Thats good stuff
"This may or may not be relevant to the intentional communities discussion..."
Schmemann's concern is valid of course. But, in my expereince and what I've read of Orthodox IC's, this fear is overblown by those who don't understand the real motivations of those who look favorably at Orhtodox ICs. Orthodox IC proponents aren't about "living in the West without reference to Western culture" but rather a returning to a lifestyle that fully incorporates the best of West and East.
I think most "anti-IC" writing is similiar to that which rails against the Church for "closed communion"--it assumes triumphalism, exclusionism, and arrogance when there is none.
Blast that 1000-word censorship for non-upgraded accounts. I've posted a response on Decimation & Reconstruction.
Interesting comments on both of your parts. I was wondering, though, what exactly the point to these things is? I'm relatively sure that they are well-intentioned and not ethnic, but I wonder if maybe they do have a tendency to be islands of Orthodoxy in a sea of everything else, and if that is a good thing. Whereas I'm sure they agree with Schmemann on terms of language usage, frequency of communion, etc., I wonder if they do not define themselves so strongly against their contemporary culture that they intentionally cut themselves off from it, failing to see interact with it even enough to find common ground for discussion. However, again, I would like to get a better idea of what these things actually are. The thing that worries me about them is the fact that they haven't existed in the Orthodox world, as far as I know. I'm not sure what is meant by a lay monasticism after all.
Monasteries are intentional communities. To say they have not existed in the Orthodox world is to misunderstand how broad is the term "intentional community."
Currently, our culture continues to value individuality above community. Individualism is proportional to alienation and inversely proportional to community. (This point was made exceptionally well by Robert Nisbet in The Quest for Community, I read for Dr. Hamilton's Political Phil class.)
Some intentional communities are very exclusive but many are completely open to new members. (I would argue that the best are open, of course.) Some communities work together to sustain themselves but others do not. I'm not sure what Karl's community was contemplating, but I believe an Orthodox vision of IC that is attractive to mainstream membership and able to be reproduced would require members to work outside the community. (In any case, that is the model I was exposed to.)
As to the point of Orthodox IC:
Much of the spirit of Orthodoxy is lost in a culture that prizes individualism to the point of alienation. Yet, many are hungry --- desperately so --- for community even while they actively pursue the very things that make community impossible.
Visions of Orthodox IC do not aim at isolation but definition. The belief is that community does not simply happen in a culture that has forgotten it. It must be sought intentionally. IC is simply a term to describe the variety of intentional efforts to build communities. The ic.org website makes it clear that there is not really a single definition of intentional community.
So, then my questions would be as follows: Would non-Orthodox people be allowed in an Orthodox intentional community? The intentional communities that have existed in the Orthodox world have been monastic, celibate, etc. What you are proposing seems to be a place where families live and raise children. Is this sort of lay monasticism, if it can be called that, feasible? There are reason why monks are monks and everyone else is outside the monastery walls, or inside only for visits.
I would agree that Western culture is super-individualist, and that such individualism is not a healthy environment for Orthodoxy or for anyone. I also realize that of all of the cultures Orthodoxy has existed within, secularist, individualist cultures present the greatest threat. Indeed, some radical action seems warranted, but I wonder if these types of phenomena are that necessary action.
Different communities have varying rules determining membership, becoming a member, etc. My vision for OIC goes hand in hand with mission. Imagine a parish with varying levels of commitment to community life. Those who make the highest level of commitment live in the community (ie, in the neighborhood surrounding the parish, within walking distance) and work close to the community, so that community events (such as daily services, meals held in common, etc.) can be given maximal participation. Others simply make other choices: live further away, work elsewhere, etc. The accepted level of commitment expected by most parishes is still available, but there also is a core of people searching for and committed to deeper fraternity in the context of the church. This requires an intentional effort to put aside all attempts to shame or judge or otherwise exclude others emotionally for their choices which naturally lead to less involvement.
I forgot two other examples: Bp. SERAPHIM (Sigrist), whose blog I read and which is linked from mine, I believe lives in an intentional community in New York somewhere.
Also, St. Lawrence (currently under the Jerusalem Patriarchate, formerly members of Ss. Peter & Paul in Ben Lamond, CA) seems to be doing something very much like what I'm describing. (One would hope, however, that a similar vision can be pursued without the needless schism and open rebellion that plagued their choices.)
It's an interesting idea, and I'm sure the motivations are good. However, it seems to me that American culture could see such a thing in terms of Amish or Mormon-type communities. The fear might arise that it seems cultic, as Americans are used to such things. Ultimately, if it doesn't seem fully engaged with American culture, people will reject it out of hand, and it could hurt the image of Orthodoxy. It's true that Western culture is incompatible with Orthodoxy on fundamental levels, and the idea of going to church on Sunday, then living like everyone else for the rest of the week is problematic. However, like with the Russian emphasis on Kenotic monasticism, if an action can't immediately be seen to be helping the overall community, people will see it as isolationist and reject it out of hand.
"people will reject it out of hand..."
They could, sure. But the question is whether that rejection is because IC is a more holistic way of living out the Gospel and thus offensive to modern sensibilities totally enraptured with Individualism....or because a particular IC group does off the deep end and becomes a stumbling block.
From what I've seen, people are *very* interested in it once they get exposed to it, even if it at first seems strange--kind of like Orthodoxy in general! 
Yes, I suppose I would like to see one in action, just to see how it functions in relation to society.
As to the issue of modern sensibilities enraptured with individualism, it seems to me that, at least on some level, such a community would have to act as a bridge. It could not depart completely from established culture and still maintain some appeal for that culture, unless well explained or expressed somehow. Contemporary culture comes with a lot of underlying pain that pushes it in its current direction. We can't simply reject it but must empathize or at least sympathize. This is why I like reading Russians more than Greeks.
"It could not depart completely from established culture and still maintain some appeal for that culture..."
I agree 100%. Our group's ideas were certainly toward a "bridge" vision...
"I like reading Russians more than Greeks."
Me too!
IC's are distinctly Western phenomena. It is typical of Eastern Orthodox to use Western forms to critique the West, and while doing so think that they are uniquely clever. The comparison of IC's to monastic life is lost on me. I bet that Orthodox IC's will resemble more secular leftest IC's (minus the herbs and licentiousness)than monastic communities. There is a certain type of person who is attracted to Orthodoxy who whould otherwise be a "hippie" -- the sort of Orthodox who thinks that Jim Forest has coherent views on war. For the best current Orthodox writing engaging the West one must read David Bentley Hart. Read both his recent essays in First Things, and also his book, The Beauty of the Infinite.
Wow. "Hippies"? Are they still around?
Commenting by HaloScan
