The painting below of the Oklahoma Land Rush is not exactly depiction of "community land acquisition and stewardship." This is more what you would call an individualistic land grab and exploitation of the environment leading to the dust bowl. But it represents the enthusiasm I believe we should all have about this topic.
So what am I talking about? Recently a friend asked me if EcoMercy International has a position on "communal living."
Communal living?
At this time, we don't exactly have communal living at St. John Chrysostom School in Uganda. But we do have tiny apartments for teachers and we hope to build a house for our dean, my father in Christ, Stephen Lunagula, and also one for the farm manager, Stelio Lunagula. So you might say we are inching toward communal living, but I am not a fan of that term. I would prefer "community land acquisition and stewardship." The mission has nine hectares of land and we want to do a lot with that land in faithfulness to Christ, including expanding our housing options when necessary. This is for several reasons, one being that my father Stephen is not able to pay our teachers enough for them to secure their own housing, of which there is very little available near the school. And the strategy of EcoMercy International (EMI) is "projects, not subsidies." So this raises the question, could what we are doing in Uganda serve as a pattern and inspiration for communities in the United States?
The following are my thoughts on the matter, although I don't know if this will represent the views of everyone who gives to EcoMercy International. The topic is open for discussion.
When people think of "communal living" or "intentional community," mostly what they think of is owning everything in common. And they may also think of various disastrous attempts at this, such as hippie communes, some of which began in debauchery and ended in chaos, trash strewn everywhere and lawsuits with neighbors. Or they may think of certain Christian sects, which take a very strict interpretation of Acts 2:44: "And all who believed were together and had all things in common." (I'm sorry to mention these successful religious communes in the same breath as the the failed hippie communes. And, to be fair, not all hippie communes were failures.)
No, haha, I am not interested in anything exactly like what people usually think of. It's not that Acts 2:44 is irrelevant. It's very relevant. But there are different ways to apply it.
For the record, I am interested in advancing a universal charity concept applicable within any nation, whether poor or wealthy, namely, locally-controlled, non-profit real-estate developments with community amenities, such as a chapel, meeting hall, and space to garden and even housing, but the houses themselves would be rented or purchased from the non-profit entity (using a condominium ownership structure.) Is that a commune? I don't think so. Really what we're talking about is community land acquisition and stewardship. And within this broad category, there are two solutions, co-housing (for urban areas) and eco-villages (for rural areas).
With "co-housing," a landscape architecture design concept, the name emphasizes designing to facilitate community, not unlike what certain neighborhoods already do. For example, if you live in a house overlooking a park or play area for children, you're likely to meet your neighbors in the park. Co-housing just takes that further, creating little, old-world villages (within existing cities if necessary) and even inviting people to eat together several times per week in the meeting hall, trading off cooking duties. It's a secular movement that has been quite successful.
And with the term "eco-village," the emphasis is on designing for self-sustainability. Putting aside the kumbaya togetherness for a moment---which is a good thing!---what are people going to be doing? We're talking gardening, bartering or sharing produce, raw milk and eggs---families specializing in a free spirited way to pursue self-sustainability together, etc. And we're talking about how the houses can be incorporated into the topography of the land to ensure optimal water availability for gardens, etc. etc..
However, having mentioned these points of emphasis, it should be noted that both design goals, community and self-sustainability, are important wherever you build.
The question is, if secular people can figure this out, shouldn't Christians be able to do it also? Because wouldn't it bring glory to God? Wouldn't it facilitate our leadership of our own children and service to our neighbors?
Admittedly, the subset of people who are going to be serious about both Christian doctrine and community land acquisition and stewardship is much smaller than either of those groups of people considered separately, but, the question remains, why not do it?
There's really nothing new about people choosing to live somewhere because they like the lifestyle or the way things are situated. One of the advantages of non-profit, co-housing is really just getting the price down so that families don't have to have double incomes and can pay off their houses sooner and have more time. And, this is key: Charitable contributions could be sought and put into the development costs of creating such communities.
At this point, allow me to ask our readers, does that sound like something you would be interested in? This graphic summarizes what we're talking about:
Of course starting such a community can't happen overnight. Jesus said his yoke is easy, but he said the "way" is narrow and few find it. There's a learning curve.
The Zen of the Venn One thing that we can learn is that people are different and perceive different realms of truth. This is not to say that truth is relative. But the purpose of using the Venn diagram is to make the points that Venn diagrams make: People's perceptions frequently do not overlap. For example...
There are people who are religious, who are not good at being servant leaders. At least not in a way that affects life beyond the church door. It's sad, but true.
And there are amazing servant leader types who don't belong to my church or your church or any church. Maybe they are interested in spirituality, but they don't like organized religion, which I believe limits their long-term effectiveness, because they're not building on the lasting foundation of Christ.
And there are people who are religious who do not engage in charity beyond maintaining the church building and paying the salaried staff, which is very important of course, but it's not exactly battering down the gates of hell. Or perhaps they engage in some charity, but it's not focused enough or sustained long enough to create something new that really advances the local church. Such casual, "cheap grace" christianity, tawdry conservatism, cannot last long.
And there are people with practical, back-to-the-land skills, living gently on the earth who reject or never accepted Christianity. And if they also have servant leaders, then they can pretty much provide a better life for themselves than the Christians who have none of the above. But, frankly most of the people who knew how to live on the land from long experience, peasants and indigenous people, have been scattered and nearly wiped off the face of the earth.
On the other hand, if we agree that all three of these realms of truth (spiritual, relational, and practical) exist and are needed, then the "narrow path" must be where they intersect, right?
What exactly did Jesus mean by the "narrow path"? We know he spoke in parables that were hard to understand, but which had real, specific meanings. It won't work
Actually, as I've begun to talk about the idea of creating Christian, non-profit, co-housing and eco-villages in the United States, no one has ever said to me, "It won't work." What I've heard is interest and cautious optimism. And this makes me believe that if the ground work was in place, many folks would consider it and some would go for it. A 501c3 organization must be created, along with a constitution and bylaws, and plan for how the community would be structured legally. Also, I believe I would need to continue to develop my construction skills and become a licensed general contractor to keep the costs lower, or find a general contractor who was willing to give or barter his time and expertise. One fellow Orthodox brother told me: "I know a lot of guys with big families, homeschooling and struggling to feed the kids. These are the guys who would love to do what you propose if a proven business model was in place" (Craig Lehrmann). However, such a community could have a variety of housing options for retires, single people, etc. etc. Those who have worked in sales know that if someone voices an objection to what you're selling, that is often the person who will buy. They just need you to overcome their objection. So if anyone says, "It won't work," that person is my friend! I dare people to say it! I can listen to them and either refine my plans or overcome their objection or both. But, since advancing a charity, EcoMercy International, I've noticed that almost no one has ever questioned the wisdom of the mission of the charity. Out of the hundreds of people I've asked to help I can think of maybe four or five people who actually stated objections to the mission itself and a couple of these were from the standpoint of racial prejudice. This just goes to show you how much Jesus rules the world that so few people would voice objections to an organization such as EcoMercy International. Similarly, few would voice serious objections to Christian, non-profit housing, and if they do, that's good, because they can be answered. On the other hand, what happens a lot (if I'm spending time asking individuals to help instead of just advertising) is that people will tell me their personal problems. It often happens when I ask someone to contribute money to a project. It's as if these people are telling me, "Yes, the project is wise. It's good. It can work. But I doubt if I can be a part of it, due to these problems." And this presents an opportunity for us to pray together, which is just a beginning. There are many ways people can help apart from providing money. Yes, we all have problems, but these do not need to hold us back from doing something we believe in. Sometimes we just need a new perspective. When you begin to give, even just a small amount, it can open your mind to perceive things from another person's perspective, bringing us closer to the mind of Christ. If we release the money that we cling to so tightly, we will not perish, but in fact we will be free. And for those folks in Christian leadership out there. If you speak on behalf of the poor, such as the children we help through St. John Chrysostom School-Farm Co-op or the families in your church who are struggling to pursue Christ-centered education, struggling against the prevailing winds of the secular culture etc., I can tell you from personal experience that Christ will protect you. I challenge pastors and priests, don't you need a reason to ask for charitable contributions? If you're not asking for charitable contributions to a project, then what are you doing? Do you really think the Kingdom of God has already arrived in its fullness? Look at the state of America. Do you not see any problems? Do you think the Church can advance without participating in charity? You need bigger, more expensive projects, not just small one's like St. John Chrysostom School. Hey, religious communities are legal based on the Fair Housing Act of 1968. Let's create! Let's build! The time is short!
It does work
There are books you can buy on creating eco-villages and co-housing. I have a couple of books on co-housing. People have done this and we can learn from them.
It seems to be a revelation to people that private ownership can and has been incorporated into intentional community design. And it may be that we have to incorporate it for new co-housing communities and eco-villages to spring up quickly, because people are more likely to give their money to a project if they will have ownership in it.
And it's not unbiblical. If you look at the story of Ananias and Sapphira, the early Christians weren't required to sell everything and give the money to the Apostles. Ananias & Sapphira fell dead, not because they kept back possessions or money, but because they lied about their giving.
An EO church in Santa Rosa, California, Holy Dormition, purchased an apartment complex a number of years back and a sizable portion of the congregation has been living there at relatively low rental rates while housing costs have skyrocketed elsewhere in Santa Rosa and by now they probably have this building payed off! So that means income for the church now in addition to reasonably priced housing for young families. Not to mention, the church property also provided land for the church's sanctuary and meetings halls and school. This is "stacking functions."
In this day of declining church membership, how can churches afford to not do this? And in the increasingly secular culture in which we live, how can Christian fathers afford to not do this for their children? Because they will be providing much more than housing; they will be creating a built environment and community that helps them to raise their children in the "discipline (paideia) and instruction of the Lord" Ephesians 6:4.
Speaking of men... One of the ways that pastors reach husbands and fathers is to tell them how important they are. They cite that if a husband is an active Christian, there's about an 85 percent chance that his family will be converted. But if the wife only is converted, there is just about a 20 percent chance that her family will also be converted.
Okay, but are men important only as a means of reaching the women and children? If men are so important to the Church, what are they supposed to do? Yes labor for their wives and children and pay taxes. And if men love their families, then this is what they do. But 1 Corinthians 11:19 states that "Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man." So what exactly are men important for? Man does not live by bringing home the bacon alone. That is to say, breadwinning is not enough responsibility to keep men fully engaged and fully inspired, which is why men are so distracted in our society generally speaking. Men need to be focused on creating something beyond the comfortable American-dream lifestyle, which has been shown to be not a sustainable historical phenomenon anyway. Why not Christian, non-profit co-housing?
The final frontier is the same as the original frontier which Adam beheld. It's community land acquisition and stewardship. If men don't learn to do something together with land, which was the original creation mandate, then Satan is going to have them increasingly corralled, censored, surveilled and generally speaking, emasculated and ridiculed, as we've seen in American sit-coms for many years.
An opportunity disguised as hard work Again, given that society has been moving in the other direction for so long, towards a land use that is increasingly centralized under bigger and bigger businesses and the government, Christian non-profit real estate developments are not going to happen overnight.
Many people will respond with silence. Some pastors and priests will even view such developments as a threat to their ministries and incomes. But this should not diminish for us the opportunity presented by Christian co-housing and eco-villages. If people respond with dead silence, that's when you've probably hit on the truth! It's something that people want, but struggle to believe in.
Just as with the original American frontier, where there were no jobs, but lots of work to be done, so community land acquisition and stewardship presents a great opportunity for those with the courage and personal initiative to pursue it, a final frontier!
So how can we sustain interest in this topic long enough to gather a group of people who want to do it? That's the challenge. It's not necessarily money. We all have to have houses anyway. I believe one way to sustain interest is for a group of people to follow Christ together by practicing charity in ways that are strategic, but relatively easy, such as by advancing a project in a poorer nation, such as Uganda.
Giving to an overseas mission is not too difficult for any individual with an income or any parish located in a wealthy country. People think, if we start giving to this, that may be great for them, but what will it lead to for us? Well, what if it led to something wonderful? Please give to St. John Chrysostom Farm-School Co-op by clicking on one of the PayPal buttons on this website. And as you see this project succeeding it can increase your faith. Again, the problem is not that we have too little money to pursue community land stewardship; we have too much money. It's hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. But with God all things are possible.
Comments