Tag Archives: social classes

Wanted: Weak Christians (2 of 5)

This is part two of a series called “Wanted: Weak Christians.” Here are the other posts:

Wanted: Weak Christians (1 of 5) — Introduction
Wanted: Weak Christians (2 of 5) — Who Are They?

Wanted: Weak Christians (3 of 5) — How Are They Indispensable?
Wanted: Weak Christians (4 of 5) — Advice to the Strong
Wanted: Weak Christians (5 of 5) — The Power of the Powerless


Who, then, are the ones who “seem to be weaker” in Christ’s body? We have already noted Paul’s mention of hands and feet. Chrysostom (AD 349-407) identifies another set of body parts:

What is thought to be less honorable than our organs of generation? And yet they receive greater honor. Even the destitute, though the other parts of their bodies may be naked, will not allow those parts to be uncovered. 1

Modern commentators agree. “The necessary member” was an ancient euphemism for the male reproductive organ.2 Paul seemingly alludes to this when he says the parts of the body that seem to be weaker “are necessary” (1 Cor. 12:22 KJV). Other commentators suggest Paul is also alluding to female reproductive organs and the mother’s breast,3 or even “the excretory tracts.”4

“WEAK” CHRISTIANS IN CORINTH

So then, who are the feet, hands, and private parts in Christ’s body? In the immediate context (see 1 Cor. 12:7-10), they are especially those Christians who lacked the charismatic gifts that were most highly valued in the church at Corinth—those who were weak in the gifts of wisdom, knowledge, faith, healing, miracles, and especially speaking in spiritual languages (“tongues”). But in the context of the entire letter, the language of weakness is applied more broadly, such as to those who lacked the sort of rhetorical wisdom that Greeks valued (1 Cor. 1:22, 26; 2:3-4), to those who lacked noble birth (1 Cor. 1:26), and even to those who possessed weak consciences because they lacked knowledge (1 Cor. 8:7-13). It is in this latter context that Paul says, “To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak” (1 Cor. 9:22).

A common thread among all these examples is that the “weak” are those who are looked down on by others. For a wide variety of possible reasons, they are considered to be socially second class.5

Who else might these “second-class Christians” be? Commentators suggest many possibilities. Are they describing you? Are they describing someone close to you?

EXAMPLES OF “WEAK” CHRISTIANS

Read the following excerpts thoughtfully. Has God carefully and intentionally placed some of the following people in the part of Christ’s body where you live?

In the Church, too, there are many and diverse members, some more honorable and some less… One person gives away everything, others desire only to be self-sufficient and to have the bare necessities, while still others give alms from their abundance. Nevertheless, all adorn each other, and if the greater reckons the lesser as nothing, he does great harm to himself… If someone who gives everything away reproaches someone who does not, he has forfeited much of the fruit of his efforts. –John Chrysostom6

Is the weaker member in your church someone who does not give as much as you think they should? Someone who lacks the gift of giving (Rom. 12:8)? Or perhaps the weaker person is someone who gives so freely that they don’t seem to be planning wisely for future needs?

There are choirs of virgins, the assemblies of widows, the company of those whose glory is in chaste marriage. These exhibit many degrees of virtue… If the virgin treats the married woman with contempt, she loses no small part of her reward. –John Chrysostom7

Is the weaker member in your church someone who married because they didn’t have the dedication to remain single? Or, perhaps more likely in our culture, is it the older single who is considered weaker—not “marriage material”?

What is of less account than beggars? Yet these, too, have a major role in the Church: they stand as fixtures and splendid adornment at the doors of the sanctuary. Indeed, without them the Church would not attain its full stature… While we preachers sit before you and recommend what will do you good, the one who sits before the doors of the church addresses you no less than we do, by his mere appearance, without saying a word… “My friend, do not be proud. Man’s life is a shifting and precarious thing. Youth hastens to old age, beauty to deformation, strength to weakness, eminence to disgrace…” This advice and more like it the poor give us by their looks and by what has happened to them, which is an even clearer warning. –John Chrysostom8

Are you too poor to give much? Too poor or sick to devote as much energy as you wish to Christian service? Is there someone in your church who is always needing a handout from the deacons, or perhaps from anyone they know still cares enough to give?

Garland brings us back to Paul’s “head” and “eye” language, adding observations about class divisions:

“Eye” and “head” are transparent metaphors for those in leadership roles, who are more likely to be more affluent and better educated. The “hands” and “feet” represent the laboring class or slaves. “Eyes” and “heads” in the church always get special treatment and then begin to think that they are special. A sense of superiority can breed notions of self-sufficiency…, since those who think that they are all-important can imagine that the minor players are superfluous and dispensable.9

Are there stark differences of wealth or education in your church? Are you just a “dumb farmer” or a “dumb welder”—or perhaps just a “dumb college student”? Do you or others feel you have little to offer either because you lack education or you possess a kind of knowledge that isn’t valued in your social world?

Thiselton surveys Paul’s use of the language of “weakness” throughout 1 Corinthians. Drawing on other scholars, he concludes that Paul is likely referring to people who seem to lack things such as social status, psychological disposition, aptitude, or maturity:

Paul refers to people in the church whose role, or more probably temperament, or perhaps both, present them as less endowed with power or status than others. The “strong” or the “gifted” perceived them as not providing much effective weight or power in the church’s mission, and not much confidence borne of status. They were insufficiently impressive to count for much, either socially or spiritually, within the church, or in terms of what “contacts” or ability they might show for mission or for speaking with wisdom and knowledge to outsiders. Probably they never did effective mighty works or healing, seldom or never prophesied, and perhaps never spoke in tongues.10

Are there persons in your church who are awkward or fearful in social interactions? Do they show, by a hundred involuntary subtle cues, that they are (or see themselves as) poor or inferior?

Do you lack the gift of abundant faith (1 Cor. 12:9)? Does it take as much of your faith for you to get out of bed in the morning as some of your Facebook friends use of their faith when they cast out demons or heal the sick? Do you or does someone you love have mental health challenges (read this)  or wrestle with depression like many great saints past and present (read this)? Do you lack the exhilarating spiritual feelings or experiences that the more expressive saints around you frequently display?

MORE EXAMPLES OF “WEAK” CHRISTIANS

Other examples have been or could be suggested. What about the physically disabled? Those with overwhelming suffering? Those with crooked teeth or weight challenges? Those with awkward grammar, poor spelling, or the wrong accent? What about those who suffer great financial loss rather than pressing their rights in court? Those who unfairly suffer tarnished reputations rather than proving their innocence in a public relations campaign?

What about those who are too black, too brown, or too white? What about those who are not Anabaptist enough (or Baptist or Pentecostal or…)—or those who still smell too Anabaptist? What about those who don’t keep their house or yard or vehicle clean enough—or those who keep everything so polished that you are scared to set foot on their property? What about those who talk too much, or who are too quiet? What about those who share their spiritual struggles too freely, or those who are uncomfortable sharing their struggles in public?

Could we also include those who wrestle for years with the same temptations? Even those who fall into the same sin far too frequently? What about the “weak person” Paul talks about in Romans 14, who is wrongly sensitive about how certain days or foods should be handled?

Examples are endless, and we won’t agree on all of them. I would love to hear your examples! 

WEAK? ACCORDING TO WHOM?

Notice the precise imprecision of Paul’s language:

The parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor. (1 Cor. 12:22-23)

Paul is talking about persons who “seem to be” weaker, those whom “we think” are less honorable.

Paul is saying that the weakness is, at least in part, in the eye of the beholder. Put more strongly, he is indicating that the persons you and I consider weak may not be weak at all.

On the other hand, they may be weak. But that does not reduce their value. Value in Christ’s body is not measured by either strength or the appearance of strength. No one loses value by being weak or by appearing weak. All alike have been placed by God, who values each and who “composed the body” (1 Cor. 12:24) according to his infinite wisdom.

Why, then, does God include seemingly weak members in Christ’s body? We’ll consider that question in the next post.


Are there weak Christians in your church? Are you, perhaps, a weak Christian? Do you think others consider you one? What values do we tend to use to measure who is strong and who is weak? How valid are these values?

Share your insights in the comments below. And thanks for reading!

  1. John Chrysostom, Homily 31 on First Corinthians, trans. Judith L. Kovacs, as quoted in 1 Corinthians: Interpreted by Early Christian Commentators, The Church’s Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), 208-209.
  2. David Garland, 1 Corinthians, BECNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003), 595, n. 7.
  3. Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NIGTC (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 1008.
  4. Craig Blomberg, 1 Corinthians, NIVAC (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 246.
  5. In 1 Corinthians 11:30 Paul says “many of you are weak and ill” because of partaking wrongly in the Lord’s Table. Almost all commentators agree that here Paul is using the term “weak” in a literal manner, to describe how rich Christians (probably members of the upper social classes) experienced physical illness as God’s judgment. This usage of “weak” (non-metaphorical, given by God as judgment, experienced by the social elite) contrasts sharply with the other examples in this paragraph. Therefore, I don’t think we should count the weak Christians of chapter 11 among the weak Christians Paul is describing in chapter 12.
  6. Homily 30 on First Corinthians, ibid., 208
  7. Ibid., 208
  8. Ibid., 208
  9. Garland, ibid., 595.
  10. Thiselton, ibid., 1007.

Save page

“The Holy Scriptures Must Be Our Ruling Standard”

A couple weeks ago I posted a quote from David Bercot that received quite a bit of interest. Bercot asked us to acknowledge that Mennonite customs and traditions—“things that are added to us that are not biblical requirements”—can “add up and become quite a hurdle” for genuine spiritual seekers.

What Bercot said was not unusual. It is very easy to find other people saying the same sort of thing. And, to be honest, it is also easy enough to find people who say pretty much the opposite—who believe that prescribed Mennonite traditions aren’t much of a barrier if someone is really serious about following Christ.

A testimony alone is not proof of the truth of a claim. What makes Bercot’s words compelling, however, is the life behind his words. Bercot has a pretty solid track record of both preaching and living radical “kingdom Christianity.” His words about cultural barriers have credibility because his life testifies that he is willing to make hard choices for the sake of following Christ. Do I agree with him at every turn? No. Do I listen when he talks? Yes. He has earned our ear.

When words are backed up not only by a life but also—and this is even more important—by the weight of Scripture, then we should listen carefully. Such is the case with the words of a man I’d like to introduce in this post.

Gerhard Roosen was a name I didn’t recognize until I encountered him in my studies this past month. But for generations of Mennonites and Amish his name was familiar indeed, perhaps nearly as widely recognized as (though less important than) the name Menno Simons.

Gerhard (or Gerrit) Roosen (1612-1711) was a Mennonite bishop in northern Germany. He  is famous today mostly for the catechism he published when he was 90 years old, the Christliches Gemütsgespräch or “Christian Spiritual Conversation on Saving Faith and the Acknowledging of the Truth Which Is After Godliness in Hope of Eternal Life (Titus 1:1, 2), in Questions and Answers for the Rising Youth, by Which They May Be Incited and Encouraged to a Wholesome Practice of Life.” The common English title is simply Roosen’s Catechism.

Published in Germany in 1702, Roosen’s catechism is “the first complete German Mennonite catechism in existence.”1 It was reprinted in German or English at least fifteen times from 1769 through 1892 in various North American communities, as well as more recently.2 Robert Friedmann observed that “few books have met with such general approval among Mennonites everywhere as the Gemütsgespräch, the outstanding catechism of the church as a whole.”3 This catechism is one helpful window into Mennonite theology in the pre-revivalist, pre-Daniel Kauffman era. You can read an English translation here.

According to Melvin Gingerich writing in 1970, this catechism “is still being read by the Amish.”4 This use of Roosen’s catechism by the Amish is somewhat curious to me, given that Roosen was not Amish and, what is more, that he strongly critiqued some practices of the Amish.

It is this critique by Roosen of some Amish rules that I’d like to share here. I want to talk about Roosen’s letter rather than Roosen’s catechism. But I also want us to remember that behind Roosen’s letter is the trusted leader who wrote Roosen’s catechism. As with Bercot and his words, the life behind the words makes the words more compelling. And more importantly, we should consider Roosen’s appeal to Scripture.

Here is Melvin Gingerich’s introduction to Roosen’s letter and to Roosen, whom he calls a “man of deep piety and moderate views”:

For the time before Jacob Ammann, leader of the conservative schism which appeared in Switzerland in 1693, no [Anabaptist] documents have been found prescribing a definite form of dress, although a degree of uniformity of style was achieved in some groups by forbidding certain styles and colors of costume. In 1697 a deeply respected and very influential leader and an elder of the North German Mennonites, Gerhard Roosen, wrote a letter to the Alsatian brethren protesting against the strict rules on clothing that had been made by Jacob Ammann.5

And here is Roosen’s letter, written when he was 85 years old:

I am sincerely grieved that you have been so disturbed by those who think highly of themselves, and make laws of things which are not upheld in the Gospel. Had it been specified in the apostolic letters how or wherewith a believer should be clothed, or whether he should go in this or that country and this were disobeyed, then these had something of which to speak; but it is more contrary to the Gospel to affix one’s conscience to a pattern of the hats, clothes, stockings, shoes, or the hair of the head (Colossians 2:14-18), or make a distinction in which country one lives; and then, for one to undertake the enforcement of such regulations by punishing with the ban, all who will not accept them, and to expel from the church, as a leaven; those who do not wish to avoid those thus punished, though neither the Lord Jesus in His Gospel or His holy apostles have bound us to external things, nor have deemed it expedient to provide such regulations and laws. I agree with what the Apostle Paul says in Colossians 2 (verse 16), that the kingdom of heaven, or the kingdom of God, is not obtained “in meat or in drink,” nor in this or that, in the form or pattern of clothing; to which external things our dear Saviour does not oblige use.

Wherefore then does our friend, Jacob Ammann, undertake to make laws of such things for the people, and to expel from the church those who will not obey him? If he considers himself a minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and advocates a literal administration of the law, then he must not wear two coats, nor carry money in his purse, or shoes on his feet. [Matthew 10:10.] If he does not adhere to the letter of his Lord, how dare he insist on obedience form his fellow men, in regulations he has not received from his lawmaker? Oh, that he might do as the Apostle Paul has done, in the fear of the Lord; showing meekness to all men. [Titus 3:2.] The apostle’s advice is: that the “strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak” [Romans 15:1-7].

In all of Paul’s letters we do not find one word in which he has given believers regulations concerning the forms of clothing they should have, but in all things he instructed them to “condescend to men of low estate” [Romans 12:16] according to all decency and modesty. [See 1 Timothy 2:9.] I hold that it is becoming to adapt the manner of dress to the current customs of one’s environments; but it is reasonable that we abstain from luxuries, pride, and carnal worldly lusts [1 John 2:16-17], not immediately adopting the latest styles of fashionable clothing; which is certainly something to be reproved, but when it has come into common usage then it is honorable to follow in such common apparel, and to walk in humility. But, thanks be to God, I do not want showy array or worldly lusts, and have always continued wearing nearly the same pattern of clothes; but if I had dressed in modern fashion, should I then, for this reason, be excommunicated? This would be an injustice, and contrary to the Scriptures. The Lord has, indeed, made regulations in the church of God, for punishment of the contentious, and those conducting themselves contrary to the ordinances of God, as set forth in the Gospel. Herein it must be determined whether the things we wish to bind are also bound there, or are commanded to be bound.

The Holy Scriptures must be our ruling standard; to this we must yield, not running before it, but following, and that not untimely, but with care, fear, and regret; for it is a dangerous venture to step into the judgment of God and bind that which is not bound in heaven.

So much written in love and truth for your service and instruction in things worth while. I can hardly leave off writing to you. The beloved heavenly Father and God of consolation sustain and strengthen you in all oppressions, and bless you in body and soul, to His honor and to your salvation. Amen. From me, your brother, Gerhart Roosen of Hamburg.6

I think Roosen overstates his case just a little. It is perhaps not strictly true that “in all of Paul’s letters we do not find one word in which he has given believers regulations concerning the forms of clothing they should have.” Roosen would have done well to acknowledge Paul’s prohibitions in 1 Timothy 2:8-10:

I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works.

He could also have mentioned 1 Peter 3:3-5:

Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear—but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious. For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands…

These apostolic exhortations match what we generally find in the earliest Anabaptist writings—general admonitions to a humble modesty of dress, a few specific examples of the kinds of adornment to avoid, and a focus on developing a Christ-like spirit and character, but an absence of regulation attire or long lists of clothing rules.

Roosen’s letter could have been strengthened by mentioning these passages, for their emphasis matches his very well. But, to be fair, we should acknowledge that when Roosen claimed Paul gave no “regulations concerning the forms of clothing,” by forms Roosen quite likely meant specific clothing designs or styles (cut of coat, etc.), not merely clothing adornments. If that is what he meant, then Roosen was fully correct in his claim.

The question of clothing rules is more complex than two or three testimonies or letters. (If you want to read more of this history, I recommend Melvin Gingerich’s book Mennonite Attire Through Four Centuries as one very helpful place to continue.) History is littered with countless numbers who have affirmed words such as Roosen’s and then abused grace as a license for vain and sensual living. And the cultural pressures we face today regarding clothing are not the same as the ones the Anabaptists faced in Roosen’s day.

That said, the Scriptures have not changed, and the gospel has not changed. True regeneration of heart and lifestyle happens the same way today as it did in Roosen’s day, which is the same way it happened in the time of Jesus and his apostles: by grace. J.S. Coffman realized this as well as Roosen did, and he said similar things near the end of his life.

If Jacob Ammann did not get the idea of uniform clothing rules from Scripture, where did he get it? He certainly didn’t get it from the first generation of Anabaptists, for historical records indicate that while they were being persecuted they were indistinguishable from their neighbors based on their clothing.

I’m sure there were many influences on Ammann’s thinking, but here is one important one: the world around him. Ammann’s clothing rules were a worldly idea. What do I mean by this? What I mean is that in northern Europe, and in Switzerland in particular, the Reformation era was a time of multiple civil laws about clothing. Gingerich explains:

These laws attempted not only to freeze the social classes but also to keep the lower classes from spending too much money on luxury items. As illustrations of this kind of ordinances, one can cite the Zurich Ordinance of 1628, the Basel Ordinance of 1637, the Zurich Ordinance of 1650, and the Nuremberg Ordinance, which named what each class was expected to wear and what was forbidden them.7

“In cities of Switzerland,” writes Gingerich, “this kind of legislation… became increasingly strict so that city councils ‘even went so far as to prescribe the length of certain garments, length of shoe points or height of bonnets.'”8

Jacob Ammann was very familiar with these laws, for he was a tailor. As a tailor, he was responsible to tell his customers what kind of clothes they were permitted to wear. If he failed to do this, he and his customers could be fined. It seems that when Ammann became an Amish bishop, he advocated a similar rules-based approach within his church. In fact, he went beyond the civil laws which prohibited lower classes from wearing ornamentation reserved for the upper classes, and beyond what some previous Anabaptists had done in forbidding certain specific excesses for all their members (such as crimson linen or high-heeled shoes). His regulations were so specific and extensive that they resulted in a regulated uniform attire.

This is what I mean when I say that Ammann’s clothing rules were a worldly idea. In trying to avoid conformity to the worldliness of upper class clothing, Ammann conformed to a very worldly method: detailed clothing regulations. Perhaps now we can better understand why Roosen so strongly objected, and why he kept pointing to the gospel and emphasizing that “the Holy Scriptures must be our ruling standard.”

It is not easy to discuss such topics well. In writing this, I am taking risks. Some may agree with me so strongly that they show no patience for anyone who wants to nuance things differently. (If you’re a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail.) Others may disagree strongly, thinking I am undermining our ability to preserve a godly lifestyle. (If you’re a nail, then every solution feels like a hammer.) Others, whether they agree or not, may sigh when they see me getting on my hobby horse again!

I readily admit that each of us tends to have our pet topics, and that one of my central concerns is the question of how our Anabaptist churches can do a better job of rooting both holiness and loving unity—at the same time—in the gospel of grace. To the extent that the gospel is my pet topic, I do not apologize. Where I have undeniable gaps and imbalances, I remind you that this blog is intentionally focused and not designed as a one-stop-meets-all-needs source of spiritual nourishment. I also invite your responses to help balance my thinking.

Let us be patient with each other as we seek to understand our Anabaptist history and—more importantly—the Scriptures better. Let us give each other time to grow in our understanding and in living lives made holy by grace. But in our patience, let’s keep prodding each other back to the apostolic testimony, back to the gospel, and back to Christ.

I invite your responses in the comments below. May you be clothed in the grace of Christ—and may it show in the clothes you wear!

  1. Robert Friedmann. “Christliches Gemütsgespräch (Monograph).” GAMEO (1953); available from < http://gameo.org/index.php?title=Christliches_Gem%C3%BCtsgespr%C3%A4ch_(Monograph)&oldid=106756>; accessed 18 April 2015.
  2. John C. Wenger. The Doctrines of the Mennonites (Scottdale, PA: Mennonite Publishing House, 1950), 111.
  3. Robert Friedmann. Mennonite Piety Through the Centuries (Goshen, IN: Goshen College, 1929), 144. Quoted in Wenger, Doctrines, 111.
  4. Melvin Gingerich, Mennonite Attire Through Four Centuries (Breinigsville, PA: The Pennsylvania German Society, 1970, dist. by Herald Press), 18.
  5. Ibid., 18.
  6. Ibid., 19-20.
  7. Ibid., 15.
  8. Ibid., 11; quoting J.M. Vincent, “Sumptuary Legislation,” Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (New York: Macmillan, 1931), Vol. 14, pp. 464-66.

Save page