New Monasticism - My thoughts on Tuesday

As you may well know I'm hosting the launch of the new Fresh Expressions book on Thursday called, 'New Monasticism as Fresh Expressions of Church'. I'm looking forward to it, the event has sold out and there seems to be a real buzz around the new monastic conversation at the moment.  Yet part of Thursday will be an opportunity to quiz the people who have contributed to the book at their experience of New Monasticism.  

So I've been reflecting on the questions that I may ask them on Thursday night.  I'm largely really supportive and encouraging on the New Monastic conversation, anything that brings together prayer and mission has to be good.  At the same time I've got a few questions that I want to ask and so I thought that I'd share them here first.  (BTW I hope to have an audio-file of the book launch on the blog on Friday)

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'm hoping that the evening also provides an opportunity for the Christian community of Greater Manchester to reflect on new-monasticism in our city.  There is a rich heritage of community engaged missional work, but I'm not so convinced that this has been backed up by a missional spirituality.  I'm looking forward to the conversation that this evening sparks off...

Comments

[Mark Berry]

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.

[Ben Edson]

Mark - you're gonna be ahead of the game on Thurs when I ask these questions!

Best - yes, fair cop not a great use of word there. Authentic is a better word, but it's also a trump card that no-one would argue against. I also think that mission activity does need to be evaluated, it's about making sure that energies are well directed. But i also agree that the language of evaluation is not particularly post-modern but if we do not evaluate then we do not learn.

Again the Icon of God is another trump card that no-one would argue against but what does that mean except this ubiquitous word of 'community'. We're a community - so we're an Icon of God. I think that an Icon of God is what all christians would say that they want to be and so I'm looking to move beyond the rhetoric and engage with some practices. What are the practices of a community that is seeking to be an Icon of God? And I guess theologically how does this make them an icon of God? BTW I'm throwing questions out rather than looking for answers!

I'm a big fan of NM as you know, I think that a movement in mission and prayer is stunning. But I'm also wanting to engage critically with it, partly for my own learning as I seek to explore something in a Mcr context.

[: safe space :]

"What are the practices of a community that is seeking to be an Icon of God?" now that is an excellent and vital question!

I totally agree re. evaluation, but in modern culture "evaluation" has become intrinsically quantitative (see Mission evaluation forms that simply give you boxes in which to enter your "average sunday attendance" or even worse attendance on specific random dates!) I suggest we need to find ways of evaluating which are more focussed on qualitative, even narrative "data". One thing I think is worth mentioning/exploring is that there does still seem to be an obsession with THE answer, this needs challenging - surely there is not one "best" model or even one understanding of icon?

I know you are throwing Qs out, something I think is useful and indeed essential! I do think that if we are going to be both rigorous and generous in this exploration (even shared Pilgrimage ;-) ) then we need to do some work on language and assumptions.