Amish America

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. 

Filming the Amish

People often wonder about the Amish and photography.  Documentarian and film & media professor Dirk Eitzen has an interesting chapter on filming the Amish in the exceptional Amish and the Media. 

Eitzen describes three methods used by those wishing to visually document the Amish:  pushiness, poaching, and focusing on children and young adults. 

I suppose if I had to confess, I would qualify as a poacher.  Eitzen states that this is "an approach the Amish prefer, and, at least to some degree, accommodate."

The above is a photo I 'poached' in February of this year in Lancaster County.  The original came out a bit blurry so I decided to try to salvage it somehow.  I'm not sure if I succeeded.  Effects courtesy of picnik.com.

I highly recommend watching the two short excerpts of Eitzen's film The Amish and Us at the link above.  They are both amusing and revealing.  The film itself, as The Amish and the Media co-editor David Weaver-Zercher describes it, is in fact "more about "us" than it is about the Amish."  

'Trouble in Amish Paradise' documentary

Here's a link to the BBC 'Trouble in Amish Paradise' documentary, now hosted on an Australian site.  I don't know how long it will be up, but if you'd like to view it, I'd go ahead and do it in case it is taken down.  It's not quite a full hour long. 

As to the narrative background, they get some things right, they get some things wrong.  There are some generalizations and some factual errors.

Regardless, the documentary itself--from a human drama perspective if nothing else--is captivating.

It features two Amish couples in various stages of conflict with their congregations.  The main couple featured is Ephraim and Amanda Stoltzfus.  I met Ephraim and Amanda in Lancaster County 2 years ago, when they were already under the Bann.  They were still attending services however, and had not moved off the farm yet as they do in the documentary. 

Although I'm not certain I'd agree with the premise of the dissenters' arguments against the church, they are very likable people, and especially the gregarious Ephraim, as is evident from the film. 

There's a lot more that could be said about this documentary but for lack of time I'm not going to be able to do so at the moment.  If anyone has comments after viewing please feel free. 

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. 

'Amish puppy mills', back again

'Amish puppy mills' are back in the news with a recent report on ABC.  I'm not going to rehash the issue too much here as it has been discussed at length elsewhere on the blog, but simply put up a couple of links to the posts I feel are most relevant.  Pups are an emotionally charged subject and typically get a lot of ALL CAPS comments and even occasionally ones that, due to the need to maintain a modicum of profanity standards on this here blog, have to be deleted.

And this fact betrays what is to me perhaps the most interesting element of the controversy--the reaction of both activists and 'regular folks' as well.  Perhaps it is because I am not a dog person myself--though grandma has a lovely dachsund that is a big and important part of her life--yet at the same time I never cease to be amazed at the issues that get people certifiably riled up.  I guess different folks value different things in different ways and best to leave it at that for now. 

That said, in this post I attempted to make a point about the relative worth of animals.

I've also recently been informed of some rough numbers--that Plain People--Amish and Mennonites in this case--run approximately 20% of the nation's 'puppy mills'/dog breeding operations.  But what of the other 80%?  This post examines the practice of broad-brush extrapolation, based on a limited number of high-profile cases, in order to paint the Amish and their religious kin as a collection of knuckle-dragging fundamentalist animal torturers.  And also as basically the sole contributors to the industry, which is really not the case.  Amish are easy enough pickings, truth be told, as they tend to shun the spotlight and avoid the court system whenever possible, while at the same offering their foes outsize propaganda value. 

I also must admit that despite initial certainty, I feel I have become a bit confused on the actual definition of a 'puppy mill'.  Is a 'puppy mill' defined by unsanitary conditions and malnutrition?  Or is a lack of on-the-hour coddling enough to qualify a breeder as a 'puppy miller'? 

Some have pointed out that dogs are social animals which thrive on human contact, whereas cows aren't.  Fair enough, but does an otherwise healthy pup, integrated and interacting with his puppy peers, actually need individualized daily human contact as well?  And if so, what is the US RDA on that?

Final point:  some claim that, while there may be many Amish dog breeders that are not 'puppy millers' (again, whatever the term means), that there are nonetheless many who do fit the description.  Having visited Amish communities from Lancaster to Iowa, I've had the chance to observe numerous puppy breeding operations. 

But, of course I haven't seen them all, and I'm no animal inspector, and for that matter certainly wasn't doing any inspecting at the time, just observing offhand.  At the same time, since I've never seen statistics or proof from anti-puppy mill people as to the alleged mass prevalence of the substandard, sickly-mutt producing type of operation, I think I have to bow here to economic realities. 

Amish are typically intelligent businesspeople.  Think about the furniture we buy when in Lancaster.  Pretty high quality, right?  Just as with most everything else the Amish sell--those wholesome pies, painstakingly hand-stitched quilts, etc.  That's the reputation, in any case. 

So where is the economic sanity in masses of Amish breeders pumping out sub-par puppy product--dogs that die on pet store shelves or shortly after getting them home--as most of these stories and the activists that propagate them seem to imply?

'Miracle' marketing

Popped open a copy of USA Today in-between flights yesterday, and what should I find but another full-page ad for the 'Amish miracle heater'.

I was hoping to avoid the heater issue as it's been covered enough elsewhere, but looks like there is a lot of fresh reporting just out.  Good analysis at consumeraffairs.com as well as a Philly Fox News report from yesterday.

A post in the LA Times business blog explains that the company which produces the mantles, based in Canton, Ohio, gets the heat-unit parts from China.  The wood bits come from Amish producers, located nearby (though the definition of what makes a business 'Amish' is another point of contention).

The first ad, around since at least early last year, was borderline at best.  Apparently these are 'real Amish people', but ones that agreed to be pictured if the photos "focus on the quality of the product."

But the second, which has been run in Rolling Stone magazine, takes 'mind-boggling' light-years further.  A pair of nude women on a bed, gazing at an Amish mantle, complete with a bottle of champagne and two glasses.  Ouch. 

The first ad was toeing if not crossing the line.  But hard to imagine an Amish producer giving explicit agreement for the second.  And if it did, that's a business that's really run itself off the rails. 

Hard to think of anything more offensive to typical Amish sensibilities.  Or a bigger disconnect between the marketing of a product and the reality.

Needless to say, this type of thing is exactly what the average Amish business owner does not want to be associated with.  Scanning opinion a bit, I just spoke with an Amish entrepreneur who predictably expressed disgust at the whole idea.  Another Amish friend commented that 'this thing is so fake it doesn't even raise my ire.'

The Amish 'brand' is one of the strengths of Amish businesses and this has to be tarnishing it, and on a national scale. 

But probably not permanently--I have to give the average consumer more credit-for-brains than that.  Though it's not the kind of thing that most Amish business owners would want more of.

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

"It is very definitely a gray area, in fact it is nearly black."

An anonymous Amish friend from Lancaster County has offered candid answers to some questions on Amish life.  In this first of two parts, he comments on topics such as the Amish presence in the media, Amish internet usage, friendships with non-Amish people, and the benefits and challenges of living life as an Amish person. 

This is just one of a number of blogs and websites focusing on the Amish. Amish have been portrayed in the media in multiple ways-on film, on television, in books and in newspaper articles. What's your impression of all the attention given to your people by the world? Why are outsiders so interested?

Let me start by saying that by far the greatest majority of Amish people are for the most part oblivious to and non-chalant about the attention in the media given to us.  It is assumed by most Amish that the information about us that is given by the media to others is generally distorted to varying degrees.  There is practically no desire amongst the Amish to make sure we only get good press.  In other words we don’t have any highly paid spin doctors.  The general feeling amongst us is, it’s better to walk the walk than to talk the talk.  If you live an honest and upright life there is no need to “talk the talk”.  Your life speaks for itself.

The Amish along with all Christians are called to be a light to the world.  The light being spoken of in that passage are not the klieg  [spot] lights of the media, but rather the truth of Christ.

With all that being said, there is still a portion of the Amish people that is at least curious about what is being said about us.  Though none of the Amish are planning on spending any money to make sure we get good coverage.

The more serious and authentic coverage can even help some of the Amish understand themselves better.

And also there is kind of an awareness that the tone of the media coverage is usually somewhat more respectful and sympathetic than it was 50 or 75 years ago, especially in the academic circles, for which there is an appreciation amongst the Amish.

And that really is what this conversation is about—to better understand and appreciate each other without a fear of losing our respective identities.

You've mentioned you've read this blog before.  I also have some Amish friends and acquaintances that have email accounts and even business websites. I think some non-Amish readers may be curious on how all that web stuff works in terms of how it fits in with the church?

For example, the last time I visited your home I didn't notice any kerosene-powered desktops or anything like that. So more specifically, when would Amish folks get on the web, how common is it, and does the church have an issue with that, is it gray area, or generally okay?

Until computers were acquired by the company I work for, I was only on the web once or twice and then didn’t get much out of it.

By far most Amish experiences with computers are work-related.  I only have access during lunch or break periods and occasional slow time or during the course of doing my job.

In some Amish communities there is somewhat of a distinction made between work-related use and ownership and use at home.

A computer in a home just simply would not fly.  I personally have no desire to have one at home largely because of the problem of monitoring who sees what with the children.

At work, were you to visit any of those bad websites you would lose your job.  And so it should be.  With a little determination you can circumvent all the filters and safeguards and get on a bad website.  There is no better deterrent than mutual accountability and facing certain consequences.  As to how common using the internet is, perhaps 10-20% of Amish people would have some Web experience either on a PC or a cell phone.  It is very definitely a gray area, in fact it is nearly black.

But if one is respectful and doesn’t brag or become challenging about his computer savvy, not a whole lot will happen as far as discipline is concerned.  In other words if you behave yourself otherwise, things generally stay quiet.

What do Amish people feel about Amish/non-Amish friendships? How common are they, and is the average Amish person interested in having non-Amish friends?

And what do you think are the benefits and drawbacks of such intercultural relationships?

All Amish people that have friends also have non-Amish friends.  The typical Amish person treasures friendships of all kinds provided that our respective identities are not challenged and ripped down.  One of the benefits of inter-cultural relationships is one can gain a balanced view of his own culture and identity.  Once can appreciate the good parts of his own culture and can also take an honest look at the shortcomings and potential improvements to his life.

Most of the time I come away from an intercultural encounter with a greater appreciation of my own heritage.  Two Scripture passages come to mind.  The first is in Acts where the writer says that unto every man (person) is appointed a time and a place.

In the context of intercultural relationships that becomes quite obvious. Also in Hebrews it talks about running with patience the race set before us.  That ties right in with “thou shalt not covet”.  If we do not begin to covet, friendships with non-Amish are very rewarding indeed.


The next couple of questions may seem a bit simplistic, but let's try them anyway.  First, what in your opinion are the biggest benefits that come from being Amish?

This and the next question are probably the most difficult to answer because a typical Amish person doesn’t have a lot of formal training and is not really learned in critical analysis and rational thinking from a modern perspective.

To illustrate this point, in a fairly recent scholarly study, testing was done on Amish school students on some basic curriculum questions and such and apparently there was a question that asked students to write something about their school that would be good for the rest of the world to know.

She received not a single coherent response.  In short, we are not very good at selling ourselves, even while we are generally quite adept at being ourselves.

But now to try and answer the question.  I would have to say the sense of belonging to something larger than yourself.  The comfort of community and the strong family ties.  Another thing is the simple and equal ecclesiastical structure in the sense that the clergy is not  necessarily more educated or wealthier than any of the laity.  The fact that ministers are chosen from among the members by the use of the divine lot eliminates a great deal of politics, a fact that I personally greatly appreciate.  The unsalaried ministry and the use of each other’s homes for church services lessens the pressure to give to the church and enables all alms to go directly to the needy.  In other words it is not all about money.

With all that being said, the strong community and family ties is not something that only the Amish can have.  The strength of those ties varies among the Amish as well, and are subject to individual volition.

In other words, you get out of family and community about what you put into them.  The difference between the Amish and Modern America is I think that with Amish the sense of community and family is more intrinsic and reached through a more intense cultural osmosis.

In other words it is something that is passed from one generation to the next, orally and by example, starting at a very early age, in fact it starts at the beginning of the child’s comprehension.

And last but not least is the opportunity to be a follower of Christ in a simple and faithful way.  I realize that this way of life is a gift from above and without the help of the Lord it would be impossible to endure unto the end.  The nice thing is that anyone can choose to be a follower of Christ whatever your lot in life is, and in whatever cultural context you live in.

No need to be Amish in order to believe in the Lord and have eternal life unless of course the Lord wants you to be Amish.

And what's the 'hardest thing' about being Amish?

Now for the “hardest question”.  Let’s start by saying that for different individuals there are different answers.  For the modern or postmodern soul the hardest thing would be the lack of unlimited personal choice.  But for the Amish person who knew who he or she was ever since he or she can remember, that plethora of choice is nothing but a whirlpool of confusion, and it makes no sense at all to ride that whirlpool for awhile to try and find yourself.

The Amish person basically has two choices, that is ‘To be or not to be’.  Yet “the hardest thing” also varies from one Amish person to another.  Some chafe at the technological restrictions of the Ordnung.  Some wish for more intense spiritual expression, in other words they do not appreciate the quiet and deep spirituality that can come from traditional methods of worship.

Others are frustrated by the career limitations.  This is ironically being increased by the shift from an agrarian way of life to one that includes entrepreneurship. 

The latter is the one that probably bothers me the most.  One of my fears would be to get stuck working at a dead-end job for somebody else the rest of my days.

So for myself I would say the hardest thing is the irony of knowing that being an educator, an engineer, a banker, an accountant, a veterinarian would be an enjoyable and fulfilling career as long as it would last, but the price to pay for achieving a career such as that would most likely entail the sacrifice of your Amish identity.

I think that had I entered into that world or had been pushed into high school and college by my parents as many American children are, I probably would have met with some success.

But on the other hand I cannot imagine being any happier than I am now. 

And I certainly would not want to wind up being a lonely and eccentric professional pushed away to a nursing home where nobody understands me anymore.  All things considered, I think it is best to simply seek to do the Lord’s will and follow his plan for my life.  I was born in 1965 in Lancaster, PA to a specific set of Amish parents and that was not an accident but rather part of a plan.

Every person’s circumstances are in the same way part of a plan, but in a different context.


If you weren't Amish, what do you think you would miss the most about being Amish?

The family being together at home without interference from an electronic cacophony.

Living with a devoted wife who is also your best friend, without the specter of divorce looming just over the horizon.

The get-togethers with your Rumspringa friends that last through a lifetime.

The walks to church on a peaceful Sunday morning.

The fellowship after a church service.

And most of all, belonging to a body of believers that cares enough about your soul to steer you back to the narrow way spoken of in Matt 7 whenever you stray.

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

To be continued:  Look for the second part of this Q-and-A coming soon.

Excommunication and shunning among Old Order Mennonites

Shunning is a widely-known yet controversial social practice of the Old Order Amish.  How do the Old Order Mennonites, close spiritual cousins of the Amish, approach the matter?  An excerpt on the topic:

"Members who stray from the teachings and practice of the church are reprimanded by the deacon.  Persons who refuse to cooperate with the church may be "set back" from communion.  If they remain stubborn and unyielding to the Ordnung and the counsel of elders, they will face excommunication.  Sometimes a person may continue to attend services but refrain from communion if he or she participates in a forbidden practice.  In the Ontario Conference, a number of persons who smoke tobacco attend worship services, but they do not commune because smoking is a test of membership.  These persons participate in the life of the community but technically are outside the fold.  In eastern Pennsylvania, smoking is "testified against" but is not a test of membership, and hence members who smoke are able to commune.  More serious offenses--owning an automobile or divorcing a spouse--will bring excommunication if the deviants fail to repent.  Mennonites generally do not shun excommunicated members as severely as do the Amish.  Several independent groups of team Mennonites do practice social avoidance, but the larger groups do not.  Nevertheless, excommunicated members will feel the stigma of shame."

(From On the Backroad to Heaven: Old Order Hutterites, Mennonites, Amish, and Brethren, by Donald B. Kraybill and Carl Desportes Bowman)

An Amish school photo dilemma

The Amish-produced periodical Family Life has a feature known as 'The Problem Corner'.  Readers send in questions for other readers to offer answers on.

One problem, sent in by an Amish mother in 1990, goes as follows:

"...We send our children to a public school, and I venture to guess 98% of the Amish children that attend there have their yearly picture taken.  We know it is supposed to be wrong for Amish to pose, but when will we teach our children it is wrong if we let them do it all their growing-up years?  So far we haven't let ours take theirs, but since they are the only ones in their classroom who don't, naturally they feel left out.  Also, sometimes the class does projects during the year with their pictures.  Then our children come home crying because they have to do something different.  I do not want to be a stumbling block to my children, nor do I want to have a holier-than-thou attitude.  Please, I would like some thoughts and opinions from others on this subject..."

The majority of Amish parents probably do not have to deal with this specific issue.  However, though most Amish children attend Amish-run parochial schools, in some larger settlements such as Holmes County, Ohio, and Lagrange/Elkhart Counties in Indiana, a significant chunk attend local public schools. 

This concerned mother received a number of answers, including one from an Indiana parent:

"...It is lamentable indeed that we have this golden opportunity to have our own schools and only half of the Amish in northern Indiana exercise that privilege.  We could avoid a host of other problems, too.  With due respect to everybody, let me ask, "How do we explain that so many pictures, plus activities featuring Amish children, including boys in sports uniform, appear in our local newspaper?  Or if the county spelling champion happens to be one of ours, they display it on the school billboard for the better part of a week beside a main road?

Let's try to keep in mind that the public schools stress pride of achievement and competition and that we have as our goals humility and cooperation..."

A few observations:  this was an interesting read as there seems to be at least three issues at work here.  The children-in-pictures issue is at the forefront, and is one which Amish hold varying opinions on. 

Some Amish simply do not mind if their children are photographed.  Others do not mind if they themselves are photographed--some, and perhaps this is just a handful, even do not object to posing.  And many, if asked, would refuse both. 

Secondly, there is the issue of sending children to public school itself.  Clearly the responder is urging his fellow church members to reconsider the idea of public schools and is strongly implying that parochial schools would be a better solution. 

Indeed, in some settlements, such as Lancaster County, all or the vast majority of Amish children attend Amish-run schools.  I don't know where the 'half of the Amish' statistic comes from, but it is true that there are high levels of Amish attendance in certain public schools in this parent's settlement. 

Finally, the mother expresses her concern about not wanting to have a 'holier-than-thou attitude'.  I think there is real concern among many Amish about having a holier-than-thou attitude. 

One main reason, I believe, is because a haughty approach taken by certain Amish towards other members has been faulted in exacerbating church disagreements and even as a factor in some church splits throughout Amish history.  And of course 'holier-than-thou' suggest the opposite of humility.

So I believe that Amish are particularly sensitive to it.  You also sense this immediately when discussing issues of morality or faith.  Amish people tend to show a respect for differences of faith when speaking with outsiders, and typically will couch questions and responses in respectful, indirect language so as not to offend.