The Los Angeles Times profiles young Evangelicals who, having grown weary of soft, suburbanized Christianity, have chosen to live monastically, in community with each other. Here's how the story begins:
BILLINGS, MONT. -- In a peeling house on South 32nd Street, five friends came together to stretch their faith.They left comfortable apartments for a communal home within walking distance of a prison, a pawnshop, a derelict trailer park. Exhaust from a sugar beet factory drifted down the streets.
Moving in last January, they pledged to spend one year together, learning to become true followers of Christ. They would give generously, love unconditionally. They would exchange their middle-class ways for humility and simplicity, forgoing Hardee's fries, new CDs, even the basic comfort of privacy."The focus has to be on God and the way of life he has set out for us, as opposed to the way we want to live, which is very selfish," Jeromy Emerling said.
A few months into the experiment, at a weekly house meeting, Jake Neufeld framed the vision this way: "Church is not something we attend. It's something we are."
But even lofty rhetoric could not lift the mood that sleety evening in early April. A quarter of their year together had passed, and the friends felt they had failed. They had not met a single neighbor. They had not given any aid. Everyday life seemed to suck up all their energy; it was draining just to figure out whose turn it was to mop the kitchen floor.
"We're trying to live so every dimension of our lives is different," Jeromy said. Then he admitted: "We don't know what that will look like."
The household consisted of Jeromy, a fundraiser for a Christian nonprofit, and his wife, Debbie, who stays home with their toddler and newborn son; Kyle Porrett, an architect, and his wife, Phyllis, who cares for their baby daughter and two young foster children; and Jake, a builder.
Theirs was a radical vision, but also a trendy one, part of the New Monastic movement sweeping white, suburban evangelicals. In the last few years, perhaps 100 communities like the Billings house have been founded across the country, and hundreds of Christians have attended workshops to learn of the concept.
"There's something happening here, some sort of reformation," said Scott Bessenecker, who studied the movement for his book "The New Friars."
"They're asking the question 'What constitutes God's people?' "
The story provides some insight into the practical difficulties of living in an intentional community, but it's ultimately an unsatisfying account of what this particular monastic-style community is all about. Mark Stricherz at Get Religion identifies why:
[As LA Times writer Stephanie Simon puts it], the couples were dissatisfied with their religion and sought to imitate the early Christians. Maybe this is true, but it sounds like something’s missing. Dissatisfaction with one’s religion at some point is practically a universal sentiment. Few believers, however, abandon their former lives to live like monks.Simon mentions earlier in the story that the couples are part of “the New Monastic movement sweeping white, suburban evangelicals.” But she makes it sound like a fad rather than a revolutionary social movement.
But that, as Stricherz says, is exactly what the New Monasticism is all about. From the website of the movement:
Throughout the history of the church, monastic movements have arisen during times of rapid social change. When the minority movement that Jesus started was flooded by converts after Constantine, desert mothers and fathers went into their cells to discern a new way of life. When Europe collapsed into the Dark Ages, Benedictines carved out spaces for community and new life. When the advent of a cash economy revolutionized European culture, St. Francis started an order of beggars to proclaim the divine economy of providence. Over the past two thousand years, monasticism has helped the church remember who we are.Ours is a time of rapid social change. We are post-modern, post-Cold War, post-9/11, even post-Christian. All signs point to change, and we know things aren’t what they used to be. But we hardly know who we are. Amidst wars and rumors of war, our global identity crisis threatens to consume us.
But we have hope. The Holy Spirit is stirring in the places overlooked by Empire to raise up a new monastic movement. We don’t know yet what this movement of the Spirit will become. “New Monasticism” is the language we’re using to talk about it in the meantime.
For the sake of discernment and mutual encouragement, we have connected with other followers of Jesus who are experimenting with a new way of life in community.
Here are the 12 Marks of the Movement. Impressive. Radical Jesus people. May St. Benedict and St. Anthony of the Desert bless their efforts.

Add to Newsvine
Add to StumbleUpon
The mutha of all monks.
There is a developing problem in Israel of young(ish) ultraOrthodox men with large(ish) families devoting themselves to full time Torah studies, and receiving subsidies from the state to do so. They are resented by others for not working, and not contributing to the larger community.
When people choose to withdraw from society to work on their own spiritual contemplation and growth, how do they manage to support themselves? As Sig pointed out, someone's still gotta do the laundry, cook the meals, and mow the lawn. Working out an equitable balance of work/devotions must be a bear.
Oh, and Monk-in-training: are you contrasting Evangelicalism unfavorably to Catholicism when you speak of the emphasis on rules and politics? That's a laugh.
But Rod, seriously, when it all falls apart (see some of your recent economic posts), you and your family can come to Wisconsin and help us grow vegetables.
Rod and Erin:
I was serious.
If folks are rejecting "the world" because the world is evil, it would stand to reason they think THE PEOPLE in it are evil -- would it not?
Connie,
I would not presume to say the Catholic Church is without sin or problems in the area of rules and politics, and did not intend to infer it. The topic here is young Evangelicals and their interest in 'new Monastic' communities. That is the topic I intended to address my comment to.
"Working out an equitable balance of work/devotions" is in fact a bear. That is the reason that St. Benedict wrote his Rule.
Monks and Nuns support themselves in many ways, growing their own food, selling items they manufacture, teaching, reaching out to the poorest of society. In many cities it is not uncommon to find Monastics living in and working in homeless shelters.
We certainly are not perfect, in fact we seek a life long conversion to be more Christlike. I think these young people want to be more 'Christian' than their culture has offered them. In fact, this is a fairly common practice around the Emergent Church.
A multi-pronged response:
(1) "There is something very hippyish, very new-agey, 70's about this that makes me think that "commune" is a better word for this than Kim M's "compound.""
I realize that scorn for everything that happened in the '60s and '70s except vegetarianism and gardening is a basic value of crunchiness. But the communes of which Francois speaks so contemptuously were in fact efforts to transcend the consumerist, individualist, hedonist values of "the '50s" and of American society in general. Some of them worked and are still working. Most of them failed, some of them very dismally indeed. But the hippy communards were doing their best to live out their values in a culture that detested both them and their values. And many of those values were in fact derived from Christianity.
(2)The things that destroy most intentional communities are precisely the same things that destroy many marriages. The larger the community, the more relationships there are to go wrong in the same way marriages can. This multiplies exponentially the chances for failure (do the math yourselves!) Under the circumstances, it's amazing that any of these communities survive into a second generation. Those that do deserve a lot of respect.
(3)The shared apartment-building setup has been tried by a number of people I know. It mostly worked until the kids started school (which, not coincidentally, is roughly how long urban living works for most married couples.)
(4) "The extended biological/tribal family sharing a home is something else, but that usually comes with years of traditions of "how we do things" and a more binding culture than "let's see if we can live like the apostles.""
And even then, it comes with enormous risks. The prohibitions on incest contained in Leviticus 18:6-20 arise out of just such a setting. They restrict the power of the male head of the family over the women in the family, especially including those who "belong to" younger males. Nobody legislates against what nobody does.
Another place to look for the risks of such a situation is the fiction of modern India, and sometimes, modern Africa.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.