No doubt exists that The Amish way began, or at least traditionally started, as a result of one man's hot-headed fury over the actions of his counterparts. Those familiar with the story of the beginning regarding Jakob Ammann know that it was he who got upset with his fellow church-folk and placed them under a ban, or a shunning. And it is said he did this rather hastily. I do not wish to get into the details of this historical event, but only note that The Amish, as we know them today, were actually born out of this contemptuous moment from the one man. Seems strange, really, considering the great emphasis, at least nowadays, on nonresistance within the plain group and its teachings. But I think that because what we are talking about here with Ammann dealt with fellow Christians, that the rules were different, and not necessary up for a nonresistant vibe.

       And that appears to be the way that we find a lot of groups these days. Certain groups, whether religious or otherwise, can have a greater tendency to judge those who are inside quicker than those who are outside. The outsider may be left alone and not even be considered, as often seems to be the case with how The Amish view things. I mean that The Amish generally will not judge those outside the faith. Sure, they will judge the behaviors and what they consider wrong. We already know that. But specific condemnation of individuals on the outside doesn't seem to generally happen.

       So, in Ammann's case, it was those of his own church with which he disagreed, and it is said that he would not even offer them a fair chance to defend their side of the story. Angrily, he left the group of friends, and considered himself separated from them—marking them shunned in his eyes. Interestingly, it was because they didn't share his strict views on actually shunning others as he wanted them to. They didn't want to present a legalistic vibe, perhaps, within their group. He wanted things to be a 'tight ship' within the church. The group he threw out wanted to be freer.

       I reckon that this experience, as well as a lot of the other actions of The Amish, is encapsulated in the idea that they believe that suffering is a part of life. In fact, we could say they are of the opinion that suffering is to be expected. This concept needs to be examined here because it depends on one's paradigm of truth, one's viewpoint, to how this whole topic is seen altogether. On the one hand, it seems absolutely true that suffering is a part of life, and should be expected. After all, people get hurt and people die. We get hurt and eventually we will die. That only seems common sensical. At the same time, it is how life's events are viewed, and what we derive from them, that gives them their true meaning. And not only that, but also events can affect different individuals in varying ways, and do not lead to the same reactions in everyone.

       So, The Amish have built their whole lives around this idea that there needs to be a certain amount of suffering present. Is that right? Is that a correct interpretation of their behavior? Appears to be logical. We can look at their personal preference for transportation and see that it is slower and more arduous. Certainly so. But this has reasonings behind it like the fact that people, in using this method, tend to travel shorter distances and stay closer together. We could also consider the fact that they do not use modern machinery on their farms, but again, this also could be due to a fear of laziness setting in versus the desire to actually suffer. Even The Amish themselves might not know why they do these things the way they do them, other than that is how they have always done them.

       We know they trust in a heavenly reward for their actions in the future. They are sojourners on this earth, in this life, it is said, and that the real fun and relaxation occurs in the next life. Though, experientially, I'm not so sure all Amish would agree with that viewpoint. I mean, think about it. Certainly they believe in having fun and relaxing in the present, right? They will play all kinds of recreational games, whether indoors or outdoors. They will relax as well. They spend a lot of time with family members around the dinner table and probably on the porch in the summertime. After all, there are conversations to be had. Something that everyone else is getting less and less better at. Anyhow, with the view of those rewards awaiting them in heaven, perhaps there then is less the need to feel like fun needs to be had down here on the earth?

       Purity, then, is more highly emphasized than surprisingly peace itself. Going back to Switzerland in 1693, we find that Mr. Ammann would eventually dispel his fellow members after confronting them regarding their erring ways. He used the model outlined by Jesus in Matthew 18 in the Bible. He was a firm believer in that his fellow man should see things in the same manner. And he felt that those who saw things in a contrasting way were a threat, a threat to the religion itself. Really, it's about a collective body of people versus individualism. If everyone just was allowed to believe what he or she wanted, that would be a problem because there would be no true unity. Maybe outward politeness, but that would be it. So the church experience would then become a personal, individualistic experience instead of a collective, like-minded group meeting for fellowship all believing the same things.

       But a lot of us, though, base our beliefs on 'feelings.' Am I right? We hold as true what we conclude feels right within ourselves. I have said it myself in talking to others. I have said, "Well, I believe this because it feels right deep within me." Sounds good, and it may be. Or, on the other hand, it may not be. The problem with not having any individuality to what we believe is that our ways become mechanical, and they lose their emotion behind them. They become all external with no heart involved. So the debate becomes, how much of the external versus the internal should we follow? If we only follow the external, life can feel cold, feel legalistic. Although, if we only follow the internal, things can feel separated, possibly lonely even. This is the great balance, and it is one that I think is often a struggle within religious circles.

       Ammann’s strong belief in shunning no doubt was a cause for serious concern among the folks who knew him, who were part of his church. As a matter of fact, they had already been facing a lot of persecution from the outside, as we all know. It wasn’t easy being an Anabaptist in Switzerland at the time. The State government was quick to pursue them, imprisoning them or even worse. Many paid with their own lives for what they believed. So, while the outside persecution was strong, certainly people didn’t want any kind of persecution going on to inside the church. They wanted at least their church group to enjoy peace within it. So, from that perspective, it is easy to see how some might have reacted to the views of Ammann.

       Ammann’s new idea of judging those within the body of believers was tricky business. At least that’s what some thought, like his arch rival Hans Reist. It was Reist himself who was banned from Ammann’s group and would often find himself disagreeing with the man. I mean, think about it. How does one decide who really has a right heart? Or how does one decide if a person is actually even following the Bible? Certainly it’s obvious with the bigger things—like leading a moral life. But the medium and smaller things it certainly would be difficult to tell for sure. Yet, Ammann had set the bar high. And unfortunately, that standard seemed to be the way ‘he’ saw things, and not necessarily a way that was clear cut to everyone. That’s what caused the waves.

       But it wasn’t only heart issues, but Ammann believed in physical separation, in external rules, from the rest of the world. Indeed, this was a key part of the manner in which Ammann conducted things and it has lasted until this day. Why, it is a core fundamental to the Amish way of life. Separation from the world. A distinction. External rules are necessary to keep oneself pure and to avoid the world. In considering it, really, it is true, and it makes good sense, that boundaries do help with life. They can make it easier. I mean, children usually follow boundaries with various situations when growing up, right? Of course. Well, The Amish just take that kind of idea to the adult level. Boundaries make things easier. They protect. Restricted areas make it so one isn’t required to think.

       Let’s consider this for a moment. In modern times, no cars, for instance, means that the Amish person doesn’t have to wonder about what kind of car to buy. Instead, a buggy is purchased. And with a buggy, there aren’t different models really. Yeah, there may be additional options one can purchase, such as different kinds of lights or whatever color of material on the inside. But, truth be told, at the end of the day, they are all pretty similar. That makes things easier. The same could be said for clothes. Since the same type of clothes are worn most of the time, a person in actuality only needs to focus more on the color of the clothes versus the actual styling behind this or that fashion. Again, simpler.

       Then there is that whole ‘looking’ different from the world thing that happens. Because there are buggies, or because there is a distinguished look with the clothing, The Amish then are set apart. It is just like Jakob Amman would have wanted, they are not like the rest of society. Their look begets a note of separation, a people set apart for God and with Heaven held in mind. They aren’t focused so much on this current life. This world is the place where they pass through to get to the other side, the true side, the eternal side, where they will dwell forever with Jesus. That is what is held in mind. It is as the New Testament commands them.

       What is interesting as pertains this whole concept of being separate from the world is that it had to be the case, back then, during the time of Ammann and afterwards, that The Amish really didn’t seem all the different from the rest of the society. I mean, was there clothing truly that dissimilar? Perhaps a little. But since everyone generally believed in more conservative values, in a more conservative way of life, then it just seems to me that they wouldn’t have stuck out as much. Conceivably, it was difficult for them to stand out, to be set apart. Though, certainly they were, at least in their minds. Perchance the worldly individuals of that time saw the slight differences in their clothing and whatnot and it was a bigger deal back then. Appears that might have been the case.

       Yet (and this may be hard for some to accept—I found it hard to believe myself), the governments at the time would have laws with respect to how clothing should be for citizens. That is, it was depending on one’s class what one should wear, and this was decided by the government believe it or not. Undoubtedly, The Amish would have strove to be in the bottom class, and perhaps possibly took things a step further than the normal in having a humbler appearance than even those in the bottom class. Probably the approach. Since Jakob Ammann was a tailor by trade (yes, that’s correct), it was in the prime spot to water down those already watered down styles. And it seems reasonable to assume that he did just that. To what degree, though, it is hard to say.

       We can see then where the idea came from, since it came from the beginning, of The Amish having a more modest appearance than the rest of those in society. And, not to be forgotten, it was a Biblical command (both for the men and for the women). Since they took, and still do take, the Bible literally and seriously, it’s no wonder that the clothing differences and even the variances in other areas (such as transportation nowadays) are present. It is quite amazing, when one stops and thinks about it, that they choose to be so different. While some people may stop and ask the question of why, at the same time, it does show that they are committed to their way of life, to what they believe, and they are unashamed to show that before the world. Besides, they believe it is pleasing to the Creator, and with that, really, it is good enough.

       We can see, then, where what we see today from The Amish has come from. I think now we possess a better understanding of how the beginnings of what the one man believed, Jakob Ammann, have brought us to where we are today. So, whether it is attitudes dealing with life, such as suffering and purity, or whether it is external practices, as in wearing certain clothes or driving a buggy, we see why things are the way they are, at least to some degree. So I believe we can appreciate the plain people’s way even more having some background understanding. We don’t need to wonder as much to why things appear as they do when we see them. Rather, we can know there is a whole history to be understood, and in that, we can appreciate their ways all the more.

- Daniel Litton

To comment on this post, tap here to go to the comments page.