Ben Edson asks some questions of New-Monasticism in advance of the book launch tomorrow...
1: One comment that Martyn Percy made was that an 'an abbot' is a title rich in heritage and monasticism as a concept is one that has deep, deep roots. Does our contemporary re-imagination of the monastic tradition violate the heritage from which it comes? Is it too pop...
2: Is there something slightly sanctimonious about the new monasticism conversation? Is it the bitter pill that Christians think that culture needs to swallow to make it better? Is there a genuine desire to swallow the pill and is this desire matched action?
3: Is it offering a countercultural model of community? And if so is the best model to engage with society?
4: Does it bring people to faith? Does it engage with the non-churched?
I left the following (partial) response...
Interesting Q's Ben, though I do wonder if they are still infused with a somewhat modernist (and Evangelical ;-) ) language of evaluation - "best", "better" etc. but not much about authenticity, integrity, etc.? I'm not sure it's about being the "best" or even being a "model" but about finding ways of community and spirituality that resource and sustain a 24/7 way of living faith - so rather than seeking the "best model to engage" we simply do what we find sustains that missional and spiritual engagement and as a bonus we may find that for many who have lost the tools for being community it offers a window on a fuller way of living. I guess one could say that rather than being a "model" it could be an Icon of the God who is by nature community... also I wonder if rather than being a replacement (or solution for the ills of) the Church it could be, as Monasticism has always been the left hand to the ecclesiastical right hand of the faith? Did in the modern world we lose our connection with the monastic and seek to replace it with the Para-Church (YFC, SU, etc. even CMS!) and as that part of Christendom is in decline are we simply re-exploring what was for centuries has been part of what we know as Christianity?
I asked your 1st question to Abbots Sam (Hillfield) and Stuart (Mucknel) recently and the answer they gave was that unlike the Church which seeks to do "new things" to sustain the inherited, they believed that a) we had to release new expressions of monasticism to find new ways in a new era, b) that they wanted to learn from the new ways what the challenges, joys etc. are of the world we live in now and c) they wanted to give to us their wisdom, particularly what they have learned about community and spirituality over the centuries. They saw a line of continuum but also that like Parents there has to be a letting go in order that the child can grow toward maturity.
This is a valuable set of questions. I don't think it's so much a matter of whether new monasticism is too 'pop' as whether the 'newness' of New-Monasticism clusters around the right issues. Some Constantinian elements of our heritage should be 'violated'.
I'm more involved with Neo-Anabaptism that new monasticism but there are striking connections between our experience in a shared Post-Christendom environment. I would gently suggest though, that perhaps this environment offers all of us the best opportunity in centuries to get beyond talk of abbots, vicars and pastors and rediscover simply being the people of God: http://radref.blogspot.com/search/label/clericalism
Posted by: Phil Wood | 02/02/2011 at 11:22
I think it could be argueed that Monasticism itself was a middle age expression of some impules and streams of the Holy Spirits leading that could be classified as Pre-Christendom and certainly somewhat subversive to the Christendom
Posted by: twitter.com/Matybigfro | 02/02/2011 at 16:00
There's certainly a tension between establishment and reaction in both Monasticism and Anabaptism. Both movements are fundamentally linked. Many key leaders in first generation Anabaptism had a monastic backgroun and brough their monasticism with them. Anyone who is familiar with cenobitic monasticism would recognise powerful echoes in Hutterite communitarianism. It's certainly possible to argue that Anabaptism was in essence neo-monastic. Anabaptism too, has its aberrations and skeletons - not least its periodic reclusive conservatism.
Posted by: Phil Wood | 02/02/2011 at 19:45