The new (Evangelical) monastics
Tuesday January 29, 2008
Categories: Christianity (general), Culture
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...
Filed Under: The New Monasticism
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
Something about this seems very narcissistic and -- to use the Crunchy Con lingo -- "therapeutic" to me, as if the purpose were briefly to engage in an exaggerated and highly self-conscious (and self-regarding) form of asceticism so that one couls then go back to one's regular life with a completely clear conscience -- and probably with a complete lack of humility to boot. 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 agree with you, Francois, in that I thought this not really a monastery, more of a commune. But I still would like to see these folks succeed. For people like me, who come out of a Christian tradition with actual monastics, I think it far more feasible for individual families to live in their own apartments or houses, but in close physical proximity to each other. This is what Rachel and Paul Balducci's Catholic community is like in Augusta, Ga.
Hey, if this means they'll keep away from the ballot boxes, thus lowering the voting pool for people that want to take away the rights of me and my friends and generally move away from the secular Enlightenment values that have made America great, more power to them. Every shack a monastery!
This is very instructive. This is why Christ did not instruct us to live in communes or monasteries, etc. The challenges of living our daily life are large. They are REAL large. They will consume all of our time if we allow them.
By putting themselves together, and so tightly entangling thier lives, they did not "simplify" thier life - despite thier materialistic simplicity - they complicated thier lives.
That's not a criticism, it is an observation. It's also a lesson I learned the first time the family went and stayed with relatives for a week or two.
Christ called us to a life of service... and the way we best accomplish that is not to add a huge level of additional relationship and monetary and material complexity, such as these folks may eventually learn, but instead, to simply meet our neighbors, and go HELP THEM WHEN THEY NEED IT.
A life of service does not require a huge level of complexity and trying to have common consciences about things like food and salad dressings and sharing chores. It is about doing what you can, when you can, when the need presents itself.
HA. Been there, done that. For ten years. Although our community was quite a bit larger and somewhat more effective. Mr. Sig and I were put in charge of a guest house that served over 200 people during the summer after our first child was born. We were assigned some single people to live with us. They, and Mr. Sig, had part-time, minimum wage jobs. With this money, we were expected to support ourselves and provide for all guests. No car, no medical insurance. We got our stove off the curbside when the students left town. Hey, two out of four burners worked! It seemed logical to all that, since I was home with the baby, I should also handle washing everyone's sheets and towels (used, donated items, somewhat threadbare), make the beds, and provide tasty, economical meals for never less than six and often up to 20 people. And keep the house tidy while caring for and breastfeeding my six-week-old firstborn. Oh, and provide scheduling and spiritual assistance to guests, and make sure to attend house prayers, Bible studies, and prayer meetings. I remember feeling sad and puzzled that I could not keep up with my responsibilities with more ease and flair. Must have been because I didn't pray hard enough . . . yeah . . . . Our divinely inspired leaders were twenty-something guys, which explains quite a lot.
I took a few minutes to read the website linked.
This is about trying to create such a radically altered environment for themselves, that they think it will personally transform them.
Sorry. Christ and faith transform us.
Yet one more pointless effort in salvation by behavior modificatin.
Yes, sig, quite a lot of monasticism is founded on the idea that women will do all the work.
"Yet one more pointless effort in salvation by behavior modificatin."
I didn't read that this "new monasticism" was an effort at earning salvation anywhere on their website, actually. I guess I missed the page on their website where they wrote that salvation did not come through faith, too. Maybe you could link that, Mark. Correct me, please.
I guess I would have to respond to your comment, Mark, by putting some words in your mouth. I'm thinking, maybe, "one more defensive response by an easy-believe-ism modern American Protestant to anyone doing anything radical with their faith."
Of course, you didn't self-identify with easy-believe-ism, but if we are just putting words in people's mouths, this is no more unfair to you than your airy dismissal of people who are actually trying to make "take up your cross and follow me" mean something.
It is one thing (Sig) to speak from experience; in fact it is wise counsel that anyone taking a step like this would be foolish to ignore. It is quite another thing to dismiss an effort like this, not even on the merits, but by the atavistic repetition of personal prejudices.
For the record, I am not part of any such group and living with me would bring you closer to Purgatory, not Heaven, so I don't plan to sign up. I do watch with admiration. I do admire this modern, evangelical Devotio Moderna and I do hope they succeed.
Well, Mark, there's a time and place for behavior modification, transformative living, and even asceticism. But looking at this as a Catholic I've started to draw a few conclusions.
The call to a monastic way of life is always a call to an individual to become a part of something that is both larger than the self, and complementary to it. A young man or young woman hearing that call and joyfully accepting it who pledges to live in a monastery or convent is not just embracing the externals of the life (as, say, a "more authentic" way of living) but the deep and challenging spirituality of the life as well. The order will already have the details of the life worked out, and there will be a clear chain of command and a working structure. Even when a new order is permitted to arise, those responsible for it have usually already lived in an established religious community, and they have the experiences of many orders to draw on in dealing with the practical "what works" sorts of concerns.
Some of the problems with experiments in monasticism like the one described here that I see are:
1. No individual call. Instead, couples and families are responding, and not all members of each family are willing to live the communal life.
2. No clear chain of command. No one is in charge of making or enforcing community rules.
3. No structure. The frustrations one of the women experienced over being asked to do basic chores more often than the other were valid ones.
4. No agreement on what constitutes "monastic" living. Aside from a vague desire to help people there's no particular charism, or work, the group plans to do.
5. No specific prayer life--at least, the reporter doesn't make it clear if there is one.
I think that the reason quasi-monastic communities so often fail has to do with a failing in one or more of these areas, with the addition of the problem that sometimes the chain of command is not only clear but far too controlling and disrespectful of the liberty proper to a family (not a problem in this example).
There's been a growing attention toward the "new monasticism" among we evangelicals in recent years. As is evident from some of the postings here, the movement continues to be misunderstood. William is pointing in the right direction. So far as I can tell, most folks who live in these intentional Christian communities - and I have known a few personally - are, in fact, trying to discern what following Jesus means.
For further info on this movement, google "the Simple Way" and "Rutba House." Shane Claiborne, associated with Simple Way, has written about his journey into the new monasticism in his book "The Irresistible Revolution."
Casey, I live in Durham and know about Rutba House (and Shane Claiborne in Phila.)
Claiborne is on the board of directors for the Christian Community Development Association, which has a somewhat different mission statement than the new monasticism Claiborne writes about.
As someone interested in Christian community development, I've read a lot about this new monasticism in an effort to see where they fit into community development ministries at large.
It seems to me that the new monastics have too much to overcome within their walls. Why do they all have to live under the same roof? They can they be neighbors, in separate households and accomplish the same thing - especially if their goal is to reach out to their communities with a positive influence.
In the end, especially for married people with children, it works out for the better when everyone has their own "stuff".
Here's one example of "intentional" naivety (from someone in my mother's church):
This man thought that certain items can be "pooled" to save cash expenditures for other things. His idea: Christians who live in close proximity should share a lawnmower. It sounds good on paper - a lawnmower is only needed once a week, right? According to his calculations, seven families could share one lawnmower.
Unfortunately, his idea fails to incorporate wear and tear. That is, a lawnmower used seven times more often will wear out seven times as fast. What money have they really saved in the end?
Same goes for the new monastics. In any given group, someone's not going to live up to the model of sacrifice that the arrangement requires. What then? Although they're well intentioned, internal strife may eventually blow the thing apart. For what end?
Which brings me to Erin's correct analysis:
Communal efforts require strong church oversight.
I don't know why this is considered something so new among Americans. Plenty of Christian groups in this country have tried to go back to the book of Acts and experience communal living.
To show just one example, here's a "brother's house" in Winston-Salem, NC, dating from the 1700's:
http://www.oldsalem.org/index.php?id=144
As someone who experienced this type of living for several years, it came with a whole unique set of problems. I'm very sympathetic to what "sig" posted above, although I'm not female. It can be truly overwhelming to handle so many young people, who can range from "hyperspiritual religious zealot" to "Christian equivalent of a welfare recipient."
And I hate to make the comparison, but what is true of communism on a large scale is equally true of communal living on a small scale, even if it is motivated by faith. Once a bunch of people live together and share everything, no one owns anything, and so no one takes care of anything. The "tragedy of the commons" plays itself out, and the ones who are more mature and responsible get burned out cleaning the messes of everyone else.
Then what happens when one of the inhabitants wants his drug-addict friend to move in (for good reason, in order to be helped), or wants a man with mental problems he met on the street to move in? It's hard to say "no," when you are endeavoring to live not for your self but for a higher purpose and for a greater community. But sometimes you have to say "no," and it's a lot easier to do that when you own your own home and can set your own rules.
Oh my, so much venting. Sorry for the repressed anger, but this seemed a good place to let it go.
Is it just me, or there quite literally a "To h*ll with you!" aspect to all this?
Is it just me, or there quite literally a "To h*ll with you!" aspect to all this?
It's just you.
To "all what," Larry? The monastic movements, the article, the comments, or monasticism in general?
mm Which brings me to Erin's correct analysis: Communal efforts require strong church oversight.
I agree. The curse of ever-splintering protestantism.
Cultural Christianity is what the Church is.
We are to love one another. It's what shows us who we are.
(culturalchristianity.com)
Lots of good comments here. Since I posted this earlier today, I thought more about it, and why even though I am drawn to monasticism, I would never, ever live communally like this with my children or anybody else's (by the way, these sound more like Christian kibbutzniks than monastics).
It's hard enough to run the house I actually live in, with the kids I have; I can't imagine expecting others to put up with my kids, and frankly I can't imagine putting up with other people's children. I say "putting up with" in the sense of "living 24/7 with them." Our family -- I think every family -- is too particular. And if somebody in the community wanted to bring a recovering meth addict into the house, there's no way in hell I would agree to that, not with kids around. So you see the problem.
When I was in my 20s and lived in Washington, DC, I lived in a group house with five other people my age. It was a dump, precisely because we never could agree on who should clean what, and when. The reason it was barely inhabitable at all was because this one woman who lived in the house was more responsible than the three other guys and the one other woman who had rooms there. Don't get me wrong, we had a great time together. But it's no way to live after you're 27 or so.
Even so, I could see a community of committed Christian singles -- single-sex -- living together quasi-monastically, following a rule of prayer, sharing things in common, etc. In fact, I have a friend in DC who teaches and studies at Catholic U. who does just that. They're not an intentional community; they're housemates who happen to be committed Catholics.
As I said before, I would love to be living closer to several couples with kids from our church. We share the same values, and we'd all like our kids to grow up able to play with each other, and we'd like to spend more time with each other. We can't really do that, spread out as we are all over the Dallas area. I would be open to everyone going in on buying an old apartment building and renovating it into apartments for four or five families, with a common garden or courtyard area. But we'd all have to have separate quarters for family life in order to make it work, or so it seems to me.
"Cultural Christianity is what the Church is.
We are to love one another. It's what shows us who we are.
(culturalchristianity.com)
Posted by: One voice | January 29, 2008 9:21 PM"
Care to expound, One Voice, instead of just posting an infomercial? "Loving one another" is a complex thing, yet so simple in many ways, isn't it? Do you love one another and do right by your fellow many be exalting your own conscience above all else, or do you need something else?
Again--you should participate in the discussion. I think you'll find this is an engaging group, and that those of us in ecclesial communities love others not in spite of our churches, but because of them.
There are some examples of this sort of thing working fairly well, but it's hard to see how it's going to take off. It's really about people trying to figure out how to live in community in a way that changes the communities they are living in. There's something of a movement in protestant churches to recognize that church isn't just a place you go or even the services you attend, but a community of believers, but no one knows what that looks like. The new monastics are one way people are trying out.
None of this is that surprising, if you think about it. We were designed to live in community. But we find ourselves in the "bowling alone" era. Most of the people involved with this are young people who come out of a generation where many of them or their peers have never even seen the most basic functioning community of family. Not to mention empty neighborhoods with shut windows and a multitude of screens where you hardly know your neighbor's name. So people are just trying to start from nothing. It's like we're all trying to re-invent the wheel without a good instruction book because people never really envisioned a time when we'd need to start from scratch like this. Anyhow.
And to take a minute to self promote, most new monastic communities are also part of the emerging church movement. On my blog, I'm doing a 3 part series on the emerging church movement. If you are interested in these things, check it out here:
theupsidedownworld.wordpress.com/2008/01/13/129/
and here:
theupsidedownworld.wordpress.com/2008/01/27/the-emerging-church-promise-and-failure-part-2/
I wouldn't want my earlier comment to be taken as mockery or scorn of young people who are seeking a better way of life. I think a close-knit group of friends who support each other in prayer and service is a wonderful thing, and I wish that churches and parishes more closely resembled this ideal. (It's not true, either, that you all have to agree about everything, as long as you are able to disagree graciously.) I learned a great deal from my experience, as rough as it was. But sadly, one of the things I learned was how many things in small group dynamics can turn out to be horribly destructive, even though they seem like a great idea to the young and inexperienced. Church oversight doesn't necessarily fix all this, either. Rod is correct that trying to run a family on a monastic model is one of the major crash landings. Anything that interferes with family (or personal) autonomy should raise a red flag. Support and good advice are one thing; rigid structures and additional commandments are something else again. And any suggestion that you will somehow become more pure, more holy, or more acceptable to God by raising the degree of difficulty and weirdness in your daily life should be regarded with extreme caution as well.
Good, let them live out there where they cannot annoy the rest of us.
I dunno, Chuck, that last comment makes you sound like a major league arsehole. Which I know you're not, from being a longtime reader of this blog.
"There are some examples of this sort of thing working fairly well".
There are also many examples of it going horribly awry.
Everyone repeat after me; "Community good, cult bad....community good, cult bad."
Beliefnets section on Scientology is pretty interesting. Personally cult or religious community? How can tell the difference? The best I can come up with so far is, "I know it when I see it".
Cults share the lawnmower.
nah - typically cults share the wives...
And the wives mow the lawn. Right, Sig?
Having lived "in community" with three other couples and their children (and our own children) for only two years a decade ago, my opinion is this: every family is its own monastery. The dad is the abbot and everybody else has their roles, but mainly the kids are the novitiate and dad and mom's roles are to bring them up in conformity with the Rule of the house.
The shared house arrangement we had fell apart precisely because we disagreed with other adults (not family) discipling our children and because there was no "Rule of St. Benedict" to guide behavior in the house, only whatever guidelines we came up with as we needed them.
So, having done it (although not in a Christian context, admittedly) I am more convinced than ever that an intentional Christian community something like Co-Housing is fine (perhaps like Rod's apartment house example) but that ultimately, unrelated families weren't meant to share one roof in the normal way of things. 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."
I admire these new monastics for trying. But I think ultimately Church oversight and more family-autonomy is required to make such an arrangement work. I don't know much about John Michael Talbot's Little Portion Hermitage, but there supposedly is an example of a Christian community that includes both celibates and families but lives within a Franciscan framework.
I'm a Catholic (former Presbyterian/evangelical) and the more I read about stories like this, the more I understand why in the Catholic view, the basic unit of society is the family, not the individual.
Too true, mm! While wearing a long granny dress and a headscarf. Modesty, y'know. ; )
Each Christian will follow his own conscience, and that's fine... but this Montana monastic group strikes me as misguided though well meaning. Christianity is lived in all facets of life (in the world but not of it, salt and light for the world, etc). Why create a separate living community.
Perhaps a few months attending a good Quaker Meeting could have done a great deal in the way of psychological and spiritual preparation for these people.
I lived in a Christian community right after college for about 6 months. Actually I thought it would just be a bunch of 20 somethings in woman's and men's households who got together and prayed every morning and shared housing. (I had no idea what else I was getting myself into.)
There's ALOT of wisdom in what Sig has said. Especially this . . . Anything that interferes with family (or personal) autonomy should raise a red flag. 10 years in community - that's strength Sig. I give you alot of credit.
And Erin's comments are also correct.
What I found was that while the discipline and scheduled were great for my prayer life, MOST of the rest of the details were just strange. Submitting my will to another 22 year old did not make me a stronger Christian. It was all very odd. My roommates were great people and we had some good times but the situation was very forced.
Like any experimental living situation alot depends on the personalities involved in the group. Our leader found it an opportunity to exercise inordinate control. Strange power issues. Alot of it seemed to focus around meal times. And I couldn't help but feel we were being treated as if we were small children. 'Your job is to obey not think.'
I've found other communities that really helped me to live out my faith. But in the case of this community I'd have to agree with the earlier post, this experiment just served to confuse and complicate my faith. It's one thing to have Christian roommates. It's quite another to have one of them decide you will now be a (mostly)vegetarian. Your boyfriend may not visit on community meal nights. All food will be served by the leader. etc, etc. . . .
But the community prayer times were really good. :)
Still I think it's a special call to give up your will to that extent and it shouldn't be a casual experimental thing. I have a very good friend who got into a MUCH more serious problem with this submission of the will when she was a novitiate. [Suffice it to say, the Bishop of Worcester had to get involved. Release her from her vows. End the program. Discipline the director. And have a long talk with her about the fact that God does not call us to suffer unnecessarily.] I think that can be the problem with some of these communities - unnecessary suffering.
The ideals these groups are seeking can be accomplished. But I'm not sure it really requires communal living with authority figures.
I should've said questionable authority figures.
How do tell the difference between a religious community and a cult.
In a religious community the Kool-Aid guy doesn't bust in through the wall.
People in religious communities are irresponsible. Pure and simple, irresponsiblity riding a donkey while calling it a thorobred from Heaven. The motivation is they don't want to face the responsiblities of living a good life under normal circumstances.
People in religious communities are irresponsible. Pure and simple, irresponsiblity riding a donkey while calling it a thorobred from Heaven. The motivation is they don't want to face the responsiblities of living a good life under normal circumstances.
Clearly spoken by a man who has absolutely no historical knowledge of the key economic and cultural role monasteries and monks played in the rise of Western Europe in the Middle Ages. Ah yes, the Cluniacs -- what a bunch of Animal House layabouts!
I'm with Erin here. While well-intentioned, the problem is that they are not plugged in to something bigger than themselves. Actually I see this as a problem with the whole 'Emerging Church' movement -- they have some good ideas about things, but their individualistic approach to ecclesiology can't support them.
"Yes, sig, quite a lot of monasticism is founded on the idea that women will do all the work."
Hmmm...I wonder then who does the work in the all-male monasteries? I guess they bus the women in from the projects...
Hmmm...I wonder then who does the work in the all-male monasteries?
The most feminine initiate?
I think the above comments point to one big problem that emerges any time something like this is tried: Who is in authority? On one hand you need some semblance of order, which requires some rules and restrictions, otherwise it's a free-for-all. On the other hand once there is authority, in a "deny-the-self-we're-all-one" situation like this one, there is tremendous potential for abuse.
In the long run, I don't think this is how people were meant to live. I agree with those commenters who say that we should be in the world, living normal lives and yet exhibiting our Christian faith in the open. This is better (and more Biblical) than retreating from the world and cultivating spiritual disciplines where no one can intrude. I'm not sure that this is really spiritual.
Rod, I think your idea is an excellent one: A neighborhood, or a common apartment or housing facility, where many like-minded Christians can live together and yet still preserve their boundaries. That would be ideal, because you could live in a community that strengthens your faith, while still having ownership over your own life, with personal responsibilities rather than a nebulous corporate responsibility. Of course, even this can become too insular, so there should still be the realization "we are not an island to ourselves."
I admit that living in a monastery appeals to me, like the one in "Into Great Silence." I have nothing against people who choose to do that. But I wonder how much they are really fulfilling God's purpose for the church on a larger scale? Maybe for certain individuals it is a calling which should be honored, including for the young people mentioned in this post. But for the most part, I think it is better for the church to be "getting its hands dirty" in the midst of a dark and corrupt world that needs the gospel in both word and deed.
anon evang, the Church's understanding of such people is that they are not at all in "retreat" from the world; the world with all its trials intrudes into even the most placid place, and the swirling silences cause a noise to echo forth which those living in the world seldom hear, and would find shattering: the sound of the soul, not in idealized purity but in all the ugly small pettiness we are capable of hoarding deep within our hearts and minds.
Their work for the world consists mainly of praying for us all; I, with my active vocation and few moments for truly silent prayer appreciate their constant communion with God and intercession on behalf of people like me.
'Maybe for certain individuals it is a calling which should be honored, including for the young people mentioned in this post. But for the most part, I think it is better for the church to be "getting its hands dirty" in the midst of a dark and corrupt world that needs the gospel in both word and deed.'
Two comments here, anon evang. One is that you are correct in thinking that the monastic life is a calling, just like a calling to the ministry or the mission field. It's not (or shouldn't be) something that an individual just decides to up and do without any counsel from a pastor or spiritual director.
Secondly, some monastics do indeed "get their hands dirty." Not all monasteries are strictly contemplative in nature, and even then, the radical either/or division between active and contemplative isn't so hard and fast as we sometimes think.
Goodness, Harvey, do you actually know any monks? I do, and I assure you that they are not motivated by a desire to avoid facing "the responsibilities of living a good life under normal circumstances". The life they live is not easy. They take their duty to serve and to pray seriously. Gandalf says: "The wise speak only of that which they know." Go and visit them. St. Silouan's Orthodox Monastery, in Ben Lomond, CA. They would be glad to welcome you. Then you will know.
Just wanted to say, there are some great monastic communities.
My problem was with one of those quasi-monastic household groups. I think the writings of St.Theresa,the little flower give an accurate glimpse into life in a religious order. And show the opportunities for great holiness in simple acts of kindness.
And as an aside, there are specific orders of nuns who serve monks and priests. I believe the Benedictines at St.Anselm were served by the Joan of Arc Sisters. I still remember those little Canadian nuns cooking, cleaning and doing lots of laundry as we passed by them on our way to class. God bless them. They seemed happy.
Many of these nuns have retired. No doubt worn out. The St. A's monks are probably much more on their own now.
I'm sorry, Scott, but that quote from Gandalf in the middle of your comment is one of the funniest things I've read in a long time. I know you didn't mean it that way, but the image I now have in my head of Gandalf amidst a bunch of monks is really priceless.
I wonder how many monasteries have access to the Mines of Moria?
Anybody seriously interested in how intentional communities work and don't work might want to look into the track record of kibbutzim and moshavim in Israel. What Rod is describing sounds like a moshav structure--preservation of privacy and boundaries, but communal work and culture--as opposed to a kibbutz, which involves complete communalization of all aspects of life. To the best of my knowledge, the Israelis are the only people who have made serious systematic efforts to establish these structures over several generations. Now, of course, the kibbutzim are mostly either disbanding, privatizing, or graying out. I don't actually know how the moshavim are doing. But everybody else (aside from the REAL monastics, of course) has just been dabbling.
I'm all in favor of monasticism sweeping across evangelical America, as long as it includes a Vow of Silence. ;-)
But seriously, how hard is it to meet a neighbor? What were they doing with all their spare time? Praying? DIY home improvements?
What seems to be happing here, is that the emptiness of American Evangelicalism with it's focus on rules and politics has left a large number of younger people dry and seeking more.
These young people often went to Christian schools, or were home schooled, and know all there is to know 'about' the Bible, yet, their spirits yearn for more, something more authentic. They are certain that Jesus and the early Church lived quite a different life than what they see in Suburban mega Churches these days.
While I am part of a more traditional community, clearly these young people are seeking what can only be found by living the Incarnation, by living the Kingdom, by living the Gospel. Not by just knowing.
Okay, I'll betray my ignorance: Who is St. Anthony of the Desert?
Kevin,
Ever heard of wikipedia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_the_Great
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.