Re: "Christian CoHousing"
From: Allen Butcher (allenbutcherjuno.com)
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 00:08:47 -0500
I think that the issue here is the definition of the term "cohousing." 
Scott seems to have given us his, mine is different.  Mine involves
simply two items:

* a set of architectural and land use design parameters of clustered
housing around a pedestrian court yard or walk way and a common house
providing collective services.  
* I also would tend to add that the people are not income sharing.

How it is legally structured, how decisions are made, what religion or
spirituality the people practice, what foods they eat, how they vote in
national elections, how much sharing is practiced (other than the no
income sharing, but some income sharing would probably be ok),  what
their sexual preferences and practices are, whether they have businesses
located within the community, or whether they have a farm has nothing to
do with whether or not the community may be called "cohousing."

I don't know that the movement really has a generally accepted definition
for cohousing, but I would like to see one proposed (we could do it
here!).

Personally, I think it would be great if a group decided to build a
Christian cohousing community, or an Islamic or a Unitarian Universalist
or a Native American Religious or a polyamoury or a Republican or a
self-sufficient or any other kind of community.  I don't see any reason
why not.

Allen

On Fri, 5 Sep 1997 10:28:16 -0500 "Scott Cowley"
<scowley [at] aclis.lib.utah.edu> writes:
>
>What is "christian" about "christian cohousing" ?
>Don't you get it ?  Cohousing is not just another utopian commune 
>movement.
>Sure, we are an "intentional" community.  But the historical cohousing 
>movement principles of
>_Diversity_, Cooperation,  a concern for the land we occupy and use, 
>and especially an
>attempt to create a Humanizing force at a neighborhood level which 
>evolves away from the
>the existing capitalist system (a system which continues to embrace 
>war and christian religion as
>vehicles to enforce its principles of waste and exploitation) are much 
>broader than a community
>representing such a single belief system.
>
>As always, we must fight to avoid sinking to our lowest common 
>denominator:  An idyllic, gated golf
>course community of like-minded, well-off American isolationists.
>
>

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.