Christianity and intentional Community.

[Carl Emerson]

Hi there,

Where I live, society is rapidly changing - Christianity is viewed as an impediment to modern progress.

Secular education options push unwanted agenda's on our children.

Folks here are battling recession and usually both parents work to survive.

Small children are parked in child care from an early age so parents can work longer hours.

Viral infections rip through schools and disable whole families.

Christian alternatives to the status quo are noticeably absent.

For some intellectual reason the biblical model of believers community recorded in early Acts is relegated to 'descriptive' rather than 'prescriptive' and ignored.

Sadly it seems that only persecution brings a return to collective support, yet John records in Chapter 17 that visible unity among believers attracts the world to Christ.

We seem to have lost sight of the 'first love' of the church and battle away on our own under unnecessary pressure.

Is it not time to consider complimenting church with intentional community?

Folks can survive better together than in isolation.

Was not the church born as a Jewish community?

 

[HTacianas]

Hi there,

Where I live, society is rapidly changing - Christianity is viewed as an impediment to modern progress.

Secular education options push unwanted agenda's on our children.

Folks here are battling recession and usually both parents work to survive.

Small children are parked in child care from an early age so parents and work longer hours.

Viral infections rip through schools and disable whole families.

Christian alternatives to the status quo are noticeably absent.

For some intellectual reason the biblical model of believers community recorded in early Acts is relegated to 'descriptive' rather than 'prescriptive' and ignored.

Sadly it seems that only persecution brings a return to collective support, yet John records in Chapter 17 that visible unity among believers attracts the world to Christ.

We seem to have lost sight of the 'first love' of the church and battle away on our own under unnecessary pressure.

Is it not time to consider complimenting church with intentional community?

Folks can survive better together than in isolation.

Was not the church born as a Jewish community?

The "Christian community" of Acts eventually gave way to Christian charity, which is alive today even if not very well. But if you look to the new testament the foundation of Christian communal living originated with the Jewish Essenes. The Essenes are more known for what might be called a monastic life, but they were also dispersed throughout Judea and even farther, living in the cities. When Jesus sent his disciples out at first and told them not to take anything with them, but to find people who would take them in, that was the meaning of it.

The only Christians I see today living that communal life are monastics. But if we all became monastics nothing would ever get done. I don't think we are at the point now -at least not yet- that we should look for that. It's too easy for people to get carried away with it and end up in some Branch Davidian compound and eventually get apocalypsed by the ATF.

 

[timewerx]

For some intellectual reason the biblical model of believers community recorded in early Acts is relegated to 'descriptive' rather than 'prescriptive' and ignored.

Sadly it seems that only persecution brings a return to collective support, yet John records in Chapter 17 that visible unity among believers attracts the world to Christ.

We seem to have lost sight of the 'first love' of the church and battle away on our own under unnecessary pressure.

Is it not time to consider complimenting church with intentional community?

Folks can survive better together than in isolation.

Was not the church born as a Jewish community?

The Christian communities in Acts is not regarded as Jewish.

Jews do not share their possessions with one another to meet everyone's needs. They are just like us, selfish, greedy, and lovers of money, instead of God.

It's impossible to have Acts community in modern times because the rich would have to share their possessions with the poor so that nobody is in need. I sometimes test other Christians with this notion and they get angry and resort to slander. Yes, Christians.

So no, I don't see it happening because every Christian believes they worked so hard to reach their status in life, they're not just going to share their things....with strangers. Maybe they'll give away a chump change, a dime, donate a few thousand dollars to charity, but 50%, 80%, 100%? Not gonna happen. The community in Acts they give 100% so not going to happen today.

And such community would be seen as 'socialist' and will be subject to harsh persecution from capitalists.

It might be possible in modern times but I'd bet, the rich will form such communities but exclude poor Christians. Maybe they'll take in a few poor Christians just for the show but exclude the majority.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Inevitably, any community of Christians would immediately be deemed as a cult and attacked from all sides from without and within. Back in the 70s during the Jesus movement, a bunch of 20 something Christians who frequented a Christian Coffee House came together and decided to purchase a Christian "communal" house. None of us were had a lot of money so nobody was out a whole lot. I probably gave the most and it was surprisingly easy to get the bank loan and get set up. We had virtually zero help or support from the several churches we attended. I suspect they were suspicious and had their doubts about our success. Maybe they saw the potential for problems and did not want to get tied up with what might come. It was a risk. We were all young, bright-eyed, but perhaps not quite mature enough to swing the communal aspect of the house, and after a couple years it died out about the same time the Jesus movement faded. In this case, nobody "sold all and gave" it to the house because nobody really had anything. We had cars, but everyone needed their personal vehicle to get to and from work. All the males in the group were military and that pretty much structured our lives and schedules. It was great, but did not last.
I think it could be done, but I suspect western capitalism it just to ingrained into most of us. The early church had some pretty powerful leaders who went about raising the deal, healing, and doing signs wonders and mighty deeds on a daily basis. I think if we saw that kind of thing in our midst, there would be a will to commit all. As is, I do not think people have enough trust in leadership or each other. It would almost immediately fall into squabbles about this or that. I would love to be more optimistic, I can say "been there tried that." I do think some persecution might help drive people together into a cohesive group... if not just for survival. We might see some of that coming.
Strong leaders that we can trust. That would be a must. Signs wonders and mighty deeds would be awesome, and awe inspiring.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Hi there,

Where I live, society is rapidly changing - Christianity is viewed as an impediment to modern progress.

Secular education options push unwanted agenda's on our children.

Folks here are battling recession and usually both parents work to survive.

Small children are parked in child care from an early age so parents can work longer hours.

Viral infections rip through schools and disable whole families.

Christian alternatives to the status quo are noticeably absent.

For some intellectual reason the biblical model of believers community recorded in early Acts is relegated to 'descriptive' rather than 'prescriptive' and ignored.

Sadly it seems that only persecution brings a return to collective support, yet John records in Chapter 17 that visible unity among believers attracts the world to Christ.

We seem to have lost sight of the 'first love' of the church and battle away on our own under unnecessary pressure.

Is it not time to consider complimenting church with intentional community?

Folks can survive better together than in isolation.

Was not the church born as a Jewish community?

It may not seem like it but those who are in the Body of Christ are in the community of The Kingdom of God with Jesus Christ of Nazareth as our King. This Spiritual community is our first focus because the flesh is weak and many fall away.
Blessings.

 

[eleos1954]

Hi there,

Where I live, society is rapidly changing - Christianity is viewed as an impediment to modern progress.

Secular education options push unwanted agenda's on our children.

Folks here are battling recession and usually both parents work to survive.

Small children are parked in child care from an early age so parents can work longer hours.

Viral infections rip through schools and disable whole families.

Christian alternatives to the status quo are noticeably absent.

For some intellectual reason the biblical model of believers community recorded in early Acts is relegated to 'descriptive' rather than 'prescriptive' and ignored.

Sadly it seems that only persecution brings a return to collective support, yet John records in Chapter 17 that visible unity among believers attracts the world to Christ.

We seem to have lost sight of the 'first love' of the church and battle away on our own under unnecessary pressure.

Is it not time to consider complimenting church with intentional community?

Folks can survive better together than in isolation.

Was not the church born as a Jewish community?

God has been interacting with mankind since creation. The Plan of Salvation was put in place before creation.

Define "church" ..... believing God or not believing God ... so it has been from the beginning and will continue until He returns.

 

[Carl Emerson]

The "Christian community" of Acts eventually gave way to Christian charity, which is alive today even if not very well. But if you look to the new testament the foundation of Christian communal living originated with the Jewish Essenes. The Essenes are more known for what might be called a monastic life, but they were also dispersed throughout Judea and even farther, living in the cities. When Jesus sent his disciples out at first and told them not to take anything with them, but to find people who would take them in, that was the meaning of it.

The only Christians I see today living that communal life are monastics. But if we all became monastics nothing would ever get done. I don't think we are at the point now -at least not yet- that we should look for that. It's too easy for people to get carried away with it and end up in some Branch Davidian compound and eventually get apocalypsed by the ATF.

I think after living with Jews in Israel that centuries of persecution has resulted in them leaning deeply on community to survive. In fact Christians going to Israel and experiencing hard times are often embarrassed by receiving help from the very ones they have come to bring the good news to.

There have been several successful Christian Communities in our country, a good friend wrote a thesis on it. None were monastic and none had a fake messiah like at Waco.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Inevitably, any community of Christians would immediately be deemed as a cult and attacked from all sides from without and within. Back in the 70s during the Jesus movement, a bunch of 20 something Christians who frequented a Christian Coffee House came together and decided to purchase a Christian "communal" house. None of us were had a lot of money so nobody was out a whole lot. I probably gave the most and it was surprisingly easy to get the bank loan and get set up. We had virtually zero help or support from the several churches we attended. I suspect they were suspicious and had their doubts about our success. Maybe they saw the potential for problems and did not want to get tied up with what might come. It was a risk. We were all young, bright-eyed, but perhaps not quite mature enough to swing the communal aspect of the house, and after a couple years it died out about the same time the Jesus movement faded. In this case, nobody "sold all and gave" it to the house because nobody really had anything. We had cars, but everyone needed their personal vehicle to get to and from work. All the males in the group were military and that pretty much structured our lives and schedules. It was great, but did not last.
I think it could be done, but I suspect western capitalism it just to ingrained into most of us. The early church had some pretty powerful leaders who went about raising the deal, healing, and doing signs wonders and mighty deeds on a daily basis. I think if we saw that kind of thing in our midst, there would be a will to commit all. As is, I do not think people have enough trust in leadership or each other. It would almost immediately fall into squabbles about this or that. I would love to be more optimistic, I can say "been there tried that." I do think some persecution might help drive people together into a cohesive group... if not just for survival. We might see some of that coming.
Strong leaders that we can trust. That would be a must. Signs wonders and mighty deeds would be awesome, and awe inspiring.

Yes I have lived in community twice - there is a high cost but the rewards are substantial.

It is the ultimate expression of loving one another but few want to pay the price.

However as persecution increases, the option will be revisited.

 

[Carl Emerson]

It may not seem like it but those who are in the Body of Christ are in the community of The Kingdom of God with Jesus Christ of Nazareth as our King. This Spiritual community is our first focus because the flesh is weak and many fall away.
Blessings.

Yes the body invisible is in good health but the body visible is in poor shape.

The world is waiting for evidence of love among Christians and that was seen in early Acts before things were systematised and became a religion.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Yes the body invisible is in good health but the body visible is in poor shape.

The world is waiting for evidence of love among Christians and that was seen in early Acts before things were systematised and became a religion.

Understood but wheat and tares are mixed in the visible , some in the Body and some not. Nothing we can do about this, only discern truth.
Blessings.

21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

 

[Paidiske]

I've seen different attempts at this, some more successful than others. L'Arche comes to mind as an intentional community (with a very particular focus) which, from what I can tell from some peripheral contact with them, manages to be reasonably healthy. Other attempts I've seen have been much less stable or healthy.

Provided it's presented as an option amongst a range of valid options, I have no problem with intentional community in principle. It's not the only way to live as Christians in healthy church community.

In practice, speaking personally about what I would find sustainable and helpful, I'd be unlikely to be interested in any sort of shared living arrangement. But something like a common financial fund to support a group of people committed to a life of prayer, discipline and mission (while living separately) - perhaps a bit like monastic oblates or tertiaries - would be something I'd be willing to consider, provided the framework and safeguards were well thought through.

But I wouldn't be interested if it were a group with a siege mentality, trying to get away from or control members' engagement with the wider community, education, employment, social involvement and so on. If it was all about "the world is evil and we want to get away from all that," that would be a great big red flag to me.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Understood but wheat and tares are mixed in the visible , some in the Body and some not. Nothing we can do about this, only discern truth.
Blessings.

21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

Yes correct - and what I have seen is that when community forms in His will, the much needed discernment is given.

 

[Carl Emerson]

I've seen different attempts at this, some more successful than others. L'Arche comes to mind as an intentional community (with a very particular focus) which, from what I can tell from some peripheral contact with them, manages to be reasonably healthy. Other attempts I've seen have been much less stable or healthy.

Provided it's presented as an option amongst a range of valid options, I have no problem with intentional community in principle. It's not the only way to live as Christians in healthy church community.

In practice, speaking personally about what I would find sustainable and helpful, I'd be unlikely to be interested in any sort of shared living arrangement. But something like a common financial fund to support a group of people committed to a life of prayer, discipline and mission (while living separately) - perhaps a bit like monastic oblates or tertiaries - would be something I'd be willing to consider, provided the framework and safeguards were well thought through.

But I wouldn't be interested if it were a group with a siege mentality, trying to get away from or control members' engagement with the wider community, education, employment, social involvement and so on. If it was all about "the world is evil and we want to get away from all that," that would be a great big red flag to me.

Thanks for the considered reply.

On your last point - do you see a place for Christian alternatives to social decay ?

I understand and agree that pietistic withdrawal is not the answer but creative and wholesome alternatives have a place - Yes ???

 

[Paidiske]

On your last point - do you see a place for Christian alternatives to social decay ?

I understand and agree that pietistic withdrawal is not the answer but creative and wholesome alternatives have a place - Yes ???

The thing is (and the reason I put that in my post), I disagree with you about social decay. I don't necessarily see the world as worse than it was at some point in the recent past (in fact, in some ways I see it as better), or as going to hell in a handbasket immediately.

The church is meant to be a creative and wholesome alternative to the worst of society, but anything predicated on demonising society in general, rather than seeking and celebrating the good, is something I see as deeply unhealthy and problematic.

 

[Carl Emerson]

The thing is (and the reason I put that in my post), I disagree with you about social decay. I don't necessarily see the world as worse than it was at some point in the recent past (in fact, in some ways I see it as better), or as going to hell in a handbasket immediately.

The church is meant to be a creative and wholesome alternative to the worst of society, but anything predicated on demonising society in general, rather than seeking and celebrating the good, is something I see as deeply unhealthy and problematic.

Teenage suicides in our country have gone out the roof.

New Zealand's youth suicide rate is the second worst in the developed world at 14.9 deaths per 100,000 adolescents. This rate is more than twice the average among the 41 OECD countries surveyed (6.5 deaths per 100,000 adolescents). This report references the most recent and comparable data across 41 countries.3/09/2020

We used to get 1 murder per year in our city.

Murder rates since the 50's have increased by 400%

https://www.police.govt.nz/sites/default/files/publications/historic-new-zealand-murder-rates-1926-2020.pdf

If the 'recent past' is my lifetime - then social decay is considerable.

 

[Paidiske]

And at the same time, women's lives have improved, social and legal miseries for various minorities have been ameliorated, poverty is decreasing globally (while still being a massive problem), and so on. I'm not saying we have no problems, but I'm not buying into a narrative of social decay.

So I would be very averse to any intentional community sold as an answer to a social decay I just don't believe in.

 

[Carl Emerson]

And at the same time, women's lives have improved, social and legal miseries for various minorities have been ameliorated, poverty is decreasing globally (while still being a massive problem), and so on. I'm not saying we have no problems, but I'm not buying into a narrative of social decay.

So I would be very averse to any intentional community sold as an answer to a social decay I just don't believe in.

You are welcome to your opinion - I find the statistics quite disturbing along with unheard of crime in our country - ram raids, mass shooting, and massive increase in drug use.

However the motivation for intentional community is to demonstrate love in action, support struggling believers, and provide for a better lifestyle than the social norms suggest - we are meant to be different after all aren't we ??? Why would anyone have a problem with that ??? Are we not called to be a light in the world rather than merge into the darkness ???

 

[Paidiske]

However the motivation for intentional community is to demonstrate love in action, support struggling believers, and provide for a better lifestyle than the social norms suggest - we are meant to be different after all aren't we ??? Why would anyone have a problem with that ??? Are we not called to be a light in the world rather than merge into the darkness ???

Hmm. I guess I'm not convinced that a "better lifestyle" (better for whom, and by what measure? I'm viewing separatist ideals with a fairly heavy dose of skepticism, here) is either going to be the outcome, or even what we should be seeking. And nor am I convinced that this is the best or only way to support struggling believers, or show love in action.

A community with a sense of shared purpose has some appeal; you'll note that when I said I might be interested in some form of community, I listed prayer, discipline and commitment to mission as shared commitments that might be worthwhile. But I'm not sold on this as a way of life just for the sake of being different, or a light in the world. We can - and should, and do - do that without having to form this kind of community to do it.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Hmm. I guess I'm not convinced that a "better lifestyle" (better for whom, and by what measure? I'm viewing separatist ideals with a fairly heavy dose of skepticism, here) is either going to be the outcome, or even what we should be seeking. And nor am I convinced that this is the best or only way to support struggling believers, or show love in action.

A community with a sense of shared purpose has some appeal; you'll note that when I said I might be interested in some form of community, I listed prayer, discipline and commitment to mission as shared commitments that might be worthwhile. But I'm not sold on this as a way of life just for the sake of being different, or a light in the world. We can - and should, and do - do that without having to form this kind of community to do it.

Who is promoting 'separatist ideals' ?? From the get go I emphasised complimenting the church.

Does the first five chapters of Acts have no message or are we deaf to it...

How else will the world see the unity among believers Jesus mentions in John 17

If the issue doesn't gel with you then fine... but I don't see it being respectful to make it into something it never was, and shooting it down.

If it is not your thing - fine.

How about hearing from others.

 

[Paidiske]

Who is promoting 'separatist ideals' ?? From the get go I emphasised complimenting the church.

I meant separate from the wider community, not from the church. The way your OP takes issue with things like school and childcare certainly flavoured your post in that "retreat from the world" kind of way.

Does the first five chapters of Acts have no message or are we deaf to it...

Is "intentional community" the only way we may validly respond to the messages of those chapters of Scripture? I'm not convinced of that.

How else will the world see the unity among believers Jesus mentions in John 17

Why would we assume that intentional community would model unity any better than our existing group dynamics?

If the issue doesn't gel with you then fine... but I don't see it being respectful to make it into something it never was and shooting it down.

Carl, I responded to your question, and then you asked me to elaborate, so I answered your questions. I didn't set out to shoot down your ideas, but to explain things I would be looking to avoid in any Christian group I was considering committing to.