Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.

The Historic Faith
Sign in

Jumpstarter 6 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion
Question 6
The Brethren of the Common Life practiced monastic-like disciplines (poverty, celibacy, obedience) but “were not bound by a vow” and “anyone could leave…at will”; what does this combination of strictness and freedom reveal about their assumptions regarding conscience, community, and voluntary discipleship, and what would be gained or lost if churches tried something similar now?
Another way to ask: The Brethren lived with strict practices like poverty, celibacy, and obedience, but no one was forced to stay. What does that mix of strictness and freedom say about conscience and choosing to follow Jesus, and what might churches gain or lose by trying something like it today?

Direct Answer Their strict daily discipleship combined with freedom to leave suggests they assumed real Christian community must be voluntary and conscience-based, not enforced by permanent vows. If churches imitated this, they might gain seriousness and shared life, but risk slipping into rigid structures that not everyone can sustain.

Support from Transcript:

  • Dean highlights the key distinction: they “were not bound by a vow, and anyone could leave the community life at will…It was a free thing.”
  • Yet they practiced “obedience, celibacy, and poverty,” and life was regulated with “monastic strictness,” rising at “3:00 in the morning” for work and spiritual exercises.
  • Their voluntary “renunciation of private possessions and community of good” was “based on the example of the early Christian church.”
  • They opposed begging, appealing to Scripture (1 Thessalonians 4:11) and emphasizing working “with your own hands” to have “something to give.”
  • Their communal meetings included interactive “questions and answers,” and doors opened to the public on Sundays—community not hidden away.
Discussion Follow-ups What would voluntary discipline look like in a normal congregation without turning into a new law? How could freedom to leave protect conscience while still calling people to costly commitment?