ironically the nearly complete loss of the one true church concept that was prevalent in Anabaptism in Europe.

The Amish today know that salvation means believing in the Lord and following his commandments.

If we love the Lord and accept Him as our Savior we will have eternal life, whatever denomination we are.

Let me just say this yet.  If the whole world were Amish it would be a boring and bland place indeed.

However if the Amish were gone from the landscape a solid and I would like to think vibrant color would be missing from the American mosaic.

Furthermore, sharing the community can be achieved by means other than converting to the Amish.  I was inspired by the words in Pauline Stevick’s book called Beyond the Plain and Simple.

It was written as follows:

We realize that not everyone is cut out to be one of the Plain People.
Many have not the opportunity.
But here is a challenge.

If you admire our faith—strengthen yours.

If you admire our sense of commitment—deepen yours.

If you admire our community spirit—build one.

If you admire the simple life—cut back.

If you admire quality merchandise or land stewardship, then make quality.
 
If you admire deep character and enduring values—live them.

This I think captures the true essence of evangelism which is spreading the Good News.  It also distinguishes from proselytization which is merely winning converts.

In other words, if people generally bloom where they are planted, then it would be a much better world than if everybody would be Amish.

And also, spiritually at least, the Amish simply do not have that marketing mentality or that urge to promote what they have to offer, in short to sell themselves, that seems to be so prevalent in American society including some churches.


Recently on the blog and in a public lecture at Elizabethtown, I brought up the issue of using the Amish name in order to sell products. The main issue that emerges seems to be the question of what 'Amish' actually means—is it a faith/religion, or a culture? Some entrepreneurs justify using 'Amish' to sell product on the basis of it being a cultural name and nothing more—Christianity being the religion. Yet others are adamantly against it, comparing it to selling one's birthright for a bowl of pottage. As a business owner and member of the community, what's your take on that issue?

Indeed the name Amish does get used to sell product.  And it is something I am not really comfortable with.  If I do the naming I would be more prone to call the product a Lancaster County product or Pennsylvania Dutch product or a product of the Plain People.

However this is an issue where balance and avoidance of extremes is very much in order.  For instance, at our farmer’s market deli, I do sell Amish Butter Cheese and Amish Roll Butter, etc.  And I really don’t have a serious issue with that provided the product really is an Amish product.

Truth in advertising is of the essence.  As to whether Amish means a culture or a faith/religion, I would say as a culture it is different from typical Modern Culture but as a faith it is essentially Christian with the same basic tenets as any Evangelical, Fundamentalist, or Biblical Church.

Such as belief in the Trinity, The Apostles’ Creed, The Bible as the divine Word of God, Salvation by Grace through Faith and the Crucifixion as atonement for humankind’s sin.  However for the Amish, culture and religion are intertwined to the point where it is hard to separate the two.  Indeed it is a faith culture.  So if we hang on to our beards, buggies, and bonnets only so we can sell trinkets, we will indeed have sold our souls and our birthright for a bowl of porridge. 

Or to the other extreme, if we sacralize the name Amish to the point that we can hardly use it at all we will have missed the point, which is, our lives are to be a light to the world and a service to Christ.

As it was a rather unusual election season in terms of length and level of coverage, many Americans reached the point of overdosing on politics. How much of that gets through to the Amish community, and how do members of the community find out about political issues? Was there are lot of interest in the election? Bush visited Ohio and PA in '04 in search of votes from the Amish community. How much interest did the Amish have in voting this time around, and how many in your community do you think voted?

It is a subject that gets talked about quite a bit depending on the personalities of those in the discussion.  Members find out about political issues through contacts with outsiders and newspapers and news magazines primarily.  There was kind of a resignation about the current election I think mostly because most Amish are “armchair Republicans” and it was obvious that the Bush administration fell short.

There was a lot less interest in voting this time around mostly because of the war.  I would venture to guess about 25% of those who voted  in ’04 voted this year which translates into a lot less than 10%, although I have no statistics to back this up.  It would be interesting to know myself.  I also don’t think Sarah Palin had much effect on Amish opinion.

I think one thing that gets a lot of attention in the media is the idea of shunning. Some paint it in the worst tones possible. Others recognize it as a Biblically-rooted social device that helps preserve the church. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, social shunning in the Amish church is done not in a spirit of vengeance, but in a spirit of love and out of the hope of getting an erring member to change his/her ways.

First of all I believe the name "shunning" itself is a misnomer.  Shunning makes you think of avoidance or ostracizing when in reality only some forms of interaction are restrained.  “Shunning” as practiced today could perhaps be best described as a ritualistic reminder of having gone astray and having broken your commitment to the Lord Jesus and the body of believers you made your commitment and baptismal promise with. Notice I said 'with' as opposed to 'to'.

It is also a statement that the rest of the flock has no intention of leaving the fold and that it takes its commitment to the Lord and each other seriously.  But most of all it is done so the soul of the deviant may be saved on the day of Judgement.

It is based on a literal and biblical interpretation of the commandments of Christ and the apostles—Matthew 18;  1 Corinthians 5;  2 Thessalonians 3:14;  Titus 3:10;  1 Timothy 5;  2 Corinthians 10:8;  2 Corinthians 13:10;  John 15.  Therefore the feeling is, a mandate for filial discipline amongst a body of believers is very plainly mandated in the Scripture.  With that being said, shunning is usually done with great reluctance and only once there is nothing else left to do.  Upon repentance the relationship is restored and what is in the past stays in the past.

Shunning is never pleasant business both for the church and for the shunned individual and it would be easiest and most convenient to not practice it.

But feeling bound to the Scripture and knowing of no better way other than to try and use Christian Discretion and moderation, the practice continues in varying degrees.  Some almost totally ignore it, especially in private settings, while others are more rigorous.  It is important to remember there is no sacramental value on the ban to the point a banned one is considered as going to hell.  The Lord is still the final judge.

I like what John Ruth had to say about the application of Matt 18 which is the model of church discipline.  When Jesus spoke about the one who rejects the counsel of the ecclesia
(church community) he is to be unto us as a heathen and tax-collector.

Before we take this to mean that we are to despise such persons, we should remember that Jesus himself socialized with tax-collectors and had friendly relations with Non-Jews.  So what he means in his statement regarding the person who rejects the counsel of the circle is that he may be told, ‘We’ll be neighbors, and we’ll treat you as fairly as anybody but we won’t call it church’. 

In effect, you are not in the church if you don’t listen to it.  Just as, if as batter you want to call balls and strikes yourself, it’s not baseball.  What ‘shunning’ is about is how to relate to someone who on bended knee has promised in the presence of the covenanted circle to obey Christ and the Church and then leaves that particular covenant.  End Quote.

Yet many I think miss that point and only see it as a cruel and unhappy practice. Could you maybe give a little insight on what shunning is like for the individual and for the church/community? In your experience, does it 'work'? What's it like for the individual and for the church when the erring member actually does return to the flock?

One reason “shunning” appears so harsh to outsiders is that this American Me Generation and Taking Care of Number One Society has lost a concept of being keepers of their brothers and the idea of communal and church community discipline is not appealing.

Usually there were certain immoral things you did not do in a neighborhood and you also kept your promises and commitments.  Now it is nobody else’s business, and if a promise or commitment becomes a burden you discard it.  Americans do not like to be told about right and wrong especially not by some church.

Amish on the other hand still have some idea of being their brother’s keeper and simply cannot accept from themselves a do as you please mentality.  With all that being said, however, the stocks and pillory, the Ducking Chair and the Whipping Post of Puritan New England are definitely better off gone from society.

Amish church discipline was never taken to those extremes, which I think is a big factor in why the idea of being your brother’s keeper still carries weight by the Amish.

As to whether it “works”, not perfectly.  But it does cause you to thoroughly examine your reasons for leaving. 

You think twice before leaving for superficial reasons.  And I personally do not have much experience with the issue.  Only recently has the company I am employed by hired some that are in the ban.

I have no close relatives in the ban and personally know less than 50 people that are in such circumstances.  Only once in my 43 years has anyone in our district decided to leave for good.  And as to what it is like when somebody does return.  The parable of the lost sheep in Matt 18 is very descriptive.  Many tears are shed and there is a feeling of restoration. 

I did however twice experience the ban before I was married.  In both instances I voluntarily went to speak with the bishop and agreed to accept the counsel of the Church.  I can attest that an outward expression of an inner repentance goes a long way towards strengthening convictions and helps you to do better.  Both times I was admonished that the inner repentance is of greater importance and, without which, the outward expression does no good.

I became much closer to Christ and his church through those experiences.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you enjoyed this interview, find more Amish America interviews here.