No. 12. >> We do not have an abundance of Mennonite folks in my neighborhoods. But we do have Amish living nearby. Should we be concerned about Amish non-conformity to the world? And is it true that while the Amish appear very strict and law oriented, they are in fact very forgiving of each other? I sometimes worry that Lutherans fail to understand the Amish and the Mennonites and because of that lack of understanding, Lutherans can become judgemental. >>DR. THOMAS E. MANTEUFEL: Well, first of all, we should point out that while the Amish and the Mennonites are sometimes distinguished from each other, as a matter of fact, the Amish are one kind of Mennonites and they are sometimes called the Amish Mennonites. The Amish Mennonites have a piety which is highly committed to works of love and service and humility and contentment. And as just pointed out under the last question, they value the quiet, law abiding life. And that's true in general of all Mennonites. But the Amish are the most strict. The Mennonites are a peace church, calling for peace, and abhor in the horrors of war. Their ethic of non-conformity to the world is an endeavor to take seriously the biblical admonition to avoid worldliness. They remind us of Saint Paul's well known words: Be not conformed to this world. Romans 12:2. They know something of Saint John's rebuke of worldliness in which people love the world instead of loving God, which is really a form of idolatry. John says: Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man loves the world, a love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust or evil desire of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life, is not of the Father but of the world. That's I John 2:15 and 16. And the Mennonites also we should say are well known for their Mennonite disaster service, which is listed by the Federal government as one of the agencies who are qualified to help in times of disaster. So they are well known for social works of this kind. In all of which they are trying to avoid simple worldly attitudes. But the Mennonite rules and renunciations, practicing non-conformity to the world, often go beyond what Scripture forbids. The Mennonites don't agree themselves on how far to go in identifying things and practices as worldly. The most strict and extreme here are the Amish Mennonites as I said before. And there are degrees of austerity among the Mennonites here. And changes in concessions and inconsistencies come about, too. Electricity, automobiles, voting and public office often have been considered too worldly by Mennonites. The hook and eye Mennonites reject the use of buttons on suits and vests, fastening them with hooks and eyes. Simplicity in dress and in mode of life are other examples. Some time ago a Mennonite preacher wrote a hymn expressing certain restrictive attitudes at least held by some. And the hymn which the Mennonites sing in the churches goes like this: God's standard for his people has always been the same. A call to separation down through the ages came. He wants us to be holy. His challenge still is hurled. That his peculiar people be different from the world. He furthermore he declares that all godly women dress in modest, plain apparel, and thus his name confess. No gold or pearls for Christians, bobbed hair or painted face. No knee length skirts. We're different, redeemed by saving grace. Men, holy hands unstained by nicotine should lift. Rejecting neck ties, pins, rings and all such worldly drift. True Christians take no part in carnal warfare's murderous arts for Christ disarmed his soldiers and reigns within the heart. Our interests are quite different. No radios, TV. With those who walk in darkness, what concord can there be? In business, marriage, social life, unequal yokes beware. Come out and be you separate, the world of God declares. Now, in evaluating all of this, it has to be said that voluntary self denial for purposes of honoring good and pure things are commendable in themselves. There are examples in the Old Testament of fine self denials and renunciations for good purposes of serving the Lord, like the customs of the Nazarites and the Recabites. And in Romans 14 Saint Paul calls for toleration in different preferences with regard to such self denials. But false claims and demands should not be made by self denials and renunciations. For there is a biblical teaching of Christian liberty with regard to things which are neither commanded nor forbidden by the Lord. So Paul says in I Timothy 4 that it is wrong to forbid marriage and the eating of certain foods. And he teaches this as just one application of a general all-embracing principle. Namely, every creation of God is good. And nothing to be refused if it be received with Thanksgiving for it is sanctified by the Word of God. I Timothy 4:4 and 5. These morally neutral things can certainly be sin fully misused by the world and often are. But they can also be rightly used by good Christian faith and godly moderation. Christians who use them do not necessarily have an inferior piety because of that. And the Amish bishops or leaders are not applying the principle of Christian liberty when they impose restrictions upon the people of their churches with regard to such things. Now, often the Amish Mennonites will acknowledge that something they prohibit is not evil or worldly in itself. But they say that the prohibition is needed as a safeguard against worldly influences. And as a guideline that puts a lid on worldly developments. So technological advances that are rejected by the Amish are really not considered immoral. Owning a car, using tractors in the field, installing a telephone in one's home are not considered evils in and of themselves. The evil lies in what a new invention might lead to. Might lead to. The Amish ask: What will come next? Will other changes be triggered by this one? How will acceptance of a new practice affect the community's welfare over the years? Describing the taboo on the telephone, an Amish craftsman said: If we allow the telephone, that would just be a start. People would say: Okay. Now we'll push for this. And we'll push for that. It would be a move forward that might get the wheel rolling a little faster than we can control it, if you know what I mean. An Amish bishop noted: I might have a car and it wouldn't hurt any. But for the oncoming generation, you ought to be willing to sacrifice for them. So it's selective modernization that we often find. And there are some principles in Amish thinking that govern the changes and concessions to modernization that are sometimes made. For example, changes that produce economic benefits are more acceptable than those that do not. Making a living takes priority over pleasure, convenience or leisure. Thus, a motor on a hay mower in the field is more acceptable than one motor on a lawn mower. Visible changes are less acceptable than invisible ones. So using fiberglass in the construction of buggies is easier to introduce than changing the external color of the buggy itself. Working as a cook in the kitchen of a restaurant is more acceptable than working as a wait stress. Changes that threaten symbols of ethnic identity, horse, buggy, dress and so forth, are less acceptable than ones related to key symbols. Using a modern tractor in a shop is more acceptable than using a tractor in the field in obvious respect to horses. Jogging shoes are more acceptable than new hot styles because head gear for both men and women is a key identity symbol. Changes linked to profane symbols are less acceptable than those without such ties. Computers whose screens appear uncomfortably similar to those of televisions are rejected whereas gas, fired barbeque grills are acceptable. Changes that threaten sacred ritual are less acceptable than those unrelated to worship. Changing to non-farm work is more acceptable than changing the pattern of singing, baptism and worship. Changes with specified limits are more acceptable than open-ended ones. Hiring cars and other vehicles primarily for business on weekdays is more acceptable than hiring them any time for any purpose. Changes that encourage regular systematic interaction with outsiders are less acceptable than those that foster ethnic relationships. Working as a clerk in an Amish retail store is more acceptable than serving as a hostess in a public restaurant. A business partnership involving outsiders is less acceptable than one involving church members. Changes that open avenues of influence from modern life are less acceptable than those without such connections. Membership in public organizations and the use of radios, televisions and news magazines are less acceptable than subscriptions to ethnic newspapers. Changes that threaten family integration are less acceptable than those that support the family unit. Forms of work and technology that separate the family are less acceptable than changes that strengthen family interaction. So bicycles are less acceptable than tricycles for children. Decorative changes that attract attention are less acceptable than utilitarian ones. Landscaping a lawn is less acceptable than eating hotdogs. Changes that evaluate and accentuate individuals are less acceptable than those that promote social equality. Higher education, public recognition and commercial insurance are less acceptable than calculators and instant pudding. But none of this takes account of the principle of Christian liberty. That is what the Amish bishops and the leaders who give approval to such changes are really not paying much attention to. The Mennonite renunciation of oath taking and going to war and public office holding involve things that are allowed to God's people and that are endorsed by Bible teaching. Their reply to this point is that the endorsements involved are in the Old Testament. And that the New Testament of Christ's kingdom has a higher standard of morality that does not allow these things. So the Mennonites basic argument here is that the New Testament has a higher standard of morality than the Old Testament. That is to say there's a higher moral law in the New Testament than in the Old Testament. There is a preChristian ethic and then a definitely Christian ethic. Two moral laws within Scripture. So oaths and war and the like belong to the old preChristian standards. And, indeed, are sanctioned by the Old Testament for God's people that lived under it. If we use examples like those of Abraham and Moses taking oaths, for example, or fighting, they will say that these are part of that older ethic. The preChristian ethic is continued in the governments and political structures of this world. And they recognize that God has ordained government and the power of the sword and the preChristian ethic for the world in general. And the Mennonites do promote respect for government. That is respect by Christians for it. As long as it does not require them to disobey the new law of Christ's kingdom. They take this as the meaning of Romans 13. And they say that it calls for respect for the government and prayer for the government. And gratefulness for the protection and order that the government brings about. But the Sermon on the Mount and the New Testament teaching of Jesus show that he gives his people a higher moral standard than the Old Testament does. Christians are to live in Christ's kingdom of peace, love and humility and must not be involved in carrying out the work of the civil order. Where the preChristian ethic is still in effect. There are some questionable moral assertions being made here. First of all, the assertion that the moral standards of the New Testament and of Christ are not in continuity with the Old Testament moral standards. But in fact Jesus was not introducing a new moral law. In the Sermon on the Mount he masterfully was revealing the deepest spiritual implications of the Old Testament moral law. But in fact we know that love and the non-vengeful attitude of God's people are part of Old Testament teaching, also. Look at Leviticus 19 which says: Thou shalt not avenge. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. That ethic of love is already found in the Old Testament moral law. And Jesus says in the Sermon on the Mount: Do not think that I have come to destroy the law. Matthew 5:17. And there he discusses the Old Testament law. And as for oaths, there we see that oaths are also endorsed in the New Testament. Saint Paul uses an oath, that is an appeal to the name of God, to support his teaching. For example, in Galatians 1:20: Before God I lie not. So for important purposes, oaths are certainly useful, also according to the New Testament moral law. There is only one moral law. And to say that there are two moral laws in the Bible is really to say that God contradicts himself. There's another questionable assertion here. And that is that God has commanded and ordained certain things which are really contrary to his will. That in the Old Testament he sanctioned war and oaths in the preChristian ethic. But that in the higher ethic of Jesus, it is revealed that these things are always contrary to his will. And of course that's making God contradict himself. A third questionable assertion is that Christians can enjoy the benefits of civil government but cannot participate in carrying out its work and should not attempt to serve their neighbors by performing the duties of an office within civil government. This is saying that Christians are to thank God for the order that is provided by the civil power but must never take part in the use of arms and force necessary for preserving this order. But the real New Testament teaching is that these things are, indeed, available to Christians for their use in serving their neighbor, their fellow citizens. Romans 13 says to the New Testament Christian in Rome that the government is the minister or the servant of God to you for good. And it endorses the use of the sword for war and for punishment.