The Meeting House, or Lack Thereof
Friday, October 09, 2020
What I want to consider today is actually the lack of the use of meeting houses among the Amish—the lack of church buildings. From a religious standpoint, this is one of their distinct differences, really, one of their standout differences versus the English (everyone else). We English, for the most part, use church buildings to meet and worship in every Sunday. These stand-alone buildings are what we call “church.” And, I would say, for the most part, they aren’t used most of the rest of the week. Though, it certainly depends on the denomination and size of the church body.
For my whole life, I have attended church somewhere. When I was a child, for instance, it was an old church building from the 1800s. Actually, two from the 1800s because I went to two different churches growing up. Anyhow, one of them was particularly gothic or churchy I guess you would say, and had the typical feel of a church from that era. The gold, shiny organ pipes aligned the back wall behind the pulpit. Lots of hand-carved woodwork. I really felt at church, but then I really didn’t know a whole lot of difference did I, as a young child?
Then when one learns how the Amish do church, why, that is quite a different experience altogether. Yes indeed. The most notable thing is that they don’t even have a ‘church,’ or church building. They meet every other week in each others homes. A lot of times that constitutes meeting inside the house—the different rooms on the first floor. At other times, like say when the weather is good and permissible for it, they might meet in one of the barns. Those wooden, backless benches are transported to where church will be held on the particular Sunday.
But then, “How do so many people fit in a house? How many people are there in the first place?” Good questions. Well, actually, my understanding is that the Amish are divided into church districts, and within a given district, there are multiple families. That being the case, I think there can be upwards of some 150 people in a single district, and somehow they make it all work. Somehow all the people fit where they are going. What this means, though, is that everyone knows everyone, and the children grow up with the other children. Everyone is close nit.
So, the district is determined in proportion to where a family or person lives. It is based on proximity. That’s a good thing I think. It means in a lot of cases there isn’t great travel. Us English can choose to go to church wherever we so decide, however far we want to travel. It’s not that way with the Amish. Furthermore, we get to pick a denomination that matches our beliefs or one of which we like the people or like the building (whatever the case). It is customized to how we want it to be, to what closely matches our personal taste and desire. With the Amish, that isn’t their focus at all.
We know that the Amish frown upon the meeting house. They see it as becoming too liberal. In fact, once a group of believers decides to erect a meeting house, that is said to be the sure sign of the beginning of the end. Their close cousins, the Mennonites, have meeting houses. So, I suppose that when an Amish person feels he or she is in need of one, they want to be looking toward the Mennonite way. Besides, if a group of Amish start using a meeting house, for the most part they will be kicked out of fellowship anyway. I understand the Amish do use their school-houses for Sunday school like during the summer months in some instances, but that’s a whole ‘nother topic altogether.
What do the Amish do at church? Well, surprisingly, or perhaps not so, it is similar to that of an English church service from my understanding (I haven’t yet been to one of their services; guess I’ll have to be invited someday). They sing. But this just isn’t any singing, this is a slow chant-like singing. It’s this way because they didn’t want to sing fast long ago when this was established because the outsiders sang fast. I believe this was determined to be this way when they were still in Europe. Nevertheless, they sing faster I guess at the youth singings on Sunday evenings, which are held at the same residence that the morning service was held.
After singing for a while (perhaps 45 minutes or something like that), they have a couple sermons from a couple different ministers. And realize that all this is in Pennsylvania Dutch, their native language. Yup, the services are in their own language. As an aside, this is one of the hurdles, perhaps the biggest hurdle for some, in actually trying to join the Amish from the outside. Personally, I watched several lectures on learning the language from a YouTube channel from a guy who teaches it (his name is Douglas Madenford). And honestly, it wasn’t that hard. Didn’t seem too hard at all to learn. I was pretty surprised. Guder daag. Ich bin zimmlich gut.
All of this is followed by more singing, and then announcements I believe. At any rate, after that they fellowship and perhaps have a meal. I think it varies depending on the sect, weather, or perhaps other factors. At the end of the day, I don’t see a whole lot of difference from the generalized English way of doing things.
Getting back on track, in discussing the lack of the meeting house, yes, that is I think the biggest difference (besides the language obviously) when it comes to the services. What is interesting is that I think as we travel further into the twenty-first century, this idea sounds more and more appealing. I mean, that lack of a church building. For one, it definitely would save the ‘church’ body of people a lot of money, right? No building to maintain, run, and all of that. People would be closer because people would visit each others’ homes. Not exactly sure how this would work going about it an English way, but I think it could.
Let’s stop for a moment and consider another modern change from which we can observe and learn. Think about the transition from the use of taxis to the use of services like Uber and Lyft. Before, with taxis there were companies that operated and owned the taxi cars that would go about the city and give people rides. Now, with Uber and Lyft, there isn’t a centralized building in every town where they operate, and from where they dispatch their own cars. Rather, people work for them independently, and after becoming certified, drive their ‘own’ cars to give people rides. Sounds similar to me to how the Amish go about church, and it could be a way the English may want to start imitating.
An obvious advantage to this is saving all that money. Let’s be real. It has to cost a lot to build a church building, then operate it and pay all the bills. It’s just like a house for a regular person but on a much larger scale. Big bills. Upkeep. And then think of the fact that giving has to be going down more and more these days, as, at least for traditional denominations, attendance from younger people has been dropping in a lot of places. This is no secret. And certainly, in view of that, giving has to be less and less from younger people. It is my personal belief that traditional (old school; old fashioned) church is on the decline and will continue on the decline throughout the rest of this century. Traditional church may experience the same fate as the newspapers.
The second advantage is the people would be closer to each other. Let’s face it, when going to the regular church building on Sunday mornings, I usually don’t get to talk to as many people as I would like to. I usually don’t experience the ‘fellowship’ (to use a churchy word) as much as I want to. And then everyone leaves and goes home. And unless we have personal connection with that person, we don’t see them until the next Sunday. By chance, we might see them at a Bible study later in the week, which, interestingly enough, is almost never in the church sanctuary! Though, sometimes they are located on the church premises. More often than not, though, I think they are at someone’s home. So why not have the whole entire church at people’s homes?
“You can’t do that,” someone will say because of strangers, because of first-timers. Good point. I’ll give you that to some degree. That could be an issue (plus the comfortability factor for some people). But, let’s be real, how many newcomers come to church these days? I suppose some do. Anyway, there has to be a workaround. There has to be a way to get new people to come. Perhaps it’s holding a ‘public’ church service every quarter, or so, like at a park or something. I don’t know. I’m just making this up as I type. That thought just came to my head. Of course, current members can invite people they know.
Let’s think about this, though. When the Amish meet, like I said, they can have upwards of say like 150 people at one residence. (I obviously don’t think this would work for most of us English, that is, that many people over; there’d have to be multiple gatherings depending on the size of the church). Anyway, it being the case that there would be a fair share of people at the residence, there’s plenty of people there for a newcomer not to feel awkward or for the church people to feel awkward. I understand that the Amish have an area of guests in their services. I think they are seated near the ministers. So, perhaps that same model could be followed in the new-age English way. Perhaps the newcomers could be seated next to the leaders so that everyone knows who is ‘new.’ To the newcomer themselves, all of it is new, so I don’t see why it would matter that much.
A third advantage, for churches who are into this, is accountability. I mean, that’s one of the reasons I think the Amish do things this way. It keeps people in the community responsible to the Amish way of doing things. You can’t have a radio in your living room. I suppose you could hide it, but the point is it keeps people accountable on the big things. And this would work, I suppose to some degree, for English churches. You can’t have inappropriate posters hanging up in your living room, right? No fridge full of alcohol. Anyway, it would keep the English people hospitable for sure.
In any case, I get tired of driving by churches during the week and seeing the empty parking lots with nothing going on. It seems like such a waste. You have these nice buildings in a lot of cases and they just sit there most of the time. It would be like having a vacation home in Florida (I am sitting in Florida right now as I write this), and only going to it 104 hours out of the year. Seems like a waste. Doesn’t seem cost-effective. "Where do you get 104 hours?” someone might ask. Well, let’s think about it. Assuming someone goes to church every week of the year, there are 52 weeks that they go. Now, let’s say on average they are at church two hours every week (that’s being generous). So, in that case, that would mean 104 hours are spent at church by a person every year. Does that warrant having an entire building dedicated to church use? Again, I know, some use them throughout the week, but many do not.
Would you buy a home in Florida that you knew you were only going to visit 104 hours a year? Probably not, unless it was strictly for investment purposes. Even if one was to go to it 52 days a year, still yet, a lot of people wouldn’t purchase the home, though more undoubtedly would. In that case, it’s being used, what, about seven and a half weeks? That’s better, but still some wouldn’t like it. I just don’t know if it makes sense, especially for the bigger, more grandiose church buildings. Does it make sense?
Oh, but I can hear people now, “You are ignoring one of the most popular things about church these days. And that is the music!” Lol, I guess it’s true. At least that’s been my observation. It was John Lennon that said the Beatles were more popular than Jesus Christ. That didn’t go over well I understand. Well, the same appears to be the belief with some in regard to music in church. For some, it seems that music is more important than anything. Or, may I say, the drama or excitement of it. Besides the building itself, it’s where all the money has been spent, right, on the sound system and instruments? I could be wrong. I don’t want to go too far with this, because, admittedly, I enjoy good music at church myself. And, really, it’s all in the talent correct?
As I like church music, I don’t go to church singularly to listen to the music. I like to sing, and I do partly go to church to sing. That can be done without the use of a fancy or high-dollar sound system, right? I think music could be accomplished in homes for the English in the same way it is accomplished for the Amish. The carry-along instruments are often high-dollar anyway. And again, it’s in the talent of the one playing or singing. So, I think the experience would still be good. Don’t see why not. Some people, maybe millennials, would be particularly disheartened at this, but they (we) can still hold concerts. There could be stand-alone opportunities to show off the musical talents.
All this being said, I think it is becoming apparent that a workaround is possible for the English churches. I have to say, personally, I think the Amish are really onto something here. I think the way they meet is a praiseworthy model. Granted, their entire communities are based in their religion, and I understand that. Though, I think it can be done for the English too, for those who obviously would want to be a part of it. There would be a big difference in that we would still retain our individualism. It would be sort of the ‘collective way’ meeting up with the ‘individualistic way.’ There has to be churches that already do this. I’m sure there are, though, I am not aware of any.
Shifting gears here a little bit, what if the Amish did their services in English? That would surely tear down one of the major barriers for people who might possibly want to join from the outside. Though, I think the language is obviously used in a way so as to be different from the outside world. The use of the language makes it distinct. It shows who they are. It would be nice, though, if they did use English. I’m sure there could be a sect or two or a district or two who does. This change would tear down a barrier, anyway, and allow people to more seriously consider the lifestyle. But this distinction in language then is also torn down.
So, all of this being said, in looking at the Amish way of gathering versus the English way, let me sum things up. I like the ‘experience’ of going to church for sure, with the service involving the music and the order and the preacher. But, I do wish there was a deeper human interaction. The Amish family ties surely has a leg up on this one, and it’s one I’m not sure the English can currently compete with, at least on Sunday morning right now. Aren’t, we, the English, really being outdone by the Amish in this area who have done it this way for hundreds of years? So, let us pay attention, and learn, that even though we may think we are more advanced in our practice of church, are we really?
- Daniel Litton
To comment on this post, tap here to go to the comments page.
For my whole life, I have attended church somewhere. When I was a child, for instance, it was an old church building from the 1800s. Actually, two from the 1800s because I went to two different churches growing up. Anyhow, one of them was particularly gothic or churchy I guess you would say, and had the typical feel of a church from that era. The gold, shiny organ pipes aligned the back wall behind the pulpit. Lots of hand-carved woodwork. I really felt at church, but then I really didn’t know a whole lot of difference did I, as a young child?
Then when one learns how the Amish do church, why, that is quite a different experience altogether. Yes indeed. The most notable thing is that they don’t even have a ‘church,’ or church building. They meet every other week in each others homes. A lot of times that constitutes meeting inside the house—the different rooms on the first floor. At other times, like say when the weather is good and permissible for it, they might meet in one of the barns. Those wooden, backless benches are transported to where church will be held on the particular Sunday.
But then, “How do so many people fit in a house? How many people are there in the first place?” Good questions. Well, actually, my understanding is that the Amish are divided into church districts, and within a given district, there are multiple families. That being the case, I think there can be upwards of some 150 people in a single district, and somehow they make it all work. Somehow all the people fit where they are going. What this means, though, is that everyone knows everyone, and the children grow up with the other children. Everyone is close nit.
So, the district is determined in proportion to where a family or person lives. It is based on proximity. That’s a good thing I think. It means in a lot of cases there isn’t great travel. Us English can choose to go to church wherever we so decide, however far we want to travel. It’s not that way with the Amish. Furthermore, we get to pick a denomination that matches our beliefs or one of which we like the people or like the building (whatever the case). It is customized to how we want it to be, to what closely matches our personal taste and desire. With the Amish, that isn’t their focus at all.
We know that the Amish frown upon the meeting house. They see it as becoming too liberal. In fact, once a group of believers decides to erect a meeting house, that is said to be the sure sign of the beginning of the end. Their close cousins, the Mennonites, have meeting houses. So, I suppose that when an Amish person feels he or she is in need of one, they want to be looking toward the Mennonite way. Besides, if a group of Amish start using a meeting house, for the most part they will be kicked out of fellowship anyway. I understand the Amish do use their school-houses for Sunday school like during the summer months in some instances, but that’s a whole ‘nother topic altogether.
What do the Amish do at church? Well, surprisingly, or perhaps not so, it is similar to that of an English church service from my understanding (I haven’t yet been to one of their services; guess I’ll have to be invited someday). They sing. But this just isn’t any singing, this is a slow chant-like singing. It’s this way because they didn’t want to sing fast long ago when this was established because the outsiders sang fast. I believe this was determined to be this way when they were still in Europe. Nevertheless, they sing faster I guess at the youth singings on Sunday evenings, which are held at the same residence that the morning service was held.
After singing for a while (perhaps 45 minutes or something like that), they have a couple sermons from a couple different ministers. And realize that all this is in Pennsylvania Dutch, their native language. Yup, the services are in their own language. As an aside, this is one of the hurdles, perhaps the biggest hurdle for some, in actually trying to join the Amish from the outside. Personally, I watched several lectures on learning the language from a YouTube channel from a guy who teaches it (his name is Douglas Madenford). And honestly, it wasn’t that hard. Didn’t seem too hard at all to learn. I was pretty surprised. Guder daag. Ich bin zimmlich gut.
All of this is followed by more singing, and then announcements I believe. At any rate, after that they fellowship and perhaps have a meal. I think it varies depending on the sect, weather, or perhaps other factors. At the end of the day, I don’t see a whole lot of difference from the generalized English way of doing things.
Getting back on track, in discussing the lack of the meeting house, yes, that is I think the biggest difference (besides the language obviously) when it comes to the services. What is interesting is that I think as we travel further into the twenty-first century, this idea sounds more and more appealing. I mean, that lack of a church building. For one, it definitely would save the ‘church’ body of people a lot of money, right? No building to maintain, run, and all of that. People would be closer because people would visit each others’ homes. Not exactly sure how this would work going about it an English way, but I think it could.
Let’s stop for a moment and consider another modern change from which we can observe and learn. Think about the transition from the use of taxis to the use of services like Uber and Lyft. Before, with taxis there were companies that operated and owned the taxi cars that would go about the city and give people rides. Now, with Uber and Lyft, there isn’t a centralized building in every town where they operate, and from where they dispatch their own cars. Rather, people work for them independently, and after becoming certified, drive their ‘own’ cars to give people rides. Sounds similar to me to how the Amish go about church, and it could be a way the English may want to start imitating.
An obvious advantage to this is saving all that money. Let’s be real. It has to cost a lot to build a church building, then operate it and pay all the bills. It’s just like a house for a regular person but on a much larger scale. Big bills. Upkeep. And then think of the fact that giving has to be going down more and more these days, as, at least for traditional denominations, attendance from younger people has been dropping in a lot of places. This is no secret. And certainly, in view of that, giving has to be less and less from younger people. It is my personal belief that traditional (old school; old fashioned) church is on the decline and will continue on the decline throughout the rest of this century. Traditional church may experience the same fate as the newspapers.
The second advantage is the people would be closer to each other. Let’s face it, when going to the regular church building on Sunday mornings, I usually don’t get to talk to as many people as I would like to. I usually don’t experience the ‘fellowship’ (to use a churchy word) as much as I want to. And then everyone leaves and goes home. And unless we have personal connection with that person, we don’t see them until the next Sunday. By chance, we might see them at a Bible study later in the week, which, interestingly enough, is almost never in the church sanctuary! Though, sometimes they are located on the church premises. More often than not, though, I think they are at someone’s home. So why not have the whole entire church at people’s homes?
“You can’t do that,” someone will say because of strangers, because of first-timers. Good point. I’ll give you that to some degree. That could be an issue (plus the comfortability factor for some people). But, let’s be real, how many newcomers come to church these days? I suppose some do. Anyway, there has to be a workaround. There has to be a way to get new people to come. Perhaps it’s holding a ‘public’ church service every quarter, or so, like at a park or something. I don’t know. I’m just making this up as I type. That thought just came to my head. Of course, current members can invite people they know.
Let’s think about this, though. When the Amish meet, like I said, they can have upwards of say like 150 people at one residence. (I obviously don’t think this would work for most of us English, that is, that many people over; there’d have to be multiple gatherings depending on the size of the church). Anyway, it being the case that there would be a fair share of people at the residence, there’s plenty of people there for a newcomer not to feel awkward or for the church people to feel awkward. I understand that the Amish have an area of guests in their services. I think they are seated near the ministers. So, perhaps that same model could be followed in the new-age English way. Perhaps the newcomers could be seated next to the leaders so that everyone knows who is ‘new.’ To the newcomer themselves, all of it is new, so I don’t see why it would matter that much.
A third advantage, for churches who are into this, is accountability. I mean, that’s one of the reasons I think the Amish do things this way. It keeps people in the community responsible to the Amish way of doing things. You can’t have a radio in your living room. I suppose you could hide it, but the point is it keeps people accountable on the big things. And this would work, I suppose to some degree, for English churches. You can’t have inappropriate posters hanging up in your living room, right? No fridge full of alcohol. Anyway, it would keep the English people hospitable for sure.
In any case, I get tired of driving by churches during the week and seeing the empty parking lots with nothing going on. It seems like such a waste. You have these nice buildings in a lot of cases and they just sit there most of the time. It would be like having a vacation home in Florida (I am sitting in Florida right now as I write this), and only going to it 104 hours out of the year. Seems like a waste. Doesn’t seem cost-effective. "Where do you get 104 hours?” someone might ask. Well, let’s think about it. Assuming someone goes to church every week of the year, there are 52 weeks that they go. Now, let’s say on average they are at church two hours every week (that’s being generous). So, in that case, that would mean 104 hours are spent at church by a person every year. Does that warrant having an entire building dedicated to church use? Again, I know, some use them throughout the week, but many do not.
Would you buy a home in Florida that you knew you were only going to visit 104 hours a year? Probably not, unless it was strictly for investment purposes. Even if one was to go to it 52 days a year, still yet, a lot of people wouldn’t purchase the home, though more undoubtedly would. In that case, it’s being used, what, about seven and a half weeks? That’s better, but still some wouldn’t like it. I just don’t know if it makes sense, especially for the bigger, more grandiose church buildings. Does it make sense?
Oh, but I can hear people now, “You are ignoring one of the most popular things about church these days. And that is the music!” Lol, I guess it’s true. At least that’s been my observation. It was John Lennon that said the Beatles were more popular than Jesus Christ. That didn’t go over well I understand. Well, the same appears to be the belief with some in regard to music in church. For some, it seems that music is more important than anything. Or, may I say, the drama or excitement of it. Besides the building itself, it’s where all the money has been spent, right, on the sound system and instruments? I could be wrong. I don’t want to go too far with this, because, admittedly, I enjoy good music at church myself. And, really, it’s all in the talent correct?
As I like church music, I don’t go to church singularly to listen to the music. I like to sing, and I do partly go to church to sing. That can be done without the use of a fancy or high-dollar sound system, right? I think music could be accomplished in homes for the English in the same way it is accomplished for the Amish. The carry-along instruments are often high-dollar anyway. And again, it’s in the talent of the one playing or singing. So, I think the experience would still be good. Don’t see why not. Some people, maybe millennials, would be particularly disheartened at this, but they (we) can still hold concerts. There could be stand-alone opportunities to show off the musical talents.
All this being said, I think it is becoming apparent that a workaround is possible for the English churches. I have to say, personally, I think the Amish are really onto something here. I think the way they meet is a praiseworthy model. Granted, their entire communities are based in their religion, and I understand that. Though, I think it can be done for the English too, for those who obviously would want to be a part of it. There would be a big difference in that we would still retain our individualism. It would be sort of the ‘collective way’ meeting up with the ‘individualistic way.’ There has to be churches that already do this. I’m sure there are, though, I am not aware of any.
Shifting gears here a little bit, what if the Amish did their services in English? That would surely tear down one of the major barriers for people who might possibly want to join from the outside. Though, I think the language is obviously used in a way so as to be different from the outside world. The use of the language makes it distinct. It shows who they are. It would be nice, though, if they did use English. I’m sure there could be a sect or two or a district or two who does. This change would tear down a barrier, anyway, and allow people to more seriously consider the lifestyle. But this distinction in language then is also torn down.
So, all of this being said, in looking at the Amish way of gathering versus the English way, let me sum things up. I like the ‘experience’ of going to church for sure, with the service involving the music and the order and the preacher. But, I do wish there was a deeper human interaction. The Amish family ties surely has a leg up on this one, and it’s one I’m not sure the English can currently compete with, at least on Sunday morning right now. Aren’t, we, the English, really being outdone by the Amish in this area who have done it this way for hundreds of years? So, let us pay attention, and learn, that even though we may think we are more advanced in our practice of church, are we really?
- Daniel Litton
To comment on this post, tap here to go to the comments page.