The New Monastic Conspirators (by Tom Sine)
Discover what God is doing through a new generation of risk-takers, innovators, and prophets at The New Conspirators. We have asked these young conspirators, who comprise at least four new streams, to share their stories, dreams, and struggles on Feb. 28-March 1, 2008, in Seattle. These four streams include: the new monasticism, the mosaic (multicultural), the missional, and the emergent. I want to share snapshots of these four streams, starting with the new monastics.
Shane Claiborne will be at our gathering sharing about the new monasticism movement and from his new book, Jesus For President. Over the past two decades, a new Protestant movement very much like the Franciscan order has emerged. Like many in the traditional Franciscan order, they have moved into the poorest urban communities in our world, live in community as families and singles, and care for the poor, often living at the same lifestyle level of the poor around them. A number of them have even developed a rule of life. These include groups like Word Made Flesh, InnerCHANGE, Servant Partners, Servants to Asia's Urban Poor, and Urban Neighbours of Hope (UNOH).
In 2005, a group of several hundred primarily younger people convened in Raleigh-Durham to discuss the need for a New Monasticism movement to more faithfully live out the gospel of Christ in our troubled world. As we met together, I was impressed by the desire of these young people to give more authentic expression to their faith.
Their communities include Rutba House in Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina; Communality in Lexington, Kentucky; Camden House in New Jersey; and the Simple Way in Philadelphia. They are also connected to older intentional Christian communities, including Reba Place in Chicago and the Church of the Sojourners in San Francisco. Together, they have published a book, School(s) for Conversion: Twelve Marks of a New Monasticism, and they run Schools of Conversion for those who want to find their own way forward.
What makes the new monastics distinct from the other four streams is that they have no interest in planting new expressions of church; rather, they are creating new forms of community in which they seek to embody the gospel and reach out to those in need. Shane says, "Our deserts are the inner city and the abandoned places of the empire." This stream offers the most robust critique of modern culture, but also has the strongest voice for social justice and the care of God's creation.
Tom Sine founded Mustard Seed Associates in 1989. He has worked as a consultant in futures research and planning for numerous nonprofit organizations and speaks at gatherings all over the world with his wife, Christine. His newest book, The New Conspirators: Creating the Future One Mustard Seed at a Time, comes out next month.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
The thing about Shane Claiborne and the "New Monastics" is that, while their rhetoric and personal political leanings may be hard left, their actions are the embodiment of a conservative approach to the problem of poverty: voluntarism, individual action, private charity, sacrifices willingly made. Everything they do involves minimal government action or taxpayer support. I wonder if any of the New Monastics grasp any of that?
Me and Shane Claiborne have radically different political viewpoints, but for all our differences I would consider him a much more credible speaker on poverty than a John Edwards or just about any other Democratic politician.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | February 1, 2008 12:10 PM
Posted by: Wolverine | February 1, 2008 12:10 PM
Well stated!
If I had poured the same amount of time and energy to get the State to come to the rescue or assistance of a number of groups that I deal with - they would still be in need. That is why I chose to work directly with the organization / ministry to make it happen and just pray that the State and political organizations stay out of my way.
Where did January go???
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | February 1, 2008 12:29 PM
Rod Dreher had a post over on his Crunchy Cons blog that relates to this issue. I thought I’d repost excerpts from it here.
“I interviewed a (white) man from a prominent north Dallas family who a few years ago left behind the business world and moved into poverty-stricken west Dallas to live and do mission work among the poor (primarily Latino in his area, but also heavily black)….He said he started his work believing that government was, if anything, the problem in these people's lives. He no longer does. He says that government does, in some ways, make the problems of the poor worse by enabling self-destructive behavior, there is no question that there is a necessary role for government to play in ameliorating their suffering.
“In the end, though, all the government can do is help on the material end. Cultural renewal has got to come through the churches. He believes that "drive-by" charity is not enough -- that is, while it's good of suburban churches to give money to helping the inner-city poor, real change for the poor will only happen when Christians of means move into poor parts of town and share lives with the poor, and love them.
“I mentioned to him that teacher friends had complained to me that the values of rap music had conquered the minds of their poor and working-class minority students, and it locked the kids in to a mindset that all but guaranteed their failure. The inner-city missionary told me that he agrees, and calls that mindset "ghetto nihilism." The idea that sex, drugs, booze and bling constitutes the good life; that violence is the way to deal with any challenge; that the oppression forced on them by whites, real or imagined, is the only thing holding them back from achieving their desires; and that authority is always to be despised and resisted. If a child comes to believe that this is how the world works, it is very hard to reach him and lift him out of that.
“The missionary -- because that's what he is -- expressed frustration with middle-class people on this point. He said it's very hard to tell the black and the brown kids he works with to turn their back on ghetto nihilism when they look at the broader white, middle-class culture, and see the same materialistic, hedonistic values esteemed, and rebellion against sexual and materialistic restraint valorized.”
The work that people like Shane Claiborne are doing is so much more important in the lives of the poor than any government program or any church “drive-by charity”. The poor must be shown love and a different way of living.
Posted by: Eric | February 1, 2008 12:35 PM
Wolverine -- No one has said that government solutions are always necessary, so it's not really a "conservative" view. That said, it may be true that government has a role to play depending on the specific situation.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 1, 2008 5:12 PM
If I might anticipate an objection to what I wrote earlier, when I wrote about "individual action", that was not meant as a denial of the community aspect of what these groups are doing. I understand that Simple Way is a Christian community and much of the value of what they do springs out of the cooperation and mutual support of a group of Christians.
But individuals still matter. Simple Way may act as a body in a lot of ways, but individuals join Simple Way because they believe in the ministry and want to be part of it. (Or, more precisely, God leads them in that direction.)
I think there is a tendency on the left to assume that because conservatism places a high value on individual initiative and freedom, that this negates the value of freedom. Nothing could be further from the truth. Especially in the realm of law and economics, respecting individual rights makes it possible for people to form new communities voluntarily, based on common values, that are more cohesive than politically-based collectives based on race, class, or arbitrary lines between states and localities.
It is the freedom of western society that makes communities like Simple Way possible. There would be little room for a community like Simple Way in a centrally planned society where individuals did not have the freedom to order their lives as they saw fit. That would be no less the case even if the central planners meant well.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | February 1, 2008 5:26 PM
Rick,
Maybe I missed it, but I can't recall a situation where you advocated less government involvement, at least not in any domestic policy area.
At any rate, what I wrote holds whether you see this in black-and-white or greyscale: the more the government organizes things, the less room there is for communities of choice like Simple Way.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | February 1, 2008 5:30 PM
[As there's another Mark posting a lot at the moment I'm now using the Welsh form of my name.]
Most encouraging response from the self-identifying "conservatives". It looks like there is some common ground after all...
As an old European lefty, I too am distrustful of government (which has a habit of representing the rich and the big corporations more effectively than the poor; of doing whatever it can to marginalise dissenting voices; of conducting wars in our name without our approval; of talking big on environmental responsibility but delivering little; of clogging up good projects with bureaucratic demands; and so on). There has always been a libertarian strand in the European left that starts with personal responsibility, mutual accountability and - at its best - selfsacrifice. The peace camps which resisted the US nuclear war machine on British soil in the 80s were in that tradition. Much of the continuing anti-war / anti-imperialist / anti-globalisation movement remains in that tradition. And much of that movement (at least in Britain) is Christian-inspired, with deep historical roots in the anabaptist movement, or the quakers, or the diggers and levellers, or the primitive methodists, or grassroots Catholic movements.
So it isn't a great surprise to me that Shane and the new monastics combine radical politics with personal responsibility.
God bless,
Meurig
Posted by: meurig | February 1, 2008 5:41 PM
AARGH!
A stupid typo in my 5:26 post rendered an entire paragraph incoherent.
Here's how the post should read. Note single bolded word:
If I might anticipate an objection to what I wrote earlier, when I wrote about "individual action", that was not meant as a denial of the community aspect of what these groups are doing. I understand that Simple Way is a Christian community and much of the value of what they do springs out of the cooperation and mutual support of a group of Christians.
But individuals still matter. Simple Way may act as a body in a lot of ways, but individuals join Simple Way because they believe in the ministry and want to be part of it. (Or, more precisely, God leads them in that direction.)
I think there is a tendency on the left to assume that because conservatism places a high value on individual initiative and freedom, that this negates the value of community. Nothing could be further from the truth. Especially in the realm of law and economics, respecting individual rights makes it possible for people to form new communities voluntarily, based on common values, that are more cohesive than politically-based collectives based on race, class, or arbitrary lines between states and localities.
It is the freedom of western society that makes communities like Simple Way possible. There would be little room for a community like Simple Way in a centrally planned society where individuals did not have the freedom to order their lives as they saw fit. That would be no less the case even if the central planners meant well.
Sorry 'bout the screwup folks. The keyboard will be punished. The author, of course, is blameless.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | February 1, 2008 5:45 PM
Maybe I missed it, but I can't recall a situation where you advocated less government involvement, at least not in any domestic policy area.
It's not that I'm so "pro-government." The reality is, however, that the greatest progress for African-Americans -- my ethnicity, of course -- came as a result of distinctly political means, such as legislation and court decisions, and I don't get to where I am today with merely voluntary efforts. In the South, people actually died so that others could have the right to vote, which is of course political in nature.
I think there is a tendency on the left to assume that because conservatism places a high value on individual initiative and freedom, that this negates the value of community.
In this country, however, it really does. A few years ago I came across the book "Born Fighting," a history of the Scots-Irish in America -- mostly in the rural South -- and it is a very individualistic culture that influences even today our view of government. (Jim Webb, U.S. Senator from Virginia, is the author.) It's one reason change was so slow coming in that part of the country.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 1, 2008 11:47 PM
"the more the government organizes things, the less room there is for communities of choice like Simple Way."
Wolverine
Which is the biggert problem of government , especially big government . Times change, policies that supported one program 40 years ago take time to adapt , if they ever to the different time.
What I see on the horizon is government day care ,preschool . Don't expect the local day cares or churches to be able to compete with Uncle Sam .
Listen to Jim Wallis be interviewed by Michael Medved on Talk Radio today for his book . It was pretty good .
'Sorry 'bout the screwup folks. The keyboard will be punished. The author, of course, is blameless."
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine
Your incoherents is my red letter day , of course my mind is above average , its the transfer to the fingers that cause me the problems . '0)
Posted by: Mick | February 2, 2008 1:00 AM
I think there is a tendency on the left to assume that because conservatism places a high value on individual initiative and freedom, that this negates the value of community. Nothing could be further from the truth. Especially in the realm of law and economics, respecting individual rights makes it possible for people to form new communities voluntarily, based on common values, that are more cohesive than politically-based collectives based on race, class, or arbitrary lines between states and localities.
It is the freedom of western society that makes communities like Simple Way possible. There would be little room for a community like Simple Way in a centrally planned society where individuals did not have the freedom to order their lives as they saw fit. That would be no less the case even if the central planners meant well. W
I think there is an equal or greater tendency among people on the right to assume that because people support a strong role for government in protecting the commons(air,soil, water, health) and the vulnerable in society and to share the costs of community ventures and infrastructure that they do not value individual initiative and freedom. Nothing could be further from the truth. The world is full of successful businesspeople, artists, teachers, lawyers etc. who demonstrate creativity, and freedom of thought and action in every aspect of their lives and deeply value those things. They also recognize that the freedom and empowerment that promotes the abundance in their lives grows in important meeasure out of the generosity of a people who invest in education, wise community planning, health standards and regulations , safe roads and bridges, safe buildings, social security , police etc. etc. They too want these things done as well and inexpensively as possible.
As far as the arguments about central planning, I don't remember who that was, but apart from N Korea I don't think there are any centrally planned economies left and no one aspiring to imitate that one. But lots of central planning occurs no matter whether conservatives or liberals are running things. Why is it ok to plan wars, legal defenses for torture, the gutting of environmental laws that save many lives? Is freedom a good excuse for tolerating the massive loan sharking operation that filled the financial markets with rot.
The idea that good government doesn't make for a better, freer, happier society is nonsense. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Myanmar, Uzbekistan are all supported by the conservative free market idealogues in the White House. I'm sure they see themselves as conserving precious values, but who would choose these places rather than Canada, New Zealand, France, Norway or England with their socialized medicine , low levels of poverty and higher taxes on the rich?
If America as run by conservative values is such a bastion of freedom and self reliance why are we consuming such an inordinate amount of the world's resources? Why are we desperately borrowing money from the rest of the world? Why do more and more people in the world see us as the greatest threat to peace and prosperity.
Posted by: jonabark | February 2, 2008 3:16 AM
"I think there is a tendency on the left to assume that because conservatism places a high value on individual initiative and freedom, that this negates the value of freedom." Wolverine
Nice way of trying to frame the issue but it is anything but an accurate portrayal of what is going on. The left believes that convervatives negate the value of freedom when they support activist government spying on its own people, when they award multi-billion dollar contracts to overseas conractors who run rough-shod over civilians in Iraq, when they appoint to the judiciary judges who support executive in abridging or eliminiating procedural protections such as habeaus corpus. The progressives get tired of conservatives who pay lip service to "freedom" and "liberty" when what they really mean is that they support those conscepts in one realm only- economics.
Posted by: JamesMartin | February 2, 2008 7:36 AM
As there's another Mark posting a lot at the moment I'm now using the Welsh form of my name.
Croeso i chwi, Meurig!
There's a similar strain here in the USA as well, but it's normally well hidden, of folks who are both anti-big-government and anti-big-corporation, who promote the idea of staying put and building a localized economy (as opposed to the ultra-mobility and restlessness typical of American society). Much of it is also inspired by the Gospels. The writings of Wendell Berry come immediately to mind.
The big problem with the libertarian Right here in the USA is precisely that, while they oppose big government, they support big corporations, globalization, "free trade," etc., with their laissez faire economic philosophies. They denounce big government, but at least government is somewhat responsive to the voters. Big Business is theoretically responsive to their shareholders, but since most of the shareholders are fund managers only interested in growing their funds and not in providing a moral and ethical conscious to the corporate leadership, corporations tend to be answerable to nobody.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | February 2, 2008 10:11 AM
"I think there is a tendency on the left to assume that because conservatism places a high value on individual initiative and freedom, that this negates the value of community. Nothing could be further from the truth. Especially in the realm of law and economics, respecting individual rights makes it possible for people to form new communities voluntarily, based on common values, that are more cohesive than politically-based collectives based on race, class, or arbitrary lines between states and localities." Wolverine
I do not think it is conservatism's stress on the individual that is the focus of recent threads. It is our culture's individualistic focus and more specifically Evangelical/fundamentalist focus in regards to salvation that has been talked about.
I also do not believe that Liberals can be labeled as non individualistic in regards to freedom and choice. It is their stress on the reality that certain segments of people do not enjoy either the power or opportunity to make choices equally that has been the rub. To correct that reality certain "freedoms" that are naturally enjoyed by the majority have at times been curbed or adjustments have been made to limit their natural ability, such as Equal Opportunity Employment and other anti discrimination laws.
The power that naturally accrues to the majority and the ability to therefore accrue wealth, automatically ensures that they will have more "freedom". that is not bad in and of itself but it can, and does, limit and oppress others at times.
I sincerely want to ask if the above comment means you have changed your mind on immigration? Does the immigrant also enjoy the right to "form new communities voluntarily, based on common values, that are more cohesive than politically-based collectives based on race, class, or arbitrary lines between states and localities."?
Posted by: wayne | February 2, 2008 10:12 AM
An error:
In my last sentence above, the word should be "conscience," not "conscious."
D
Posted by: Don | February 2, 2008 10:16 AM
Shane is doing great work. He does this not by showing us the "right way" but by demonstrating that there are alternative ways. Ways that are perhaps more satisfying and inherently joyful. This is a lesson each and every Liberal or Conservative could use. I know I can.
Our culture is incredibly misleading in what it tells us is vital and important. I have had a few opportunities to go to other, more restrictive and controlled countries. I always found people who try to live life in ways that are like Shane's group. Sometimes the restrictive nature of the Government actually seems to bring this about, much like Roman persecution led to early Christian communities of worship in the catacombs of Rome. The persecution led to community, not the opposite
The Kingdom of God is always both in us, and around us. No form of government can change that and no political philosophy can form the pathway toward achieving it.
Don, I found your last thoughts on the Libertarian right and corporate realities to be very good.
We deregulated the Savings and Loan Industry back in the Carter Admin. (Democrat) in order to let them earn their way out of the mess that the then current Nixonian (Republican)inflation/stagflation had them in. This in essence led to the repeal of usury laws in most places. The S and L's failed anyway and what we were left with was an unregulated lending market. This in turn has now given us the current Mortgage debacle. All of this was done from a premise that a free market not only could make a profit, but would also self regulate.
Well in this case, freedom doesn't seem to be doing a very good job. All of this "freedom" just makes businessmen look greedy and cruel, while the market place, (you and I the borrowers) look greedy and stupid. Rightfully so.
Freedom is power, Power corrupts, unregulated freedom equals absolute power, etc etc. This is not what power CAN do. It is what it ALWAYS does, with one exception.
I am not saying Shane is perfect but this group demonstrates for us all that there is another source of power. Faith, Joy, Love, Dependency, taking our place with oppressed, sharing their fate, even faith-full and freely chosen Poverty, at least have the capability of not corrupting. (Basically we are talking the Beatitudes here)
All of these have the added benefit of being powerful enough to form communities even when Political power tries to limit and negate them.
Not even the gates of Hell can prevail against these powers. They also have the additional benefit of not needing government regulation.
Posted by: wayne | February 2, 2008 12:53 PM
Hey Don - this isn't germane to this thread but it seems a few of the others have been taken hostage of late. Just wanted to let you know I had a great time interacting with the ELCiC gathering this week on the topic they assigned me "Growing Up Fundamentalist and Why I Left."
Posted by: canucklehead | February 2, 2008 7:12 PM
Cancklehead, good to hear it!
Wayne, it sounds like you are describing what Luther called the theology of the cross. It's not the rich and powerful who God uses to change the world, it's those with no power, esteem, or status. Yes, Shane and those doing similar work demonstrate the Beatitudes in action.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | February 3, 2008 12:31 PM
The progressives get tired of conservatives who pay lip service to "freedom" and "liberty" when what they really mean is that they support those conscepts in one realm only- economics.
Posted by: JamesMartin
Interesting , but I can see that .
A big issue in our liberal controled state is our Governor is proposing check points to nail drunk drivers . Opened a debate up , same principle I believe that you speaing to .
I am not opposed to check points , but I do see why some would find it Un Constitutional . As you do with the Patriot Act or some parts of it .
I see many hard core democrats supporting the Governor on this who regulary tronce Bush and the right for you say here James . .
One of the main reasons that I support conservatism views is freedom and the ability of opportunity I believe it promotes . But your point is well takens James , but historically in context , Bush is doing nothing that past Presidents have done in times of war .
Thta is one of the few ssues I have no problem with , yelling at Congress for Earmarks while keeping his mouth shut when the GOP had control is what tickes me off myself . Your right , economics I guess gets me .
Part of the problem here is I think your exagerating the consequences of what the Patriot Act does , and not enough of us have examined all the issues here without talking heads getting into the conversation and slanting some of the facts .
Posted by: Mick | February 3, 2008 2:23 PM
Big Business is theoretically responsive to their shareholders, but since most of the shareholders are fund managers only interested in growing their funds and not in providing a moral and ethical conscious to the corporate leadership, corporations tend to be answerable to nobody.
Peace,
Posted by: D
It seems it would be in our best interest to tax corporations is a way that promote certain behaviors , that promote tech , re investing , etc . I am againt NAFTA and such . And have no problems with tariffs even .
Also better tax breaks for corporations that give benfit packages etc ? Where I found the left so intrusive is that it sometimes have politicians with no clue about running a business making up regulations that hurt everyone . Especially here where the left has taken over the place . Businesses have fled , insurance companies have gone away , from one extreme to another is what happens . Socialism may work in a socialist country , but we are not there yet and this regulating by ideaology instead of practiability is causing more problems at times .
Interestingly enough Boeing was getting ready to decrease their operation here , and our Governor made a deal I guess they could not refuse . Got attacked by the republican mouth pieces here , kind of funny actually , the lefty governor giving concessions to the mighty Boeing Corporation to save jobs here in Washington State . The republicans getting mad because the Governor is being nice to big business .
Politics just gets weird sometimes .
Posted by: Mick | February 3, 2008 3:16 PM
I had a great time interacting with the ELCiC gathering this week on the topic they assigned me "Growing Up Fundamentalist and Why I Left."
Posted by: canucklehead |
We had a speaker in our community recently who wrote a book about being a Canadian and why he came here to live . He spoke French so only the liberals came to his forum .
Posted by: Jock | February 3, 2008 4:24 PM
Hey Don - this isn't germane to this thread but it seems a few of the others have been taken hostage of late.
Canucklehead (and others):
I have just composed and sent an e-mail to the Beliefnet monitor regarding the concern you have expressed about several threads being held hostage. I hope they will take appropriate action soon to stop the continued hijacking of this forum.
You (and anyone else concerned) might want to do the same. Their e-mail address may be found under the Rules of Conduct link.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | February 3, 2008 7:55 PM
I had a great time interacting with the ELCiC gathering this week on the topic they assigned me "Growing Up Fundamentalist and Why I Left."
Posted by: canucklehead |
We had a speaker in our community recently who wrote a book about being a Canadian and why he came here to live . He spoke French so only the liberals came to his forum .
Posted by: Jock | February 3, 2008 4:24 PM
I'm sorry. I fail to see the connection between my comments and yours. Please clarify if you wish.
Posted by: canucklehead | February 3, 2008 11:51 PM
personal political leanings may be hard left, their actions are the embodiment of a conservative approach to the problem of poverty: voluntarism, individual action, private charity, sacrifices willingly made
I think "anarchist" describes the political leanings of the new monastics far more accurately than "hard left" so there's no contradiction, if that is what is being implied.
Incidentally, I think this "left" and "right" thing is something that people on the political "right" here just can't get over. I think people here commonly placed on the "left" are interested in solutions, be they voluntary/government or a mix of the two or whatever, whereas people on the "right" have to have everything squeezed through their ideological filters first.
Posted by: splinterlog | February 4, 2008 12:01 PM
jim wallis:
you do not have a clue. revival will not come without The Holy Spirit. He is not mentioned at all in your book the great awakening. Middle of the road, compomising, flange- ups caused JESUS to throw up.
you are just as liberal as your buddy j. c.
you could not even give president Bush credit for signing the partial birt abortion ban.
The social gospel will not change the heart of decadent man.
Sorry
Posted by: Jesse H. Pettus | March 18, 2008 9:23 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?