Funky theology

[JohnH]

Be it a government program, a school curriculum item, or establishing a life/community structure that weakens the role of a father, mother, and their children. It does not mean every element of one of those things is wrong, but it’s a “mile marker” so to speak.
Not all is wrong with the Hutterites, but not all is good either, especially the Bruderhof group.

I don't exactly see how Hutterites (or Brudferhof) "weaken the role of a father [and] mother". Doesn't seem particularly different than church authority in any other sort of church structure.

[ohio jones]

The basic family unit is the cornerstone of Christian life. It is why even Jesus himself was born as a child into a human family.
A hallmark of something being “not Christianity” is how it impacts the family.
Be it a government program, a school curriculum item, or establishing a life/community structure that weakens the role of a father, mother, and their children. It does not mean every element of one of those things is wrong, but it’s a “mile marker” so to speak.
Not all is wrong with the Hutterites, but not all is good either, especially the Bruderhof group.

I don't exactly see how Hutterites (or Brudferhof) "weaken the role of a father [and] mother". Doesn't seem particularly different than church authority in any other sort of church structure.

In non-communal Anabaptism, the focus is on the familyTM and the community is secondary, with the father and mother mediating the relationship of the family to the community. In communal Anabaptism, the community is primary and the family is secondary, with the relationship governed by the leaders of the community. That certainly seems to me like the role of the parents is significantly weaker.

[ohio jones]

My reaction every time I open this thread to see it's not about the theology of Funk:

[JohnH]

In non-communal Anabaptism, the focus is on the familyTM and the community is secondary, with the father and mother mediating the relationship of the family to the community. In communal Anabaptism, the community is primary and the family is secondary, with the relationship governed by the leaders of the community. That certainly seems to me like the role of the parents is significantly weaker.

My experience in communal Anabaptism (admittedly entirely Hutterite, not Bruderhof) is that the family is, actually, primary, and the community is simply part of a system that helps strengthen the family. It really functions as an extended family or a collection of extended families. The family structures certainly come first.

[ohio jones]

In non-communal Anabaptism, the focus is on the familyTM and the community is secondary, with the father and mother mediating the relationship of the family to the community. In communal Anabaptism, the community is primary and the family is secondary, with the relationship governed by the leaders of the community. That certainly seems to me like the role of the parents is significantly weaker.

My experience in communal Anabaptism (admittedly entirely Hutterite, not Bruderhof) is that the family is, actually, primary, and the community is simply part of a system that helps strengthen the family. It really functions as an extended family or a collection of extended families. The family structures certainly come first.

Structures and experiences may vary, and probably do. Just before reading the latest parts of this thread I was listening to the Anabaptist Perspectives interview with Hew Gregory-Smith, and he stated that his wife would not consider joining the Bruderhof because it would mean giving up too much of the control of their family life.

[R7ehr]

It does sound like the children are “babysat” a lot in their age group. Sounds like the children are divided up by age and spend a lot of the day under the supervision and schedule of an adult who is not their parent. The parents in turn seem to have their own duties or jobs or responsibilities to do.

Although, perhaps it really isn’t so many hours away from the parents - especially not compared with many average American parents who both have jobs. Even compared to the average conservative Mennonite family, if the Dad works a job outside the home, he may only be around his children outside the work hours. In which case I’m not sure that the Bruderhof and Hutterites fathers are seeing their children any less. Of course, if the Dad has a business or job where he can take his children - which many do - then think he may come out ahead. The Mennonite mothers would be with their children more though.

[Neto]

Be it a government program, a school curriculum item, or establishing a life/community structure that weakens the role of a father, mother, and their children. It does not mean every element of one of those things is wrong, but it’s a “mile marker” so to speak.
Not all is wrong with the Hutterites, but not all is good either, especially the Bruderhof group.

I don't exactly see how Hutterites (or Brudferhof) "weaken the role of a father [and] mother". Doesn't seem particularly different than church authority in any other sort of church structure.

As far as the practice of not having as many meals as possible together as a family unit, I completely agree with Jay here. Family meal times may not always be the type of "spiritual" experience as it was for me growing up, or as it was for us in our own family, so that definitely colors my personal response to this.

[JoyE]

We had the privilege of serving lunch yesterday to some old friends, a Bruderhof family, at our home. Yes, head covering is now optional. They’ve also relaxed their rule on button down shirts for men. Their leadership said that it is really important not to criticize each others decisions to wear or to not wear the head covering. They explained that it was Paul that taught it, not Jesus. And that they hold the Sermon on the Mount very highly. And it was hard to imagine God keeping people out of heaven because of the lack of head covering. I went on their website later, and they do mention trying to live out the Sermon on the Mount on the website.
I didn’t think of it at the time, but the whole common purse subject, which is their core identifying characteristic, is not taught by Jesus either, but is instead found in Acts as an observation (not a teaching) of what those Christians did.

The Tennessee community is trying to make a business having to do with soil fertility, soil amendments, or compost equipment. Something like that.
Their communities are out growing their housing, so they need more communities. They have a new one just starting in Idaho.

We discussed the matter of the lifetime vow that they require. Which is, in order to join, one must take a lifetime vow to stay there. There really is no exit door without breaking the vow, there is no such thing as releasing someone from their vow. If someone leaves, that person is breaking their vow. Which I suppose means that person is in sin until they return. There is no such thing as transferring and joining another church as there is in many other churches. In this regard, it has the feel of a One True Church.

On the other hand, if a young person never takes the vow, and leaves as a young adult, and joins another church, they have no condemnation for that person. They seem to fully support that person so long as that person is serving God to the best of their ability outside of the community. There is no shunning. So in this way, it reminds me of the Amish, and not a One True Church at all.

Which to me, begs the question of both the Amish and the Bruderhof, if it is not a O.T.C., then why is it viewed as such a serious matter to leave the community? After all, it isn’t a O.T.C.

I thought about it later, why can leadership change a doctrine such as the head covering, and then refuse to allow anyone to leave? To not be allowed to be released from your membership vow in light of what you signed up for is now no longer in effect, seems broken. Arguably, the leadership is the one that broke the contract. Right now they don’t allow for divorce. What if they change that? Are members simply at the mercy of the leadership, and have no way to leave? I didn’t think to ask yesterday.

They seem like a genuinely sincere Christian community. I just struggle with that level of commitment, coupled with seemingly little personal input and agency.

On Monday we had the surprise of an Amish family dropping in on us. We didn’t know them, but we had a mutual friend, which is how they had our address. They too have wrestled with the ban in their community.

Interesting week out here in the desert.

How is a vow to any group biblical? Especially considering what the Bible says about making promises. I just don't see the concept in Scripture.

[R7ehr]

Well speaking of funky theology, the penalty for apostasy in Islam is the death penalty. Makes shunning and the ban seem a bit milquetoast, doesn’t it now?

[barnhart]

...
We discussed the matter of the lifetime vow that they require. Which is, in order to join, one must take a lifetime vow to stay there. There really is no exit door without breaking the vow, there is no such thing as releasing someone from their vow. If someone leaves, that person is breaking their vow. Which I suppose means that person is in sin until they return. There is no such thing as transferring and joining another church as there is in many other churches. In this regard, it has the feel of a One True Church.

On the other hand, if a young person never takes the vow, and leaves as a young adult, and joins another church, they have no condemnation for that person. They seem to fully support that person so long as that person is serving God to the best of their ability outside of the community. There is no shunning. So in this way, it reminds me of the Amish, and not a One True Church at all.

Which to me, begs the question of both the Amish and the Bruderhof, if it is not a O.T.C., then why is it viewed as such a serious matter to leave the community? After all, it isn’t a O.T.C.

Judging from the experience of my father in law, the Amish ban flows from the rupture of baptismal vows, not from joining another church. He left without joining and enjoyed a lifetime of warm relations and was never treated differently than children who joined. In later years Amish friends and relatives who were church leaders would on occasion ask his advice on issues they faced in their church. There is variability in Amish practice but I am very slow to attach them to the one true church doctrine.