Insurance

[Joy]

Could someone please explain to me the Mennonite position on using insurance? What you believe and why. Seems like someone mentioned it briefly recently, but I forget which thread.

If it has already been discussed, a link will do for me. Thanks.

[steve-in-kville]

They may have scriptures to back up their "convictions." Some have no problems with it, some are okay with car, health and home insurance, but have a problem with life insurance. The larger groups are self-insured, like the Horning church, for both car and health, but would get commercial policies on farms and businesses.

[Josh]

I take out insurance when required by law and that will benefit other people, but not me. An example would be auto liability insurance, or commercial general liability or errors & omissions. An insurance company might mount a legal defence on my behalf if I were sued. I'm okay with that, even though my preference would be to find a way to settle peacably. Paul after all did defend himself at law.

I don't take out insurance to protect me against casualty and loss. So I don't insure my own car. This does mean there are some things I have to avoid, like having a car loan. I don't want to be in a position where an insurance company would ever file a lawsuit on my behalf. I would not sue someone and would especially be uncomfortable if a Christian brother crashed into my car, and then my insurance company sued him on my behalf to recover the damages.

I accept health insurance if my employer offers it at very little or no cost to me, as that is the position our church has accepted. I still support a Christian health sharing ministry on the side because I believe that's a better way to bear each others' burdens, and I am careful not to rely on my employer's health insurance as what I trust in to take care of my medical needs.

I accept the travel insurance my employer requires me to have

My employer gives all employees life insurance for free. I had to go to some effort to explain to our outsourced HR / PEO organisation that I wanted to waive this. They didn't have way to enter a waiver into our system, and my company's HR executive is not in or from America and could not understand at all why I would want to do this. We ended up finding a way to do so, where I listed the insurance company itself as the sole beneficiary of my life insurance policy. I would never feel comfortable having a life insurance policy as a beneficiary or as a policyholder in any way.

[RZehr]

I think it is important to keep a straight perspective on insurance.

Insurance is only an outworking of a much more important principle. Insurance is not the principle thing. The principle thing as I believe, is helping one another, bearing one each others burdens. Taking responsibility for each other.

If we think insurance is the principle that is missing the point, and cause confusion as to why we accept certain insurances and not other insurances. If you keep the principle and application of the principle clear, then we can acknowledge that some groups may draw the insurance line at different places than we do while not violating the principle.

[Bootstrap]

Insurance is only an outworking of a much more important principle. Insurance is not the principle thing. The principle thing as I believe, is helping one another, bearing one each others burdens. Taking responsibility for each other.

And that means it just makes sense for each group to decide on its own insurance policy, based on how they take care of each other.

And for those of us who are not in a group that covers the kinds of things insurance might, insurance is probably a good idea ...

[Hats Off]

I think it is important to keep a straight perspective on insurance.

Insurance is only an outworking of a much more important principle. Insurance is not the principle thing. The principle thing as I believe, is helping one another, bearing one each others burdens. Taking responsibility for each other.

If we think insurance is the principle that is missing the point, and cause confusion as to why we accept certain insurances and not other insurances. If you keep the principle and application of the principle clear, then we can acknowledge that some groups may draw the insurance line at different places than we do while not violating the principle.

Sometimes it is difficult to remain consistent with our understandings of insurance. Our church has a fire aid and storm plan but not for liability. We have access to an automobile self insurance plan for those who don't want insurance. We can go to our deacon for assistance with hospital bills in most cases. However, we do not look after premature birth care in hospital because that is "just too expensive" so members in that situation must look after themselves or enrol in provincial health care. My daughter asked a deacon about travel insurance for unexpected medical situations while travelling out of country. She was told she stands to lose everything she has before the church would help with such medical care.

Some of our adult children did not take out any insurance until they learned of the official position of the church. Now they have provincial medical insurance and certainly travel insurance. One young farmer asked me what I thought of liability insurance for a farmer - he told me that his father recommended he have it. I was going to advise against it based on our view of insurance when another young man responded "if we have liability insurance, we don't need deacons anymore!" So it does seem to me that we have "convictions", unfortunately we seem more concerned about economic aspects.

[Judas Maccabeus]

I think it is important to keep a straight perspective on insurance.

Insurance is only an outworking of a much more important principle. Insurance is not the principle thing. The principle thing as I believe, is helping one another, bearing one each others burdens. Taking responsibility for each other.

If we think insurance is the principle that is missing the point, and cause confusion as to why we accept certain insurances and not other insurances. If you keep the principle and application of the principle clear, then we can acknowledge that some groups may draw the insurance line at different places than we do while not violating the principle.

Sometimes it is difficult to remain consistent with our understandings of insurance. Our church has a fire aid and storm plan but not for liability. We have access to an automobile self insurance plan for those who don't want insurance. We can go to our deacon for assistance with hospital bills in most cases. However, we do not look after premature birth care in hospital because that is "just too expensive" so members in that situation must look after themselves or enrol in provincial health care. My daughter asked a deacon about travel insurance for unexpected medical situations while travelling out of country. She was told she stands to lose everything she has before the church would help with such medical care.

Some of our adult children did not take out any insurance until they learned of the official position of the church. Now they have provincial medical insurance and certainly travel insurance. One young farmer asked me what I thought of liability insurance for a farmer - he told me that his father recommended he have it. I was going to advise against it based on our view of insurance when another young man responded "if we have liability insurance, we don't need deacons anymore!" So it does seem to me that we have "convictions", unfortunately we seem more concerned about economic aspects.

Yes, for us who live in urban areas, most of our jobs come with medical coverage, and you need take it, or pay a fine. It does not cover everything, and there are lots of things that fall through the cracks, so yes, we still need deacons.

J.M.

[Josh]

An open question I have is what exactly believers should do when a fellow believer has given birth to a child who costs about $100,000 a month to keep alive. One Mennonite conference's health needs sharing ministry is experiencing this exact situation.

It's all the worse when specific genetic disorders specific to ethnic Mennonites lead to those situations.

I personally find a grave ethical dilemma with being willing to take advantage of modern medicine to spend $100,000 a month to keep a child alive, yet not being willing to use modern science to avoid the situation in the first place, and recognising that spending that much means that needs elsewhere will not be met.

[Joy]

Thanks for the input, guys. Some of those issues hadn't occurred to me.

I have insurance where it is required by law, that is, my car, the basic insurance. And I use a Christian sharing group for health as now it is mandatory.

Where I struggle is how much do I trust God, and how much do I pay not to have to pay if evil happens to me? It's not my business what others do, but for myself, the whole issue is a conundrum.

I think of passages like, "He that giveth to the rich, shall surely come to want." Boy, that could apply to a lot. But the Christian share groups would be exempt from that, at least mine. And this one,
Matt. 6:31-33 Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

Then there is the warning, Prov. 22:3 A prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself: but the simple pass on, and are punished.

Which of these apply to the concept of insurance? Or other Scriptures?

[Hats Off]

I wanted no part in insurance, but what is the cost of not having any. And like you say, what is the cost of having it?