Printer Friendly

Retracing the blurred boundaries of twentieth-century "Amish mennonite" identity part11.

B. Stuarts Draft, Virginia

In 1968, three young lay families and several youth in central Virginia withdrew from the Mt. Zion Amish Mennonite congregation and started Pilgrim Christian Fellowship in the same community. The bishops who investigated the situation--Uria Shetler, Eli Tice, and Elam Kauffman of Weavertown--represented churches who were at the center of the merger between Holmes County and the Beachy churches. The bishops recommended that the faction return to Mt. Zion. Privately they counseled Mt. Zion to allow English and to agree to other demands made by the faction. Neither group complied, and the Pilgrim congregation secured the assistance of Berea Christian Fellowship. In the 1970s the Pilgrim church gradually came to embrace the values of the consolidated Beachy constituency, while the Mt. Zion church moved into the (Old) Beachy (the "lowest Amish Mennonite") camp. Over the subsequent two decades Mt. Zion steadily lost members to the neighboring church. Predicting this drain, the majority of Mt. Zion members moved to Paris, Tennessee, in 1971, three years after the division, establishing an emerging capital for the (Old) Beachys, geographically distant from the mainstream Beachy churches. (70)

C. Hartville, Ohio, and Mercer County, Pennsylvania

In the Ohio-Pennsylvania border region, the Maple Grove Amish Mennonite (Mercer County, Pennsylvania) and Pleasant View Amish Mennonite (Hartville, Ohio) congregations shared close ties, the former having originated in Hartville. In 1964, a committee of nine Beachy bishops and ministers investigated Sam Otto, bishop of the Pleasant View church, and brought charges against him for failures in administration, the use of tobacco, and a lack of interest "in the spiritual welfare of the Church," Eli Tice was given charge over the church, and Otto withdrew. (71) Otto's followers, however, were numerous, filling their new meetinghouse. The new group persevered in using German as well as tobacco, but came to observe a looser discipline than was practiced at Pleasant View. (72) Otto's group represented a clear break from the Beachys--indeed, Otto stated to the committee that "he wants nothing to do with the Beachy fellowship" (73)--and the Beachys formally resolved to sever ties with any church that fellowshipped with Otto or his congregation, marking a significant step in separating (Old) Beachys (or "highest Amish") groups from others in the new denomination, such as the Fairview Amish Mennonite congregation in Indiana. (74)

Meanwhile, Bishop Joe Miller of the Maple Grove Amish Mennonite congregation in Mercer County supported Otto, but his own congregation was polarized. The revivalist faction at Maple Grove responded by withdrawing from the congregation with help from brothers Joni Shetler (Mission Home, Va.) and Uria Shetler (Holmes County, Ohio), leveling similar accusations against their bishop as the revivalist had raised against Otto at Pleasant View. The Maple Grove bishop and his party responded by stating they wanted nothing to do with the Shetler group. At first, Noah Wengerd, the newly-ordained bishop of the new Pilgrim Fellowship that emerged, was reluctant to drop German. Eventually, however, the group adopted both English and missions program, though they maintained a devout expression of plain dress. Wengerd opted to withdraw peacefully and to join the (Old) Beachy ("lowest Amish Mennonite") community at Paris, Tennessee. (75) Pilgrim Fellowship otherwise chose a conservative, though revivalist, path, and came to align with the Mennonite Christian Fellowship denomination, to which the story shall now turn.


The network that eventually became the Mennonite Christian Fellowship--known more commonly as the "Fellowship Churches"--ranged from Beachy to ex-Amish to ex-River Brethren. The "Fellowship Churches" have the same name as the fellowship churches of Holmes County. That is because the congregations that would later constitute the "Fellowship Churches" initially received help and instruction in dress and regulations from the fellowship churches of Holmes County, though none of these churches were within Holmes County. Most were located in the eastern states.

Like the Holmes County fellowship churches, the eastern network that would become the "Fellowship Churches" were strongly mission-minded, engaging in tract distribution and church colonization; yet they were also devoted to maintaining "clear lines of separation" and "the application of nonconformity" consistent with the original goals of the Holmes County movement. (76) When they discovered that the pattern they had been taught was weakening among the Holmes County fellowship churches through the merger with the Beachys, they gradually separated themselves into an independent group. (77) Some, such as a group of River Brethren from Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, had needed to make significant changes to pattern their practice after the precedent of the Holmes County fellowship churches, so they were reluctant to give up their practices again to follow yet another precedent. These churches in the eastern states inherited the "Fellowship" title when the fellowship churches of Holmes County discarded the label for a Beachy identity. (78)

The following events leading up to the division began in the late 1960s. In 1968 when the New Order Amish in the Summitview district of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, permitted automobiles, (79) they clearly broke with the Amish, but other issues remained unresolved. The church sought oversight from Morning View Amish Mennonite, one of the "highest Amish" churches in Ontario. Summitview's association with a tobacco-condoning church prompted two of four ministers to withdraw. In 1969 the departing ministers formed the Melita Fellowship. Five years later, Summitview began holding revival meetings and "the tide began to turn against smoking and running with the Amish." (80) A second faction then withdrew, forming a "highest Amish" group--the Spring Garden Church (originally "Mt. Tabor Church"). The group has retained Lancaster Amish garb, never transitioning to the Beachy dress that was broadly embraced in the 1970s as a partial nod to the Mennonite revivalists. Like the Maple Lawn Amish Mennonite congregation in Indiana, Summitview attempted to chart a course between the Melita and Spring Garden factions, eventually placing them on the periphery of the Beachys.

When the Melita group withdrew, they appealed to the Holmes County fellowship churches for assistance and hosted "Oklahoma" Dave for revival meetings. (81) Like the Berea congregation in Indiana, Melita could be dogmatic about its evangelistic expression--on one occasion, for example, when a Summitview member visited a service at Melita, a school-age child disapprovingly asked the visitor why he did not stand up and give his testimony. (82) Yet even as the Melita congregation emphasized personal conversion, personal testimonies, and a personal embrace of church practices, they also taught that unity with God required unity with the brotherhood. (83) Thus, unlike Berea and other "radical fellowship" churches, Melita developed a sharp expression of nonconformity, becoming an anchor for the Holmes County fellowship movement in the East. Church leadership attempted to promote intergenerational continuity: young adult activities, for example, were never just "socials" but always had a spiritual emphasis and involved church families, not just the youth. Melita also fraternized closely with a faction of River Brethren from Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, that had also received assistance from Holmes County fellowship churches. Between 1970 and 1974, the Melita and Chambersburg congregations established two regional branches and two more distant church plants in Eastern states. (84)

Membership transfers from Weavertown and its four regional branches (85) to Melita and its two regional branches complicated relationships between Holmes County fellowship churches and the nucleus group of Beachy churches. Through personal connections and doctrinal convictions, Melita was effectively a Holmes County fellowship church. However, prior to and through the early years of Melita, the Holmes County ministers were also entertaining affiliation with Weavertown, hoping that interaction and pulpit exchanges with the Weavertown group would go as well as it did with Mountain View in the mid-1960s. The first meeting toward this goal failed. The Holmes County ministers would not tolerate Weavertown's slow response against tobacco and the underemphasis on teaching the new birth (a central emphasis among revivalists) while Weavertown leaders were offended by the accusations against their lifestyle. (86) The Holmes County ministers, led by Uria Shetler and Yost Miller, were also adamant about the need to rebaptize Amish converts who did not feel their original confession of faith was genuine, a practice the Weavertown ministers felt was unnecessary. The conflict over baptism affected other churches, including a church planting initiative in Belize sponsored by Amish Mennonite Aid. Later, Weavertown hosted a Holmes County evangelist for revival meetings, but when the evangelist informed the Weavertown ministers on Saturday that he was planning to conduct baptisms the next day, the Weavertown ministers quickly rallied in opposition, and the Holmes County ministers advised the evangelist to hold off. The two sides later met with Eli Tice to resolve differences. Tice told the group that if rebaptism was wrong, then he was in error, since he had rebaptized some young people. Both sides respected Tice; and as a compromise, Holmes County fellowship churches relaxed their emphasis on the practice, while Weavertown relinquished their opposition to it. (87)

This compromise and others were paralleled by changes within both groups of churches. Within the Weavertown churches in the 1960s, the conflict pitting the revivalist mindset against the (Old) Beachy orientation--largely a divide between the generations--found expression in other areas, such as the use of English or German in worship. After years of decline, the use of tobacco in the Weavertown churches was prohibited sometime in the early 1970s, a step supported by younger members, whose influence was growing. (88) In Holmes County, because of the burgeoning size of the group, leaders gradually turned their attention away from zealous personal evangelism toward administrative responsibilities, where they also faced the ongoing challenge of defining nonconformity among the laity. (89)

Through these changes, the Holmes County fellowship movement gradually shifted its support from Melita to Weavertown. At their annual meetings, for example, Holmes County ministers secured positions on Beachy boards, a change that disturbed those churches that originally had been assisted by the Holmes County fellowship group. Support of Beachy programs symbolized an adoption of Beachy values, which meant, among other things, a greater toleration of tobacco and a decline in plainness. They felt Beachy churches like Weavertown were too slow in making tobacco a test of membership, even if the next generation was gradually phasing out the practice. In regards to declining plainness, their interpretation was accurate, at least as regarded the nucleus of Beachy and Holmes County fellowship churches (that is, the most socially visible in the consolidation movement). However, other Beachy and Holmes County fellowship churches were moving to the periphery of the consolidated constituency, having similar concerns as the Fellowship Churches, but these peripheral churches were less networked to one another and therefore never produced an independent denomination.

In the early 1970s, leaders of the two sets of fellowship churches, those of Holmes County and the Melita group, met. The eastern bloc expressed dismay about changes in the Holmes County congregations--namely, a decreasing interest in rebaptism and an increasing departure from older boundaries of nonconformity, such as decisive opposition to mixed gender bathing among the youth, the decline of suspenders, and changes in women's coverings and hairstyles. Now it was the Holmes County group that was offended by the accusations against their lifestyle. In 1971 Uria Shetler, who was also troubled by the changes he saw in his Holmes County fellowship churches, moved to Paraguay to assist in a new church planting effort there. Shetler had served as a bridge between the two factions, and his relocation hastened the divergence. During the course of the 1970s, the eastern group and the Holmes County churches began to drift apart. (90)

Following Uria's departure, his brother, Joni Shetler, became a spokesman for the eastern group. Ordained as a bishop in 1970 at Mission Home Christian Fellowship--the local church for the Faith Mission Home, jointly sponsored by the Mission Interests Committee and Amish Mennonite Aid (91)--he quickly diverged from the Beachy-Holmes County merger. When a New Order Amish faction in central Ohio became dissatisfied with assistance received from Holmes County, Shetler stepped in to help. He also helped a faction from Kempsville Amish Mennonite relocate to central Virginia. Shetler was an indispensible supporter of the Melita churches, conducting early ordinations and sending a Mission Home minister to Melita's Pine Grove Christian Fellowship outreach. (92) While Faith Mission Home was a Beachy institution, started by the Oak Grove Mennonite congregation of Aroda, Virginia, and supported and staffed by churches like Weavertown and Mountain View, Joni Shetler's Mission Home Christian Fellowship on the premises--formally independent of Faith Mission Home-took on the flavor of the 1960s Holmes County fellowship churches. Their intense community outreach among non-Anabaptists pushed local attendance at church services to a record high, but all within a context of strict regulations against fashionable dress and participation in sports.

Throughout the 1970s, the same differences that had divided Weavertown and Holmes County in the 1960s now found expression in this small mountain hollow of central Virginia. The proximity of Faith Mission Home and the Mission Home Christian Fellowship brought the tensions to an inevitable climax. Mission Home Christian Fellowship leaders raised the same concerns that Holmes County leaders had in the 1960s about some Beachy churches represented by Faith Mission Home (such as Weavertown): tolerance of tobacco use, understanding of the new birth, and others. In addition, the leaders of the church and Faith Mission Home had different visions as to how voluntary service for young people should be administered; the structures of each aligned with their divergent visions of adolescent society. The church increasingly aligned itself against the growing peer culture of youth programs among the Beachys, such as the Youth Fellowship Meetings and the newly-established Calvary Bible School (1970). (93) As the Beachy and Holmes County churches representing Faith Mission Home increasingly took issue with the cautious stance of the Mission Home Christian Fellowship and Faith Mission Home's administration and the Mission Home Christian Fellowship leaders conflicted when touching the affairs of the other, the church felt pressured to move off the property. In 1976-1977, Mission Home Christian Fellowship relocated to West Virginia, while the Pilgrim Christian Fellowship of Stuarts Draft, Virginia, sponsored a new Beachy church on the premises, made up entirely of Faith Mission Home staff. (94)

The Mission Home conflict created a permanent division between the eastern group of fellowship churches and the consolidating Beachys. Ten Churches (95)--all inspired by the Holmes County fellowship movement, and many having received help from Uria or Joni Shetler, though none of them located within Holmes County--sided with Mission Home Christian Fellowship. Beginning in 1978 their small constituency proceeded to hold separate annual ministers' meetings. They adopted the formal title "Mennonite Christian Fellowship," but retained an informal title, "Fellowship Churches."

The division at Mission Home was so intense in part because the local church challenged the values of the consolidated Beachy constituency; it was organizations like the Mission Interests Committee, Amish Mennonite Aid, and Faith Mission Home that provided a network for like-minded churches. Only because churches had similar values could they jointly support institutions that embodied these values. The Mission Home church brought into question the values of the Beachy nucleus and thereby the ability of this particular Beachy institution to cement a shared Beachy identity. In relocating the congregation, the Beachys retained the centripetal force of this particular institution, while the Mennonite Christian Fellowship churches immediately began ministers' meetings among their own circle of association. Each group embedded their commonly understood boundaries in these organizations.

While the Mennonite Christian Fellowship had a moderate level of fraternization with Beachy congregations in the 1980s, by the early 1990s, the Beachys' openness to social innovations, as well as the emergence of the charismatically pietistic Charity churches, which discarded written standards and depleted Fellowship ranks among the original eastern bloc, prompted Fellowship leaders to draw firmer lines of association.


By the mid-1970s, the Holmes County-Weavertown merger had secured a victory for the new Beachy expression of Amish Mennonite. The steadfastly conservative (Old) Beachy--represented by either the Sam Otto network or the Paris, Tennessee, settlement--and the Mennonite Christian Fellowship churches were dislodged from Beachy ranks. Today, Mennonite Christian Fellowship churches operate as an independent Amish Mennonite denomination. They have shifted more weight into other states, notably Missouri, as well as in Latin America, while Melita and a majority of the original eastern group have since closed their doors or reaffiliated. (96)

In the meantime, other institutions, organizations, and ministries had multiplied by the end of the 1970s. One new point of institutional connection was an annual meeting of ministers, started in the early 1960s, that provided crucial ties among Beachy leaders. While denominational business could be handled at these meetings, most time was spent on sermons with a local church responsible for planning the event. (97) Absent was any sort of central governing agency. Instead, ministers recognized the informal boundaries of the denomination simply by attending the meetings and working together on a variety of boards, including those representing foreign missions and domestic service projects like Faith Mission Home, Hillcrest Home, or one of the other four homes for the elderly or mentally handicapped. Calvary Bible School, Youth Fellowship meetings, and voluntary service projects provided opportunities for young adults to intermingle. These interactions further strengthened the informal bond among nucleus Beachy churches by securing marriage partners for the young from communities dispersed both geographically and genetically. (98) As long as boundaries were commonly understood and visions were shared, Beachy churches were able to work together. Consistent with their Amish orientation, neither the "highest Amish" nor the "lowest Amish Mennonites" had such structures; both have seen only modest growth, offset at times by critical declines. Nonetheless, for both groups the boundaries arising out of church divisions came to define their movements.

While factions occasionally continued to break away from the Amish to establish a new church and join the Beachys, such incidents were exceptions. Instead, Beachy churches grew primarily through natural means, as well as from a modest number of Amish individual converts. Through the 1980s and into the 1990s, the denomination grew exponentially. However, beginning already in the late 1970s, increasingly diverse expressions of tradition vs. modern hybridizations began to emerge once again. With the passing of an older generation, another set of subgroups began to polarize, prompting those committed to defining stronger boundaries to break away once again.


Since the 1980s the fear of following a path to cultural and religious assimilation, such as that of the Conservative Mennonite Conference, has been at the forefront of the minds of Beachy leaders. Having rejected the structural mechanisms used by the Old Order Amish to preserve their community (such as the nonownership of automobiles), Beachy leaders sought alternative explanations or structures that would preserve the identity of the denomination for future generations. Some sort of macro-level committee seemed necessary, but the role of such a group became the focus of dispute. Generally, those churches that represented the more permissive wing of the Beachys desired a committee that could act as a "resource and counseling body" to "listen and give counsel to church leaders" and "take initiative in unusual situations to express concern," yet have "no authority to overrule local decisions." The committee would "compile information and offer insights particularly applicable to our Amish Mennonite setting that would encourage unity among the larger body." (99)

The conservative element, on the other hand, preferred to prevent assimilation by adopting guidelines of affiliation. Disciplinary action against congregations not in compliance with these guidelines would be limited to release from group membership. Absent from either camp were calls for a more centralized conference structure, as all saw the bureaucratic structures in the General Conference of the (Old) Mennonite church and the Conservative Mennonite Conference to blame, at least in part, for the assimilation of those bodies.

However, conflicting conceptions of what an alternative macro-level structure would look like revealed divergent assumptions among the Amish Mennonite groups. The advisory-informational view of the committee put forward by the progressive wing had been embraced by preceding Amish Mennonite movements--despite differences in actual committee structure--and reflected aspects of evangelical thought that were "very optimistic about the possibility of God working through the reborn individual." (100) A committee could provide member churches with appropriate information, thereby guiding them to good decisions, while also allowing the Holy Spirit to further direct. For these Beachys, principles or ideas are consistent and foundational; they should come first. Specific practices or lifestyle questions follow from these principles, and could vary somewhat. But if the principles were correctly understood, the subsequent practices would ultimately resist assimilation.

More conservative Beachys, on the other hand, embraced a characteristically Old Order model of church organization. They framed Christianity as a lifelong "struggle to die to self" in which the community guides its members as individuals humbly submit to the will of the congregation. (101) A member left to his own devices without guiding structures will turn to the flesh and fall away. For conservative Beachys, having a committee develop minimum standards would provide a gauge by which to measure other congregations' commitment to the denominational community. Uniform practices reflect like-mindedness and therefore an ability to work together. Resisting assimilation begins by restricting those forces that weaken the community context, which guides members towards holiness. The basic philosophies of the two camps were therefore quite different in emphasis. The progressive wing aligned more closely with classical liberalism--humans make rational choices in their best interest when presented with accurate information--while the conservative wing saw individuals making choices within contexts of habits, values, and sociocultural influences, forces that must be steered and controlled to influence individual choice. (102)

These differences in assumptions underlay the conflict surrounding the purpose of the Bishop Committee, which played out at the annual Beachy Amish Mennonite Ministers' Fellowship Meeting. From the start, these meetings were the mechanism by which various committees met and reported, and in which ministers could voice their perspectives to a generally representative body of the constituency. The churches hosting the meetings each year were responsible for moderating, selecting sermon topics, and assigning speakers. Thus, the execution of the meetings tended to reflect the manner in which the host congregation drew its lines of acculturation in both practice and thought.

The Beachy Bishop Committee

In 1991 the Cedar Grove Amish Mennonite congregation of Ontario hosted the ministers' meetings. The program title (Set for the Defense of the Gospel), the sermon topic selections, (103) and chosen speakers reflected the church's position relative to other Beachy congregations--that is, more conservative. The ordained men asked to speak at the meetings were mostly prominent conservative leaders who largely echoed the sentiments of the Cedar Grove ministry.

From the first night on, those preaching expressed concerns about behaviors and activities among the Beachy laity. With each passing sermon, passions escalated among attendees, both among those calling for mobilization against the cultural deviance as well as among those who dismissed the presumed urgency of stricter boundaries. On the final day, the host ministry opened the floor for attendees to share their concerns. Various ministers identified no less than eighteen areas of threatened practices. The hosts proposed that a bishop committee should research the issues and draft a statement to bring before the assembled ministers at a later meeting. The elected committee consisted of five men from churches with more selective practices. Thus, the Old Order-style assumptions of the conservatives were embedded in the committee's purpose and task from the start.

From 1991 through 1997, the committee worked to establish boundaries for the constituency, in a similar vein as the standards developed in the late 1950s. However, the initiative was a failure. The eighteen items, as presented in the document A Charge to Keep, I Have, were originally envisioned as elements of a written standard of practice for the entire constituency--not to replace the standards of individual churches, but to set a minimum standard for all members of the denomination. Largely through the leading of ministers from Hutchinson, Kansas, a minority of the most permissive congregations worked against the initiative, framing the development as a move toward a hierarchical "conference," despite committee statements to the contrary. Rather than implement all eighteen issues at once, the committee changed its strategy to address one at a time. Thus, for example, a statement against radio and television ownership, introduced and reintroduced to the ministerial body, finally received ratification in 1999 (104) a second statement regarding divorce and remarriage highlighted conflicting interpretations of New Testament teaching. (105) Here the committee's more restrictive position met with opposition.

Measured by its original purpose, the committee decisively failed. The one congregation that formally permitted the radio--ironically, the Mountain View church of the late bishops Moses Beachy and Eli Tice -- was barred from hosting constituency events, but otherwise continued circulating among the affiliation. (106) In 1997, the ministerial body moved to rotate committee members, and subsequent bishops shifted the committee's function to a more advisory role, drafting and implementing statements of recommendation. However, many statements issued by the committee were quickly outdated and forgotten. (107) Within several years of its release in 2001, for example, the recommendations regarding technology were no longer being observed even by the churches of the bishops serving on the committee who drafted the statement. Several other statements expressing concern about changes in head coverings became increasingly vague and failed to significantly affect trends.108 All this was occurring during another period of sharp increases in church divisions. No fewer than twenty-five Beachy church crises occurred between 2000 and 2010, resulting in divisions, resignations of the majority of ministers, or significant membership realignments within geographic clusters of churches. This affected approximately one-third of all Beachy congregations in the U.S. and Canada. In addition, within the first few years of ordination, nearly every new bishop sought some change in the written standards, including relaxing seemingly outdated practices, rewriting the entire standard, and, in some cases, eliminating the written standard all together. (109)

In a 2010 questionnaire sent to constituency ministers, the committee asked respondents to identify areas of strengths and weaknesses of the Beachys. A commonly cited weakness was the "lack of accountability to one another and how far apart we are getting" while a frequently mentioned strength was the "openness to a broader spectrum of fellowship and our emphasis on congregational autonomy." The bishop committee concluded: "Our strength is also our weakness. ... Now the concern is that the differences are becoming so great and fundamental that we may not be able to continue much longer with the greater tension." (110)

These dynamics, of course, were not new. Writing in the midst of the 1990s committee work, one researcher observed of the Beachy two-kingdom theology that "the boundaries which define these kingdoms is and continues to be increasingly ambiguous for many among the Beachy Amish."111 The boundaries that enabled Beachy churches to work together through programs and institutions had become blurred once more. Thus, by the 2010 meeting, quite a few churches had already withdrawn, seeking clearer boundaries. Bishop Leroy Lapp of the Summitview Christian Fellowship stated the perspective of these churches well in his 1993 ministers' meeting sermon: "There must be some common rules that we agree to; something like a constitution," Lapp said. "If there is to be a working together, there must be an accountability to one another to abide by those established rules." (112)

Organization of the Maranatha and Ambassadors Amish Mennonite Constituencies

As it became apparent that the opposition to A Charge to Keep, I Have would succeed, several leaders--including Leroy Lapp, bishop committee member John Mast (Mt. Moriah Mennonite, Tennessee), the Cedar Grove ministry of Ontario, and others--sought an alternative affiliation that eventually became the Maranatha Amish Mennonite constituency. Rather than persuade all Beachys to retrace their boundaries, they would create a subgroup of congregations that voluntarily agreed upon a constitution stating commonly-held practices. For these churches the decline of structural mechanisms supporting a clearly shared moral order prompted a fear of assimilation. That realization was often framed in debates over constituency government and specific practices. Leaders of churches with greater generational shifts in practice, on the other hand, countered that the issues over which these churches divided were petty and regrettable.

In 1997, a group of ministers met at Whiteville, Tennessee, to share concerns about the lack of respect for committee work, lack of accountability, and permissive trends within the Beachy movement. Soon thereafter, the leaders drafted a constitution based on A Charge to Keep, I Have. (113) Significantly, they did not cut off the Beachys or prohibit attendance at Beachy activities or participation in Beachy missions--a line the Fellowship Churches took in the 1990s in response to the growing divergence in standards. Instead, the Maranatha constituency sought to provide alternatives to Beachy programs, such as "area wide Bible schools" (hosted by a congregation rather than at an institution) and a variety of mission and service projects. By design, these alternatives rejected the peer culture prevalent among Beachy programs, and tried to promote intergenerational integration. For example, area wide Bible schools were to provide greater supervision and student interaction with adults by having churches--rather than an institution at a fixed location--host the meetings in rotation, reducing the unstructured hours in the schedule, and hosting students in private homes rather than in a single large dormitory as at Calvary Bible School. The Maranatha group embedded its values in their institutions; and most of their members intuitively turned to these programs instead of the Beachy alternatives because of shared values, social ties, and the ensuing trust.

Almost all Maranatha congregations are in single-church settings outside of historical Anabaptist settlements. Separation from other Anabaptist expressions permits greater stability in maintaining clearer boundaries. Tennessee is home to six Maranatha congregations, the most of any state. In addition to the fifteen congregations formally affiliated with Maranatha (2011), (114) an equal number associate with Maranatha but are not formal members. These peripheral Beachy congregations have ministers who sympathize with the movement, but either do not see benefits in formal membership or do not have full support from the laity. In recent years, boundary disputes have sharpened the divide between Maranatha and Beachy. (115) Presently, Maranatha ministers no longer attend Beachy ministers' meetings, and the group has moved from being a subgroup of the Beachys to an independent constituency with a distinct set of functions, boundaries, and identities.

Recently, the Ambassadors Amish Mennonite group has emerged from the Maranatha churches. Soon after their 1993 founding, Cedar Springs Amish Mennonite (Leitchfield, Kentucky) initiated a rapid church planting program, so that by 2011, the congregation had added four additional churches in their group, plus a Beachy faction that relocated to Kentucky. Though the leaders of Cedar Springs were influential in giving rise to Maranatha, its leaders sought a more intimate fellowship among its sister congregations and a greater distance from the Beachy denomination as a whole. Though the process took several years, the denomination formally organized with the adoption of the name Ambassadors in 2008 and a constitution in 2009. The Ambassadors group shares the Maranatha constitution (with several additions), but maintains a more uniform adherence to church practices than does Maranatha and requires a commitment to their outreach programs in which households must agree to relocate with a church planting if called upon.

Its most ambitious outreach program has been the Beside the Still Waters devotional booklet, which has become one of the most far-reaching ministries among all Amish Mennonites, with a circulation of nearly 190,000 copies per month. Contributing writers hail from a variety of conservative Anabaptist settings, but must meet twelve prerequisites. Some are core fundamentalist beliefs--the inspiration of the Bible and the need for repentance--and others are practical issues that highlight symbolic boundaries--membership in a church that makes "practical applications to the principles of God's Word" such as the avoidance of radio and television, rejection of remarriage after divorce, and wearing the head covering. (116) The Ambassador group thus embeds its values in this project while also establishing bonds of trust with others outside of their small constituency.

Both Maranatha and Ambassadors have carried out, and perhaps even exceeded, the 1960s church planting vision of the revivalists--between 1999 and 2010, they have planted a combined total of twelve churches. The Beachys, by contrast, at ten times the size of these small offshoots, have planted only eight churches during these years. Such statistics point to an important defining trait of these two offshoots, suggesting a greater continuity with the previous generation than with the mainstream Beachys, but also a stability of identity within since these churches have largely bypassed the church crises affecting one-third of Beachy churches, as noted.

The (Old) Beachys: Midwest Beachy, Berea Amish Mennonite, and "Highest Amish" Affiliations

Meanwhile, the (Old) Beachy lineage has followed two main courses. Through the 1970s and 1980s, the "highest Amish Mennonites" thrived in Paris, Tennessee, where Mt. Zion members from Stuarts Draft, Virginia, relocated in the early 1970s. However, when a small division resulted in a conservative mainline Beachy church emerging in the same community, (Old) Beachy members scattered into new settlements throughout Illinois and Kentucky, where six congregations continue to grow today. Sister congregations in other areas, perhaps thriving at one point, have all become extinct or switched to English through the 1980s and 1990s. The last to close was South Haven Amish Mennonite in northern Indiana in 2003. The six (Old) Beachy congregations have adopted the name "Midwest Beachy," and support two programs in which their common values are embedded: an annual school meeting and their own branch of the Conservative Anabaptist Service Project. These developments have helped the movement attain some stability and growth. Churches adhere to German in services--one distinctive group boundary--and dress more plainly than do some Old Order Amish. Their common origin in Paris, Tennessee, with deeper roots in Stuarts Draft, Virginia, also continues to provide a shared reference point and history.

The Berea Amish Mennonites are more conservative than the Ambassadors and Fellowship Churches, but less so than the Midwest Beachy. Most came from (Old) Beachy churches ("lowest Amish Mennonite") that permitted English, (117) though a handful come from either mainstream Beachy or Fellowship groups. (118) Prior to 1998, ministers from these churches fellowshipped informally until the Believer's Fellowship (Daviess/Greene counties, Indiana) invited them for a meeting. Representatives from all seven of these congregations responded, and the group has continued to meet annually, having adopted Maranatha's constitution with some modifications; and the group chose its present name in 2008. By 2011, Berea consisted of eleven congregations.119 They generally do not support Beachy missions or institutions, but have developed their own ministries, such as annual youth fellowship meetings and an active division of the Conservative Anabaptist Service Program. The annual youth fellowship meeting, like the area wide Bible schools, affirms and reinforces group values, serves as a program to bind the churches together through trust, and allows a place for young adults to identify potential marriage partners from like-minded churches.

The other stream of (Old) Beachy congregations is the most loosely associated and has no formal title. Because they consciously retain an Amish identity, yet have a more open standard of practice than do any Amish, they may be referred to as the "highest Amish." During the divisions in the 1960s and 1970s, most of these congregations, largely located in historical Anabaptist settlements, were disenfranchised by Beachys, who supported the evangelical faction. (120) Today, they include about ten congregations, though within the three major settlements of "highest Amish" churches, tensions between pairs of churches persist because of divisions. (121) While these congregations discourage tobacco, they generally do not make it a test of membership. Being in historical Amish settlements, they tend to have a high turnover of membership since Old Order Amish are more likely to defect to a "highest Amish" church than to a Beachy church. Such an arrangement gives their socialization and behavioral nuances a distinctly Old Order Amish flavor. However, members also leave more frequently than they do in Beachy churches. Only a few members have an extended family of multiple generations in the same church. Loosely speaking, every generation of these churches' existence is a first generation. Most of the churches retain regional Amish garb, but accessorize with fashionable variations, paralleling to an extent the most permissive Beachys. The network has never established formal organizations to embed shared values or cement internal cohesion, but they do contribute to or participate in broadly supported Anabaptist organizations (though not Beachy missions) and mainstream Protestant ministries. Bishop Henry Fisher of Spring Garden Church (Lancaster County) has been influential in strengthening the network among leaders, though deeper relationships across the churches, such as group institutions and intermarriage among lay members, have not yet developed. (122)

Amish Mennonite Associations Beyond Formal Affiliation

Other Amish Mennonite congregations observe similarly loose associations among like-minded congregations, or even second layers of regional-based associations. This attests to the centripetal force of geography. Because so many conservative Amish Mennonite congregations are located in Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri, and other Southern states, these churches hold exchanges that may bind them more closely to one another than to members of their own constituency several states away. For example, members of a Fellowship congregation, Maranatha church, and an unaffiliated Amish Mennonite church located an hour away in Tennessee may associate with each other more freely than they do with members of their own constituencies. Though formally belonging to separate movements, they recognize shared values. Many congregations in the South support organizations across denominational lines, such as the Mt. Zion Literature ministry to South America, which is sponsored by an unaffiliated Amish Mennonite church. Southern churches also host all but one of the area wide Bible schools. Until several years ago, most Southern churches participated in an annual family outing and conference, but it was discontinued because of size.

In the North, despite sharp differences in practice among the Holmes County and northern Indiana Beachy churches, each settlement has a routine ministers' meeting and also conducts a rotating pulpit exchange among their ministers, whereby each minister is assigned a topic to address in each Beachy church over a period of time. However, such associations have increasingly come under question by the conservative element; as boundaries diverge, trust has declined. It is very likely that more Amish Mennonite constituencies will form in the coming years. In the spring of 2010, for example, similarly-minded Texas, California, and Kentucky ministers from churches with Amish Mennonite origins met to discuss formalizing associations, but did not take that step.


The Beachy movement has grown significantly through the twentieth century, not only in the number of church affiliations, but also of individual members. Until the 1960s, Beachy was the only Amish Mennonite destination for people leaving the Old Order Amish. However, population growth enabled Amish Mennonite members to form bonds of commonality with greater precision, and from the 1960s on, Amish Mennonite denominations developed independent of the Beachy constituency. (123)

While congregations could have continued to exist with their differences as completely autonomous churches bearing the name "Beachy," the revivalist sub-group formed denomination-level committees and organizations. Such structures linked otherwise autonomous churches together by embodying shared boundaries. Common boundaries expressed in institutions communicated similar values and ideologies among supporting churches, and therefore the ability to work together to achieve common goals. To the extent that they were denominational structures, these organizations called for a clear demonstration of support among all constituents who called themselves "Beachy." In redefining "Beachy" according to the boundaries of their sub-group, they recognized that a support base must be sympathetic to the organization's values to succeed. (124) Those whose values were incompatible with the values of the organizations withdrew from the nucleus body of Beachys in the 1960s and 1970s. Diverging boundaries were symbolic of differing values.

Conflicts over these seemingly minor symbols resulted from a lack of confidence among all members that they shared the same fundamental values and ideologies. Some churches could be linked through institutions--whether organizations or social institutions like marriages and friendships across churches--because they had the same boundaries; other churches had different boundaries symbolizing a diverging ideology. Thus, talking about the new birth, conducting local and foreign missions, tolerating or forbidding tobacco, altering traditional dress, accepting technological innovations, preaching the arguments of right-wing Protestant authors, and using German or English in services were all examples of boundary markers representing underlying ideologies. For example, on issues of tobacco and the use of German in church services, those who aligned with the revivalist ideology regarded tobacco as intolerable and German as cumbersome, while those who prioritized an Amish identity saw acceptance of both as consistent with their ideology. Still others accepted the social reforms of the revivalist movement, thereby forbidding tobacco, but retained German as an Amish expression of nonconformity. These contradictions were resolved in the emergence of numerous subgroups, as boundaries blurred by the transition away from the Old Order were reestablished in new Amish Mennonite denominations.

Yet, even after forming committees, organizations, and social bonds, the Beachy nucleus failed to establish a commonly recognized set of defining boundaries, either by way of formal institutions or through informal acceptance (as in the Old Order Amish rejection of automobile ownership that crystallized without a centralized decision). The ideological support of willing participants is necessary--but in itself insufficient--for the stability of a community of people; some sort of stable structure is also needed, such as institutions or communitywide authority structures. (125) The ongoing autonomy of Amish Mennonite churches has permitted each one to import new ideas and values from external sources as the population of mainstream society itself grew and offered an ever-increasing set of values, ideologies, and behavior-shaping technologies. As each generation grew up in a social context different than that known by their parents, they have repeatedly blurred the boundaries of the Beachys. The values embodied in the institutions of the previous generations lost their clarity and authority through the decline of intergenerational continuity and the influence of ideologies imported from external sources.

All Amish Mennonites share a historical origin, having separated from the Old Order, if only by the fact of accepting automobiles. To some extent then, each had to "topple traditions that link[ed] them to their own predecessors." (126) With regard to beliefs and practices, this imperative to start anew both encouraged societal influences and diminished the authority of previous generations. For example, revivalist Amish of the 1950s implemented evening church services, tract distribution, and church planting in non-Anabaptist regions as programs of the church and symbolic activities of spirituality, thereby overturning Amish practices and borrowing from then-contemporary revivalist notions of what it means to be spiritual. However, in subsequent generations, tract distribution declined and evening services became less well attended and more ritualistic and less spontaneous. Instead, activities contemporary to subsequent generations emerged, like small groups, kids' clubs, and seminar attendance. Thus, the first pioneers who moved away from the Old Order at any given time set a precedent for future generations to also change what the first generation had set in place based on whatever forces were pressing against the group from society at that time. (127) Each generation imports new values and ideologies, and the boundaries that define "Beachy" are potentially blurred still further as each generational shift moves the group more closely to other forms and away from their Amish origin.

Beachy leaders have made significant attempts to define affiliation criteria, such as the bishop committee work in the 1990s--a process that ultimately failed. Those who sought greater continuity with the previous generation chose to withdraw at that time out of loyalty to an earlier ideology. Today, yet another attempt is underway to retrace the blurred boundaries of "Beachy" by a list of defining traits and beliefs. The current call for clarity has come in the midst of another generational shift in boundaries that has created a disconnect among the younger members and the programs that once stabilized the movement by embodying values from an earlier age. Institutions must have clear boundaries if congregations are to have confidence that other churches participating in the institutions share a similar ideology and common goals. If boundaries are blurred because underlying ideologies are conflicting, the denominational programs that bond churches together may spread contradictory values back to supporting churches, producing dissent in local congregations and inviting social channels of acculturation.

Some Amish Mennonite subgroups have made decisive shifts each generation; yet others, after a period of initial change and excitement, have fashioned the new into a tradition through repetition, returning to an intergenerational mode of religiosity akin to many Old Order Amish groups.128 For example, Maranatha and Ambassadors strongly maintain the revivalist programs begun in the 1950s: evening services, tract distribution, and church planting in non-Anabaptist areas. Some subgroups withdrew from the nucleus Beachy body in order to protect the development of an intergenerational ideology against the generational boundary changes more prominent among the Beachys. Along the way, they have retraced boundaries and created structural mechanisms to buffer themselves against assimilating forces. Participating in Beachy institutions would introduce a channel of acculturation and alternative value systems into their fellowships. However, some sort of institution or informal pattern of interaction is still needed in which the group can deposit its commonly held boundaries, creating a centripetal force to pull the churches into a common identity.

All Amish Mennonite factions began with a small constituency, which can be a barrier to gathering sufficient resources to start such institutions. Several programs developed in recent years have responded to this need. They have received support from virtually all Amish Mennonite subgroups because they enable a wide range of constituencies to invest their values in the program and claim ownership of the institution, while also maintaining the distance from other subgroups needed to nurture a sense of their own distinctive group identity. Christian Aid Ministries, the conservative Anabaptist equivalent of Mennonite Central Committee, is a case in point. Because it has so many projects and opportunities, Christian Aid Ministries can help a subgroup pursue a relief project or contribution on their own terms. Offering material aid is a value all Anabaptists seemingly accept, and, since 1981, Christian Aid Ministries has enabled subgroups to do so freely within the structure of their program. Another example is the Conservative Anabaptist Service Program, an organization aimed at creating projects and programs of alternative service for young men during peacetime so as to remain prepared in the event of a draft. While the Conservative Anabaptist Service Program taps into the large-scale bureaucratic resources of Christian Aid Ministries, each of fifteen supporting groups--including conservative Mennonite groups, New Order Amish, and Amish Mennonites--create their own alternative service program and administer it under their own guidelines. For this reason, several small Amish Mennonite constituencies--such as Berea Amish Mennonite, Midwest Beachy, and the Fellowship Churches--have embraced the program, contributing a proportionately higher number of service hours per member than larger groups such as the Beachys. (129) For small Amish Mennonite denominations with limited resources, an institution such as the Conservative Anabaptist Service Program, which can handle complicated organizational logistics better than the local congregation, provides a crucial means to offer service while staying within their commonly-held boundaries. Such organizations are a consolidating force for small Amish Mennonite constituencies.

As the Amish Mennonite movement continues to grow in the future, this branch of the church will hold increasing relevance in the fascinating and complex world that spans the Old Order Amish and contemporary Mennonites.

(1.) For example, in her feminist critique of the Amish Mennonites, Karen Johnson-Weiner states that "the exact origins of the Fellowship church are somewhat less clear" than the Beachys, and her review of Beachy history is limited to the isolated division in Salisbury/Grantsville of 1927. -- Karen M. Johnson-Weiner, "The Role of Women in Old Order Amish, Beachy Amish and Fellowship Churches," The Mennonite Quarterly Review 75 (April 2001), 247.

(2.) "Bishop Committee Report," April 7, 2010.

(3.) Aaron Lapp, Weavertown Church History: Memoirs of an Amish Mennonite Church (Kinzers, Pa.: Aaron Lapp Jr., 2003), 41.

(4.) "The Beachy [Amish Deconfederectshipment] Complex," (accessed Dec. 18, 2010).

(5.) Stephen L. Yoder, My Beloved Brethren (Nappanee, Ind.: Evangel Press, 1992), 199.

(6.) Cf. Charles E. Hurst and David L. McConnell, An Amish Paradox: Diversity and Change in the World's Largest Amish Community (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2010), 32, 264-265; or the listing in Donald Kraybill, Concise Encyclopedia of Amish, Brethren, Hutterites, and Mennonites (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2010), 43-44,238-240. An exception is Stephen Scott, who classifies the Amish Mennonites as related to conservative Mennonites, but separate.--Stephen Scott, An Introduction to Old Order and Conservative Mennonite Groups (Intercourse, Pa.: Good Books, 1996), 195-196.

(7.) This basic categorization has been recognized, more or less, in Donald B. Kraybill and Carl D. Bowman, On the Backroad to Heaven: Old Order Hutterites, Mennonites, Amish, and Brethren (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001). See also Steve M. Nolt, "Plain People and the Refinement of America," Mennonite Historical Bulletin 60, no. 4 (1999), 1-11; and Scott, An Introduction to Old Order and Conservative Mennonite Groups.

(8.) For this essay, "Old Older" broadly refers to all Amish groups, including New Order.

(9.) For a settlement to be counted in his listing of Amish settlements, Old Order historian David Luthy required only three things: a minimum number of households, a declared Amish identity, and the disallowance of automobile ownership.-- David Luthy, "Amish Settlements across America: 2008," Family Life, August/September 2008,17. This protocol is echoed in Joseph F. Donnermeyer and Elizabeth C. Cooksey, "On the Recent Growth of New Amish Settlements," MQR 84 (April 2010), 182; Steve M. Nolt, "Who Are the Real Amish?: Rethinking Diversity and Identity among a Separate People," MQR 82 (July 2008), 387; G. C Waldrep, "The New Order Amish and Para-Amish Groups: Spiritual Renewal within Tradition," MQR 82 (July 2008), 412.

(10.) Scott has also argued for change occurring between generations. --Stephen Scott, Why Do They Dress That Way? (Intercourse, Pa.: Good Books, 1997), 40-41. Change measured in offspring and generations is common in literature on ethnic minorities and migrants. For example, see Emily Greenman and Yu Xie, "Is Assimilation Theory Dead? The Effect of Assimilation on Adolescent Well-Being," Social Science Research 37 (2008), 109-137; James P. Smith, "Assimilation across the Latino Generations," The American Economic Review 93, no. 2 (2003), 315-319.

(11.) Certain ex-Amish may have affiliated with the Beachys despite contradictions because, as Nolt and Meyers write of the Amish, "participants hold in common an interest in talking about the same things. Even as they disagree or even argue, they reveal a shared sense of what is worth arguing about." -- Steven M. Nolt and Thomas J. Meyers, Plain Diversity: Amish Cultures & Identities (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2008), 182. In spite of this centripetal force, Sewell argues that ultimately cultures embody contradictions, are centrifugal, are contested from within, are changing, and are weakly bounded. -- William H. Sewell, Jr., "The Concept(s) of Culture," in Beyond the Cultural Turn: New Directions in the Study of Society and Culture, ed. V. E. Bonnell, L.A. Hunt, and R. Biernacki (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999), 35-61. This finding is echoed in Hurst and McConnell's study of the Holmes County Amish; they suggest that researchers of the Amish have often overstated the coherence and integration of Amish settlements. -- Hurst and McConnell, An Amish Paradox, 24-25.

(12.) These are the recent findings of Leroy Beachy, LlnserUnser Leit ... The Story of the Amish, (Millersburg, Ohio: Goodly Heritage Books, 2011), 1:25-110, especially 92-93.

(13.) Prior to the division the Amish movement in North America went by the name "Amish Mennonite," the Amish type of Mennonites.

(14.) For a macro-level treatment, see Leroy Beachy, LlnserUnser Leit ... The Story of the Amish (Millersburg, Ohio: Goodly Heritage Books, 2011), 2:354-387; Steven M. Nolt, A History of the Amish (Intercourse, Pa.: Good Books, 2003), 157-192; Paton Yoder, Tradition & Transition: Amish Mennonites and Old Order Amish, 1800-1900 (Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 1991). Regional treatments are also available. For southern Ontario, see Orland Gingerich, The Amish of Canada (Kitchner, Ont.: Pandora Press, 1972); for Mifflin County, Pa., see Duane S. Kauffman, Mifflin County Amish and Mennonite Story: 1791-1991 (Belleville, Pa.: Mifflin County Mennonite Historical Society, 1991); for Iowa, see Elmer Schwieder and Dorothy Schwieder, A Peculiar People: Iowa's Old Order Amish (Ames: The Iowa State University Press, 1975); for Indiana, see Nolt and Meyers, Plain Diversity: Amish Cultures & Identities; and William C. Ringenberg, "Development and Division in the Mennonite Community in Allen County, Indiana," MQR 50 (April 1976), 114-131.

(15.) Ivan J. Miller, History of the Conservative Mennonite Conference (Grantsville, Md.: Ivan J. and Della Miller, 1985), 64-68; Scott, An Introduction to Old Order and Conservative Mennonite Groups, 128-130.

(16.) Scott, An Introduction to Old Order and Conservative Mennonite Groups, 164-167, 78-79.

(17.) Paul M. Emerson, B.M.A.: The First Ten Years (Goshen, Ind.: Publication Board of the Biblical Mennonite Alliance, 2009), 10.

(18.) Automobile ownership as a defining line of the Old Order gripped the Old Order Mennonites as well, but unlike the Mennonites, the Amish agreed that the automobile was the line differentiating the Old Order from offshoots. Indeed, the automobile-owning Horning and Wisler Mennonites retained the Old Order label.--Donald Kraybill and James P. Hurd, Horse-and-Buggy Mennonites: Hoofbeats of Humility in a Postmodern World (University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2006), 12, 19-21; Scott, An Introduction to Old Order and Conservative Mennonite Groups, 28-87.

(19.) This may be a somewhat parallel phenomenon to what the automobile-owning Hornings and Wislers, who are of the Old Order camp, came to be in relation to the horse-and-buggy Mennonite groups like the Groffdale Conference.

(20.) These include, but are not limited to, the King church of Hartville, Ohio; the Nafziger and Lichti congregations of Wellesley, Ont; the Zook faction of the Peachey Amish of Belleville, Pa.; the Amish of Virginia Beach, Va., and later Stuarts Draft, Va.; those Amish of Dover, Del., who later moved to Catlett, Va., and Chestertown, Md..; the Amish of Salisbury, Pa.; and the Weavertown group of Lancaster County, Pa.. Keith White, The Background and Heritage of Cedar Grove Amish Mennonite Church (Blythe, Ont.: Door of Peace Publications, 2009); Elmer S. Yoder, The Beachy Amish Mennonite Fellowship Churches (Hartville, Ohio: Diakonia Ministries, 1987), 78-79; Lapp, Weavertown Church History: Memoirs of an Amish Mennonite Church, 3, 21-22.

(21.) Alvin J. Beachy, "The Rise and Development of the Beachy Amish Mennonite Churches," MQR 29 (Jan. 1955), 118-119, 26-30, 33.

(22.) Donald B. Kraybill, The Riddle of Amish Culture (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 2001), 190.

(23.) Lapp, Weavertown Church History: Memoirs of an Amish Mennonite Church, 2; Ferne Eileen Lapp, History of Weavertown Church (Lancaster County, Pa.: Anna Marie Yoder, 1963), 9-10.

(24.) Yoder, The Beachy Amish Mennonite Fellowship Churches, 334-335, 47-48; Miller, History of the Conservative Mennonite Conference, 188-189.

(25.) Lapp, Weavertown Church History: Memoirs of an Amish Mennonite Church, 19-20.

(26.) At this point, the automobile was not yet a defining line of the Old Order. See the letters exchanged between Moses M. Beachy and Daniel C. Schlabach in Facts Concerning the Beachy AM. Division of 1927, ed. John B. Mast (Meyersdale, Pa.: Menno J. Yoder, 1950), 24-29.

(27.) These include Plain City, Ohio (Canaan A.M.); Holmes County, Ohio (Bunker Hill A.M.); Virginia Beach, Va. (Kempsville A.M.); Nappanee, Ind. (Maple Lawn A.M.); Kokomo, Ind. (Miami A.M.); Middlebury, Ind. (Fair Haven A.M.); Kalona, Iowa (Sharon Bethel A.M.); and Daviess County, Ind. (Zion A.M.). Further, Fair Haven A.M. started a second district across the Michigan line in 1952.

(28.) Gingerich, The Amish of Canada, 175-177; White, "The Background and Heritage of Cedar Grove Amish Mennonite Church."

(29.) Kauffman, Mifflin County Amish and Mennonite Story: 1791-1991, 305-307; Lapp, Weavertown Church History: Memoirs of an Amish Mennonite Church, 21.

(30.) The Amish-Mennonites at Kempsville, Virginia: 1900-1970, ed. Leon R. Zook and Leroy Miller (Virginia Beach: The Donning Company/Publishers, 1995), 31-32, 86-88; Elmer Schrock, The Amish in the Shenandoah Valley: 1942-1986 (Union, W.V.: Yoders' Select Books, 2008), 8-9,12,66-69.

(31.) Elmer S. Yoder, The Amish and Mennonites of Northern Stark County (Hartville, Ohio: Stark County Mennonite and Amish Historical Society, 2005), 109-111.

(32.) James Landing attributes the migration to Amish wanting to escape the "Beachy Amish tendencies." Indeed, an abortive attempt to start a King Amish church in Dover occurred the same summer as families migrated to Catlett, Va. However, there was a predisposition among the Catlett Amish to adopting innovations not permitted by the Dover Amish, but also a caution to not move too fast with changes.--Informant No. 1; Teresa Beachy and Eugene Yoder, "Harmony Christian Fellowship: Our Beginnings," (1995), 3; Allen B. Clark, This Is Good Country: A History of the Amish of Delaware, 1915-1988 (Gordonville, Pa.: Gordonville Print Shop, 1988), 73; James E. Landing, "The Failure of Amish Settlements in the Southeastern United States: An Appeal for Inquiry," MQR 44 (Oct. 1970), 387; Yoder, The Beachy Amish Mennonite Fellowship Churches, 329, 65-66.

(33.) Though a mouthful, this title more accurately describes the group than "Beachy Amish." "Beachy Amish Mennonite" is the official title, as formally adopted by the constituency's periodical, the Calvary Messenger.

(34.) Into the Highways and Hedges: Amish Mennontie Aid Mission Report, ed. Andrew Hershberger and Ervin Hershberger (Plain City, Ohio: Amish Mennonite Aid, 1980), 1-3, 13-15; Bringing in the Sheaves: The First 50 Years of Amish Mennonite Aid, ed. Henry Petersheim (Free Union, Va.: Amish Mennonite Aid, 2005), 3-6.

(35.) The Amish-Mennonites at Kempsville, Virginia: 1900-1970; Mountain View Mennonite Church, 50th Anniversary, (Salisbury, Pa.: Mountain View Mennonite, 2003), 6-9; Menno Beachy, Sing Unto the Lord: A History of the Mountain Anthems (Grantsville, Md.: The Mountain Anthems, 2006), 17; Lapp, Weavertown Church History: Memoirs of an Amish Mennonite Church.

(36.) Consistent with innovation adoption models, the early adopters of innovations are central actors in a social network, while the very first adopters and later adopters are peripheral. To be sure, a few young Beachy congregations had already made the language transition in church services, even before these congregations.-- Everett M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations (New York: Free Press, 2003), 282-285. Yoder puts the date of transition at 1961 for Kempsville and 1966 for Weavertown and Mountain View. Lapp places the date at 1968 for Weavertown. Beachy places the date at 1959 for Mountain View, while Mountain View Mennonite Church, 50th Anniversary puts it at 1968. Such conflicts point to a gradual transition with several milestones, as Lapp notes.-- Mountain View Mennonite Church, 50th Anniversary, 9; Beachy, Sing Unto the Lord: A History of the Mountain Anthems, 16; Lapp, Weavertown Church History: Memoirs of an Amish Mennonite Church, 97-98,173-174; Yoder, The Beachy Amish Mennonite Fellowship Churches, 262-263.

(37.) Steve M. Nolt, "The Amish 'Mission Movement' and the Reformulation of Amish Identity in the Twentieth Century," MQR 75 (Jan. 2001), 18.

(38.) As related by Jonas J. E. Miller in his sermon at the 1993 Beachy A.M. Ministers' Fellowship Meeting.

(39.) Kay Parker Branson, "The Amish of Thomas, Oklahoma: A Study in Cultural Geography" (master's thesis, University of Oklahoma, 1967), 39-44.

(40.) Amish Mennonite Directory 2008, ed. Devon Miller (Millersburg, Ohio: Abana Books, 2008), 485; Yoder, The Beachy Amish Mennonite Fellowship Churches, 80, 346.

(41.) "Program of the Dedication Services of the Zion Amish Mennonite Church," (1959).

(42.) John A. Hostetler, Amish Society (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993), 393.

(43.) Oak Grove Mennonite Church: 1957-2007, 50th Anniversary, ed. J. R. and Lena Miller, Enos and Nora Schrock, and David and Mary Ruth Kipps (Aroda, Va.: Oak Grove Mennonite, 2007), 6-11; Enos Schrock, Stories from the Life of Grandpa (Aroda, Va.: Enos Schrock, 2006), 8-10.

(44.) Oak Grove Mennonite Church: 1957-2007, 50th Anniversary.

(45.) These requirements are reprinted in Yoder, The Beachy Amish Mennonite Fellowship Churches, 270-272.

(46.) Minister Noah Keim had developed relationships with the Hutchinson Amish in the early 1950s through the mission conference. In a letter from David L. Miller (Hutchinson, Kan.) to Noah Keim (April 3, 1953), the two share ideas about the difficulties they face in forming a hybrid evangelical orientation with the Old Order Amish structure.

(47.) Tim Miller, "When Oak Grove Became Beachy," in Oak Grove Mennonite Church: 1957-2007, 23, 27.

(48.) Calvin J. King, "'The Emerging Woodlawn Church: A Study of Cultural Change in an Amish Group," (1963).

(49.) Informant No. 2; Daniel Beachy, "Naming the Church," Woodlawn Chronicle 27, no. 3 (2009); Peter D. Miller, "Souls, Cars, and Division: The Amish Mission Movement of the 1950s and Its Effects on the Amish Community of Partridge, Kansas/' (2008). Ironically, Bishop Amos Nisly of Center silenced Hochstetler from bishop responsibilities at Woodlawn a decade later.

(50.) Yoder, The Beachy Amish Mennonite Fellowship Churches, 133.

(51.) Daniel Beachy, "Beachy Amish Affiliation," Woodlawn Chronicle 27, no. 4 (2009), 3-4.

(52.) Informant No. 2; Miller, "Souls, Cars, and Division."

(53.) Beachy, Unser Leit ... The Story of the Amish, 2: 445.

(54.) Among them were a Jonas J. Miller, a Jonas E. Miller, and a Jonas J. E. Miller.

(55.) Mennonite Yearbook, ed. Ellrose D. Zook, vol. 56 (Scottdale, Pa.: Mennonite Publishing House, 1965), 101-102.

(56.) From a panel discussion in the 1990s of elderly Holmes County leaders, as related by Informant No. 3.

(57.) Even the New Order Amish, beginning in the 1960s, demonstrated the possibility of remaining magnetized to the broadly-defined Old Order Amish pole while "accommodating spiritual and material demands" sought by the Amish Mennonites of the late 1950s. See Waldrep, "The New Order Amish and Para-Amish Groups: Spiritual Renewal within Tradition," 395.

(58.) Notably, Woodlawn A.M. (Goshen, Ind.), Zion A.M. (Thomas, Okla.), Oak Grove M. (Aroda, Va.), Bethesda F. (Plain City, Ohio), and Pleasant View A.M. (Arthur, 111.).

(59.) Notably, Weavertown A.M. (Bird-in-Hand, Pa.), Mountain View A.M. (Salisbury, Pa.), Kempsville A.M. (Virginia Beach, Va.), and Maple Lawn A.M. (Nappanee, Ind.)

(60.) Notably, Center A.M. (Hutchinson, Kan.) and the fellowship churches of Holmes County (Ohio).

(61.) Notably, Mt. Zion A.M. (Stuarts Draft, Va.), Maple Grove A.M. (Hadley, Pa.), Fair Haven A.M. (Goshen, Ind.), Fryburg Beachy (Holmes County, Ohio), Pleasant View A.M. (Hartville, Ohio), Sharon Bethel A.M. (Kalona, Iowa), Canaan A.M. (Plain City, Ohio), and Cedar Grove A.M./Mornington A.M. (Wellesley, Ont.)

(62.) The Conservative Mennonite Conference progressively dropped its self-identification as "Amish Mennonite" in the years after World War II; it was rarely a destination for Amish factions.

(63.) From a transcribed interview with an anonymous bishop by the author.

(64.) Hurst and McConnell, An Amish Paradox: Diversity and Change in the World's Largest Amish Community, 35.

(65.) Stephen L. Yoder, "Beachy Church Movement 1940-1990," (Unknown date), 1.

(66.) Eli Tice, letter to Beachy ministers, Dec. 1962.

(67.) Informant No. 4; Yoder, "Beachy Church Movement 1940-1990," 5-6.

(68.) Yoder, The Beachy Amish Mennonite Fellowship Churches, 152.

(69.) Senior Bishop Clarence Graber assisted a faction from neighboring Hebron Fellowship in 2010, ordaining the lay leader; other area Beachy churches had declined requests for help. He also assisted another small faction from Plainview Gospel Fellowship (Guys Mills, Pa.) and commissioned the lay leader in early 2011.

(70.) Informant No. 5.

(71.) Dave Bontrager, Elam Kauffman, Eli Tice, et al., letter to Beachy ministers, Nov. 20, 1964.

(72.) Yoder, The Amish and Mennonites of Northern Stark County, 114-115.

(73.) Elam Kauffman, David Bontrager, and Eli Tice, letter to Beachy ministers, 1968.

(74.) Jonas E. Miller, Rueben Kaufman, Noah E. Yoder, and Eli Tice, letter to Beachy ministers, Oct. 24. 1967.

(75.) Informant No. 6.

(76.) Allan A. Miller, The Origin of the Fellowship Churches (Renick, W.V.: Yoders' Select Books, 2004), 13.

(77.) Ibid., 12-17.

(78.) Even within Holmes County, some congregations hesitated to support the new programs introduced through the merger with the Beachy movement. They did not join the new Fellowship Churches, but they did withdraw to the conservative periphery of the consolidated Beachy constituency. These include three churches in the Holmes County settlement (Messiah Amish Mennonite, Salem Amish Mennonite, and Peniel Christian Fellowship), as well as church plants in southern Ohio (Ebenezer Mennonite) and Tennessee (Mt. Moriah Mennonite).

(79.) Lapp, Weavertown Church History: Memoirs of an Amish Mennonite Church, 273-278; Waldrep, "The New Order Amish and Para-Amish Groups: Spiritual Renewal within Tradition," 398.

(80.) Chris Stoltzfus, "Anabaptists Turned Goodies: A Story of Anabaptist Identity in a Changing World" (Term Paper, Faith Builders Educational Programs, 2010), 18.

(81.) Wilmer Stoltzfoos, "History of Melita Fellowship Church," (no date).

(82.) Informant No. 7.

(83.) Ibid.

(84.) Regional churches were Pine Grove Bible Fellowship (Schuylkill Co.) and Penn Valley Christian Fellowship (Berks Co.); distant church plants included Gospel Light Fellowship (Mifflin Co.) and Philadelphia Christian Fellowship (northern New York). Lapp, Weavertown Church History: Memoirs of an Amish Mennonite Church, 275-276; Miller, The Origin of the Fellowship Churches, 28-29, 94; Stoltzfoos, "History of Melita Fellowship Church."

(85.) Pequea Amish Mennonite, Mine Road Amish Mennonite, Refton Amish Mennonite, and Pine Grove Amish Mennonite.

(86.) Informant No. 8.

(87.) Informant No. 9; informant No. 10.

(88.) Lapp, Weavertozvn Church History: Memoirs of an Amish Mennonite Church, 71, 97, 174.

(89.) From a panel discussion in the 1990s of elderly Holmes County leaders, as related by informant No. 3.

(90.) Informant No. 9; informant No. 10; and informant No. 11.

(91.) Faith Mission Home provides resident services for mentally handicapped children. It is a voluntary service unit for conservative Mennonite and Beachy young adults. For origins, see Nathan Yoder et al., The Miracle of Love: Faith Mission Home (Free Union, Va.: Faith Mission Home, 1993), 9-23.

(92.) "Calvary Bible Fellowship (Scrap Book)," (Mt. Perry, Ohio: Calvary Bible Fellowship, 2004); Miller, The Origin of the Fellowship Churches, 20; Stoltzfoos, "History of Melita Fellowship Church."

(93.) Youth fellowship meetings are annual weekend programs of preaching and leisure time; while attendance has declined recently, it was not unusual to have several hundred youth in attendance. For origins, see Harvey Yoder, The Youth Fellowship Meeting: What It Is, and How It Came to Be (Rochelle, Va.: Harvey Yoder, 1962). Calvary Bible School is a post-secondary school with dorms; twelve weeks of courses are offered each winter.

(94.) Informant No. 10; Bennie Byler, "History of Faith Mission Fellowship" (presented at the Faith Mission Fellowship church, Free Union, Va., May 19, 2010); Miller, The Origin of the Fellowship Churches, 5-6, 20-22.

(95.) In addition to the new Gap Mills Christian Fellowship of West Virginia, these included Pilgrim Fellowship (Cochranton, Pa.), Emmanuel Fellowship (Franklin County, Pa.), Melita Fellowship (Lancaster County), Pine Grove Bible Fellowship (Schuylkill County, Pa.), Penn Valley Christian Fellowship (Berks County, Pa.), Calvary Bible Fellowship (Mt. Perry, Ohio), Believers' Fellowship (Daviess County, Ind.), Farmville Christian Fellowship (Farmville, Va.), Golden City Mennonite Fellowship (Golden City, Mo.), and Whitechurch Mennonite (Ont).

(96.) Miller, The Origin of the Fellowship Churches, 89-94., Melita closed in the mid-1990s because youth went to Beachy churches and ex-Amish joined other churches. Penn Valley members mostly joined a Holdeman church, Pine Grove members dispersed, and Farmville joined Beachy. In addition, Philadelphia Christian Fellowship (N.Y.) and Christian Light Fellowship (Bedford, Pa.) affiliated with Charity. Madison Christian Fellowship (N.Y.) and Gap Mills Christian Fellowship (W.V.) both experienced Charity-like divisions.

(97.) By 1970, this included the annual ministers' meetings, the annual Youth Fellowship Meetings, two major mission agencies (Amish Mennonite Aid and Mission Interests Committee) and their programs (Faith Mission Home, Hillcrest Home, Fellowship Haven church in Washington, D.C, church plants to natives in northwest Ontario, and missions in three Latin American countries), Calvary Bible School, and the Calvary Messenger monthly periodical.

(98.) As described in Hurst and McConnell, An Amish Paradox: Diversity and Change in the World's Largest Amish Community, 81-82.

(99.) David L. Miller and others to Beachy ministers, March 1,1989.

(100.) Sandra Cronk, "Gelassenheit: The Rites of the Redemptive Process in Old Order Amish and Old Order Mennonite Communities," MQR 55 (Jan. 1981), 35. Beachys may turn to evangelical Protestantism for a variety of reasons, as discussed in Samuel Eakes Matthews, "The Development of Missional Vision in a Midwestern Amish Mennonite Congregation" (Fuller Theological Seminary, 2001), 115-119.

(101.) Cronk, "Gelassenheit: The Rites of the Redemptive Process in Old Order Amish and Old Order Mennonite Communities," 35.

(102.) As discussed in The Planning of Change: General Strategies for Effecting Change in Human Systems, ed. Robert Chin, et al. 2nd ed. (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc., 1969).

(103.) A sample of topics include "Building Convictions," "Sports versus Church related Activities," "Non-Conformity," "Committee Work to Build the Church," and "Remedy for Apostasy and Deception." Churches that are more assimilated tend to de-emphasize calling attention to specific nonacculturation boundaries, opting instead for broader, less tangible themes.

(104.) Cory Anderson, "Congregation or Conference? The Development of Beachy Amish Polity and Identity," Mennonite Historical Bulletin 72, no. 1 (2011), 14-15.

(105.) Though all sides believed that marrying again while a former spouse was still living was a sin, they differed over whether such second marriages were actual marriages. To say that such second marriages are not marriages, as more permissive congregations generally held, meant the individual could return to his or her first spouse; this interpretation was influenced by an evangelical Protestant, Joseph Webb, Till Death Do Us Part, 3rd ed. (Longwood, Fla.: Webb Ministries, 1991). To say that it is a marriage with a commitment to that partner, as the more selective congregations generally held, meant that the individual must remain single while multiple marriage bonds exist.

(106.) The 2011 annual statement of the bishop committee, chaired by a Hutchinson, Kan., bishop, weakened this stance by suggesting "one way [for church leaders] to show deference to the body could be to forego voting on constituency issues if the practice in our church is at variance from the rest of the constituency." Consistent with the permissive Beachys' committee approach, what was once mandatory has become more loosely defined; responsibility for enforcement has shifted from the community (bishop committee) to individual leaders.

(107.) For details of the 1991 meeting, the original committee, and the rotating committee, see Cory A. Anderson, "The Beachy Amish Mennonite Bishop Committee and the Conflict between Congregational Autonomy and Affiliation Criteria," in John Horsch Mennonite History Essay Contest, Class I (Graduate), 2010.

(108.) Cory A. Anderson, The Ornament of a Spirit: Exploring the Reasons Covering Styles Change (Lyndonville, N.Y.: Ridgeway Publishers, 2010), 46-49.

(109.) From author's personal records.

(110.) Beachy Amish Mennonite Bishop Committee Statement, April 2010.

(111.) M. Burt McGrath, "A Beachy Amish Perspective on the Anabaptist Vision" (term paper, Sharon Mennonite Bible Institute, 1994), 7.

(112.) Selected from the 1993 Beachy Amish Mennonite Ministers' Meetings tape recording.

(113.) Informant No. 12; informant No. 13.

(114.) Mennonite Church Directory 2011 (Harrisonburg, Va.: Christian Light Publications, 2011). The directory erroneously lists one Maranatha congregation as Beachy.

(115.) On three occasions, Beachy bishops have intervened in a Maranatha or closely related church and facilitated a division, sharpening the divide between Maranatha and Beachy. In Pennsylvania, Bethel Christian Fellowship divided from Summitview Christian Fellowship in 2000; in Texas, Osceola Christian Fellowship divided from Grandview Gospel Fellowship in 2004; in Missouri, Linnaeus Amish Mennonite Brotherhood divided from Locust Creek Amish Mennonite in 2006. All factions were assisted by Beachy leaders.

(116.) From the inside cover of recent issues of Beside the Still Waters.

(117.) Such as, Mt. Zion Amish Mennonite (Stuarts Draft, Va.), Pleasant Ridge Mennonite (Monticello, Ky.), Fryburg Beachy and Grace Haven Fellowship (Holmes County, Ohio), Pleasant View Amish Mennonite (Paris, Mo.), and Rehoboth Amish Mennonite (Roodhouse, Ill.).

(118.) Such as Peniel (Holmes County, Ohio), Believer's Fellowship (Daviess County, Ind.), Plain Christian Fellowship (Corinna, Maine), and by 2002, Unionville Christian Brotherhood (Cincinnati, Iowa).

(119.) Mennonite Church Directory 2011, 49. While only nine are listed in this directory, Pleasant View Amish Mennonite (Paris, Mo.), and Oak Grove Church (Daviess County, Ind.) are also associated.

(120.) Including Spring Garden's withdraw from Summitview Christian Fellowship (Lancaster County, Pa.), Zion's loss of the Believer's and Oak Grove factions (Daviess County, Ind.), Fairview Amish Mennonite's withdraw from Maple Lawn Amish Mennonite (Nappanee, Ind.), and Mornington Amish Mennonite's loss of Fair Haven (Wellesley, Ont.).

(121.) Differences exist between Zion Amish Mennonite and Fairhaven Amish Mennonite (Daviess County, Ind.), Pine Haven Amish Mennonite and Mornington Amish Mennonite (Ontario), and Spring Garden Church and Harvest View Church (Lancaster County, Pa). Because no directory lists these churches as such, this group will be identified here. Including the six aforementioned churches, they are Vicksburg Amish Mennonite of Buffalo Valley area, Pa.; Canaan Amish Mennonite of Daviess County, Ind.; Fairview Amish Mennonite of Nappanee, Ind.; and Morning View Amish Mennonite of Ontario. Maple Grove Amish Mennonite of Hadley, Pa., and Ridgeview Amish Mennonite of Allen County, Ind., have historically fraternized with this group, but their present association is peripheral. Gospel Haven Church of Holmes County, Ohio, a permissive division from a Beachy church, serves the function of a "highest Amish" church. They are similar in church practice, membership turnover, attractiveness for Amish defectors, and support of programs like Gospel Express (based in North Carolina), but definitively rejects tobacco. While there is some social overlap with "highest Amish" churches, Gospel Haven and its regional church plantings also fraternize with the Biblical Mennonite Alliance.

(122.) Informant No. 14; informant No. 15; informant No. 16; and informant No. 17.

(123.) Classical sociological theorists, notably Emile Durkheim and Herbert Spencer, predicted that population growth results in greater role differentiation, and the case of the Amish Mennonites supports this hypothesis.

(124.) This argument is drawn from the social movement organization model of Mayer N. Zald and Roberta Ash, "Social movement organizations: growth, decay, and change," Social Forces 44, no. 3 (1966), 327-341.

(125.) This argument finds support in Stephen Vaisey, "Structure, Culture, and Community: The Search for Belonging in 50 Urban Communes," American Sociological Review 72, no. 6 (2007), 864-865.

(126.) Nolt, "Who Are the Real Amish?: Rethinking Diversity and Identity among a Separate People," 389.

(127.) This has also been observed among the New Order Amish, who like the Beachys instigated significant change at the onset. Waldrep, "The New Order Amish and Para-Amish Groups: Spiritual Renewal within Tradition,: 408.

(128.) The multiple fates of Amish Mennonite denominations may provide an excellent test of the theory of religious transmission. Harvey Whitehouse, Modes of Religiosity: A Cognitive Theory of Religious Transmission, ed. Harvey Whitehouse and Luther H. Martin, Cognitive Science of Religion Series (Walnut Creek, Ca.: AltaMira Press, 2004).

(129.) As calculated in the 2010 worksheets "CASP Pilot Projects and Hours" and "Census Totals."
Figure 1: Anabaptist Denominations by Broader Affiliation and
Ideological Orientation


Old Order Old Order Groffdale Conf. German
 New Order Weaverland Conf. Baptist
 Troyer Wisler Mennonite Brethren
 Swartzentruber Stauffer Mennonite

Conservative Ambassadors A.M. Eastern Pennsylvania Dunkard
 BeachyA.M Holdeman M Brethren
 BereaA.M Nationwide F.
 Fellowship churches Southeastern
 Maranatha A.M Conf.
 Midwest Washington-Franklin
 Beachy A.M.
 Tampico A.M

Mainstream Conservative MC-USA Church of
 Mennonite Conf. MC-Canada the Brethren
Figure 3: Realignment though Expansion and Division in Menonite
Communities, 1952-1979

Community Lowest A.M. Highest Nucleus
 Amish Beachy

Kempsville, VA Montezuma, Kempsville
(1) GA & A.M.&
 Orrville, Abbeville,

Stuarts Draft, VA Mt. Zion Aroda, VA
 A.M.& Paris,

Mission Home, VA Faith

Catlett, VA Pine Grove Buffalo Faith CF.
 Menn. Valley, PA

Chestertown, MD Liberty, KY Harmony

Lancaster Co., PA Spring A.M.,
 Garden Refton
 A.M., Pine
 Church Grove A.M.
 & Mine

Buffalo Valley, Vicksburg

Hadley, PA Maple Grove

Hartville, OH New Pleasant
 Baltimore View A.M.

Plain City, OH Paris, MO Canaan Bethesda

Ft. Wayne, IN Ridgeview

Elkhart-LaGrange, South Haven Fair Haven
IN; Southern MI A.M. AM,
 & Oak Grove Woodlawn
 A.M. AM &

Nappanee, IN Fairview Maple Lawn
 A.M. A.M.

Southern Ontario Mornington
 A.M. &

Daviess Co, IN Oak Grove Zion A.M.

Belleville, PA Selinsgrove Valley View
 A.M. A.M.

Holmes County Fryburg United Bethel F.,
 Beachy Fellowship Maranatha
 F. &

Community Periphery MCF Radical
 Beachy fellowship

Kempsville, VA Franklin, KY Farmville,
(1) VA

Stuarts Draft, VA Pilgrim

Mission Home, VA Gap Mills,

Catlett, VA
Chestertown, MD

Lancaster Co., PA Summitview CF Melita C.F.,
 Grove C.F.
 Penn Valley

Buffalo Valley,

Hadley, PA Pilgrim

Hartville, OH Progressive

Plain City, OH Brookfield, MO Haven F
Ft. Wayne, IN Fellowship

Elkhart-LaGrange, Hebron C.F.
IN; Southern MI

Nappanee, IN Berea C.F.

Southern Ontario Cedar Grove A.M. Whitechurch Salem C.F.
 &. CF
 Fair Haven A.M

Daviess Co, IN Believer's

Belleville, PA

Holmes County Salem F., Peniel Golden City,
 Messiah F., MO

These categories represent types, not exclusively affiliation, Churches
may have switched types in the yesrs after 1979. Churches within the
same settlement ware listed by names, whereas factions that relocated
are listed by destination. Communities with minor divisions or without
realigning divisions, such as Hutchinson, KS, or Salisbury, PA, are not
included. A.M.=Amish Mennonite, C.F.=Christian Fellowship,
Menn.=Mennonite, F.=Fellowship
(1) The Amish-Mennonites at Kempsville, Virginia: 1900-1970, 137-40.
Elmer S. Yoder, The Amish Mennonites of Macon County,
Georgia (Hartville,
Ohio: Diakonia Ministries, 1980), 26, 72.


*Cory Anderson is a Ph.D. student in rural sociology at the School of Environmental and Natural Resources, The Ohio State University.
COPYRIGHT 2011 Mennonite Historical Society
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2011 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Anderson, Cory
Publication:Mennonite Quarterly Review
Article Type:Essay
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Jul 1, 2011
Previous Article:Retracing the blurred boundaries of twentieth-century "Amish mennonite" identity part1.
Next Article:The Southern Cheyenne in the poetry of Anna Ruth Ediger Baehr.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2022 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |