The Amish

by Donald B. Kraybill

  III

  SOCIAL

  ORGANIZATION

  CHAPTER 8

  DIVERSE AFFILIATIONS

  * * *

  A barn raising in southern Indiana attracted Amish participants from four settlements in Orange and Washington Counties. Some of the men arrived in enclosed buggies, while others came in open ones. Half of the carriages bore an orange slow-moving-vehicle triangle, but the other half did not. A few of the workers had hired English drivers to bring them to the site—an act that would have violated the consciences of others. Many had long beards, though a few sported tightly trimmed ones. Some of the men wore wide suspenders, others narrow ones, and still others none at all. The majority spoke Pennsylvania Dutch, while the rest conversed in Swiss German. About half of the men enjoyed some tobacco as a workday pleasure, but others refused to smoke or chew on principle and avoided working with those who did.

  These men, committed to helping one another, had come together around a common building project as Amish people. Yet their differences in appearance, custom, taboos, and communication were striking reminders of the diversity among the many groups who claim the name Amish.

  * * *

  Our People

  Our story so far has focused on the core values and practices of Amish life, even as we have argued that the Amish world is becoming increasingly diverse. In this chapter we explore this variety and its consequences. The tangle of Amish communities with its assortment of Ordnung regulations is often a mystery to outsiders—and frequently to the Amish themselves.1 A member of a liberal affiliation, speaking of a rather conservative Amish group, said, “Now they’re a different breed, aren’t they?” The history of the various “breeds” is lodged in oral tradition, often making it difficult to unravel. Moreover, the practices of different churches and their connections are fluid because they reflect the ongoing life in organic communities rather than formal organizations.

  At the opening of the twentieth century, there were 42 geographically distinct Amish settlements in North America, representing 3 or 4 affiliations—groups defined by shared views and practices.2 By 2012 the number of settlements had swelled to 463, and the number of affiliations had multiplied to more than 40. If the smaller subgroups within some affiliations are counted, the number of identifiable cohorts rises above 65, not including the more than 130 fairly independent congregations that lack a firm relationship to a wider affiliation. Although a multitude of Amish identities cropped up in the twentieth century, members of the 2,000 church districts still broadly recognize one another as Amish, use horse-and-buggy transportation, reject higher education, and speak a Swiss or German dialect, among other practices they have in common.

  What exactly is an affiliation? When speaking of their own group, Amish people often talk about “our people” (unser Leit) and “our way” of doing things. An affiliation, as we define it, is a cluster of two or more districts with at least twenty years of shared history. Affiliated congregations share similar Ordnungs, which specify distinctive lifestyles and visible symbols that set them apart from other affiliations. These interwoven features create a unique identity that is expressed in use of technology and consumer products, style of architecture, levels of income, degree of social isolation, and types of occupation as well as in hairstyles, dress patterns, and carriage color and style. Members of an affiliation have a collective awareness of in-group membership and are known as a distinctive group within Amish society and, sometimes, by non-Amish people.

  Despite Ordnungs that are similar, the practices of districts within an affiliation are not uniform in every detail because ecclesial authority rests in each local district. As a general rule, the larger the number of districts in an affiliation, the greater the affiliation’s diversity. Thus, in a sizable affiliation, some congregations may permit gasoline-powered garden tillers, central gas lighting in homes, or air-powered sewing machines, whereas others may forbid them. Small affiliations with only a handful of districts are much more likely to have greater uniformity across all districts. As shown in table 8.1, the size of affiliations in 2011 ranged from the expansive Lancaster, Pennsylvania–based tribe, with 291 congregations, to tiny ones such as the two-district group in Kokomo, Indiana, which was founded in 1848, and the four-district Abe Miller group in Tennessee.

  Table 8.1. Amish Affiliations Ranked by Number of Church Districts, 2011

  A small number of church districts, including this one near Hutchinson, Kansas, permit the use of tractors for field work. A tractor is also used to pull this homemade school bus, which transports Amish pupils who live too far away to ride their bicycles to school. Steven M. Nolt

  In short, affiliations are loose federations of like-minded Amish churches. They are in no way highly organized groups with bylaws, articles of incorporation, rules for decision making, or protocols for leadership succession. Shaped by local traditions, their informal organization and degree of cohesion depends on the number of districts in the affiliation, the leadership style of the senior bishops, and how frequently—if at all—leaders within an affiliation meet. All the bishops in small affiliations like Dover, Delaware, and Bloomfield, Iowa, meet twice a year. In contrast, bishops in the large Elkhart–LaGrange affiliation in northern Indiana meet once a year, but attendance is irregular, and some of the ordained men never attend. Regardless of affiliation, bishops will convene special meetings when a major issue is causing Unfrieden, or unrest.

  Complicating the maze of Amish life is the fact that certain districts may share a distinctive trait that sets them apart from other districts. For example, the five dozen Gmays that permit tractors for tilling and harvesting in the field are sometimes lumped together as “Tractor Amish,” even though they are not an affiliation but simply districts in various settlements that happen to share this atypical custom.3

  Researcher Stephen Scott has also identified similar clusters of districts, such as the “Reformist” Amish.4 These Gmays—roughly twenty, scattered in Ontario, Missouri, Maine, Montana, Minnesota, and Illinois—seek to remain in the Amish mainstream but ardently promote high moral standards for courtship (for example, forbidding dating couples from spending any time alone that might lead to sexual temptation) and strictly prohibit smoking and chewing tobacco. While their approach to such matters is similar to that taken by the New Order Amish, the Reformist churches are much more conservative in dress and technology than the New Orders. Amish-owned Pathway Publishers is the voice of this movement.

  Another cluster of districts, the so-called Kenton Amish, began in 1953 when conservative-minded families from the Elkhart–LaGrange settlement in Indiana moved to Kenton, Ohio, to begin a settlement with a “low-tech, high morals Ordnung.”5 The Kenton network of some twenty districts of highly traditional Amish in four states share strict standards on dress and technology. Like the Reformists, the Kenton Amish also insist on rigid moral standards regarding courtship and hold parents responsible for the sexual indiscretions of their children. Scott has identified other clusters with shared similarities, such as Midwest Conservatives, Midwest Mainstream, and various Michigan districts that have religious views similar to the New Orders but without the technological liberties of that group.6

  Names and Distinctions

  The names of affiliations derive from various sources. Some carry the name of a founder (e.g., Tobe Hostetler); some, the location of their origin (e.g., Jamesport, Missouri); and some, a label applied to them by others (e.g., New Order). The names of other tribes stem from the unique circumstances surrounding their founding. For example, the Nebraska Amish of central Pennsylvania’s Kishacoquillas Valley (commonly known as “Big Valley”) have no connection to Nebraska except that a bishop from that state provided guidance when they organized in 1881.7 In one unusual case, the label Swartzentruber Amish does not reflect the name of the group’s founding bishop, Samuel Yoder, but rather the surname of two brothers whose unflinching views influenced the group’s formation.8

  Some affiliation
s have nicknames. The Nebraska Amish are often called “white toppers” because the sides and roofs of their carriages are covered with white canvas. And the Andy Weaver tribe, named for its original leader, has been nicknamed the “Dan Gmay” because when the affiliation formed in 1955 the first name of three of its ordained leaders was Dan.9

  The districts of small affiliations are often clumped together in one settlement, while the districts of some large affiliations, such as Buchanan, Iowa, are spread across many states. In some cases a particular group, such as the Daviess Amish in Daviess County, Indiana, may be the only Amish in the area, making the settlement and the affiliation coterminous. In sharp contrast, a large settlement, such as that in and around Ohio’s Holmes County, can be home to several affiliations.

  FIGURE 8.1. Five Settlements by Town, Affiliation, Founding Date, and State of Origin in Clark County, Wisconsin

  Many affiliations have geographic offshoots or daughter settlements that have been established by members migrating to new areas, as illustrated in figure 8.1. Usually these new communities remain part of the parent affiliation, but not always. Some daughter settlements eventually develop a separate identity and gradually dissolve their ties to the mother group, but others do not. Even though the Amish in St. Mary’s County, Maryland, left Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, in 1943, the St. Mary’s leaders still participate in the biannual Lancaster bishops’ meeting, as do Lancaster-affiliated bishops from Kentucky, Indiana, and Wisconsin. In contrast, the Lancaster daughter settlement in Romulus, New York, has evolved in a more conservative direction than its parent community.

  As we noted in chapter 1, Amish people distinguish between groups based on the restrictiveness of their Ordnungs. In general, low affiliations are more traditional and sectarian, and they draw sharper boundaries with the outside world. Lowness also signals greater humility, less use of English, and less interaction with worldly culture. The higher churches, by contrast, are moving up in the world, becoming more liberal and imbibing more worldly practices.10

  Amish people in both high and low groups sometimes disparage the opposite type of affiliation with stereotypical comments. For example, one Lancaster deacon, speaking of the Swiss Amish in Indiana, said, “They’re just stuck in tradition.” Likewise, a progressive Amish person, observing a farmer in a low group milking his cows by hand, said, “It’s remarkable how backward some Amish are.” Those in lower churches also sense the wide gulf between themselves and their higher brethren. A Swartzentruber bishop, speaking of the more progressive Lancaster tribe, told us, “They’re as different from us as you [English] are.” This off-hand remark is startling not only because this leader considers his Lancaster brethren as already wading into mainstream society, but also because he perceives such a wide chasm between himself and others who also sing from the Ausbund and kneel in humility to wash feet at communion. Because they fear that some of the higher groups soon will—or already have—lost precious Amish practices, the most traditional affiliations see their mission, in part at least, as trying to preserve the old ways of being Amish lest they be lost forever.

  It is tempting to impose a linear progression on affiliations and assume that the low ones will eventually evolve along the same path to higher ground. Such a one-dimensional model overlooks the multitude of elements that influence Amish groups as well as the fact that some of the most conservative ones are able to severely retard most changes. Some affiliations simultaneously exhibit liberal traits in certain aspects of community life and conservative behavior in others. For instance, some affiliations that are change-minded in their religious views also have the most restrictive youth practices. Similarly with technology, most New Order districts forbid the use of cell phones, while several Old Order groups accept them. Clearly, while the “low” and “high” distinctions are helpful in sorting out Amish affiliations, they are not an adequate explanation for social change.

  A young Amish girl stands on a rail to drive the horses as her father and brother load loose hay onto a wagon. Low affiliations use an old-fashioned, wheel-driven hay loader like this one to place hay on wagons. Doyle Yoder

  Progressive Amish affiliations permit some state-of-the-art technology. This hay baler collects loose hay on the ground and wraps it tightly into large round bales each weighing several hundred pounds. The baler—designed for a tractor—is powered by a large gasoline engine that is pulled by horses. Daniel Rodriguez

  How Do Affiliations Emerge?

  The histories of some affiliations are rooted in internal divisions, while other affiliations were seeded by migration. In any event, the identity of a group evolves slowly over time and is usually shaped by a mix of two or more of these factors: (1) migration history, (2) ethnicity, (3) distinctive Ordnung practices, (4) local conditions, and (5) internal divisions.11 The confluence of these historical and sociocultural factors produces the many different brands of Amish life in North America.

  Some tribal identities emerged from long-standing relationships established by eighteenth- or nineteenth-century Amish emigrants from Europe. Others were started by migrations within North America after 1900. Families from different areas may move to a new geographical area to establish a community with a distinctive lifestyle, such as a more- or less-liberal Ordnung regarding tobacco use, tractor ownership, pneumatic power in shops, youth activities, or Sunday school.

  Ethnicity is a sense of peoplehood created by common cultural customs, language, country of origin, or some amalgam of these things. In the Amish world, the primary ethnic line falls between the Swiss Amish minority and the Pennsylvania Dutch–speaking majority. In the 1850s, the Swiss Amish emigrated from Europe directly to eastern Indiana, although their daughter settlements are now found in several states. They continue to speak a distinctive Swiss-German dialect and share a fairly unique set of surnames and customs. The Pennsylvania Dutch–speaking Amish comprise nearly 94 percent of the Amish world and often hold somewhat negative and stereotyped impressions of the Swiss Amish.12 (See fig. 8.2.)

  Distinctive Ordnung practices related to dress, technology, and modes of interaction with the outside world also shape the identity of affiliations. A clump of districts may develop a particular practice—the use or rejection of bicycles, distinctive haircut styles for men or bonnet size for women—that becomes a key marker and, over several decades, defines its identity.

  Local conditions—social, political, religious, economic—also mold the distinctive practices that distinguish an affiliation. The presence of other nearby Amish groups may encourage one group to reject certain forms of technology such as propane lights, tractors, or chainsaws because it wishes to stay behind its change-minded neighbors. Local English industries or urban markets in some regions may entice Amish workers and encourage certain occupations and the development of distinctive lifestyles. In addition, the geographical terrain—from forest to plain—may increase the use of certain technologies, like tractors for field work. These differences may also help to stir unrest, which sometimes plays a role in the birth of affiliations. Certain trigger issues like the acceptance of new technology, the practice of shunning, or support for mission activities may create controversies and produce a schism. Such an event may embed the divisive belief or practice in a group’s identity for a long time.

  FIGURE 8.2. Proportional Size of Selected Affiliations

  A Sampler of Schisms

  Historian Leroy Beachy, writing about the Holmes County settlement, referred to the 1900s as “a seemingly reckless century of division” because the Amish community there splintered into more than thirty separate groups. Many of them no longer bear the Amish name, and some that do refuse to commune with one another.13 This settlement has experienced remarkable discord, but so have those in other locales, such as the Big Valley in central Pennsylvania.

  Every schism has its own set of flammable embers, but the features of Amish society that tend to ignite conflict include (1) social differentiation, (2) decentralized polity, (3) an
emphasis on ethics, (4) separation from the world, and (5) leadership styles. A basic axiom of social organization is that size breeds differentiation. In other words, larger affiliations tend to splinter into subunits more quickly than smaller groups. The likelihood of dissent is also compounded because the decentralized church polity ultimately places authority in local congregations. Besides, the Amish-Anabaptist theology of discipleship emphasizes the importance of following Jesus in daily life and stresses mundane practice as much or more than abstract doctrinal belief. Differences in opinion about how best to practice everyday faith cannot easily be papered over with vague theological statements.

  In addition, applying the principle of separation from the world to daily living is open to dozens of interpretations, especially when it comes to technology. For example, should electricity from public utilities be allowed, and if so, under what circumstances? An Amish person disenchanted with a proliferation of affiliations in his area blamed it on “strife, disagreement, and unrest regarding congregational rules and regulations.” As an example, he cited one group that forbids using a chainsaw to cut wood because they see it as “evil, arrogant, proud, and disdainful,” while “we have another group that does not detect any spiritual harm in owning and using a chainsaw. … So here is a group, there is a group [and] hardly any two groups have the same standards.”14