Hmmmm ….
I stumbled across a blog post by Maggie Dawn, a wicked cool Anglican priest, discussing why the intentional community she was part of had trouble. Here is a good quote:
It had a lot to recommend it. I learned a lot, and quite often think back to what I learned there for creative ways of getting on with my life now. But after a spell living there I began to think that the disadvantages outweighed the advantages in terms of whether we were achieving our aims.
Why so?
1) Despite our stated aim, we weren’t actually integrated into the society at all; we had created our own little bubble. So we were, if anything, suggesting an alternative society, but not alternative ways for our actual society to function.
2) we weren’t subverting anything on a grand scale; the likelihood of very many people being aboe to buy into quite such a radical lifestyle was pretty low. So it was only for the determined.
3) - and this is perhaps the killer one - we were, to some extent, parasitic on the culture we aimed to criticise. We weren’t ultimately self-sufficient, and our lifestyle was not sustainable in the long-term. Like the immortal Tom and Barbara of The Good Life, we were living an alternative lifestyle, but once you looked under the surface economically and politically, our ability to be alternative depended upon living within a society that wasn’t alternative. So while claiming to be prophetic it was ultimately dependent upon the system it aimed to subvert.
4) as far as helping people re-integrate themselves into society went, it was certainly good for teaching people how to sleep at night and work in the day, wash their clothes, cook good food, eat instead of drinking, and talk to other people. But it was still a bubble.
Any thoughts or comments?
jenlyn said,
October 9, 2006 @ 5:59 pm
Honestly, this shook me up. Dany and I have been talking about this and we see it as 4 dangers to be aware of. I believe that this is the exact situation I want to stay clear of. you may know what subvert meant but dany and i werent clear so we looked it up and discussed its meaning, we came to the conclusion that it means to rebel, overthrow, destroy and also, how you wage the war (it has to start from the bottom up) and so…what happened to this group was that they became their own, they said they wanted to go make a change, but their plan of action, their prophetic voice didnt follow through. prophetic meaning to criticize and energize(walter brueggemann).
I talk about how the system is terrible and how i want to see change and be the change but do i really see myself giving up what i have now, and moving in with people to a neighborhood to be a prophet? we are all called to be prophets and we can be, becuase i sure do know how to criticize, but the question is… will i energize?
the other thing i want to comment on is communication. in this group, did they know they were in a “bubble”? were people aware and just not talking about it?
i would love to talk about this in group on thursday.
nate said,
October 11, 2006 @ 1:43 am
Jen,
Yeah this one kinda messed me up a bit to … hence the post … here is the best part … I am in New Mexico at the Emergent Gathering … so I will not be there thursday night to even talk about it.
Some good news is I have spent a chunk of the day talking with other people at various stages of intentional communities and have some stuff to report back … mostly what I thought were some good ways to talk about things …
I think in our context we are trying to find a middle between presenting a prophetic alternative and living a lifestyle activly in culture. That is one of the reasons we are not just saying lets share everything … that would provide a better alternative but it may not be sustainable.
I will also note that in the full article (and please read that) she speaks of her time in community as a superintensive discipleship that shaped her in positive ways … one of the things I liked and learned was about a community that was more about learning and experimenting then having all the perminant answers. They were comfortable calling an end to the experiment if that was where God was leading them. Viewed in the context of did it bring me closer to who God is and shape me to be more like who God is calling me to be … I think Maggie would say her time did … and I hope our relationships fcn that way.
Nate
vofbaca said,
December 30, 2006 @ 1:22 pm
Hey, guys! I am happy to hear this dialoque. What great research to bring up possiable problems before they arise.
I really believe that the way we are prophetic and the way we energize any community we are a part of (including just your family and most basic relationships) is so simple.
I’ll take the 3 points and really bring up comments and other things I have read on your blog so far (reminding you of ideas that are already in the making to help with these areas)…
1. intigration into society. I think this is a problem with Ecclesia as it stands, and most definatly with church culture, we can all agree on that. It feels sometimes like Taft is a seperate entity than Ecclesia, with either barely meshing. I think the ideas of a community garden are a great start, the bounty and labor of which could be easily open to the outside community. I trust your visit to Th Last Urban Outpost showed that. I need to read her full article, but I might guess they lived in a more rural location, or maybe had neighbors but sought to live ‘apart’. I also think being open to a constant and organic movement of people would help, opening up the meal time to visitors. Really living in the community without issolation might be hard, but I think if it is an active part of every event and every meeting, it can be weeded out.
2. What you are talking about does not seem so subversive. It is subversive in the kind of way any small and simple change in mass seems subversive. And more importantly, it is the kind of thing people can access and live with here and now. People can make small changes to their lives with big results. That is appealing and accessable. Now, when I say that, we know not everyone will be able to commit. But, I think more people are open to doing something different when the norm makes so little sense.
3. What you are talking about (from what I understand) is a more sustainable life, not less, than the average american household. Holding jobs, or living in a way that requires work and figuring out how to pay the bills. Living off of what is made, just simplifying what is a normal urban existance. Living off of what we have, it is almost funny that that might be considered subversive.
4. I call this rhythm and it is something I teach my daughter by modeling a rhythmic life. It is in harmony with God and with nature. When you live this way, you feel better. It is harmonious living. Can we force or make people live more harmonious lives, no. But, we can model what living more harmoniously looks like and see if people want to get off the hamster wheel and join us. We can do that anywhere, in a community or in our family. And I believe some of what I read on this blog seems to be very different from this. When there is talk of an eb and flow an in and out. People coming and going, allowances made for her exact points.
I will be happy when you meet again and I can join the conversation.
Kathy