Hutterite Seekers

[Ken]

I have no desire to become a Hutterite. And I understand there are always going to be potential difficulties in welcoming outsiders into a group as insular as the Hutterites. That much is obvious.

But I wonder what the theological basis is for forming a group that excludes outsiders. That would seem to fly in the face of what it fundamentally means to be Christian. I mean pointing to things like zoning regulations in remote rural Washington wheat country seems like pretty weak rationale. That is literally the middle of nowhere.

Is this something that they struggle with and rationalize?

[Soloist]

I have no desire to become a Hutterite. And I understand there are always going to be potential difficulties in welcoming outsiders into a group as insular as the Hutterites. That much is obvious.

But I wonder what the theological basis is for forming a group that excludes outsiders. That would seem to fly in the face of what it fundamentally means to be Christian. I mean pointing to things like zoning regulations in remote rural Washington wheat country seems like pretty weak rationale. That is literally the middle of nowhere.

Is this something that they struggle with and rationalize?

I think its a practice, not a belief. Molokans on the other hand I have met and you are not allowed to convert and you are forbidden to marry out. If you leave, they actively attempt to regain you. Hutterites do not have a religious reason for excluding outsiders and historically, that doesn't match. The Huttarian chronicles is one of the more interesting history books I've ever read and I have deeply desired an English copy of the second volume.

[AndersonD]

I have no desire to become a Hutterite. And I understand there are always going to be potential difficulties in welcoming outsiders into a group as insular as the Hutterites. That much is obvious.

But I wonder what the theological basis is for forming a group that excludes outsiders. That would seem to fly in the face of what it fundamentally means to be Christian. I mean pointing to things like zoning regulations in remote rural Washington wheat country seems like pretty weak rationale. That is literally the middle of nowhere.

Is this something that they struggle with and rationalize?

I think its a practice, not a belief. Molokans on the other hand I have met and you are not allowed to convert and you are forbidden to marry out. If you leave, they actively attempt to regain you. Hutterites do not have a religious reason for excluding outsiders and historically, that doesn't match. The Huttarian chronicles is one of the more interesting history books I've ever read and I have deeply desired an English copy of the second volume.

Don't want to derail this thread, but I really wish to meet a Molokan. I have some interesting articles about them. Are the ones you met Constants or Jumpers?

[Praxis+Theodicy]

Bruderhof hold a one true church doctrine where anyone that leaves their fellowship is believed to have forfeited their salvation. Oddly enough they believe otherwise in universal salvation - so hell is only populated with ex-Bruderhof. (I have heard this doctrine might be changing in the post-Arnold ere.)

I don't pretend to know everything about the Bhof, but I know enough to say that these things aren't true. Their "Foundations of our Faith and Calling" document (the closest you can get to a doctrinal statement) has a section explicitly denying a "one true church" belief.

They do have a lifetime membership commitment [this is also made explicit in their "Foundations" document), but this is not the same thing as a one true church doctrine.

They also don't have any set doctrine on who is going to heaven/hell. They tend to be very loose on all doctrines that are nonessential... and essential doctrines are just pretty much those enumerated in the Apostles and Nicene Creeds, and the belief that Christian discipleship and the Kingdom of God is a calling for this life, not a promise of a better life to come in the resurrection. A few other doctrines they enumerate tend to be essential because of their long-lasting Christian countercultural witness (doctrine of nonresistance, non-participation in government, etc.)

[Josh]

Bruderhof hold a one true church doctrine where anyone that leaves their fellowship is believed to have forfeited their salvation. Oddly enough they believe otherwise in universal salvation - so hell is only populated with ex-Bruderhof. (I have heard this doctrine might be changing in the post-Arnold ere.)

I don't pretend to know everything about the Bhof, but I know enough to say that these things aren't true. Their "Foundations of our Faith and Calling" document (the closest you can get to a doctrinal statement) has a section explicitly denying a "one true church" belief.

They do have a lifetime membership commitment [this is also made explicit in their "Foundations" document), but this is not the same thing as a one true church doctrine.

They also don't have any set doctrine on who is going to heaven/hell. They tend to be very loose on all doctrines that are nonessential... and essential doctrines are just pretty much those enumerated in the Apostles and Nicene Creeds, and the belief that Christian discipleship and the Kingdom of God is a calling for this life, not a promise of a better life to come in the resurrection. A few other doctrines they enumerate tend to be essential because of their long-lasting Christian countercultural witness (doctrine of nonresistance, non-participation in government, etc.)

They 100% hold a doctrine that anyone who leaves their membership loses their salvation, or at least they did when Wayne in Maine left them (for very legitimate reasons). Of course, this isn’t written down in documents for public consumption, but it is certainly something any member (or ex member) knows.

I consider heaven, hell, and salvation to be “essential doctrines”.

[Praxis+Theodicy]

They 100% hold a doctrine that anyone who leaves their membership loses their salvation, or at least they did when Wayne in Maine left them (for very legitimate reasons). Of course, this isn’t written down in documents for public consumption, but it is certainly something any member (or ex member) knows.

I consider heaven, hell, and salvation to be “essential doctrines”.

"Doctrines of Heaven and Hell" is not the same thing as "enumerating who exactly is going to Heaven and Hell". The Apostles Creed affirms the reality of Heaven and Hell, and that they are eternal destinations for some and for others, but it doesn't go into specifics (like, someone who does XYZ is going to Hell, for example).
A lifetime commitment to a church (such as the Amish) carries with it the implication that when one breaks that commitment, they are thereafter living in active rebellion against the mission that God has given them. You'll find people among the Amish or Bruderhof or other churches with a lifetime commitment who believe one of two things: (1) this active rebellion is a path that leads away from Christ, and thus to Hell, and (2) this rebellion may sometime be the calling of the Spirit to renounce the burdens and comforts of this life that held them back from Christ, and these comforts paradoxically included the church context they were in.
Regardless of the fact that there is a variety of opinions/beliefs among the church, the "official" position may still be enumerated elsewhere. I'm not sure what the official position is in any of these lifetime membership churches, except that when there is also a "one true church" belief, obviously leavers are going to Hell.

[AndersonD]

Bruderhof hold a one true church doctrine where anyone that leaves their fellowship is believed to have forfeited their salvation. Oddly enough they believe otherwise in universal salvation - so hell is only populated with ex-Bruderhof. (I have heard this doctrine might be changing in the post-Arnold ere.)

I don't pretend to know everything about the Bhof, but I know enough to say that these things aren't true. Their "Foundations of our Faith and Calling" document (the closest you can get to a doctrinal statement) has a section explicitly denying a "one true church" belief.

They do have a lifetime membership commitment [this is also made explicit in their "Foundations" document), but this is not the same thing as a one true church doctrine.

They also don't have any set doctrine on who is going to heaven/hell. They tend to be very loose on all doctrines that are nonessential... and essential doctrines are just pretty much those enumerated in the Apostles and Nicene Creeds, and the belief that Christian discipleship and the Kingdom of God is a calling for this life, not a promise of a better life to come in the resurrection. A few other doctrines they enumerate tend to be essential because of their long-lasting Christian countercultural witness (doctrine of nonresistance, non-participation in government, etc.)

They 100% hold a doctrine that anyone who leaves their membership loses their salvation, or at least they did when Wayne in Maine left them (for very legitimate reasons). Of course, this isn’t written down in documents for public consumption, but it is certainly something any member (or ex member) knows.

I consider heaven, hell, and salvation to be “essential doctrines”.

I am not sure that they believe that someone who leaves forfeits their salvation. But they do take their vows to the B Hof very seriously. An individual can be baptized in the hof but not take the membership vow. Taking a membership vow is a serious commitment for the rest of your life.
It's s easy to see who's a member because they have a "member"s ring" on their finger.

Hell does not exist and they are post millennial.

[MaxPC]

I am not sure that they believe that someone who leaves forfeits their salvation. But they do take their vows to the B Hof very seriously. An individual can be baptized in the hof but not take the membership vow. Taking a membership vow is a serious commitment for the rest of your life.
It's s easy to see who's a member because they have a "member"s ring" on their finger.

Hell does not exist and they are post millennial.

That is a bit of a novelty for me. How do they rationalise regarding the nonexistence of hell?

[barnhart]

I am not sure that they believe that someone who leaves forfeits their salvation. But they do take their vows to the B Hof very seriously. An individual can be baptized in the hof but not take the membership vow. Taking a membership vow is a serious commitment for the rest of your life.

I recognize this distinction. It's similar to the position held by the Lancaster co. Amish where my father in law was born and raised. The ban was for breaking baptismal vows, not for leaving. Since he never joined (made lifetime vows), they never broke relationship with him and his family. In One True Church doctrine the failure is leaving the only true church, not breaking vows.

[Josh]

I am not sure that they believe that someone who leaves forfeits their salvation. But they do take their vows to the B Hof very seriously. An individual can be baptized in the hof but not take the membership vow. Taking a membership vow is a serious commitment for the rest of your life.

I recognize this distinction. It's similar to the position held by the Lancaster co. Amish where my father in law was born and raised. The ban was for breaking baptismal vows, not for leaving. Since he never joined (made lifetime vows), they never broke relationship with him and his family. In One True Church doctrine the failure is leaving the only true church, not breaking vows.

Functionally, the two are the same.