Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Did your community celebrate last night?

[Matthew Whiting (mewhiting]

Dan,

Congratulations on braving the seemingly liberal world of cohousing.  I've
done a lot of talking with people about cohousing at the Farmers Market here
in Provo, Utah trying to build the size of our forming group.  Being part of
the dominant religion here, sometimes that would come up in conversations
(though it would have regardless of identification).  I found a good way to
explain my interest in cohousing and to keep the group
"non-denominational."  I would explain that the group is not religous based
but my religious belief certainly plays a large part in why I am not just
interested in the idea of cohousing but working on making it a reality
here.  That approach seemed to work well to leave the door open to
discussing how my religous beliefs inform my values and interest in
cohousing and leave the conversation open to move on to other topics.

I think your comments on diversity and love were wonderful.  Thank you for
sharing them.  Love of God and love of neighbor are a sound endorsement of
cohousing in my mind :)

All the best to you where ever you are at, especially in keeping with the
"voluntary simplicity" of Christian monasticism.  Cohousing certainly isn't
anti-religious, you just need to get used to the different vocabulary -
using both makes all feel welcome :)

-Matt Whiting
Utah Valley Commons
Provo, Utah

On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Dan Hazen <dan.allencreek [at] 
verizon.net>wrote:

>
> Greetings,
>
> As a long time "lurker" on this list, I feel compelled to, for the first
> time, offer up some thoughts. Until now, I have been soaking up information
> because I am, as yet,  only one person in the very early stages of
> developing a co-housing plan in my area.
>
> My plan really blends two ideas: the "structure" of Co-housing and the
> "values" of Christian monasticism. Being an Evangelical Christian sometimes
> places me in the center of the majority, and sometimes, far to the fringes
> of a minority. It all depends on the group I'm relating to.
>
> This brings me to the concept of "diversity" as Diane addressed it below.
> It's always been interesting to me that "diversity", divorced from any
> other
> supporting value, has become a value unto itself. The community that I hope
> to build one day will be open to all, regardless of faith, background,
> race,
> gender, criminal record, politics...you name it. I suppose I DO plan to
> discriminate against other species :-) though that could change too!
> However, "diversity" is not the value that drives this openness. It's love.
>
> The realization on the part of some "diverse" co-housing communities that
> there might be some people who did not hold to a certain political view is
> an indicator that diversity (as a value by itself) has (at best) limited
> value.
>
> There is a very famous passage in the Christian scriptures which underlines
> this. Many people have heard portions of 1 Corinthians 13 in the setting of
> a wedding (which is lovely, but not the first context for the words). The
> first context was in teaching people how to live together in community:
>
> "1If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am
> only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of
> prophecy
> and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that
> can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I
> possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love,
> I gain nothing."
>
> In other words, "I can value diversity all day...but if it is not founded
> in
> love it's hollow."
>
> It is not my goal here to proselytize for the sake of Christianity, or even
> for the sake of "love". I simply want to contribute to the discussion the
> idea that diversity by itself is really an illusion in terms of a "value".
> It can certainly be a GOAL if one can find some intrinsic value in it. But
> then that's the point: if the intrinsic value behind the goal of diversity
> is not love - then what could it be?
>
> It COULD be something like "creating a healthy balance of people "types" in
> the community to insure the stability of the community". But then we've got
> to ask ourselves what we do with people who are "diverse" but, who by
> nature
> and by definition, will DE-STABILIZE the community? Suddenly we find
> ourselves in a conundrum: If we value diversity, yet person X will
> destabilize our community, then we must admit that we are actually
> committed
> to LIMITED diversity; that there are in fact "some kinds of people" we
> cannot accept into the community. Therefore, "diversity" as a central value
> loses its meaning.
>
> As a staunch advocate for personal liberty, I think communities should
> establish criteria for membership. People will join or not based on their
> resonance with those criteria. However, to then establish "diversity" as a
> central value in such a community is to fool one's self and potentially
> build dis-function into the community because the TRUE, UNDERLYING values
> go
> un-spoken, camouflaged beneath the stated ones.
>
> As someone who has been accepted in "diverse" communities and also excluded
> from "diverse" communities, I believe that "diversity" is really not what
> most people are after. Building a community based on their personal values
> is. It is for me anyway.
>
> Some may say, "Well, my personal values INCLUDE diversity." I would say,
> "Great! Do you have ANY criteria for membership in your community?" If the
> answer is "yes" then I would say that it CAN'T be diversity that you're
> after. You have only limited diversity and there is a DEEPER value that
> establishes your criteria for membership. For example, you might reasonably
> embrace "diversity" but choose to exclude those who don't accept consensus
> leadership. Your diversity value was just trumped by the value of
> maintaining unity and order. One could argue that this sounds like a
> "Strict
> Father" approach, which isn't always bad...IF you understand that your own
> value system is based on the deeper value, and not the surface value of
> diversity.
>
> I'll admit it: I'm not interested in diversity. I'm interested in loving
> God, and loving my neighbors, whoever they are. That may or may not result
> in some kind of "diversity". I really don't care. This thinking may not be
> at the center of your co-housing community, and that's o.k. I would never
> dream of trying to IMPOSE my values on others. But I would encourage all of
> us to very closely examine our own value systems and make sure that we
> understand what is truly at the core of them.
>
> It is my sincere hope that NONE of what I have said here is offensive or
> off-putting...I know that bringing any degree of "religion" into polite
> discussions can be...touchy(?) I'm grateful for all the information I've
> gleaned from this list, and hope this discussion will help to improve the
> quality of all our communities.
>
> Peace,
>
> Dan
> Col. 3:11-17
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dave and Diane [mailto:daveanddee [at] verizon.net]
> > Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 8:08 AM
> > To: cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org
> > Subject: Re: [C-L]_ Did your community celebrate last night?
> >
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I think this pretty much nails it. The only thing I was going to add
> > is that cooperation strikes me as more of a liberal (or "Nurturing
> > Parent") value, whereas living in your own house that you manage
> > independently strikes me as more or a conservative (or "Strict
> > Father") value. I have given tours of JP cohousing to some from the
> > "Strict Father" point of view, and they are very skeptical of how the
> > whole cooperation thing works out.
> >
> > To my way of thinking this conversation is an important one to have
> > on Cohousing-L because it helps clarify what we mean by "diversity."
> > As Rob Sandelin has pointed out many times, major conflicts in the
> > consensus process usually revolve around conflicting values.
> > Therefore, it makes sense to examine the underlying assumptions about
> > "diversity" and ask ourselves what do we mean by this term? Should we
> > encourage people with a value that differs from one of the
> > fundamental concepts of cohousing ("cooperation") to live in this
> > kind of a housing situation?
> >
> > Food for thought....
> >
> > --Diane(:^]
> >
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:
> http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/
>
>
>