Nonconformity, Nonresistance, Nonaccumulation

[Ken]

3. The alternative to not paying for this sort of long-term care is expecting one of your children to quit their job to take care of you full time, 24/7. That has its own costs and implications. And is a tremendous burden to put on anyone. Especially if they have their own obligations apart from you.

Only if you have bought into the world's way of thinking...
There are millions of families and communities that take care of old people 24/7.
Many Christian wives don't have jobs, so they don't have to quit a job. Young people and retired people help out also.

I would suggest that there are very few Christian communities in the US or anywhere else that live by Hertzler's mandate of not saving anything for the future and expecting your children or church to cover all of your expenses in retirement and old age. Maybe a few communal groups like the Bruderhof and Hutterites, but that is about it. They certainly don't number in the millions. And they have accumulated substantial financial resources to be able to do so. It is just communally owned rather than individually owned. But it it still wealth nonetheless. That seems to me to be a distinction without a difference.

In my own family we do lots of helping each other out across generations. I think that is routine in every good family. What we do not to is expect that we can push all of our expenses off on future generations. One way that my parents are choosing to help my generation is by choosing not to be a burden.

[Ernie]

I find it interesting the amount of interest there is in this topic. 4 pages in less than 12 hours. Much more interest than coal vs. wood pellets.

Someone has said that if you speak about anything that will affect a person's wallet, you are bound to get a lot of discussion and push back.

[Ernie]

I would suggest that there are very few Christian communities in the US or anywhere else that live by Hertzler's mandate of not saving anything for the future and expecting your children or church to cover all of your expenses in retirement and old age. Maybe a few communal groups like the Bruderhof and Hutterites, but that is about it. They certainly don't number in the millions.

Do the research. You may be surprised.

In my own family we do lots of helping each other out across generations. I think that is routine in every good family. What we do not to is expect that we can push all of our expenses off on future generations. One way that my parents are choosing to help my generation is by choosing not to be a burden.

Again, they have taken on the values of Western culture and capitalism if they think this way.

The Bible does say that parents should lay up for the children, not children for the parents. But the Bible also expects children and relatives to care for family members in need. Once a person can think outside of the Western box, all sorts of possibilities open up.

[Ken]

If I understand correctly, you are admitting that you are allowing the zeitgeist to determine how you view the world and finances. For millenniums, families and communities did not save up for old age and families communities provided for the elderly and infirm. Believe it or not, this traditional way of caring for those in need is still very much alive in Hutterite colonies and many Amish and Mennonite communities who have not taken on the value systems of the surrounding culture. And it is working just fine. Actually better care and better relationships than what most elderly experience in the US.

I would suggest this isn't true.

In previous centuries when society was more agrarian, wealth wasn't accumulated in 401(k) accounts but it was accumulated nonetheless. Mennonite immigrant farmers from the Palatinate (from whom I and many here are descended) carved out prosperous farms from what was wilderness and built prosperous communities. And that wealth was passed down from generation to generation with the expectation that the older generations would be taken care of. Often the arrangements were overt as the son buys the farm from the father who relies on that exchange for income in old age. I don't know how Amish do it, but that is how Mennonites commonly do it. My grandfather's retirement savings was his investment in the farm that were paid back when it was passed down to the next generation and his son bought it. Same exact thing happens in many family businesses when the children buy out the father.

When you own a farm that has grown to be worth millions of dollars during your lifetime of work and investment that is functionally no different from a teacher or nurse who has accumulated a 401(k). In both cases it is wealth that supports you in retirement.

[ken_sylvania]

I tend to have a somewhat negative feeling toward the "non-accumulation doctrine" mostly because the only examples I've seen of people claiming to live it out were of people who spent money on themselves instead of saving it up, giving to the kingdom, or caring for elders, etc - expensive hobbies, frequent breakfasts at McDonalds or meals at diners when they could have easily eaten at home, time wasted on personal pleasure resulting in lower income, etc. To see a person live like that and hear them say "the Lord will provide" for serious injury, old age care, housing, etc doesn't set well with me.
Whereas my parents and grandparents, to varying degrees, demonstrated an ethic of caring for their elderly and giving of themselves and their possessions in service to Christ even though they didn't really talk much about not piling up riches - they spoke by example.

I realize this isn't really fair to RH to let the bad apples spoil the good in his teachings....

[Ken]

The Bible does say that parents should lay up for the children, not children for the parents. But the Bible also expects children and relatives to care for family members in need. Once a person can think outside of the Western box, all sorts of possibilities open up.

Every family I know cares for each other across generations. That is what families do.

Most people also save for the future so that they will not be a burden on their children.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

[Ernie]

For example, Eastern Mennonite Missions (Not to be confused with EPMC) used to be one of the strongest Plain Anabaptist missions.

Could you expand on this a little bit? I was a missionary for 4 years with EMM starting 17 years ago and it was a never particularly plain. It's always been the mission board of Lancaster Conference and mapped pretty closely with the movement of the conference. Do you know why the donated their library?

I am referring to the 1914-maybe 1950. The Earth is the Lord's and Gospel Vs. Gospel chronicles the Plain missions in Africa and Asia how they became not Plain. What you observed in Honduras, is same book different chapter.

Here is more reading about EMM.
https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Easte ... onference)

[Bootstrap]

Again, they have taken on the values of Western culture and capitalism if they think this way.

The Bible does say that parents should lay up for the children, not children for the parents. But the Bible also expects children and relatives to care for family members in need. Once a person can think outside of the Western box, all sorts of possibilities open up.

I think the Bible really does encourage us not to store up treasure on earth and not to build bigger barns. Hertzler is taking this to a logical extreme. I have picked up hitchhikers who believed they should carry no more than they can fit in a backpack and save nothing, but go from place to place preaching the Gospel.

My children do not plan to provide for me in my old age, and I am not part of an intentional community. My parents taught me to take each paycheck and divide it up, saving at least 10%, giving at least 10%, and living on the rest. I think that giving and saving significantly more than that is wise, always giving more than we save.

But that's not based on Bible teaching. And I see the example of Hertzler as a challenge - why is it that I am saving? Can I justify that? How much saving is OK, and when is it too much?

[Ernie]

Most people also save for the future so that they will not be a burden on their children.

If half of the world's population lives on less than $6.85 per person per day, it is hard for me to imagine that "most people" are saving for their future.
https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/developm ... person-day
But I cannot verify whether your statement is false.

Even if it is true, this does not make it good or right. Many of us believe that the values of most people in the world are not ideal at all. So to make a value judgment on whether most people do something does not really sway us at all.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

I agree.

[Ernie]

About 10 years ago they donated their library to a moderate conservative Anabaptist mission and the library is now in our house basement.

I have a correction to make. The library in our basement has books from EMM but the library was not donated by EMM.