Holding all things in common

[Verifyveritas76]

That is so sad, and yet a very predictable outcome re leadership in a situation like that. Anytime the headship of the husband is minimized by those in elder positions, it results in a bad outcome.

God has blessed me with one son, but multiple young men and fathers around me that He’s giving me influence with. One of the things I have stressed to my son and am showing to these other young men is that theres never a good enough reason to submit your authority to another man, once you are a son over your own house. Ever!

 

[FollowingHim2]

The reason they think they will go to hell if they leave is that everybody, by the age of 18, is expected to sign a contract that they will live in this community and obey the elders for the rest of their lives. One of the key provisions of this is that it is a vow before God, and they sign that if they break it they will lose their salvation. Because disobeying the elders is disobeying God, and wilfully disobeying God is deliberate sin. So it makes sense in a twisted way.

Not just obeying the elders, but they are not allowed to hold a thought contrary to what the elders believe. Not. a. thought.

I heard testimony from a woman that this happened to, and my heart truly broke for her. She eventually chose her husband, after returning to Gloriavale and then leaving again. I can't imagine having to make a decision like that.

I met this woman last night. I didn't know she would be there. Her story struck a chord with me, and we cried and laughed together. We are very similar, she has the same amount of children as me, same ages, and we get along really well. So we've swapped contact details and will arrange a time to meet up. I'm so happy that God planned this for the both of us.

One of the things to keep in mind, is that they all said that in Gloriavale they do not have a personal relationship with God, because the way to God is not through Jesus but through the elders. Prayers are not answered there, the place is lacking in the holy spirit.
But, when they leave, God intervenes in a big way. There were some pretty dramatic stories of God working in their lives, miracles, and for some of them they have a really good grasp of what actually being a Christian is about now. And for some, particularly teenagers, they choose to remove themselves from God completely.

I found it really hard listening to some of their testimonies, hearing how children are treated, the neglect, the removing of parents as any sort of authority figure for their own children etc. But the absolute worst thing was hearing how they do not have a personal relationship with God. It's not taught, it's not encouraged, in fact when they start questioning that or developing that relationship they are kicked out. That made me the saddest, honestly.

 

[Cap]

The “communality of thinking/thought” is worthy of strong consideration. Holding beliefs in common.

Not directed at you, just general. Could this justify denominations? It's obvious that people gather together spiritually based on thier flavor of Christian belief.

 

[rockfox]

It is entirely possible that the group is engaging in child sex trafficking or child porn production. I'm not saying they are, but it is a common MO with groups like this and one of the reasons they're allowed to exist for so long.

 

[FollowingHim]

Also, they're not patriarchal. The women are all in head coverings, the community is led by men, it all looks patriarchal - but it is actually almost the exact opposite. Women are not taught to respect their husbands, and the nuclear family is not important. They are taught very strongly that the community comes first, family second. The children are in daycare from an early age, both parents are working. But the father is not really providing for the family, because of the communist system, whatever he does doesn't actually change their living conditions at all. So he's really just there to impregnate his wife. The women are not taught to respect him in any way. Also, they have arranged marriages, and many of the women are much older than their husbands - e.g. 5 years older - so they're marrying men they have viewed as children for most of their lives. But all this is by design - because they are taught to respect and obey the elders. The women see the elders as real men, real authority figures who actually hear from God.

So what is happening right now is that many men are leaving or being kicked out, either as teenagers (before marriage) or after marriage. But the women, being different personality-wise and being raised differently, are not leaving as readily. So many men are leaving - and their wives are left inside. They then have to persuade their wives to follow them. Their wives are in the position of being told by their husband (who they don't respect) "follow me, it's far better out here, and you won't go to hell". While the elders (who they have respected all their lives) tell them "if you leave and follow him you'll go to hell". They are told to abandon their husbands (completely contrary to scripture). It's very, very difficult for these women to decide to follow their husbands. Some do, and some do not. So families are broken up.

Some more detail on this, to clarify. These are the official marriage vows that must be used (the couple will add to them, but must include this wording). Emphasis added:

Wife: "I willingly submit myself to you and will call you lord. My body is yours."

Husband: "I promise to look after our children and lead our family in righteousness. If I ever turn from the church you are not required to submit to me any longer. My commitment is to God and the church first, and secondly to you. I will never look upon another woman in lust."

That's paying lip-service to patriarchy, while at the same time completely undermining it and making it of no consequence, as a matter of official policy that all must actually vow to agree to.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Ouch!

I recently read a vow that was as short and sweet as it was biblical and thorough.

From the man only: I vow to protect and provide for you and our children as long as I live and you obey.

Her response: I accept.

 

[Slumberfreeze]

I still don't like it! It implies if she is disobedient he no longer will protect and provide for her. Which is patriarchal AF but not very biblical.

I'm becoming convinced that the best vows are no vows:

"I take you as my woman. You are now my woman."

"I take you as my man, you are now my man"

"That is good. Now we eat and drink, and then after we will do the sex"

They are already on the hook for doing everything the bible commands, whether they attempt to verbalize it or not. Probably best to not because the temptation is there to just totally gild the lily because of all the high emotion.

 

[steve]

I still don't like it! It implies if she is disobedient he no longer will protect and provide for her. Which is patriarchal AF but not very biblical.

I'm becoming convinced that the best vows are no vows:

"I take you as my woman. You are now my woman."

"I take you as my man, you are now my man"

"That is good. Now we eat and drink, and then after we will do the sex"

They are already on the hook for doing everything the bible commands, whether they attempt to verbalize it or not. Probably best to not because the temptation is there to just totally gild the lily because of all the high emotion.

Let me know how it works out for you.

Quite frankly, sacrificing your resources for someone who is following an imagined leader gets old in a hurry.

 

[Slumberfreeze]

"Quite frankly, sacrificing your resources for someone who is following an imagined leader gets old in a hurry."


I believe it! I imagine that providing for the Church in the throes of its centuries old disobedience gets old for Jesus as well, but that is the reality we are supposed to be modelling. I don't think I'm being overly idealistic here. I'm not savvy to whatever real life situation you're thinking of, but I know that I'm not to divorce my woman for any reason except sexual immorality. And if I have to stay married to her, I think that means that my resources are supposed to be there for her protection and providence whether she deserves it or not?

To speak to how it is working out for me, well, more or less what I posted is how I'm operating now. And is kind of how I've always operated. Whatever my vows were, there was never any doubt that I'd provide for her no matter what she did. @RainyLondonFog can cease all submission to me at any time and not really have to worry about a place to stay or food to eat or clothes to wear or how she'll find a grumpy, toothsome man to keep her from harm and take her to bed. (Why she would invite the litany of remedial lectures is a bit beyond me... but that's her lookout.)

I rely generally on my words and teachings working with the Holy Spirit to secure her submission, I do not rely on the fear of being cast out as being part of it. I have actually denied the idea of it. (Which speaks a lot of of my soteriology).
I believe that just as it is the goodness of God (not the fear of losing my salvation) that leads me to repentance. My actions might occasionally change because I fear judgment, but the times when I really changed my attitude was when He blessed me even when I was disobedient and expecting punishment. How can I not submit to a God like that? Since that was the way I've been done, that's the way I do. (or... you know... the way I try to. I suppose Rainy is reading, after all...)

And I'd have to say it's working out well. I suppose a person could say "Well I've met your wife and of course it works with her", and all I can say is she's had a long hard road to get to where she's at as well. It's been a bumpy ride at times, and I think that if I had presented her with the door as an option, she would have been greatly tempted to take the door. As it stands, there is no door, just me, me and more me.

Mayyyaahhbeee..... there's other ways of going about it? Or maybe there's some women that need the threat of getting chucked to get them to submit? And maybe God has prepared men to deal with just that kind of woman? All very possible, so I guess I can't say with finality that my way is the correct way, but I can say that my way (the way I've been taught) is the right way for the woman God gave me. And I would hope that this way would be sufficient for any additional females the Lord sees fit to pair me up with, since He's done such an efficient job of choosing my wives so far.

 

[Cap]

"Quite frankly, sacrificing your resources for someone who is following an imagined leader gets old in a hurry."


I believe it! I imagine that providing for the Church in the throes of its centuries old disobedience gets old for Jesus as well, but that is the reality we are supposed to be modelling. I don't think I'm being overly idealistic here. I'm not savvy to whatever real life situation you're thinking of, but I know that I'm not to divorce my woman for any reason except sexual immorality. And if I have to stay married to her, I think that means that my resources are supposed to be there for her protection and providence whether she deserves it or not?

To speak to how it is working out for me, well, more or less what I posted is how I'm operating now. And is kind of how I've always operated. Whatever my vows were, there was never any doubt that I'd provide for her no matter what she did. @RainyLondonFog can cease all submission to me at any time and not really have to worry about a place to stay or food to eat or clothes to wear or how she'll find a grumpy, toothsome man to keep her from harm and take her to bed. (Why she would invite the litany of remedial lectures is a bit beyond me... but that's her lookout.)

I rely generally on my words and teachings working with the Holy Spirit to secure her submission, I do not rely on the fear of being cast out as being part of it. I have actually denied the idea of it. (Which speaks a lot of of my soteriology).
I believe that just as it is the goodness of God (not the fear of losing my salvation) that leads me to repentance. My actions might occasionally change because I fear judgment, but the times when I really changed my attitude was when He blessed me even when I was disobedient and expecting punishment. How can I not submit to a God like that? Since that was the way I've been done, that's the way I do. (or... you know... the way I try to. I suppose Rainy is reading, after all...)

And I'd have to say it's working out well. I suppose a person could say "Well I've met your wife and of course it works with her", and all I can say is she's had a long hard road to get to where she's at as well. It's been a bumpy ride at times, and I think that if I had presented her with the door as an option, she would have been greatly tempted to take the door. As it stands, there is no door, just me, me and more me.

Mayyyaahhbeee..... there's other ways of going about it? Or maybe there's some women that need the threat of getting chucked to get them to submit? And maybe God has prepared men to deal with just that kind of woman? All very possible, so I guess I can't say with finality that my way is the correct way, but I can say that my way (the way I've been taught) is the right way for the woman God gave me. And I would hope that this way would be sufficient for any additional females the Lord sees fit to pair me up with, since He's done such an efficient job of choosing my wives so far.

Excellent. Maybe some men can by the example of a wrathful God to lead people (women) into relationship with them, I too see more benefit in trying to emulate the Love of God, knowing how His Mercy effects me in my life.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

I’d say the responses on this have jumped to an extreme side to have something to attack.

A man shouldn’t covenant with someone who won’t even pay lip service to obedience/headship at the onset.

Beyond that, it seems that there is an assumption that she’s gonna get the boot for any and every infraction. If that’s the case,IMHO she’s probably better off without him.

The point is that he has the reserved right to remove his covering if she goes down a certain rebellious path, and she has the right to covering and provision and protection as a reserved right. This is called a conditional covenant or contract and is the same type of covenant we all made with our spouse. It’s also the same type God made with Israel and Judah. I’m not aware of anyone who’s made an unconditional covenant in our era.

Some will point to a “til death do us part” clause as if that negates the other clauses and conditions of the covenant. That’s just the intended term of contract providing the conditional clauses are fulfilled.

What you choose to do with your reserved rights is up to each of you. If you choose to overlook faults and shortcomings in your spouse’s performance of their duties, that’s great, but it doesn’t negate the covenant is a conditional covenant. If you choose to provide and support a woman in total rebellion to your headship, that’s a choice, not an obligation per your initial covenant.

 

[Slumberfreeze]

I’d say the responses on this have jumped to an extreme side to have something to attack.

Right. I suppose I can't assume

an assumption that she’s gonna get the boot for any and every infraction.

any more than I could realistically defend

to provide and support a woman in total rebellion to your headship

A man shouldn’t covenant with someone who won’t even pay lip service to obedience/headship at the onset.

I agree with this. Well ahead of proposing to the girl, I obtained her verbalized intention to obedience. I just don't like vows. I think they get us thinking in the wrong direction.

he point is that he has the reserved right to remove his covering if she goes down a certain rebellious path

Agreed. I suppose I just define that certain rebellious path as "sexual immorality" and not a whole bunch else.

 

[FollowingHim]

Emotionally, I'm with @Slumberfreeze 100%. At the same time I am well aware that he and I have probably managed to maintain our rose-tinted glasses because we haven't had them broken by a truly rebellious woman, and @steve speaks from sound experience that I would wish to learn from rather than ignore even though it doesn't fit comfortably with my initial reaction...

The advantage of no formalised vow wording is that it avoids mistakes. If instead of vows you agree to be husband and wife according to scripture, that understanding can grow and change as you understand scripture better. But if you try to make perfect vows today, you'll find some detail you disagree with 10 years later - monogamy being a prime example, but not the only one. The simpler the better.

There does have to be a common ground at the start, you both need to agree on what marriage means - headship, protection, love, submission etc. But whether this understanding needs to be formalised in vows is debatable. The main advantage of vows is that writing them requires you to ensure you agree on such matters. But you could work out your common understanding yet not vow it.

 

[steve]

“Jesus is my Lord and He never tells me that I’m wrong, unlike you.
You need to lead this family in the way that He leads me. In fact He gave me a prophesy for you and if you don’t follow it you will fail.”


Don’t make assumptions about any one person that I have been in relationship with, it applies to more than just one. Although the two presently in my house don’t have this problem.

 

[FollowingHim]

I must point out that vowing to have you as her head didn't actually prevent that attitude @steve. What value is even a vow when a woman has such an attitude?

It reminds me of people whose gut reaction to bad stuff is to lobby the government to make the bad stuff illegal. So we get laws on top of laws banning all manner of "bad". But thieves still steal, murderers still murder. Words (laws, vows) don't actually prevent bad behaviour. What makes a real difference is what is in the heart.

 

[steve]

This isn’t actually about vows, it has everything to do with how people treat each other. As you said, what is in the heart.

 

[FollowingHim]

Don’t make assumptions about any one person that I have been in relationship with, it applies to more than just one. Although the two presently in my house don’t have this problem.

Don't make assumptions about what I am thinking. I just said you had experience!

 

[Cap]

This isn’t actually about vows, it has everything to do with how people treat each other. As you said, what is in the heart.

The purpose of this thread was to try and figure out what makes a "hold things in common" arrangement? Is it vows? Does a group of individuals who want to hold all things in common need to make a vow?

I agree that how people treat each other is more important than vows. How much of the arrangements it takes to make a family extend to a group that is going to hold all things in common?

 

[steve]

How much of the arrangements it takes to make a family extend to a group that is going to hold all things in common?

We did get a bit off track.

I have been in several partnerships.
I have been known to sacrifice our resources while helping others.
But I cannot imagine a scenario where I would be willing to hold all things in common.

 

[FollowingHim]

I can see a great value in Christian community. However, the serious issue with holding all in common is that you can hand all your assets to the church thinking they're going in a good direction, then they turn bad and use your own assets for evil, and you leave with nothing but the clothes on your back. Gloriavale was founded on the farm of a man who gave it to the community, then left with nothing, his family inheritence and even his children gone to the group. It's just too risky when you have large assets at stake.

I can see such a community working if the land & buildings are purchased in some form of a company / trust / partnership arrangement, where the original contributors retain their shareholding in the asset and associated voting power for at least a period of time (e.g. a decade minimum), and have the ability to sell up and leave with their assets if things turned pear-shaped.

In day-to-day matters, once again I can see it working with all giving voluntarily of what they have (food, clothing etc) as per people's needs. But once you get to full communist redistribution of everything then things are going to rapidly deteriorate.

There's a way to do this that is loving and cooperative, and a way that is authoritarian and coercive.