The Anabaptist perception towards insurance policies!

[Josh]

OK, I have to admit I was a bit confused here. Because there is a Mennonite Mutual Aid company that is actually an insurance company with the name of Mennonite Mutual Aid https://www.mennonitemutual.com/

And then there is a separate organization run by CAM that is called CAM Mutual Aid: https://www.cammutualaid.com/

I assume you are all talking about the latter?

Both of these are Anabaptist-affiliated organizations. Can someone articulate the theological reason for why insurance from the first organization is unacceptable but an insurance substitute provided by the second organization is acceptable?

I don’t use either of those. Mennonite Mutual Aid is not actually mutual aid, is insurance with subrogation, and wouldp be unacceptable to me. But that’s OK since they only serve big businesses and big farms now anyway.

CAM Mutual Aid has nothing to do with CAM but my church isn’t conservative enough to participate.

[Josh]

OK, I have to admit I was a bit confused here. Because there is a Mennonite Mutual Aid company that is actually an insurance company with the name of Mennonite Mutual Aid https://www.mennonitemutual.com/

And then there is a separate organization run by CAM that is called CAM Mutual Aid: https://www.cammutualaid.com/

I assume you are all talking about the latter?

Both of these are Anabaptist-affiliated organizations. Can someone articulate the theological reason for why insurance from the first organization is unacceptable but an insurance substitute provided by the second organization is acceptable?

I'll make a stab at the theology of Anabaptists who oppose insurance in favor of mutual aid organizations. I think it has to do with concern that funds are mutually shared among brothers and sisters in the Lord, and not going to support a third party organization or people who are living worldly or sinful lifestyles. As I understand it.

This isn’t really correct. The main factor was avoiding being a party to a lawsuit which is basically required with indemnity insurance.

[Neto]

OK, I have to admit I was a bit confused here. Because there is a Mennonite Mutual Aid company that is actually an insurance company with the name of Mennonite Mutual Aid https://www.mennonitemutual.com/

And then there is a separate organization run by CAM that is called CAM Mutual Aid: https://www.cammutualaid.com/

I assume you are all talking about the latter?

Both of these are Anabaptist-affiliated organizations. Can someone articulate the theological reason for why insurance from the first organization is unacceptable but an insurance substitute provided by the second organization is acceptable?

I'll make a stab at the theology of Anabaptists who oppose insurance in favor of mutual aid organizations. I think it has to do with concern that funds are mutually shared among brothers and sisters in the Lord, and not going to support a third party organization or people who are living worldly or sinful lifestyles. As I understand it.

This isn’t really correct. The main factor was avoiding being a party to a lawsuit which is basically required with indemnity insurance.

Another factor is that the mutual aid is more effective, at less cost, because there aren't a bunch of fat cats at the top getting filthy rich. But the threat of being forced to be party to a lawsuit is a big deal, one that affects one's own morality (not just the pocketbook).

[mike]

I'll make a stab at the theology of Anabaptists who oppose insurance in favor of mutual aid organizations. I think it has to do with concern that funds are mutually shared among brothers and sisters in the Lord, and not going to support a third party organization or people who are living worldly or sinful lifestyles. As I understand it.

This isn’t really correct. The main factor was avoiding being a party to a lawsuit which is basically required with indemnity insurance.

Another factor is that the mutual aid is more effective, at less cost, because there aren't a bunch of fat cats at the top getting filthy rich. But the threat of being forced to be party to a lawsuit is a big deal, one that affects one's own morality (not just the pocketbook).

I'm sure those things are factors also. I am primarily arguing devil's (or saint's?) advocate here, because I don't have a conscientious objection to commercial insurance.

[ohio jones]

CAM Mutual Aid has nothing to do with CAM but my church isn’t conservative enough to participate.

But my church is.

[Ken]

It seems that there are two separate conservative Anabaptist theological arguments against insurance (or commercial insurance).

The first is an affirmative argument in that there is a belief that a Christian community has an obligation or religious duty to provide for one another when someone is sick or faces financial hardship of some sort. Or in our old age. don't know which specific scripture is most often cited to support this argument but there is obviously a lot of Biblical teachings to this end. It goes to the heart of Christianity.

The second is a negative argument that Christians should not participate in or purchase insurance. The theological argument for this stance seems far weaker than the affirmative argument above. As far as I can tell, it is essentially an argument that we should trust in God and not men. But of course we don't really do this in any other walk of life. We have jobs and work hard to put food on the table and a roof over our heads. We don't just trust that it will happen on its own through faith.

Personally I find the first argument more compelling than the second. And I'm not sure that constructing a Christian community in which we have an obligation to look out for one another necessarily leads to the second conclusion--that one should reject insurance. Maybe the best way to actually look out for one another is to make sure that we do have insurance?

If I have mischaracterized the scriptural argument let me know.

[RZehr]

I think your two points are pretty much correct.

[barnhart]

What about the refusal of any exposure to loss or vulnerability. That would seem to run counter to some of Jesus' teaching.

[Ken]

What about the refusal of any exposure to loss or vulnerability. That would seem to run counter to some of Jesus' teaching.

As far as health insurance goes, I have a family and going without insurance seems incredibly irresponsible. We can self-cover most ordinary medical care but if something rare and catastrophic happened to one of our kids that produced astronomical medical bills I would not want to bankrupt my family and church community trying to pay for it. People get around that problem with faith-based plans. But I don't see faith-based health sharing plans as being fundamentally different from ordinary insurance.

For other forms of insurance like homeowners I get the highest deductible policy available and have never made a claim. But again, if our home burned to the ground I would be happy for the insurance rather than burdening the extended family and church community because we chose not to get insurance.

Frankly I would look somewhat unkindly on people in my extended family or church community who expected me and my family to sacrifice and step up and cover their losses because they voluntarily chose not to get insurance. But then I guess I'm not part of a tight-knit enough community to make that sort of thing work. I get how it can work in a very tight and insular religious community. But then you are basically replacing commercial insurance with your own community-based form of the same.

[barnhart]

I had in mind life insurance.