Richard Hollerman

Those of you who follow our series on True Discipleship, are aware that we have discussed living in the wilderness. There would be a great number of positive aspects to this arrangement, but there would also be negatives as well. This is what I mean:

This would require us to make or build or buy a house and land. We wonder how this could possibly be done. But if this could be done (and if we had the hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars) for this, it could be done. (There would be a gigantic financial factor in this, we know, and our website article or articles would point this out.) But we know that this scenario is what was in our mind in years gone by.

It was our (original) intention to live in such a location some 10 or 100 miles away from the city (and civilization). We would buy 10 or 30 acres of land and this would be our “homestead” in which to live. As we have considered this carefully, we know that there would be serious drawbacks to this arrangement.

These are some of the factors that we are aware of:

First, we know that the climate would be one factor that would need to be faced. What if the “homestead” were in a cold area—or a hot area? Both of these would be challenges to face.

Second, would such an area be able to feed two or 100 people? We would need to be able to grow enough food for these dear friends. I say “grow” since surely we would want to raise our own food and not rely on commercial fair.

Third, the house that we would have and the houses that others would need would need to be large, even very large, for these dear families. Some of the people would be single, others would be a family of two or six, and still others may be a series of large families of ten or twelve each.

Fourth, we know that whether one, two, or 30 families would be involved, this would be a feature to consider. Supposedly, there would be daily or semi-daily Bible study, prayer, and worship, this would be a blessing and a challenge too.

Would every able-bodied man be able to work? Hopefully, the women would not need (or want) to work away from the house. And if we would live in the wilderness, could the males find employment—that would be worthy, that would be lucrative, that would provide income sufficient for this undertaking?

Fifth, if there were many people and if only the men worked, we would then need to deal with remarriage situations. What could be done about this—especially if there were some who were in second marriage, if the present marriages were defective, if the bread-winners were not cooperative? These would be challenges to encounter.

Sixth, we know that families (according to the Biblical ideal) should have multiple children. How can this be carried out? What if there were two, four, or even ten children?

Seventh, if these families were not to send their children to the local government school, whether it be the elementary or secondary school, could the women (and men) of the house, really teach these children at home?

Eighth, what about clothing? If we all believed in modest clothing, what about families (with wives, with children, with husbands) who had tattoos, who had clothing that would not agree with Biblical norms, etc.? What about short hair on women or long hair on men?

Ninth, what if there were divided families or families that would be composed of a husband or a wife and children, and one of the family members were not inclined to be Christian-oriented?

Tenth, we have been thinking of a group of believers in a given area, all living “off the land,” but we know that not everyone is outdoor-oriented but some and probably many or most would be “city” people, and the question then arises, would they be able to handle such a different way of living?

Eleventh, what about differences? We know that no every participant would be godly ones and people who are righteous in perspective and demeanor. If one were to want to home-school and another were inclined to use the government for help, then what?

Twelfth, along with this, we know that not everyone would be the same views. Some may be Calvinistic while others may be Arminian. There may be some who believe in infant baptism, while others may believe in “believer’s baptism.” Some may believe in the “sinner’s prayer,” while others would believe that a person would be one who makes a conscience decision for Jesus. What of these differences?

If we all had a Christian orientation, we suppose that this would go smoother, but without this, it would be difficult! We know that people come from different backgrounds, they come from different geographical sections, they come from different parts of the world, and they have different languages. How can we view these differences and make them amalgamate?

If people did not live on the grounds of this enclave, but in the surrounding area, we would then be faced with other problems. We refer to transportation issues, housing issues, job issues, and others.

All of this does sound good and wise but we know that there could be massive issues to “iron out” and face. If there were different ecclesiastical views we would know that there would need to be some liableness and this “Christian” group would need to be absolutely committed to Jesus and His Word.

So there definitely would be benefits and advantages to living together on the same property. This is clear. We have addressed this elsewhere. May God work in this situation to His glory!