The Amish Division of 1693
|
| This paper will review and recount some of the events
that led up to the division of the Anabaptists in 1693. It will also discuss some of the
correspondence that was exchanged during the conflict. And, lastly, it will attempt to
understand what can be learned from these unfortunate events. Anabaptists living in Switzerland and the Rhine valley underwent a deep and painful division during the last decade of the seventeenth century. Most of what we know about the conflict was recorded in letters that were written and circulated during that time. They were not so much letters about news, but rather a statement of position. Some were sent to the opposing side in hopes of dialogue. Much of the content of this paper draws from that dialogue. By the late 1600's the Anabaptists had been living in Switzerland for over 150 years. Almost from the very beginning they had faced opposition. Approximately 4,000 Anabaptists suffered martyrdom during the first 75 years of the movement. (Mennonite Encyclopedia Vol. 3, p 524) In spite of the attempts to eradicate the Anabaptists, the movement grew dramatically during this time. Rather then stopping the movement, the public executions were often a source of inspiration for those that observed. The persecution did succeed in suppressing the movement in the cities, but it simply moved to the rural villages and the hamlets. These groups of people became known as the Swiss Brethren. They experienced times of tension filled toleration by the authorities as well as times of severe persecution. Even during the best times they were not officially recognized and had to hold all their services in secret. The Swiss Brethren were well integrated into local community life. Their non-Mennonite neighbors regarded them as harmless. They were considered honest, upright, hardworking people that generally were an asset to the community. Many pastors in the Reformed state church turned a blind eye to the Swiss Brethren. Others, who became known as the Truehearted, were very sympathetic and helpful, although they never accepted adult baptism and joined the Anabaptists. The Truehearted did not fit the Anabaptist two kingdom theology. They were good people who risked their lives to help the Swiss Brethren. To call them part of the fallen world because they had not been baptized as believers was something that most Swiss Brethren were not willing to do. This contributed to the rift between the Swiss Brethren and the Anabaptists from Alsace. In the 1660's and again in the 1690's the government officials mounted a full scale campaign to eradicate the Swiss Brethren. During these times they were ask to swear an oath of allegiance to the government and to carry a sidearm. Many were expelled from Switzerland during these years. Others responded with passive compliance and attended state church and took communion with their Reformed neighbors. Some even allowed their infants to be baptized, arguing that such concessions did no harm. This practice also contributed to the division. Those that chose to leave moved westward to Alsace and on down the Rhine valley. Many found territorial lords that invited them to settle down and farm the land and live in the villages. They were allowed to worship in relative freedom. This was an unsettling time for the Swiss Brethren. Families were divided, church leaders weakened, and communication was difficult. Still, during this time the church grew and thrived. Roth says, "Just at the time when the lines of governmental opposition to the Swiss Brethren were being drawn ever more sharply, religious boundaries at the local level between the state church and the Swiss Brethren were becoming increasingly fluid. Persecution, emigration, and an influx of new converts all brought into question traditional assumptions regarding religious identity and cohesion: together they helped to shape the context for the culminating crisis of the period: the so-called Amish division of 1693." (Roth p7) In the fall of 1693, Mennonite congregations in Alsace sent Jakob Ammann and several other ministers to the Emmental to clarify the position of the Swiss Brethren on several issues relating to church discipline. Ammann and the group that sent him apparently had a concern about perceived drift among the Swiss Brethren. They set the terms of the discussions and demanded an immediate response of those present. This caused a negative reaction among the Swiss Brethren and they declined to come to additional meetings. Hans Reist became the leader and spokesman for the Swiss Brethren group. When they were not present at the appointed time they were promptly excommunicated by Ammann and his group. Thus began the process of trying to reconcile the differences between the two groups in the fall of 1693 and the spring of 1694. Unfortunately the rift only became wider. According to Roth there were six main issues that caused most of the disagreement, as well as several smaller issues, such as: clothing styles, beard and hair styles, ownership of a particular meetinghouse and funeral attendance at state churches. Roth contends that the six main issues in order of increasing significance were.
The Anabaptists urged people to obey their conscience rather then church authorities. They believed that unity is not the result of group consensus but rather the result of many individual commitments to follow Christ. To the state church this sounded like heresy. This philosophy worked well when the movement was young. However as the Anabaptist movement matured and churches became more established some problems begin to become visible. Some of them were: how to relate to other "Christian" groups, and how to deal with controversy if people in the same group have different "convictions". People often dealt with problems by excommunicating the persons that disagreed with them. Soon whole churches were excommunicating each other. Within 30 years of Menno Simons's death, most Dutch Anabaptists had been excommunicated three or four times by other Anabaptists who claimed to have authority over them. (Hoover p 265) Therefore I conclude that at least some of the problem in the 1693 controversy was a reflection of the age of the communities. Jakob Ammann and his followers were from a much younger community and therefore were trying to live literally what they understood the Bible to teach. After 150 years the Swiss Brethren realized that what had worked early on for the Anabaptists was no longer workable. One example is the attitude that they took toward their neighbors as they became more established in the community. It no longer seemed proper to condemn everyone that didn't believe just as they did. As communities mature there tends to be more gray area. This contributed to the controversy. By the late 1600's there were sharp differences among the Anabaptists. These included wealth, civic status, cultural assimilation, and religious vitality. The Mennonites in Alsace enjoyed greater religious freedom then those in Switzerland. Because they had less external pressure from the state, they had to work harder at maintaining the boundaries from within. Thus they acquired a different view of church discipline. Earlier the Mennonites from Alsace had received a lot of financial help from the Dutch Mennonites. Because of this bond between them, they later adopted the Dordrecht Confession of Faith, from the Dutch Mennonites, as their own. These differences had a direct effect on how they understood the issues that were in question. They did, however, "share a common struggle to make the theology they had inherited from the sixteenth century relevant to their varied contexts." (Conference p.14) How to understand the Schleitheim Confession of Faith was also a point of contention. The Confession stated that, "…all creatures are in but two classes, good and bad, believing and unbelieving, darkness and light…" (Wenger p. 209) In the context of persecution among the Swiss Brethren it appears that some of these distinctions may have become blurred. Ammann's group saw themselves as a renewal movement, simply trying to recover a religious principle that was in danger of being lost. Shunning those that had been banned was seen as a way to reinforce the boundary between the world and the church. The Swiss Brethren were committed to the same principle but they recognized that in reality the boundary as described in Schleitheim were not always as relevant and clearly defined as the document implied. Who could say with certainty whether or not someone was saved? The Truehearted people were a case in point. Because of this they took a position which they considered scriptural but still allowed for the grace of God. (Roth p. 17) Jakob Ammann and his group were sent to help correct perceived problems in the church. They seemed to be rather demanding of the church leaders. It appears that the Swiss Brethren would usually consider issues as a congregation rather then just discussing it among the leaders. They did not immediately affirm what the delegation was proposing, but rather plead for more time to process the issues. It was agreed that they would meet in 14 days and try to work through the issue of shunning. When some of the ministers didn't show for the meeting they were put into the ban. In fact, of those that did come all except for one man were excommunicated by the delegation from Alsace. Later Jakob Ammann sent another letter and stated that all who were not excommunicated at the first meeting should appear for a second meeting. They would be given the opportunity to agree with what Ammann was proposing. If however they did not agree, or did not even come to the meeting, they would be excommunicated. Ammann went to great lengths to support his case with Scripture. He also reminded them that he was simply trying to reinforce what the former teachings were. In all fairness, although Jakob was the spokesperson, he was representing a group of churches that had sent a delegation to correct a problem. According to research done by LeRoy Beachy, Jakob's brother Ulli was more influential in the beginning of the movement and is a more accurate representative of that movement. It does seem, however, that Jakob was the spokesperson for the group and also the one involved in correspondence. The tone of his letters and his statements seem to convey harshness and impatience. To his credit, some six years later, he repented of this and asked for forgiveness. Hans Reist, a Swiss Brethren, seemed to resent the imposition and at first resisted, and then later basically ignored the group that came to correct them. He seemed unwilling to graciously accept correction. Of course, according to his understanding of Scripture, correction was not needed. Both sides were careful to support there arguments with Scripture. Gerhard Roosen, a lay leader, writes that he is saddened by the report that, "you (the Swiss Brethren) have been unsettled by people who hold or think highly of themselves and make laws about things that are not established for us in the Gospel. …and then punishes with the ban… also to expel from the fellowship as leaven those who do not want to shun such people…" (Roth p68-69) I believe this conveys the general feeling that the Swiss Brethren had toward Jakob Ammann and his delegation. Most of the people simply ignored the excommunication of their leaders. This served to deepen the rift between the two groups. Peter Lehman describes a case where he was asked to read to Jakob and his delegation letters written in reply to Jakob's letters to the Swiss Brethren. Before he got through the first letter he was stopped and accused of being a false teacher and the Devil's servant. Jakob said he had no desire to have anything to do with him, and in fact said, if he had one hair on his head that would desire it, he would pull it out. He went on to call them liars and reprobates. (Roth p80-81) This is representative of the intensity of the debate. In 1698, Ulli Ammann wrote a moving letter trying to once again explain their position and also to seek reconciliation. He writes in a way that you can sense both his love and concern. He concludes that they had acted too rashly in placing people in the ban. For this, they excommunicated themselves with hope the two sides could be reconciled. The Swiss Brethren however understood this to mean that they were admitting their error in doctrine and responded with rejoicing. That was not the hoped for response. In 1700, Jakob Ammann wrote a short letter acknowledging his error and asked for forgiveness. It seems to be a letter of genuine repentance. He also excommunicated himself because of his mistakes. (Roth p109) Again the letter did not achieve the desired results of reconciliation. It was perceived as too little, too late, and not genuine because he did not actually change his belief. (Roth p120) As a result the Amish and the Mennonites were divided. This division exists to this day. The question that remains is: what lessons about the practical
living out of our faith can we learn from this sad part of our history?
|
| WORKS CITED Beachy, Leroy, Millersburg, Ohio, 330-893-2883, Beachy Amish Historian, Telephone
interview. |