lest i freak some out

notes of clarification on the bruderhof issue--just to be sure that i haven't said or implied anything i didn't mean to. 1) I'm not advocating the Bruderhof or another community like the bruderhof as the one true path of Christianity, Christians, etc. to judge all others by. The methods employed to create and sustain the community of the Bruderhof could be (are?) suspect. Authoritarianism is a real problem in any group as cloistered as they are--just look at the lineage of medieval monastic movements and the tendency for very real religious fervor to turn into domination and oppression. Healthy, Christlike submission and unhealthy, devilish submission are totally different spiritual conditions that unfortunately appear to be quite similar in their superficial expression--the way that any sinful twisting of a good thing does (love vs. lust, thriftiness vs. ungenerosity, enjoying God's gifts vs. materialsm, etc.). If the structure of authoritarianism is unchecked, any community--no matter the original intent of the founder(s)--will skew. So, again, I'm not advocating the Bruderhof or that model of community per se. 2) What I believe the quote I posted yesterday points to is not the model/structure of Bruderhof or Christian socialism. Instead, it addresses several symptoms of the human social condition that Christ himself indicted--greed, self-reliance (vs. God-reliance), and outward religiosity without internal change (the white-washed tombs of the Pharisees). The example of the early church in Acts 2 and 4 (whether or not Acts is seen as didactic or narrative--arguably some of both) clearly points toward a reorganization of community--a different style of relationships--that radically challenged the dominant Hellenistic culture at the time. The original disciples stood as a "light upon a hill" because of their relationships based on the belief that Jesus of Nazareth instigated a new reality for his followers and that by living out his teachings--by being little-Christs--they could change the world. As this article pointed out, these followers of the Way were significantly different than their neighbors who were not also followers. They represented a threat not only to the Jewish hegemony in Jerusalem, Damascus, etc., but even to the Greeks in Athens, the Corinthians, the Ephesians, and the Romans. What I'm interested in learning more about is why these believers were so different. What did they do that caused them to be regarded as a civil danger? How were their relationships distinct from those in societies around them? 3) By extension: how should Christians today follow the model of our Master and his first disciples? Are we also called to relationships that challenge our society--not because they challenge society but because we're doing what God wants and that very act challenges society? If we are meant to be somehow set apart/called out from our surroundings, what does that look like? How should we reorient our money, our time, our priorities, our architecture, our careers, our clothing and hairstyles to reflect our change of spiritual condition from Lost to Found? (Note that I'm not making the argument that we should have a uniquely Christian brand of clothing or hairstyles, economics, cars, houses--rather that all of these things need to be placed into the palm of God's hand and should be regarded in accord with our relationship with him.) So, to sum up, it seems like Bruderhof has accurately identified Jesus' assessment of the symptoms of the human condition, but has not necessarily prescribed a helpful treatment of the symptoms. What is a better treatment and how can we help it come about in our own contexts? Or in my case, in the context of our small church/home group? Does it mean treating our money/time/language/living conditions differently than we have been?