The Members Meeting decides by unanimity, and one no is enough.
Nothing carries by majority. A member who cannot agree can hold a decision indefinitely, which makes dissent formally powerful and socially very expensive — and that gap is where most of the movement's internal history has happened.
Unanimity is the formal rule and it is genuinely constraining, but the practical experience described by former members is that unanimity plus a strong leadership produces enormous pressure to withdraw an objection rather than a genuine veto. The Bruderhof's own literature acknowledges that the movement has gone through repeated crises in which the machinery of church discipline was used against dissenters. The pattern most often cited is exclusion: a member is put out of the common life for a period, sometimes with family separation, until they are restored. The movement defends this as ancient Anabaptist practice and has since limited it; former members describe it as the instrument that made the crises possible.
The same ground, other faiths
claims that share this one's ideasSign in to open the first thread. Everything here is attributed.