: online status :

« Epiphany | Main | Greenbelt first lineup announcements »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

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

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

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.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Creative Commons License
Creative Commons ©