Talk:Jesus Now - Ekonomia
From Faith Futures
Peter's article here is truly excellent, but I do have some comments to make:
I think the framework of "household" is still too limiting. I think that the excellent characteristics Peter lists of a household characterised by Jesus' radical generosity cannot apply to single person households, such as the one I live in, so that there is an internal contradiction in his article. There is no-one else in the dwelling to form the family, or household, or call it what you will - to form a relationship which manifests these characteristics. For me, family is a much broader concept than household, and unlike Peter I regard it as the basic and most useful concept. For me, family includes:
- members of my biological family who do not live with me, but with whom I interact regularly and fruitfully
- one or two small, treasured friendship groups
- a few very close friends who I regard as brothers and sisters
- an Internet genealogy group I belong to. People on this group will go out of their way to search cemeteries, churches etc for people who live in different countries, search census and other records for others, even sometimes spend their own resources - for people they have never met face to face! If members are ill, or suffer a bereavement, they mention it on the site and there is enormous support from other members. When I log onto it, I feel as though I am back in communication with family again.
- the soFFFia group functions to some extent in this way, providing loads of mutual support for members.
All these elements of family manifest the characteristics Peter listed:
- Goal is to build spaces for the wholesome fulfillment of membersâ needs.
- Self-emptying love for the others = generosity is highly valued.
- Goal is to assist members to achieve highest potential and make healthful contributions to the wider communities.
- A win-win dynamic prevails.
- Openness, acceptance, warmth and honesty prevail.
But not the characteristics involving children, which I do not regard as essential for a family or household.
As for Jesus, he seems to have been a wanderer who did not live in a household with specified people, but who regarded his companions, those who shared with him in his experiences, as his family, perhaps even more than his family of origin. I feel a little the same, in some ways, though I value my biological family.
Let's look at the example of Jesus and let's be truly creative here!
Marie Cameron
Peter responds to Marie
Marie, I really like what you have to say about the values and intentionality of relationships that fall outside the defintion I set up for this discussion.
My basic assumption is that the KoG is not some fantasy in the sky bye and bye, but a state of human being that lies within our potential; that we can create models of it and live in them to find for ourselves and for our heirs the patterns that work to make a new way of being. So we need to talk about many different patterns and options that are both inclusive and have some boundaries.
I have two responses.
1) Given the fact that biology rules and people will procreate even when they don't intend to extend the human race, the economic and communal protection of children is an essential component of any attempt to discern the wisdom of Jesus for our lives. It makes no difference whether it is red, pink, grey or black, I know not without looking it up, "suffer the little chilren to come unto me,etc'., is authentic to Jesus. I imagine the radical generosity and love of Jesus swept children up into his healing arms. If his vision of the KoG didn't include children, we have a problem.
2) I choose not to deny the hermit her hermitage. I choose not to deny the celibate his celibacy. I choose not to deny you your independence and your valuing it as a lfe style. At the same time, I believe it is naive to assume that in the face of life's exigencies one can live safely and securely independent of an household that has made a commitment to care for and support one another economically through thick and thin until death do us part. I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT MARRIAGE HERE! I am talking about those who make up an intergenerational household.
In the USA today we see the tragedy of elders living alone, trying to maintain health and well being on dwindling assets. We have a thriving business community building more and more wharehouses for solitary elders.
When my children were conceived I was into them for the rest of my life. Though they are all grown and live apart from us, we have significant economic ties with them and conceive of our assets as their assets. I would like it better if we all lived on the same property and some of them hope we will be able to do that some day.
I chose the boundaries I did because I don't know how to describe an intergenerational household that includes a wandering cynic, or a hermit, or any person that chooses to live indepentently.
Finally, I think you miss a point about Jesus. As I understand it, he chose not to accept the structure and values of the family into which he was born. At the same time I think he chose a new family, his companions on the way and the new households that gathered the outcasts and broke bread together - ie. shared their wealth. I'd be willing to bet he spent a great deal of time in a flat in Caperaum with Mary, Peter, James and a bunch of other marginal types.
Who else wants to chime in help us find our way to tomorrow.
Marie Responds to Peter
Peter,
We might have to agree to differ as we are coming from different life experiences and different frameworks.
I really like your statement about the Kingdom of God. We DO need "many different patterns and options". My point is that your statement, and probably mine too, are too limiting for the broadly inclusive KoG. We need not either/or, but both/and and many other options as well!
I am not saying that Jesus' vision of the KoG did not include children. I am simply saying that I don't agree that they are necessarily as central as you believe that they are. Jesus, as far as we know, did not have children ("The Da Vinci Code" notwithstanding!) and may or may not have been married. There seem to have been no children in his inner circle, despite his undoubted love for children, as the lifestyle was unsuitable. There have been many, many others who have chosen to adopt a lifestyle which did not include children, some of whom may have seen such a lifestyle as a vocation, as Jesus apparently did.
Whether you choose to deny people their lifestyle or not, makes no difference. These lifestyles just ARE!! I am very happy that your value your lifestyle so highly - as I value mine.
I still think that using the term "family" rather than "household" allows us to be broader and more inclusive, in line with Kingdom values.
Finally, I don't think I missed a point about Jesus. I said just what you said, in different words - basically, that, in your words, "he chose a new family, his companions on the way", and I wouldn't disagree with your other statement about the new households, either!
