1. For readable introductions to the origins of the Anabaptist movement, see Dyck (1993), Klaassen (2001), Loewen and Nolt (1996), Snyder (1995), and Weaver (1987). The Mennonite Encyclopedia (1956) covers a wide range of topics related to Anabaptist roots and Amish beginnings.
2. J. E. Kauffman (1975:42).
3. An overview of the suffering and persecution is provided by Dyck (1993:110–13; 1985) and Schowalter (1957). Vivid descriptions of the persecution printed at the end of the Ausbund (1984) have been translated from the German by J. E. Kauffman (1975). The classic account of Christian martyrdom and suffering from New Testament times through the Anabaptist persecution was compiled by Braght (1985) in 1660 in the Martyrs Mirror.
4. For a discussion of the historical setting and the significance of the Schleitheim Confession of Faith, more properly called the Brotherly Union of a Number of Children of God Concerning Seven Articles, see J. H. Yoder (1973:34–43).
5. Bender (1957:29–54).
6. For a record of his writings, see Menno Simons (1956).
7. The term Mennist was first given to Dutch Anabaptist followers of Menno Simons. Eventually the name Mennonite was assumed by other Anabaptist groups as well. However, it was not widely used by the Swiss Anabaptists at the time of the Amish division in 1693.
8. Seguy (1973:182).
9. Hüppi (2000) provides a detailed description of Ammann. Helpful discussions of the identity and background of Jakob Ammann can be found in Baecher (2000), Furner (2000), and Hüppi (2000). The evidence provided by these scholars suggests that Jakob Ammann, a tailor by trade, converted to Anabaptism in 1679. He was probably 49 years old in 1693.
10. Numerous letters exchanged in the controversy have been preserved. They have been translated by Roth (1993), who provides an excellent overview of the issues surrounding the division. Helpful discussions of the context of the Amish division can also be found in Gross (1994), Guth (1995), J. A. Hostetler (1993:25–50), Luthy (1971a), Meyers (1996), Nolt (1992), Roth (1994), and E. Yoder (1987:43–58).
11. Leroy Beachey, in an unpublished paper and in personal conversation, has suggested that Ulrich Miller, an Anabaptist evangelist in the Oberland (highlands) area of Switzerland near Thun, converted many people to Anabaptism, including Jakob Ammann. Thus, Miller, according to Beachey, should be seen as the founder of the Amish movement. Moreover, the primary tension in Switzerland, according to Beachey, was between new converts in the Oberland, where Miller and Ammann lived, and the more traditional Swiss Brethren who lived in the Emmental Valley under the leadership of Hans Reist.
12. Steven M. Nolt (1992) has written the best overall history of the Amish, including their European origins, North American migration, settlement patterns, and growth in the New World.
13. Nolt (1992:56).
14. J. F. Beiler (1983:17–18). For a discussion of Amish immigration and early settlements, see J. F. Beiler (1976a, 1983); Crowley (1978); G. L. Fisher (1987); J. A. Hostetler (1993:54–72); MacMaster (1985:69–87); Nolt (1992); G. M. Stoltzfus (1954); E. S. Yoder (1987:60–68); and P. Yoder (1987a:286–90). A series of articles about the early Pennsylvania settlements by Amish historian Joseph F. Beiler appeared in The Diary in 1972 and 1974. Amish genealogist Amos L. Fisher’s (1984) work also provides information on the early settlements.
15. The Dunkards, formally known as Brethren, originated in Germany in 1708. The nickname Dunkard, based on their mode of baptism by immersion, eventually gave way to German Baptist Brethren in 1871. In 1908 they became the Church of the Brethren.
16. Statistics on Lancaster County’s agricultural production are available from the Agricultural Committee of the Lancaster Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
17. The Holmes County, Ohio, settlement is somewhat larger than the Lancaster community, but it is divided into various Amish subgroups or affiliations that do not share a common religious discipline. For an excellent (but dated) ethnography of Amish life based on the larger settlements in Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, see John A. Hostetler’s Amish Society (1993). See Kraybill (1994b) for a discussion of social change among four groups in the Holmes County settlement.
18. The age, size, and location of the Lancaster settlement have made it a target of numerous studies. For nineteenth-century descriptions of Amish life, see D. Beiler (1888), Gibbons (1869), Umble (1948), and P. Yoder (1979a). Twentieth-century analyses include Bachman (1961), Ericksen et al. (1979), Gallagher (1981), Getz (1946), portions of J. A. Hostetler (1993), Kollmorgen (1942, 1943), Loomis (1979), Loomis and Dyer (1976), and Smith (1961). Rice and Shenk (1947) and Rice and Steinmetz (1956) provide midcentury photographs and interpretations of the Lancaster settlement. The most recent scholarly study has been Tan’s (1998) dissertation, which focuses on social capital in Amish society.
19. The Hutterites emerged as a separate branch of Anabaptism in 1528. For a discussion of their origins, see J. A. Hostetler (1997) and Packull (1995). Today they live in communitarian groups in the western United States and in Canada. For a comparison of the Old Order Amish, Hutterites, Mennonites, and Brethren, see Kraybill and Bowman (2001).
20. J. A. Hostetler (1993:91–93).
21. A settlement may have one or several affiliations, and each affiliation may have one or numerous congregations. In the Lancaster Amish settlement the Old Order Amish, New Order Amish, and Beachy Amish represent three different affiliations.
22. The Amish do not maintain population statistics; however, estimates of their population can be calculated by multiplying the known size of church districts in some settlements by the total number of districts as reported by Raber (2001). Procedures for estimating the population of the Lancaster settlement are described in Appendix B. See Appendix C for North America and Pennsylvania population estimates.
23. I am grateful to C. Nelson Hostetter and Stephen Scott for assistance in identifying the various groups in Lancaster County. The adult membership of the six largest Anabaptist affiliations in Lancaster County include: the Lancaster Mennonite Conference (11,842), the Old Order Amish (9,234), the Church of the Brethren (7,884), the Brethren in Christ (3,117), the Groffdale Old Order Mennonite Conference (2,800), and the Weaverland Old Order Mennonite Conference (2,630).
24. These answers are reported in Ericksen et al. (1979). This comprehensive study of Amish fertility was conducted in the Lancaster Amish settlement. The authors report a completed family size of 6.8, which is quite similar to the 6.6 found in the Lancaster Settlement Profile 1986 and the 6.5 reported in the Lancaster Settlement Profile 2000, both of which are described in Appendix A.
25. The estimate of 90 percent is based on families in the ten-district sample of the Lancaster Settlement Profile 2000, described in Appendix A.
26. Although the Lancaster settlement and the total number of Amish throughout North America are growing, not all settlements prosper. For a discussion of Amish settlements that failed between 1840 and 1960, see Luthy (1986).
27. In the thirty-year period from 1970 to 1999, about 532 families migrated from the Lancaster settlement. Of these, 71 percent (N = 376) settled in other Pennsylvania counties, 12 percent (N = 62) went to Kentucky, 11 percent (N = 56) headed for Indiana, 5 percent (N = 25) settled in Wisconsin, and the remaining thirteen families were scattered in New York, Maryland, Virginia, Ohio, and West Virginia. These migration figures were tabulated from The Diary from 1970 to 2000. The totals for each year are shown in Figure 1.4.
28. Numerous analytic concepts have been employed to understand the social organization of Amish society. Typical conceptualizations view the Amish as a sect (Wilson 1970), a folk society, and a Gemeinschaft. J. A. Hostetler (1993) suggests that they have formed a “commonwealth” and exemplify a “high context” culture. Loomis and Dyer (1976) use a social systems model. Olshan (1981) has questioned the appropriateness of using the “folk society” model for conceptualizing Amish society. Tan (1998) interprets Amish society from a social capital perspective. All of these conceptual frameworks highlight different aspects of Amish social organization.
29. The sociological literature on modernization is voluminous. My conceptualization of it is indebted to the work of Peter L. Berger (1974, 1977, 1979) and Berger, Berger, and Kellner (1973). Berger’s work is anchored in the sociology of knowledge framework developed with Thomas Luckmann in The Social Construction of Reality (1966). For a more in-depth analysis of the Amish from a modernization perspective, see Kraybill (1994a).
30. Bellah et al. (1985).
31. I am grateful to Tay Keong Tan for introducing me to social capital as an analytical concept for understanding certain aspects of Amish society. Tan’s (1998) dissertation on the Lancaster settlement as well as the personal conversations I have had with him have helped to clarify my thinking. Bourdieu (1986), Coleman (1990), and others make a distinction between cultural capital (values, trust, beliefs) and social capital (networks and organizational structures). I have used both concepts throughout the text but have emphasized the social dimension. For an introduction to the literature on social capital, see Coleman (1988, 1990), Bourdieu (1986), Fukuyama (1995), Portes (1998), Putnam (2000), Tan (1998), and Woolcock (1998a, 1998b).
32. These tactics are an expansion and elaboration of the defensive structuring practices identified by Siegel (1970).
33. I use the image of negotiation in several ways. In some cases it refers to literal face-to-face bargaining between Amish representatives and government officials—for example, the development of Amish schools, zoning regulations, and the use of bulk tanks to refrigerate milk on farms. In other instances, implicit negotiations between the two cultural systems occur informally and quietly. Negotiation is also a way of understanding controlled and selective social change when some aspects of a new technology are accepted but others are not. For example, using permanent-press fabrics to make traditional Amish clothing is one of many examples of implicitly negotiated cultural agreements. Finally, I also use the metaphor in a symbolic way to capture the dynamic dialogue between Amish life and contemporary culture. See Eaton (1952) for a discussion of controlled acculturation among the Hutterites.
34. These progressive factions eventually affiliated with mainstream Mennonites in the twentieth century: the Conestoga Mennonite Church and the Millwood Mennonite Church. A national series of Amish Ministers’ Meetings were held between 1862 and 1878. This was a time of great ferment in Amish communities, especially in the Midwest. Over the course of the consultations, many progressive-minded Amish leaders and their congregations separated from the main Amish body and became known as Amish Mennonites and eventually became Mennonites. The Amish that held to more traditional practices became known as Old Order Amish. Except for a few participants, the Lancaster Amish were largely uninvolved and untouched by this major upheaval. The story of the national Amish ministers meetings as well as the involvement of Lancaster minister “Tennessee” John Stoltzfus is told by Paton Yoder (1979a, 1979b, 1987a, 1991) and Yoder and Estes (1999).
35. This group has had various names at different stages of its evolution, which is discussed in Chapter 8, note 6. For clarity, I have used the term Peachey church when referring to this progressive group.
36. An account of this division, told from the New Order perspective, can be found in the New Order Amish Directory (1999:127).
1. The literature on Amish quilts is voluminous. Helpful introductions to the world of Amish quilts can be found in Granick (1989); Kraybill, Herr, and Holstein (1996); and Pellman and Pellman (1984).
2. Gordonville (Pa.) scribe Sam Stoltzfus, in The Diary, March 1999, 21.
3. Known as the Dordrecht Confession of Faith, the statement contains eighteen articles. It was signed by Flemish and Frisian Mennonite pastors in the Dutch city of Dordrecht in 1632. Although many Mennonite groups over the years have adhered to the Dordrecht Confession in principle, the Amish have attempted to follow its teachings literally, especially in regard to shunning and footwashing. It is used for Amish instruction classes prior to baptism. The Swiss Brethren never adopted the Dordrecht Confession, which was likely a source of difference between the various factions of Alsatian and Swiss Anabaptists during the division of 1693. For a discussion of the Dordrecht Confession, see Mennonite Encyclopedia (1956), vol. 2, s.v. “Dordrecht Confession of Faith,” and Mennonite Encyclopedia (1956), vol. 1, s.v. “Confessions of Faith.” Horst (1982, 1988) and Studer (1984) provide updates on the significance of the Dordrecht Confession. A German and English version of the confession used by the Amish appears in In Meiner Jugend (2000).
John Oyer (1996) provides a helpful overview of Amish theology. In 1992, Pathway Publishers, an Amish Press in Aylmer, Canada, revised Mennonite Daniel Kauffman’s One Thousand Questions and Answers on Points of Christian Doctrine as One Thousand and One Questions and Answers on the Christian Life. It includes revisions as well as new material, providing Amish doctrine in question-and-answer format on a variety of topics. Such a rational presentation of Amish views is rare in this oral-based, traditional culture.
4. I am indebted to the insights of Bourdieu (1977) as well as conversations with David Swartz (1997), who has synthesized much of Bourdieu’s work, for understanding Gelassenheit as a master disposition in Amish life. In Bourdieu’s terms Gelassenheit is habitus—a habit-forming, transposable disposition that blends perceptions and action, sentiment, and social structure together. Habitus—in our case, Gelassenheit—is a deeply structured cultural grammar for action. As a disposition, it has both structure and propensity that are shaped by early socialization toward action. For another example of the use of Bourdieu’s concepts to interpret Amish society, see Reschly’s (2000) historical study of the Amish in Iowa.
5. I am grateful to Steven M. Nolt for insight into this important distinction.
6. Friedmann (1956:448–49; 1957:86–88; 1973:66, 124) surveys the Anabaptist use of the term. Cronk’s (1977) analysis of Gelassenheit as a redemptive rite in Old Order Amish and Old Order Mennonite communities has influenced my conceptual framework. I am greatly indebted to her work. In a letter to Donald B. Kraybill dated 24 September 1987, Amishman David Luthy noted: “Concerning Gelassenheit, I realize the Amish are not familiar with the term . . . but the Amish are familiar very much with the concept. Your use of it is valid and essential.” The explicit use of the word Gelassenheit is more pronounced in Hutterite writings and literature.
7. J. A. Hostetler (1993:387–93) offers an excellent analysis of the importance of silence in Amish discourse. Silence is one way of expressing Gelassenheit.
8. Petition (1937).
9. Cigars of various sorts and pipes are commonly smoked; however, smoking has declined in recent years. Commercial cigarettes in white wrappers are frowned on as “worldly.” Hand-rolled cigarettes in brown wrappers are sometimes used. Tobacco production is dwindling for economic reasons as well as religious convictions.
10. Rules of a Godly Life (1983:17).
11. Guidelines (1981:64).
12. See Bellah et al. (1985:55–84) for a discussion of the modern preoccupation with finding oneself.
13. Instruction (n.d.:16).
14. M. R. Smucker (1988:226–29).
15. J. A. Hostetler (1969:227). For a review of the psychological research on Amish personality types, see Smucker (1988). J. A. Hostetler (1969) reports findings from a variety of personality tests administered to Amish school children in several settlements. An excellent study of the socialization of Amish children is available in Hostetler and Huntington (1992).
16. Instruction (n.d.:8–11).
17. Guidelines (1981:50). For a collection of source materials used by the Old Order Amish in child rearing and schooling, see J. A. Hostetler (1968).
18. Instruction (n.d.:9).
19. For an extended discussion of Old Order understandings of salvation, see Kraybill and Bowman (2001).
20. Dordrecht (1976:12, 14).
21. Guidelines (1981:47).
22. Instruction (n.d.:7–13).
23. Instruction (n.d.:26).
24. Rules of a Godly Life (1983:26). In 1988 the Amish reprinted a Mennonite booklet, Pride and Humility, by Brenneman (1867). For a discussion of the role of humility in Amish and Mennonite culture in the nineteenth century, see Schlabach (1988).
25. There is a deeper reading of this taboo as well. Photography decontextualizes. It pulls images out of context and separates them from their immediate social setting. Photographic images are objective representations that encourage rational reflection and analysis from a distance. Wary of modernity, the Great Separator, the Amish taboo aims to keep people tightly tied to their social context.
For Amish perspectives on photographs when the taboo was evolving in the mid-nineteenth century, see the proceedings of the National Amish Ministers’ Meetings compiled by Yoder and Estes (1999). One minister noted that people are tempted to “send their pictures around” (Yoder and Estes 1999:220). Photography not only decontextualizes and separates the individual from a social context, but it also objectifies the individual by creating an object for study and reflection, which encourages a rational, analytical mindset. Instinctively, all of these issues threatened the deeply contextualized culture of Amish life and merited a taboo that was helpfully legitimated by Scripture in Exodus 20:4. For additional discussions of Amish concerns about “graven images,” see D. Lehman (1998) and M. Lehman (1993).
26. See, for example, 1 Tim. 2:9 and 1 Pet. 3:3–4.
27. Rules of a Godly Life (1983:7).
28. Dordrecht (1976:26).
29. One Thousand (1992:143–44).
30. J. H. Yoder (1973:38).
31. The Amish also believe that they are not to be “unequally yoked with the world” (2 Cor. 6:14). Moreover, Scripture teaches that they should be “equipped with the whole armor of God to stand and prevail in this strife torn world.” Other scriptures cited in support of separation include John 17:14, Luke 16:15, Titus 2:14. The church is called not to mingle with the world but to “be a light unto it” (Matt. 5:14).
32. Papers (1937).
33. Cronk (1977) makes this important point in her study of Gelassenheit.
34. Rules of a Godly Life (1983:25).
35. “Editorial” in Plain Communities Business Exchange, April 1995, 2.
36. Standards (1981:7).
37. Guidelines (1981:46).
38. Instruction (n.d.:5).
39. The work of two of them from the nineteenth century was recently recognized. The watercolors and other artwork of Amishman Henry Lapp (1862–1904) are an interesting example. Lapp had severe hearing and speech impediments, and thus church leaders may have granted him greater freedom to express his artistic impulses. A discussion of his life and work is recorded in The Diary (1982:14:329). Barbara Ebersol (1846–1922) made beautiful and colorful fraktur bookplates. Artistic lettering in a Bible was more acceptable than artwork framed for public display. Louise Stoltzfus (1995) provides an overview of the work of both Lapp and Ebersol. Luthy (1995) devotes a book to Barbara Ebersol’s life and art. For excellent overviews of the decorative arts of Lancaster’s Amish, see Herr (1998) and McCauley and McCauley (1988).
40. A self-trained artist found a ready market for her work in the 1990s.
41. Standards (1981:38–39).
42. Standards (1981:1).
43. For an analysis of time as a cultural product, see Gleick’s (1999) discussion of why everything is accelerating in contemporary culture.
44. Guidelines (1981:5).
45. In the first part of the twentieth century, it was customary for Amish families to set their clocks a half-hour ahead of standard time. This “fast half” time was a symbolic reminder of the boundaries between Amish life and modern culture. Very few families continue this practice today.
46. Whether the pace of Amish singing is torturously slow is surely a matter of cultural perspective. It will most likely feel that way to persons who are immersed in the fast pace of modern life. However, an ex-Amish person said, “I experienced the slow pace as uplifting and beautiful.”
47. Kraybill and Bowman (2001) develop a more formal definition of Old Order groups that emphasizes tradition (oldness), communal authority (order), and the church’s broad scope of control over many dimensions of life.
1. For an early discussion of the role of symbols in Amish culture, see J. A. Hostetler (1963).
2. D. Yoder (1997) discusses the origin and evolution of the dialect. Beam (1982) has produced an English–Pennsylvania German dictionary. A grammar of the dialect (Frey 1981) is available as well as a reader and grammar (Haag 1982). See Huffines (1988, 1993) on the Pennsylvania German dialect as well as other changes; and see Louden (1988, 1991a, 1991b, and 1993) and Rohrer (1974) for discussions of the influence of English.
3. The Diary (1977:9:30).
4. Although High German is the target language for Amish sacred ritual, in actual practice it is at best only approximated. The Martyrs Mirror, the Bible, and other sacred writings used by the Amish are written in the archaic German of Luther’s Bible. The spoken German in worship services is highly diluted with the dialect.
5. In Meiner Jugend, a devotional reader in German and English, was published by Pathway Publishers in 2000.
6. Recent research has confirmed that Jakob Ammann was a tailor and thus his occupational interests may have encouraged the Amish stress on dress (Hüppi 2000). In the late 1800s, various observers identified Plain dress and strict religious discipline as indicators of Amish identity (Wickersham 1886:168; Ellis and Evans 1883:343). As late as 1924, Klein (1924:368) described Amish dress in great detail and then merely noted, in passing, that the use of automobiles, electric lights, and telephones was considered worldly.
7. Stephen Scott (1986:4) makes the “on-duty” point. See his book for an overview of dress practices among conservative Anabaptist groups.
8. An exception that does cite specific scriptures is the section on dress in One Thousand (1992:129–37). This publication uses a variety of Bible verses to make the argument for distinctive dress and gives detailed rationale in the form of answers to specific questions. Such a rational use of Scripture and written apology for practices is not typical among most Amish, who simply see dress standards as an expression of traditional practice.
9. My description of Amish dress is indebted to Sara E. Fisher, who kindly shared an unpublished paper written in 1972 on women’s garb, and to Louise Stoltzfus, who drafted a careful summary of dress practices in 2000 related to gender, status, and Plainness. Melvin Gingerich (1970) traced the history of Amish-Mennonite attire through four centuries. The rise and fall of veil wearing among Mennonites in the Lancaster area is analyzed by Kraybill (1987b). Scott (1986) provides the best overall introduction to Amish dress.
10. As the Amish have moved into small towns and boroughs, the horse has created some zoning problems. A lengthy dispute between the borough council of Strasburg and two sisters who wanted to keep their horse in the village continued for several months in 1983. See Intelligencer (21 and 28 September 1983, and 12 October 1983) and New Era (13 and 14 September 1983, and 14 November 1983) for accounts of the dispute.
11. Letters to the editor, Intelligencer (6 July and 10 July 2000).
12. G. L. Fisher (1978:233).
13. For a study of energy conservation on Amish farms, see Johnson, Stoltzfus, and Craumer (1977).
14. A thorough description of the various types of horse-drawn transportation in several Amish and Mennonite settlements was written by Scott (1981).
15. Gibbons (1869:16) noted that at the end of the Civil War the Lancaster Amish were driving to their worship services in simple farm wagons covered with a yellowish oil cloth. The Amish did not begin using buggies as quickly as did other groups, and they were slow to adopt steel springs to cushion the load on their wagons. By 1880 Amish youth were beginning to drive simple buggies, and tarps in a variety of colors were being stretched over Amish wagons. While a few changes were underway, the Amish were nevertheless maintaining austere standards on their vehicles at the end of the nineteenth century. Whip socks (whip holders) and whips themselves were prohibited, likely to protest the speed symbolized by the dashing horse under whip. Whips are still forbidden. The early Amish buggy and wagon did not have an “easy back” (backrest) on the seat or a dashboard on the front to obstruct flying mud.
16. Although gray is the standard color for the carriage top in the Lancaster area, black, white, and even yellow tops are common in other Amish settlements.
17. The slow-moving vehicle signs were required by law and enforced in June 1977, see Intelligencer (30 June 1977). An editorial in the Intelligencer (22 August 1988) praised the Amish for using the reflective orange triangles on their buggies and concluded, “We doubt that God will look with disfavor on the Amish for using these symbols.”
18. Some Amish groups in other states have resisted the use of reflective triangles. Zook (1993) tells the story of these conflicts.
19. Because of the high demand for carriages, they typically must be ordered a year in advance. Carriage makers, in 2000, agreed on standard prices on carriages and accessories to prevent competition among themselves.
1. J. A. Hostetler (1993) describes these in detail. See also Hostetler and Huntington (1992).
2. The role of the Amish wife is described during the wedding ceremony: “The man should know that God has appointed him as head of the woman, that he is to lead, rule and protect her lovingly.” The wife “is to honor and respect him and be subject to him . . . she shall be quiet . . . and take good care of the children and housekeeping.” Wives are told to conduct themselves submissively and are asked to pledge to “live in subjection to their husband.” See Handbuch (1978:38–39).
3. L. Stoltzfus (1998).
4. For an excellent discussion of Amish women and feminism, see Olshan and Schmidt (1994). Louise Stoltzfus (1994, 1998) shares valuable insights into the lives and values of Amish women.
5. For an extended discussion of the role of Amish women in business, see Kraybill and Nolt (1995), especially 45–47 and 240–44.
6. “The Hausfrau Diary,” in The Diary, December 1999, 74.
7. Recipes for Home Canning and Freezing, 36. This 36-page booklet names no author or publisher. (Printed by the Gordonville Book Shop. Seventh printing, October 1998.)
8. Huntington (1981) has written an excellent essay on the Amish family. For a description of age roles in the Amish family, see Hostetler and Huntington (1992).
9. More progressive Amish couples are likely to use artificial means of birth control. However, church leaders typically frown on such behavior. For a variety of reasons, older women sometimes undergo sterilization to prevent further births. Various forms of birth control as well as sterilization represent a modernizing trend—a shift from fate to choice.
10. For a description of this small Amish village southeast of Sarasota, see Intelligencer (14 January 1987).
11. A household is defined as a living area having separate eating and bathroom facilities. Many extended families have two or three households in the same house. This estimate of the size of the Lancaster church districts is based on the research described in Appendix A.
12. J. A. Hostetler (1993:108).
13. The listing of all the ordinations in the Lancaster settlement is available in Ein Diener Register (2000).
14. The leaders are called Diener (servant). The Handbuch (1978) identifies them as Volliger Diener (bishop), Diener zum Buch (minister, or servant, of the book), and Armendiener (deacon, or servant, to the poor). Their roles are described in Gemein (n.d.) and in the Handbuch (1978:29–33). Paton Yoder (1987b) provides an excellent review of the ordained offices and notes that the term bishop was not used by the Amish until the 1860s.
15. A bishop is not required by church polity to have two districts. Typically a bishop has a “home” district, but he often oversees a second district for several years until the congregation is ready to ordain its own bishop. In some instances a bishop may oversee three districts, and in other cases only one. A bishop usually is responsible for two districts.
16. Schlabach (1988) and Yoder and Estes (1999) provide the best introduction and analysis of these gatherings, which played a key role in the formation of Old Order Amish identity. For a discussion of the role of the Ordnung in the Ministers’ Meeting, see J. N. Gingerich (1986). An Amish deacon from the Lancaster area, “Tennessee” John Stoltzfus, participated in the series of Ministers’ Meetings. His relationship to the meetings is traced by P. Yoder (1979a, 1979b). See also Yoder and Bender (1979).
17. The progressives in the lower Pequea district formed what eventually became the Millwood Mennonite Church. Progressives in the Conestoga district were the progenitors of what is today the Conestoga Mennonite Church. For primary source materials on these divisions, see P. Yoder (1979a, 1987a). A discussion of the Conestoga division can be found in Mast and Mast (1982). For the Pequea division, see A. N. King (1977).
18. The use of meetinghouses remains a sensitive issue. In the early 1990s an Amishman built a mobile building that could be set up and taken down fairly quickly. It was used at some benefit auctions, and then some districts started using it for weddings. But the bishops “wanted nothing to do with it,” said one member, “because they thought it would lead to a church house and larger weddings. So they put it out [banned it] in the fall of 1995.”
19. See Beulah Hostetler (1992) for a discussion of this issue in the formation of Old Order group identity.
20. The Diary (1975:7:80).
21. For historical background on Amish Aid, see G. L. Fisher (1978:355, 379) and The Diary (1973:5, 86).
22. Directory (1973:19–24).
23. The Diary (1969:1:4; 1976:8:177).
24. For the minutes of the annual meetings, see Steering Committee (1966–2000). Olshan (1993, 1994b) describes the evolution and function of the Steering Committee.
25. The Diary (1969:1:4; 1976:8:177).
26. Rules and Regulations (1983).
27. Articles (1984).
28. The Pequea Bruderschaft Library primarily collects materials related to the Lancaster settlement. The Heritage Historical Library in Aylmer, Ontario, holds a collection of Amish-related materials covering all the settlements in North America.
29. The history and rationale for this program are described in a small pamphlet Regulations and Guidelines for the Old Order Amish Product Liability Aid, adopted and established in the fall of 1992. The pamphlet was printed in 2000 by Gordonville Print Shop.
30. A twelfth organization is the Amish Book Committee, which publishes the Ausbund, prayer books, and other religious books. It was founded in 1913. A detailed history of its origins is recorded in The Diary (1970:2:191–95).
31. The clinic is located south of Strasburg at P.O. Box 128, Strasburg, PA 17579 (717/687-9407).
32. Wagler (n.d.:7).
33. Standards (1981:41).
1. See Kasdorf (1997:136–44), who expands on the orality of Amish culture in her dissertation on Joseph W. Yoder. She notes that even Plato worried that those who rely on writing will lose their memory.
2. There are, of course, ritual variations from settlement to settlement across North America, but within an Amish affiliation, the ritual formulas are firmly established and perpetuated by oral tradition and practice.
3. J. N. Gingerich (1986:181).
4. The Ordnung is the reservoir of “understandings” about expected behavior that have accumulated in Amish culture over time. A minister described the evolution of the Ordnung: “Our fathers’ church leaders had a strong desire to hold on to the old way of life, and although much has changed over the years they have been successful in holding the line to the point that we have been separated from the world, which, in time, created a culture different from that of the world. This did not come overnight, nor did it come through rash or harsh commands of our bishops, but by making wise decisions to hold firm to the old-time religion from one time to another, from one generation to another” (J. F. Beiler 1982:353).
5. J. F. Beiler (1982:383).
6. The eighteen articles of the Dordrecht Confession of Faith form the basis of the instruction classes. The classes emphasize the importance of baptism and communion as the principal components of “true Christian faith.” At the end of the instruction period, applicants are asked a series of questions to measure their theological knowledge—for example, “Who has called you?” “Who has redeemed you?” The last session of instruction emphasizes the importance of complying with the Ordnung, and the ministers “make it very clear to the applicants what kind of a covenant they are making” (Handbuch 1978:24–26). The Lancaster ministers’ manual says the candidates are to be asked several times if they are willing to submit to the order of the church (Gemein n.d.:4).
7. J. A. Hostetler (1993:78).
8. Most church districts have a baptismal service every other fall. Youth are typically baptized in their home district but occasionally may be baptized in an adjoining one if they want to be baptized before the next baptismal service in their district.
9. This wording is found in In Meiner Jugend (2000:190–91). See also Handbuch (1978:26) and Gemein (n.d.:6), for variant wording of the vows.
10. Handbuch (1978:25) and Gemein (n.d.:5–7).
11. The description of the worship service is based on participant observation in worship services in Lancaster County in the spring of 1986 and the summer of 2000.
12. Technically, the worship begins with the first sermon and ends with the benediction. The singing is considered extraneous to the worship service. The ministers are absent (in the counsel room) during the first two songs, and some of the women begin preparing the meal during the last song.
13. The meal typically involves slices of bread, peanut butter, smearcase (cheese spread), pickled vegetables, snitz (dried apple) pie, and coffee. Some districts also serve bologna and cheese. Plates and napkins are not used, and the food is not passed. Several seatings are usually necessary to serve everyone.
14. For background and scholarly sources on the Ausbund, consult the Mennonite Encyclopedia (1956), vol. 2, s.v. “Ausbund,” as well as Bartel (1986), J. A. Hostetler (1993:227–29), Luthy (1971b), Ressler (1986), and Schreiber (1962a). The first known European edition, published in 1564, has been followed by many other editions and printings. The American edition used in the Lancaster settlement includes stories of some forty Swiss Anabaptists who suffered severe persecution between 1645 and 1685. These vivid stories of suffering have been translated and published by J. E. Kauffman (1975). English translations of 69 of the 140 songs of the Ausbund along with historical material have been published by the Ohio Amish Library (Songs 1998). Bartel (1986) and Durnbaugh (1999) provide helpful discussions of the unique style of Amish singing.
15. Ressler (1978) details the background of this hymn and its use among the Amish and Mennonites.
16. Gibbons (1869:59–69).
17. J. A. Hostetler (1993:278) notes that the speed of singing the “Lob Lied” in different Amish groups across the country ranges from eleven to thirty minutes, depending on their degree of conservatism. The more conservative the group, the slower it is sung.
18. The admonitions toward positive examples, die Vorstellung, take up as much as 90 percent of the time with only about 10 percent devoted to die Abstellung, things that are not allowed.
19. Handbuch (1978:33).
20. Luthy (1975) describes Amish ordination customs across several settlements.
21. Gemein (n.d.:10–11).
22. Handbuch (1978:33).
23. The use of the lot is based on the account recorded in Acts 1:23–26, where lots were cast to select someone to replace Judas Iscariot.
24. Based on information gathered from her field interviews, Louise Stoltzfus helped to clarify the procedures related to confession as well as shunning.
25. The Lancaster ministers’ manual distinguishes between “sins of brotherhood or weakness that can be corrected between brothers . . . and sins of carnality, such as adultery, fornication ...” The more serious sins, which also include “inordinate living, idleness in useless words, business conduct, and external appearances,” are cause for cutting sinners off like a branch until they are willing to be fruitful again. The six-week exclusion is sometimes referred to as “setting someone back from counsel.” They are to take no part in Members’ Meetings or in communion and should not receive the brotherly greeting, or kiss (Gemein n.d.:18–20).
26. Handbuch (1978:26–28) and informants.
27. Technically, the ban refers to the exclusion of members from communion and the fellowship of the church. The six-week exclusion from communion is sometimes called the small ban, in contrast to the big ban—excommunication. Meidung, or shunning, refers to the social avoidance of those who are excommunicated or excluded from communion. Because the Bann, or excommunication, automatically implies Meidung, in everyday discourse Bann and Meidung are sometimes used interchangeably. Such overlap of terminology occurs in the Lancaster County bishop’s statement on Bann und Meidung in Bericht (1943).
28. The Amish process of excommunication and shunning resembles Benedictine language and practice in some ways. See, for example, Benedictine Rules 23 through 29, which cover excommunication and association with the excommunicated. Matthew 18:15–16 and 1 Corinthians 5:5 are highlighted in both Amish and Benedictine practice. See Rule (1982:49–53).
29. Dordrecht (1976:35).
30. The Moses Hartz controversy at the turn of the century in Lancaster County (discussed in Chapter 8), prompted debate on whether people who left the Amish church for a more progressive Anabaptist church, such as the Mennonites, should be shunned. Those who advocated a strong shunning (Streng Meidung) felt that such people should be shunned. More progressive members felt that the shunning should be relaxed in such a case. The debate surrounding the Hartz case was one of the factors leading to the 1910 division. Even after this division, the debate continued to smolder until the Old Order bishops issued a special statement in 1921 in which they argued that they were not practicing a new form of shunning but were merely following the traditional Amish custom as agreed to in a Ministers’ Meeting in 1809 and as taught by Bishop David Beiler in 1861. Discussion of the proper application of shunning continued during the first half of the twentieth century, prompting publication of several statements on it in Bericht (1943). The long and heated debates over the use of shunning from 1693 to the present testify to its potent power for social control and its cardinal role in Amish identity and polity.
31. Dordrecht (1976:36). Scripture verses that are used to support the practice of shunning, in the Dordrecht Confession of Faith, include 1 Cor. 5:9–11; Rom. 16:17; 2 Thess. 3:14, 15; and Titus 3:10, 11.
32. Bericht (1943:2).
33. For a first-person story of shunning by a middle-aged Amish woman, see “Damned: Emma’s Choice,” which appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer Magazine, 30 January 1994. A collection of stories of ex-Amish has been compiled by Garrett (1998).
34. When a major internal division occurs within the Amish church, members are given a grace period—a time to decide whether they want to leave without the threat of ostracism. The grace period ends if someone who was excommunicated by the Old Order Amish is later accepted into the more liberal group without a confession. In other words, when the splinter group no longer respects the Bann that the Old Order Amish apply to their wayward members, the lines are drawn. After that, Old Order members who transfer to the more liberal group are shunned. This was the case in both the 1910 and 1966 divisions in Lancaster County. Thus, Old Order members who joined the New Order Amish in 1966 at the time of the division are not shunned by the Old Order Amish today. However, Old Order members who joined the New Order Amish after the period of grace, are shunned today.
1. I am grateful to Tay Keong Tan for first introducing me to the concept of social capital for interpreting Amish society. His dissertation (Tan 1998) provided the first application of social capital theory to Amish life. Academic definitions of social capital are not always clear. Some suggest that social capital consists of the values and social relationships available to generate common benefits, while others imply that social capital is the resources created by certain values and social structures. I view human values and knowledge as cultural capital, and the social networks, rituals, and structures as social capital. Both forms of capital are the raw materials that produce benefits for both the individual and the community. Social capital can be used to build up the common good or to tear it down as in a violent gang, hate group, or work slowdown.
2. Coleman (1990:653) calls this form of social capital “primordial” because it is rooted in an extended family system that has largely vanished in modern life.
3. There are about 2,500 single youth (16–25 years of age) in the settlement.
4. Township supervisors wrote to an Amish official and asked him “to do all in your power to correct the drinking and drunkenness that presently prevails among Amish youth . . . [since] according to records the last fatal accidents that occurred in Leacock township were either the direct result of, or involved drinking Amish youth.” In response to this plea, the Lancaster bishops met and agreed upon five points of an Ordnung that in rare fashion was published in the Minutes of the Old Order Amish Steering Committee from 1981–1986, 36–37 (trans. Noah G. Good).
5. My colleague Richard Stevick (2000) makes this important distinction in his study of Amish youth in various settlements across the country. He has conducted the most complete and definitive study of Amish adolescents to date. His careful research and thoughtful suggestions have been most helpful to me in preparing this section on Amish youth.
6. Introduction to the booklet 17th Annual Wood Workers Get Together, 6 June 1998, Lancaster County.
7. The best description of Amish weddings can be found in Scott (1988). The description in this section is partially based on observations at a wedding attended by the author in November 1998.
8. From an unpublished and undated manuscript, “Ascension Day,” by Sam Stoltzfus.
9. Edward T. Hall (1977:85–128) provides an excellent discussion of the difference between low-context and high-context cultures. His analysis of code, context, and meaning has informed and enriched my understanding of the Amish as a high-context culture.
10. Plain Communities Business Exchange, August 2000, 15.
11. Personal conversation with an Ohio Amish farmer.
12. From an unpublished and undated manuscript, “Lancaster County’s Barn Raising,” by Sam Stoltzfus. Other quotes in this section on barn raising are from the same source.
13. For two accounts and reflections by Amish women on death, see E. King (1992) and E. Smucker (1995). King reflects on the murder of her aunt, and Smucker on the accidental death of her son. Bryer (1978, 1979) provides a psychological study of death and dying among the Amish.
14. A funeral director who buries many of the Amish in the Lancaster settlement provided helpful insights into burial practices in an extended interview. See Scott (1988) for a good description of an Amish funeral in central Pennsylvania.
1. For a chronology of Amish court cases involving educational disputes as well as the landmark 1972 U.S. Supreme Court decision, see Keim (1975) and Meyers (1993). Historical overviews of Amish education are provided by Cline (1968:73–121), Ferster (1983), Hostetler and Huntington (1992), and Huntington (1994). Two important source books for documents that trace the rise of Amish schools in the Lancaster settlement are Kinsinger (1997) and C. S. Lapp (1991).
2. Keim (1975:163).
3. Wickersham (1886:168).
4. The Diary (1972:4:155).
5. Fisher (1978:312).
6. Harnish (1925).
7. This series of anonymous articles appeared in the Intelligencer in four installments in 1931 (19, 20, and 21 February, and 10 March).
8. The East Lampeter Township dispute of 1937 and 1938 is chronicled in two local Lancaster papers, Intelligencer Journal and New Era. It also received national press coverage. See especially the Intelligencer for 1937: 26 March; 29 April; 13, 15, 27, and 28 May; 12 and 24 June; 3 and 7 July; 20 August; 30 September; 2, 5, and 30 October; 6, 10, and 11 November; 4, 6, 7, 24, and 30 December. For 1938: 4, 9, and 24 February; and 28 June.
9. Because lawyers were involved, the Amish community was divided internally over the East Lampeter Township dispute. However, a substantial portion of Amish residents in the township supported the resistance to the consolidated school. Approximately twenty Amishmen rode the train to the Federal Court Building in Philadelphia to attend a hearing on 12 May 1937 as reported in Intelligencer 13 May 1937.
10. Historical documentation of the Amish school movement in Lancaster County is preserved in The Papers of the Amish School Controversy (1937–68). This excellent collection of Aaron E. Beiler’s papers contains the petitions, correspondence, and minutes of the Old Order Amish School Committee, which first met on 14 September 1937 at the home of Stephen F. Stoltzfus, its first chairman. When Stoltzfus moved to Maryland in 1940, Beiler was appointed chairman and served in that role until his death in 1968 (Directory 1973:20–21). A booklet describing the move to Maryland in 1940 was published twenty-five years later (Amish Moving to Maryland, 1965). Unless otherwise indicated, this chapter’s citations of Amish positions, attitudes, and actions are based on documents in The Papers (1937–68). Several documents from this collection were published by Eli M. Shirk (1939) as part of a booklet he prepared on the history of the school controversy. Shirk was an Old Order Mennonite leader who worked closely with the Amish School Committee. Other documents from The Papers were compiled and published by C. S. Lapp (1991).
11. Gemeinden (1937:4).
12. For documentation related to this case, see Keim (1975:94) and Intelligencer (17, 18, and 24 November 1937, 2 December 1937, 29 January 1938, and 1 February 1938).
13. The sale of public one-room schools is reported in Intelligencer (10 November 1938). Directory (1973) provides a chronological listing of the opening of Amish schools from 1938 to 1973. The first two opened in November 1938.
14. Some three hundred pages of documents and newspaper reports covering the arrests and political struggle in the Lancaster settlement between 1949 and 1955 were compiled by C. S. Lapp (1991).
15. Keim (1975:95).
16. For a review of the court cases that were tested during these years, including several in Lancaster County, see Cline (1968:109–15).
17. “Statement” (1950).
18. Intelligencer (30 September 1950).
19. Intelligencer (21 September 1950).
20. Smith (1961:247) and Keim (1975:96).
21. The first vocational school classes were held at the Aaron F. Stoltzfus home in Upper Leacock Township. The vocational program was supervised by the Old Order Amish School Committee; see Directory (1973:21). It marked the end of the legal battles begun in 1937 and ushered in a new era of peaceful coexistence in Pennsylvania. The vocational school solution became a model for some other localities as well. In some states legal disputes continued until they were silenced by the Supreme Court decision of 1972, which affirmed the right of the Amish to keep their children out of public high schools. For an excellent discussion of the Supreme Court ruling, see Keim (1975). The vocational program continues in the Lancaster settlement out of respect to the agreement negotiated with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania between 1953 and 1955. In some other localities the program has been discontinued.
22. Guidelines for the Vocational School Program were spelled out in memorandums from the Pennsylvania Department of Public Instruction (22 September 1955 and 16 January 1956) and are included in Papers (1937–68). The program conceived by the Amish was first approved in a joint meeting of the bishops and the school committee on 30 September 1953. A printed version of the principles governing the program was later distributed in pamphlet form (Vocation 1956). For another discussion of the vocational school program, see Hostetler and Huntington (1992:40–41). Amish views and vocational school policies can be found in Vocation (1956) and Standards (1981).
23. Papers (9 August 1954).
24. This summary of the reasons behind the protest of consolidated high schools was gleaned from numerous source documents in Papers (1937–68).
25. This quote is in the summary paragraph of a four-page review of the history of the Amish School Controversy, covering the years 1937–50. It was likely compiled by Aaron E. Beiler sometime after 18 February 1950, and the statement is probably his. The undated historical review “Repeal from 1947 Enactment” is with Beiler’s documents in Papers (1937–68).
26. For an extended treatment of Amish schools and childhood socialization, see Hostetler and Huntington (1992). Fisher and Stahl (1986) provide an insider’s view of the daily routines and organization of the one-room Amish school. See Esh (1977) for an Amishman’s account of the development of Amish schools.
27. Blackboard Bulletin (January 2001:16–17). This annual listing of schools shows 158 Amish schools in the Lancaster settlement for the 2000–2001 school year. An average of 30 pupils per school yields a total of 4,740 pupils.
28. Standards (1981:2).
29. Pathway Publishers in Aylmer, Ontario, owned and operated by Amish people, is a major supplier of textbooks and teaching aids and is the publisher of the Blackboard Bulletin, a monthly teachers magazine with a wide circulation.
30. For a history of the development of the special schools, see Beginning (1996), C. S. Lapp (1991:573), and Kinsinger (1997:111–20). Some of the services to these children are provided by the S. June Smith Center in Lancaster.
31. Standards (1981:30).
32. Guidelines (1981:12).
33. The Old Order Book Society evolved out of the School Committee, which first met in 1937 to protest the new school-attendance laws.
34. Standards (1981:31).
35. Hostetler and Huntington (1992:93–95).
36. Outley (1982:45).
37. A record of the negotiations, from the Amish perspective, over a variety of legal issues can be found in Kinsinger (1997).
38. Kinsinger (1997:34).
39. President Bush spoke at the Penn John’s School, the last school operated by a local public school board in Lancaster County for mostly Old Order Amish and Mennonite youth.
40. Transcript of the President’s Remarks, Office of the Press Secretary, The White House, 22 March 1989.
41. I received more than fifty phone calls from radio, television, and print media (in the United States and abroad) within a two-week period. New Yorker and Time magazines covered the story as well as the major TV networks.
42. Philadelphia Magazine printed an extended story on Amish youth titled “Party On, Amos,” August 1997, 137–44.
1. For extended treatments of the Moses Hartz incident, consult J. A. Hostetler (1993:284–87), Nolt (1992: 204–7), P. Yoder (1987b:103–6), Hartz and Hartz (1965), and Mast and Mast (1982:83–87). The most detailed analysis of this never-ending affair and a list of source documents are provided by Paton Yoder (1991:266–73). Virtually all of the published accounts were written by Mennonites or Amish-Mennonites. Amos J. Stoltzfus (n.d.), who witnessed the episode as a young church member, wrote from an Old Order Amish perspective.
2. The Hartzes were received into the Conestoga Amish-Mennonite congregation after making a “kneeling” confession of failure—one of several options recommended by an out-of-state committee called in to investigate the matter. Old Order Amish preacher David Beiler is typically cited as the person spearheading the renewed shunning of the Hartzes. Paton Yoder (n.d.) points out, however, that a single minister could not have brought about the reversal without the support of others, including the bishops.
3. Bericht (1943).
4. The text of the “demand” for a more lenient interpretation of shunning and a threat to secede from the Old Order Amish, dated 29 September 1909, was reprinted in Bericht (1943). No names were signed to the “demand,” and in their response the bishops curtly noted that “ordinarily one pays little attention to letters without names” (Bericht 1943:5). The bishops also argued that their interpretation of shunning simply followed “what the old bishops and ministers taught concerning separation and shunning, some forty, sixty or up to 100 years ago. We want nothing else than to stay in what we have been taught” (Bericht 1943:5).
5. The separation began when the dissenting group made its demand on 29 September 1909. The first worship service with ordained ministers present, on 27 February 1910, marks the formal culmination of the division. Thus, I have used the year 1910 in the text to mark this schism. For a chronology of the events surrounding the division, see Glick (1986) and F. E. Lapp (1963). The most extensive discussion, written from the progressive point of view, is included in Elmer Yoder’s (1987:103–12) history of the Beachy Amish.
6. Christian J. Beiler (1850–1934) was a spokesman for the dissenting group, but the name Peachey church was used because Samuel W. Peachey and, in a lesser role, Christian D. Peachey from Mifflin County, Pennsylvania, were instrumental in providing ministerial leadership to the group in its first two years (E. Yoder 1987:108–9). After Christian L. King was ordained bishop on 24 April 1913, the group was sometimes referred to as the King church. With a small following, Christian L. King broke off from Peachey church in 1925 and formed a separate King church, which eventually became defunct. The Peachey church remained a viable group under the leadership of John A. Stoltzfus, who was ordained bishop in April 1926. After that, the Peachey church was sometimes called the “John A. Church,” but the Peachey label prevailed until the group began worshiping in the Weavertown Church building in 1930.
The local historian of the group traces the further evolution of the name: “After the church house at Weavertown was acquired it [the group] became known as the Weavertown Amish-Mennonite Church. When the Church joined the Beachy Affiliation it became known as a Beachy Amish-Mennonite denomination” (F. E. Lapp 1963:11). The group affiliated with the Beachy Amish in 1950. For a history of the congregations in that affiliation, see E. Yoder (1987). Today three congregations (Weavertown, Pequea, and Mine Road) represent the growth of the original body. Since 1969, several small groups springing from the Old Order Amish division of 1966 have also affiliated with the Beachy Amish. The membership of all Beachy Amish congregations in Lancaster County today is less than a thousand.
7. E. Yoder (1987:125–27, 351–55).
8. F. E. Lapp (1963), E. Yoder (1987), and Glick (1986), writing from the progressive perspective, emphasize the strict interpretation of shunning as the cause for the division.
9. The written demand of the withdrawing group and the response of the bishops, recorded in Bericht (1943), identify strict shunning as the ostensible reason for the division.
10. This perception was confirmed by several leaders and oral historians when asked about the reasons for the 1910 division. Regardless of the actual role of the telephone in the division, its importance in the schism may have increased over time in the Amish mind as a means of diverting attention from the severe enforcement of shunning. Of the Amish use of phones, Amishman John K. Lapp (1986:7) says, “Some were willing to put them away and others were not, so that is when the Kinig gma [Peachey church] started, the phone was one of the issues but I suppose there were some more.” Amish minister Joseph Beiler, in the foreword of Gingerich and Kreider (1986:14), says the 1910 schism was “caused by indifferent views in church discipline, most concerning newly invented contraptions that our conservative church leaders could not tolerate.” In contrast, oral historians in the progressive group contend that as late as 1916 members of the Peachey church were asked to take out phones when they bought a farm that had them. This suggests that the Peachey church did not accept the phone until at least six years after the division.
11. For an intriguing social history of the Amish and Old Order Mennonite struggle with telephones, see D. Umble (1996).
12. Fletcher (1955:525).
13. One Amishman said: “I remember when the phones came. The church didn’t say anything about them. It was thumbs up. Two of my wife’s uncles had the phones in and there were quite a few others that had them and then an issue came up. Two people talking on the phone were gossiping about someone else and it went so far that it became a church issue. They were asked to come to church and make a confession about it. Then the church decided that we just better not allow these phones.”
14. J. K. Lapp (1986:7).
15. Fletcher (1955:525).
16. Armstrong and Feldman (1986:65).
17. Some farmers installed phones in sheds near their barns in order to call the artificial inseminator for their cows. This was particularly irksome to some bishops, who were opposed to artificial insemination of dairy cows.
18. Klein (1941:101).
19. Fletcher (1955:62–65).
20. The life story of Isaac Glick is told by his son in a book-length account that provides an overview of many Amish practices in the first two decades of the twentieth century (Glick 1994).
21. The use of Delco and Genco plants by members of the Peachey church was confirmed by several Old Order Amish informants. Surprisingly, an Old Order Amishman remembers taking his batteries to a member of the Peachey church to have them charged.
22. Throughout the text, the distinction between 12-volt and 110-volt current is simplified for the sake of clarity. While the distinction for the most part is correct, there are minor technical variations. As electricity was coming into use, different types of batteries produced various levels of voltage. The Amish had always accepted the simple dry cell battery, but they opposed the Genco and Delco plants, which used wet cell batteries and produced a variety of voltages for electric light bulbs. As electrical technology changed over the years, the Amish continued to accept the use of direct current stored in batteries, which typically is 12-volts. They opposed the use of alternating current taken from the public utility lines, which normally is 110-volts. They opposed electricity from public power lines or in other form—even though home-generated—that could be used to operate standard electrical motors and appliances, rather than to the specific voltage level per se. For all practical purposes, this amounted to a distinction between 12-volt and 110-volt current.
1. The scooter craze was featured in the 5 June 2000 Time magazine as well as in Lancaster’s Intelligencer of 18 August 2000. National sales of scooters were expected to top 5 million units in 2000.
2. Klein (1941:119).
3. Klein (1941:120). For stories of the arrival of the car in the Lancaster area by a former Amishman, see Glick (1994).
4. Fletcher (1955:525).
5. Fletcher (1955:328).
6. Amish historians and informants are not able to pinpoint a specific date for the ban on car ownership because the church never seriously considered the issue. By 1917 Mennonite bishops in the Lancaster area were buying cars. It is likely that the Amish consensus against cars had crystallized before this time. The date 1915, however, is an estimate based on conversations with Amish informants. In any event, the car taboo emerged over several years as cars were coming into popular use.
7. Flink (1975:2).
8. Fletcher (1955:330). For a discussion of the social effects of the car, see Allen (1957), who concludes that they are so numerous as to be incalculable!
9. Flink (1975:40).
10. For an Amishman’s view of the pros and cons of car ownership, see Wagler (n.d.). Reasons for not owning cars are also provided in One Thousand (1992).
11. New Era (18 February 1977).
12. A record of the controversy surrounding the PUC regulation of Amish taxis can be found in Intelligencer and New Era. See especially New Era (18 and 22 February 1977, 2 March 1977, 1 November 1977, 21 April 1978) and Intelligencer (23 February 1977, 2, 9, and 17 March 1977).
13. Intelligencer (1 March 1977).
14. Ivan Glick, in a letter to the author on 26 August 1987, reports that this farmer was Martin Shirk of Churchtown.
15. Tractor use in fields by the Amish was reported by numerous informants and is also documented by Amishman J. K. Lapp (1986:9) in his memoirs.
16. All of the informants living during the first two decades of the twentieth century agree that the Amish church had few if any restrictions on the purchase and use of new farm machinery at that time. Rather than lagging behind their neighbors, Amish farmers often were the first ones in the community to buy new implements as they became available on the public market. For a history of farming practices and equipment use, see Amishman Gideon Fisher’s (1978) account of social change on the farm.
17. Similar stories of the tractor to car scenario were given by three other informants. Wagler (n.d.:20) makes the same argument.
18. Evidence against this argument comes from the Old Order Mennonites, who use tractors in the field and continue to drive a horse and carriage on the road. They have maintained the horse infrastructure even though they have only driving horses.
19. At first, tractors were restricted to belt power. In the 1990s, power take off (PTO) attachments were permitted as well.
20. The hay baler brought the first widespread use of gasoline engines. However, some Amish farmers had used “open hopper” engines without radiators on potato diggers before balers came into use.
21. The bishops forbade the use of six mechanical items: combine, forage harvester, barn cleaner, power unit, generator for lights and power, and deep freezer. This list was confirmed by several informants and is explicitly documented in Sam Kauffman’s (1962) minutes of the special Ministers’ Meeting held 19 December 1962.
22. Hay balers are not self-propelled. This may have contributed to the ease with which they slipped into practice among Amish farmers. The use of any self-propelled equipment would, in the long run, remove the horse from the field and lead to the car.
23. The technology used to farm and harvest tobacco has changed very little since the early twentieth century. Tobacco production is difficult to mechanize and remains labor intensive. Tobacco farming is on the decline largely because of low tobacco prices and because there are other more profitable sources of farm and nonfarm income. In spring 2001 a tobacco company was signing up Amish farmers to grow a new strain of nicotene-free tobacco. If this venture is successful, tobacco growing may rise again.
24. S. Kauffman (1962).
25. A systematic account of this division has not been written. The best documentary source is the minutes of the special Ministers’ Meeting, 19 December 1962, recorded by S. Kauffman (1962). Renno (1985:6–9) has written a brief description of the division, but many of his details are challenged by oral historians.
A brief history from the New Order perspective is available in New Order (1999). Abner Beiler (n.d.) has written a short description of the different groups that evolved from the division. See also E. Yoder (1987:354–56) for a description of the offshoot congregations that eventually affiliated with the Beachy Amish. Although six ordained leaders dissented from the bishops’ ruling on the six articles, only two ministers actually left the Old Order Amish. The formal separation occurred on 5 June 1966 at a special Ministers’ Meeting. One of the ministers eventually rejoined the Old Order Amish. Members of the Old Order Amish were given several months to decide if they wanted to join the New Order group. Members who chose to transfer during this grace period are not shunned. However, members who joined the progressive group after the time of grace are shunned by the Old Order Amish today.
1. For example, Ericksen, Ericksen, and Hostetler (1980:49) argue that “the Old Order Amish culture is largely maintained by the ability of the individual Amish families to establish their children on farms.” Meyers (1994), in a study of the impact of nonfarm work in Indiana, concludes that nonfarm work will not bring the demise of their culture.
2. See Reschly (2000) for a discussion of how the Amish developed outstanding farming methods in Europe before they came to North America.
3. Standards (1981:49).
4. Directory (1977:3).
5. An early history of the evolution of shops written by an Amish historian can be found in Directory (1977). An excellent more recent overview of the growth of the businesses was authored by Sam Stoltzfus in the booklet 17th Annual Woodworkers Get Together, 6 June 1998, Lancaster County. See Kraybill and Nolt (1994, 1995) for an article and a book-length history and analysis of the rise of Amish businesses in the Lancaster settlement.
6. For the history of the expansion into southern Lancaster County, see Kauffman, Petersheim, and Beiler (1992).
7. Kollmorgen (1942:29).
8. Directory (1977:3).
9. Martineau and MacQueen (1977:384).
10. Kollmorgen (1942:27).
11. These numbers are provided by the Lancaster County Agricultural Preserve Board. For an excellent discussion of development issues and pressures in Lancaster County, see the six-day series by Ed Klimuska in New Era (27 June–2 July 1988). By 2000 some farms were selling for $10,000 per acre; however, the countywide average was not that high.
12. Kollmorgen (1942:23).
13. Intelligencer (7 April 1975).
14. Scholarly articles by Martineau and MacQueen (1977) and Ericksen, Ericksen, and Hostetler (1980) discuss the impact of nonfarm occupations on the Amish of Lancaster County. Two series in local newspapers also charted the trend toward nonfarm work (Intelligencer, 7 and 8 April 1975, and New Era, 30 and 31 July 1987).
15. Schwieder and Schwieder (1975:53).
16. The movement into Lebanon County to the north is told by D. King (1993).
17. A history of the Amish migrations to Centre and Clinton counties (Pennsylvania) as well as a directory of those settlements has been compiled (Directory, 1973).
18. Directory (1977).
19. In an informal survey of one Lancaster district in 1987, a member reported that among the married men who had not retired, 37 percent were day workers, 19 percent owned their own businesses, 11 percent farmed and had a shop, and 33 percent were full-time farmers (Die Botschaft, 15 September 1987).
20. A correspondent for The Diary reported in September 2000 that as few as 8 percent of the men were farming in one district and as many as 90 percent in another one.
21. Ed Klimuska’s excellent five-part series on the dramatic growth of the quilting industry in Lancaster County appeared in New Era (9–13 March 1987) and was reprinted in 1987 in a booklet entitled Lancaster County: Quilt Capital USA. See also Kraybill and Nolt (1995:45–57).
22. For an extended discussion of the roles of Amish women in small businesses, see Kraybill and Nolt (1995:45–47, 240–44). The 17 percent level of female ownership is based on data from the Settlement Profile 2000.
23. Meyers (1983b:177) argues that the presence of ethnic support and network systems in occupational settings—more than the type of work per se—is the critical factor in determining whether the shift away from farming will lead to the collapse of Amish society.
24. Several Indiana settlements provide interesting comparisons with Lancaster because many of the Indiana Amish work in large factories owned by non-Amish. In some of the settlements, more than 50 percent of the men work in large factories. Meyers (1983b) conducted a study of stress related to nonfarm occupations in Indiana. He found few stress-related differences between Amish farmers and Amish factory workers. In a more recent article, Meyers (1994) discusses the impact of factory work in several Indiana settlements and concludes that the Amish have adapted in ways that will preserve their culture.
25. The estimates of farms owned and purchased by the Amish are based on a study conducted by Conrad L. Kanagy titled, “Comprehensive Study of Farms Owned by Plain Groups in Lancaster County, PA, 1999.” The unpublished report is available from the author. The estimate of 1,500 farms is based on the Settlement Profile 2000, which found an average of twelve farms per district (12 × 114 in Lancaster County = 1,368).
26. Information regarding the numbers of Amish farms preserved was provided by representatives of the Agricultural Preserve Board and the Lancaster Farmland Trust. Funk (1998) tells the story of land preservation in Lancaster County.
27. For a comparison of Amish businesses in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, and Indiana County, Pennsylvania, see Kraybill and Kanagy (1996).
28. New Era (30 July 1987).
29. For coverage of the zoning problems related to the Amish, see Intelligencer (15 and 18 August 1987, 3 March 1988).
30. The hay turner is an advancement over the older hay tedders because it breaks fewer leaves and turns the hay completely upside down. Many farmers now bale high-moisture hay and wrap the bales in plastic to make haylage, which reduces the need for the turner.
31. Sam Stoltzfus, 17th Annual Woodworkers Get Together, 6 June 1998, 6, 26.
32. Lancaster Settlement Profile (Appendix A). Twelve per district (131) yields a settlement-wide total of 1,572.
33. These estimates were given by knowledgeable non-Amish professionals who work very closely with the Amish in financial matters.
34. The sources of success are explored in depth by Kraybill and Nolt (1995: 218–35).
35. Marc Olshan (1994a) develops this theme in a chapter on Amish cottage industries in New York state.
36. Olshan (1994a:139).
37. On the discrepancy of practices between shops and farms, as well as numerous reader responses, see Family Life (April 1987:31–32; June 1987:16–25).
38. Fortune 500 magazine did a special feature on Amish millionaires in the June 1995 issue.
39. A new bank formed in 1998 in order to provide financial services to the Plain communities of Lancaster County. Home Town Heritage Bank began through conversations with several Amish leaders and financial experts in the larger community. A few Amish people sit on the board of directors, but board members are primarily non-Amish. Not all of its clients are Amish, but Hometown Heritage emphasizes “a simpler way of banking,” which appeals to Amish customers. Bank officials, sensitive to Amish culture, have adjusted some of their policies to dovetail with Amish values.
1. Amishman Isaac Glick served as postmaster in the village of Smoketown in the second decade of the twentieth century. See Glick (1994:33) for an account of the Glick family written by Isaac’s son Aaron.
2. For the best historical synopsis of the Amish view of the state and participation in government, see Paton Yoder (1993). A volume of essays on conflicts between the Amish and the state was edited by Kraybill (1993).
3. The exemption from Worker’s Compensation varies from state to state. The Amish in Pennsylvania are exempt.
4. This intriguing twist is reported by the scribe from Gordonville in The Diary, September 2000.
5. Steering Committee (1986:76).
6. Keim (1993:43–66) tells the story of Amish involvements in alternative service during conscription.
7. Steering Committee (1966:1).
8. Olshan (1993:67–68; 1994b:199–214) describes the evolution and role of the National Steering Committee. The minutes of the committee, which are printed periodically, provide a record of the committee’s activities. Andrew S. Kinsinger (1997), the first chairman of the Steering Committee, provides an Amish perspective of its development.
9. Amish views of Social Security and a history of their response to it are described by Ferrara (1993:125–44).
10. Kinsinger (1983:596).
11. For a thorough history of the Amish struggle with Social Security, see Ferrara (1993).
12. Cline (1968:145). My discussion of Social Security is heavily indebted to Cline’s work and to an Amish informant involved in negotiations with government officials.
13. Cline (1968:164).
14. For a lengthy description of this case and subsequent legal action surrounding it, see Cline (1968:148–55).
15. In some cases, heads of large families with low incomes have inadvertently received “unearned income” checks from the government, but Amish leaders urge members to return them.
16. In recent years some Amish have opened Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs). The IRS position on this issue was unclear at first, but presently the IRS permits the Amish to have them.
17. For an extended discussion of the Amish reaction to this film as well as a chronology of events, see Hostetler and Kraybill (1988).
18. The agreement was formalized in a letter from Secretary of Commerce Pickard on 12 September 1984.
19. Intelligencer (26 January 1985).
20. Intelligencer (28 February 1985).
21. “Amish at the Heart of ‘Puppy Mill’ Debate,” New York Times, 20 September 1993, A12.
22. Intelligencer (14 August 2000).
23. Some of the extensive Lancaster newspaper coverage can be found in Sunday News (16 April 2000), Intelligencer (12 June 2000), New Era (27 June 2000), Intelligencer (28 June and 6 July 2000), New Era (13 July 2000), Sunday Patriot News (23 July 2000), Sunday News (23 July 2000), and Intelligencer (26 July, and 9, 14, and 16 August 2000).
24. Intelligencer (28 June 2000).
25. Intelligencer (9 August 2000).
26. Sunday Patriot News (8 November 1998). Other accounts of the controversy can be found in New Era (21 April 1998), Intelligencer (22 April and 17 July), Sunday News (2 August 1998), and Intelligencer (29 September, 10 October, and 16 November 1998).
27. Hannah B. Lapp, “Labor Department vs. Amish Ways,” Wall Street Journal, 10 April 1997.
28. The proposed bill, HR 4257, was designed to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 so that “certain youth could perform certain work with wood products.”
29. Written comments to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce by the chairman of the Old Order Amish Steering Committee, 21 April 1998.
30. Luthy (1994b) tells the story of the growth of tourism from an Amish perspective in several of the larger settlements. L. Stoltzfus (2000) chronicles the historical growth of tourism in Lancaster County.
31. For a history of Amish tourism in Lancaster County, see excellent articles by Luthy (1980, 1994b). The booklet was Steinfeldt’s (1937) The Amish of Lancaster County. Fisher (1988) describes the rise of tourism from a local Amishman’s view. For a creative interpretation of the Amish in the American imagination, see Weaver-Zercher (2001).
32. Estimates from the Pennsylvania Dutch Convention and Visitors Bureau in Lancaster. My estimates of expenditures per Amish person are based on an Amish population of 22,000 (children and adults).
33. Intelligencer (28 January 1988).
34. G. Fisher (1978:365).
35. J. Beiler (1976b:482).
36. J. Beiler (1976b:482).
37. Vogue magazine, August 1993. For a thorough discussion of the commodification of Amish images in the American culture market, see Weaver-Zercher (2001).
1. Gordonville area scribe in The Diary, September 2000.
2. For a structural analysis of social change, see Gallagher’s (1981) study of the Lancaster Amish settlement. Other discussions of social change among the Amish in a variety of settlements can be found in Foster (1984a), J. A. Hostetler (1993:387–99), Huntington (1956:1045–55), Meyers (1983b), Nagata (1968), and Olshan (1980). Kraybill and Olshan (1994) provide a number of essays dealing with social change among the Amish of North America. See Kraybill (1994c) for an extended discussion of social change.
3. S. Kauffman (1962:7).
4. My approach to the study of the Amish entrepreneurship is grounded in the growing sociological tradition of cultural analysis that stresses the bona fide role of culture in shaping and regulating social organization.
5. The members of an ethnic group share a common religious, racial, or national background, a sense of peoplehood, and a memory of a common past. Their social symbols and membership boundaries give them a visible public identity recognized by insiders and outsiders alike. The bulk of the literature on ethnic businesses underscores the important role of cultural resources. The Amish story is unique in that cultural restraints have obstructed and regulated business activity. The formation of business enterprises in this particular ethnic context is a negotiated outcome produced by these two countervailing cultural forces.
6. Howard Rheingold discusses the growing use of cell phones among the Amish in an article in Wired magazine, January 1999.
7. This question is addressed at length by Kraybill and Bowman (2001) in their comparative study of four Old Order communities.
8. For additional discussions of Amish survival strategies, see Foster (1984b), J. A. Hostetler (1993), V. Stoltzfus (1973), and Thompson (1981).
1. Bellah et al. (1985:viii). Other analysts concerned about the debilitating effects of radical individualism include Fukuyama (1995, 1999), Myers (2000), and Putnam (2000).
2. Berger, Berger, and Kellner (1973) develop this theme in The Homeless Mind.
3. Hunter’s essay “The Modern Malaise” offers a superb review of the social criticism of modernity since 1930 (Hunter and Ainlay 1986). See also Lane (2000) and Myers (2000).
4. Olshan (1981:297) notes that many social scientists ritualistically label the Amish a folk society—a small isolated and traditional group—and thus assume that the Amish are not modern. Berger (1977, 1979), Foster (1984b), and Olshan (1981) contend that choice is central to the modern experience. Olshan (1980, 1981) argues that the Amish are not a folk society because they engage in rational decision making. However, he focuses on their collective decisions and disregards individual choice, which is central to Berger’s definition of modernity.
5. The Amish National Steering Committee serves as a quasi–lobby group that intercedes with government officials on behalf of Amish interests. For a record of this group’s activities, see Steering Committee (1966–2000) and Olshan (1993, 1994b).
6. This type of rationality corresponds to what Max Weber (1947:115) called Wert-rational, rational decisions that are made to uphold or promote absolute religious values.
7. Olshan (1979, 1980) points to the Amish as a model for social development. Berry (1977); Foster (1980, 1981, 1982); and Johnson, Stoltzfus, and Craumer (1977) have described the energy efficiency of Amish culture.
8. In their comprehensive study of mental illness in the Lancaster settlement, Egeland and Hostetter (1983:59) report that major affective mental disorders among the Amish are about half the rate of such disorders in other groups. A study of Amish suicide in the Lancaster area found that the Amish rate was half that of other religious groups and one-third the rate of nonreligious populations (Kraybill, Hostetler, and Shaw 1986:256–57).
9. In severe cases of psychiatric disorder, Amish people are hospitalized. People with mild psychiatric disorders, retardation, and physical disabilities are cared for by the extended family whenever possible.
10. The one area in which they have contributed to science has been through medical research. Hundreds of Amish in the Lancaster area have participated in large medical research projects exploring issues such as the genetic transmission of diabetes, depression, and obesity. Their stable population, extensive family records, and restricted gene pool make them a valuable population for the study of inherited diseases.
11. See Olshan (1994d) for an excellent essay under the title of this question.
12. The notions of freedom and meaning in Amish life are addressed by Olshan (1986). For a perceptive analysis of the Amish plight with modernity, see Enninger (1988).
13. Myers (2000) explores what he calls an American Paradox—Spiritual Hunger in an Age of Plenty. Robert Lane (2000) provides extensive documentation in The Loss of Happiness in Market Democracies. Both of these analyze the rise of unhappiness in the midst of prosperity.
14. The ABC program was aired on 15 April 1996.