Often I am amazed about how little credit we give each other and ourselves! Why do we sell short the creation of God? Are we afraid that if we push ourselves we will fail? Well here is to pushing yourself!
For example, friends have a Long Walk. Several walkers have attempted to finish a 55-mile walk in 24 hours. It has yet to be finished, but there is next year. They do not quit, they do not give up, and they do not say it is pointless they just try! Others think the pursuit is silly and just stay home. But at least they are trying.
What brought on this thought process was talking to people at work. Yes I am beginning to think this is a dangerous thing. However, this is how it goes. My good friend John wants to have more of a communal life style instead of a self-centered one. This lifestyle would include several families with like values and morals living together in one home (I guess it has to be a VERY big home). Anyway, the key would be for the men to go out and do “man work” and make all of the money. The women stay at home and do the “woman work” (I think we women have a better deal). However, instead of having personal property, everything belongs to the entire community. We would not have personal possessions to get in the way of our spiritual growth.
I know there are many things that can be argued against this way of life, including pointing out that it could seem a bit “creepy” from the outside. However, the argument my co-workers pointed out was the fact that the chances of husbands and wives cheating would be higher!
COME ON!!!! Really???? What the….
One girl stated that it is a bad idea because if my husband and I have a fight and he starts to talk to one of the other wives they will be come too close and then he would end-up sleeping with her. Or some such thing! Well that is an interesting thought. First, why would he go to one of the wives instead of one of the other husbands? Second, why would he harm his “sister,” wife, and “brother” so grievously as to sleep with her? Not to mention the harm done to the children and God! It just does not seem logical. Then my next set of issues is why would my friend, the wife of a friend, and sister have sex with my husband? Do these people think that all humans have a total lack of self-control and have to have sex with any and all two legged females?
Then I was reading in “Girls Gone Mild” about the same issue. Wendy Shalit indicated women tend to feel that all women are competition and cannot be trusted. Is this what my co-worker was referring to? Of course this gets my little head working. I surly hope that my roommate Katie would NEVER even think that I would harm her in such a way! I cannot imagine what demon possession would HAVE to have occurred before John or myself harm a family unit like that!
So why would this occur? Well because people are hateful, vengeful, and lustful. Theses types would not be allowed in the utopia of John and Katie’s world!
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
http://www.art-of-divinemercy.co.uk/homepage.htm
Random thoughts on God, Religon, and life in general.
Three O'Clock
http://www.art-of-divinemercy.co.uk/homepage.htm
Cool other Blogs and sites
- Stupid Parser Tricks
- Chapter Room
- Catholics United for the Faith
- Wendy Shalit: Modestly Yours
- Wendy Shalit: Girls Gone Mild
- Blog of the Dormition
- The Sages of the Arboretum
- The Long Walk
- Panem et Circenses
- Shades of Gray
- Domine, da mihi hanc aquam!
- Ukok's Place
- After Abortion
- The Writings of Thomas Alan Russell
- Mansfiew Blog
- Chotzeh Vakochavim Miklat
- J & K Russell Studio
- Welcome To Dusty's Insights
About Me
- Dusty M Brahlek
- In my life I have very few passions and even fewer personal loves. Though my greatest love is Jesus! I do love him very much I just pray I can show him how much I truly love him!
14 comments:
Interested and will say more but library cuts me off in a few seconds...
I like the utopia idea and think I've probably talked with John about it before. I would prefer a milder form, however, where some possessions are still held privately--in particular each family would have its own house--total communal living would lend itself to the kind of hierarchy that might detract from the individual families. I am not, for example, interested in living under a patriarch who makes all the decisions for every family, nor would I want to be one.
In my utopia, the land would be held communally, as would a number of shared buildings such as a schoolhouse, chapel, dining hall, and recreation/fellowship hall. In my vision there is also a lake, but that's not necessary. Everyone would have to work together, but each family would retain some autonomy.
I doubt that adultery would be a huge problem in a community that was built around shared values and faith--although in the more extreme communism (with several families sharing the same house, where a male leader might emerge to make decisions for everyone), there is a greater chance. This sort of a community begins to resemble a cult.
Thanks for the kind words about the Long Walk. Indeed, one day we will be victorious!
I agree with the cult comment, it would be hard to keep that from happing. After I posted these John reminded me that we could have a community of homes, we do not have to be in one home :) I would also think purchasing or having a set of condos built would be OK as well.
I look to the early Christian communities as a model of what I am talking about. And to the monasteries, which I believe have best preserved the original idea of a Christian community.
A Christian community is necessarily a patriarchy - that patriarch being called "bishop" (monasteries are headed by an abbot, which is simply a monastic bishop).
I do agree, David, as Dusty points out in her last comment, that separate dwellings are a good idea.
A Christian community is a patriarchy but not in the sense I'm talking about. The monastic example is accurate, however. All the monks vow obedience to the abbott, just as I could see a situation where one family (or its head) becomes the ruler of the other families in an absolute sense. This is the situation I would want to avoid, since I do not think it would be appropriate for a community of families to vow obedience to one of the other families (or its head, although the distinction would not always be clear). The system is much better suited for unmarried men and women who choose it.
I agree that the situation you describe is not desirable.
I believe the ideal Christian community would obey it's rightful patriarch - that being their celibate bishop, not one of the other families or its head. This community should have celibate and married members, just like the early Christian communities.
To one such early Christian community, the Smyrnaeans, St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote:
"See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God.... Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm
Where do we get this "bishop"? Then the next question would be would he be Eastern or Western? I HAVE IT!!!! We can take Fr Mitch Pacwa! I think he would be good for both... :)
We have LOTS of work before we start our community. But then again we have what, 4-5 years, right?
Sounds reasonable. If you can get the bishop, I'll scout out some land.
My love for the Eastern Church is in part due to the fact that I find the way of life it promotes to be more in accord with that of the Early Christians. Eastern Christianity simply has greater reverence for the Early Fathers of the Church and their Tradition. This closeness with the Early Christian communities I seek to emulate is, I think, a good argument that our community should be Eastern.
(What did you think I'd say? )
Getting the bishop first is actually not, I think, the way to go about it. The formation of such a community begins with the gathering of like-minded faithful.
St. Francis, for example, was a deacon. He was never ordained a priest, let alone a bishop. Yet it was he that gathered the community. The abbots came later from within the community.
In that case, I'll expect some help scouting out the land.
Good land... that will be in PA... right?
It will depend: do we want good land or, like the Mormons, lots of cheap land that no one else wants?
Post a Comment