Top
Browse > Home / Praxis / New Monasticism: Fringe Christianity?

New Monasticism: Fringe Christianity?

Written by Mark Van Steenwyk : February 8, 2008

Recently, the Boston Globe ran an article on New Monasticism. The article was very good–the best that I’ve read.

I want to interact with one section of the article in particular. I’d love to hear your response to some questions that the article raises. Here is a snippet of the article, with my comments/questions throughout:

Not all of their co-religionists, however, are pleased with these new spiritual ventures. Van Steenwyk received e-mails from friends concerned about his “fringe activities,” including accusations that he’d “gotten into bed with the apostate Catholic Church.” Deborah Dombrowski, along with her husband, David, founded Lighthouse Trails Publishing and Research Project in 2002 to counteract the “infiltration” of evangelicalism by “mystical spirituality.” She fears that New Monastics’ contemplative prayer is no different from Eastern meditation, and their openness to Roman Catholicism is only the beginning: “where it’s going is an interspiritual, interfaith, one-world religion, where it all blends together.”

I have indeed received concerned emails. And I’ve been asked (both explicitly and implicitly) to justify our ministry. Sometimes, when I’m feeling tired and vulnerable, the challenges from friends and foes alike get to me. Most critiques I’ve heard fall into two categories: theological critiques and practical critiques.

Theologically speaking, would it be so bad if evangelicals became more mystical? What are the good things that evangelicals could learn from mystical traditions? On the other hand, what good things do evangelicals stand to lose?  

Practicaly speaking, is living in community, practicing hospitality, and embracing simplicty really that “fringe?” It seems to me that these are all VERY traditional things to do…I think that the last 50 years of affluent living in single-family homes is “fringe.” What should the normative Christian life look like? 

Though many Roman Catholics have mixed feelings about evangelicals who adopt a hodgepodge of watered-down monastic practices and call themselves “monks,” some are supportive of New Monasticism. They view the movement as part of a wider rapprochement between Protestant evangelicals and Rome. A half-century of theological shifts on both sides of the divide - Vatican II’s liberalizing impact on the Catholic Church, and the waning of Protestant fundamentalism - as well as the decline of traditional ethnic resentments and an emerging pattern of political cooperation have all prepared the way. Father Jay Scott Newman, a priest in South Carolina, said that the New Monastic movement suggests a profound shift in evangelical identity.

Hardly any “new monastics” that I know call themselves “monks.” And most of us only use the phrase “new monastic” in light-hearted way. Some may be motivated by a sense of nostalgia, or out of a deep commitment to the Benedictine tradition. To me, the movement is more Anabaptistic than it is anything else. But the idea of living in community where you have common prayer and practice hospitality has become so odd to people that it immediately conjures images of monks–who are the only white people in the West who seem to live in community, embrace simplicity, and practice hospitality.  The phrase “new monasticism” is supposed to inspire the imagination; it isn’t a claim that we are replacing the “old monasticism” or that we are, technically speaking, trying to bring back the old practices. Instead, inspired by the monastic tradition and other praxis-based movements of the past, we are trying to imagine a new way of life a the 21st Century Imperial context. 

To some Catholic observers, it is no shock that evangelicals have begun to feel the lack of organized contemplative life and yearn for a bond with religious tradition - they’re only surprised that it took them so long. “Monasticism has been such a powerful thing in the West and the East for so long that it would be very peculiar if it didn’t, at one point or another, erupt in evangelical circles,” said William Shea, director of the Center for Religion, Ethics, and Culture at the College of the Holy Cross.

“It’s just too long, too deep, too creative a tradition{hellip}You could call this movement ersatz monasticism, but I would hold back and ask, where might this lead?”

The spiritual disciplines movement of the 80s and 90s added spiritual practices to the average evangelical experience.  But most of that stuff was too individualistic.  New Monasticism doesn’t simply scratch the contemplative itch.  There are several other movements that had a hand in preparing the soil for New Monasticism. New Monasticism sprang up at the point where the spiritual formation movement, the neo-anabaptist movement, the social justice movement, and the emerging church movement intersect.

Those of you who are a part of this movement–or at least somehow connected to this movement–what have your influences been? What brought you to the place where you decided to pursue an alternative way of life in community? 

One final question: Where do you think this movement is headed? 

Mark Van Steenwyk is the general editor of Jesus Manifesto. He is a Mennonite pastor (Missio Dei in Minneapolis), writer, speaker, and grassroots educator. He lives in South Minneapolis with his wife (Amy), son (Jonas) and some of their friends.


If you appreciate articles like this, consider making a donation to help Jesus Manifesto pay the bills.


Print This Article Print This Article

for further reading . . .

  • None Found
· Filed Under Praxis 

Comments

Viewing 37 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    I am not familiar with many of these practices. I do feel however, that the church could become a lot more of community. Just like the first church in Acts, and how they did life together everyday, and took care of each other's needs.

    www.thevillagechristianchurch.com
    • ^
    • v
    I visited a Benedictine monastery several months ago. During and after lunch, I had the opportunity to speak to a monk about many things. One of the things we spoke of was how spiritually anemic my particular denomination has become. What we consider spiritual is only a very shallow spirituality. He told me that there were numerous Protestant/evangelical Christians and some clergy who had connected with that monastery to enter in to the spiritual life of the Benedictine order as well as to begin living the Benedictine way of life, which the monk told me is basically nothing more than living out the Gospel in daily life.

    At another Benedictine monastery, one of the nuns discussed with me that the result of Vatican II was that the door of monasticism had been opened to more than just the religious and clergy. It was now open to all Christians.

    I would have never had these experiences if it weren't for a spiritual formation class in which I was introduced to the two thousand year history of Christian spirituality. This is a history that most Protestants and evangelicals do not realize exists. Just as when I was first introduced to historical theology, my introduction to the history of Christian spirituality made me realize that the Protestant/evangelical tradition has robbed many Christians of a connection with their past and the great cloud of witnesses that surrounds the Church.

    I think the submergent (to steal your concept) movement is doing something very important to help Protestants/evangelicals regain something valuable that was lost several centuries ago.
    • ^
    • v
    I love NM and has been affected and inspired by this movement. It is one of the most encouraging things the Spirit is doing in the western world that I know about. At the same time, there are aspects of NM that I am very critical about. It seems to me that this thing is moving in the classical direction of accepting a two-level-view of discipleship. Historically, it has sounded like this: Some peoples are called to live an alternative life, applying the teachings of Jesus in regard to community, wealth, violence etc, but we most accept that most christians will never live this kind of life. The radical life is for the few, the ones called in a special way. This is also the reason why we have to let the institutional church remain intact, with its hierarchy, mammonism and compromises with the state. We still have to be loyal. The life in the communities are not for all, so we need to be faithful to "the church".

    In this area, I feel ("against" Mark) that there is a vast and overlooked difference between the anabaptist tradition and New Monasticism. Here, radical discipleship is for all, and that is why we need "real" churches that consists of disciples. We cannot support the prostitution of the established church. We cannot accept a two-level view of discipleship. And because of this, we need at least some amount of separatism, moving out of structures that opposes the teaching of Jesus and the apostles.

    I would love to hear promoters of NM to explain these things more. Please help me out. Have I misunderstood?
    • ^
    • v
    I understand your point, and I agree that it is something we should be concerned about. But in my perspective, the way of life we're advocating is more "normal" than the way most Christians live. I don't see living in community, practicing hospitality, sharing some resources, praying with each other, being peacemakers, etc. as a "special calling." I see it as the normal Christian life. Most new monastics I know would agree with this.

    I get concerned with your strong separatist vibe, Jonas. I think we need to think long and hard before we divide with the "compromised" church. Whenever I set myself up against, say, Presbyterians or Methodists or Lutherans, I run the risk of failing to love them.

    Prophets don't exist to damn the institutional church, but to call them to faithfulness. If we separate ourselves completely from our brothers and sisters in some quest for purity, we run the risk of falling into a worse sin than that of compromise.
    • ^
    • v
    Mark. I understand that you see it this way. But to me, the important thing is not if different people in this movement has the right attitude. I worry about the structures and practices, and it which direction it leads people. Probably Fransiscus and Mother Teresa thought that more all christians should live more like them (and this is the way Shane has put it up to this point as far as I know). But because of the monastic structure in combination with the institutional church, people just don´t get this message. Even the structures communicate.

    I think it is easier to love people if you are separatist, because the structures are oppressing people. You wouldn´t apply your "not-loving" argument in regard to the state, where most christians would feel that you are strongly separatist (you don´t want followers of Jesus to be soldiers, police officers, president and probably they shouldn´t even vote...). This shows that because of love for people, you have to be against some structures. You can separate from unchristlike practices, but still be building relationships to people. Attacking the powers doesn´t mean hating people.

    I reckon that you recognize that historical anabaptism is definitely separatist. If the anabaptist hadn´t been opposed to the corruption of the church even to the degree that they refused to support "the church", we wouldn´t have had any anabaptist movement at all. A non-separatist anabaptism simply doesn´t exist within history, as I see it. Despite the fact that many has this idea. That doesn´t mean, of course, that we can be separatist in the same way. I don´t want to get into Amish isolation, for example.
    • ^
    • v
    Hi Mark.

    If I can comment on the discussion between you and Jonas, I'm pleased to read you say that the way of life you're advocating is “normal”. That would be a concern that I would share with Jonas.

    However, I'm still tempted to suggest that though it may be unspectacular, it is still specialist, even if just sociologically so. I think that before we could see something like this as genuinely anabaptist it would need to evolve into a new new monasticism. As Jonas said, the structures communicate.

    Jonas, I'm not completely sure what you mean by separatism. I think that, actually, there has always been a non-separatist anabaptism. Pilgram Marpeck would be a good example. So, it might be helpful if you could define exactly what you mean by separatism and how you would see it working our practically today.
    • ^
    • v
    "But because of the monastic structure in combination with the institutional church, people just don´t get this message. Even the structures communicate."

    Certainly structures communicate. But I'm not sure what new monastic structures you are referring to, Jonas.

    I don't think most people who connect with Missio Dei think that we're being "specialists." Every new-monastic community is different. I know that some go to conventional churches and practice "life together" as an additional thing...is that what you're talking about?
    • ^
    • v
    Graham, could you uppack this paragraph more:

    "However, I’m still tempted to suggest that though it may be unspectacular, it is still specialist, even if just sociologically so. I think that before we could see something like this as genuinely anabaptist it would need to evolve into a new new monasticism. As Jonas said, the structures communicate."

    If living counter-culturally is sociologically specialistic, then what is the alternative? Embracing the status quo? I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

    And I'm also not sure what you're suggesting with the need for the movement to evolve before it could be genuinely anabaptistic. Most new monastic communities come out of evangelicalism or anabaptism already--they're trying to embrace a community lifestyle, simplicity, and peacemaking. In what way aren't folks being anabaptistic?
    • ^
    • v
    Mark/Graham. I know "separatist" might not be the best word, I am looking for another one. What I mean is that there are central features of the established churches that are (sociologically) opposed to the way of Jesus, and an inherited result of the process culminating in the fourth century. How the community of the Messiah relates to these structures and practices are a central issue, and we need to avoid supporting practices that leads away from Jesus. Therefore true disciples need to separate themselves from these practices. (Which practices do I refer to? Having a "strong separatist vibe" (Mark) I would include both practices (for example church buildings, hierarchical leadership, baptism without conversion, "worship" without free participation, bad or non-existant church discipline), life-style issues (compromises with mammon, violence, individualism, hierarchy and more) and and "theology" (focus on spiritual realities and dogmas instead of our bodily, earthly existence under God) in the "fallen" church-issues I think we need to distance ourselves from.

    New Monasticism has chosen to appear with a common "face" (the book and the home page and more), which I think was a bad move that leads to other difficulties. And the central stream within official NM seems to be interpreting the movement in line with the older monastic communities. That is also why you need to keep on saying that you are not opposed to the church (see for example the title of Wilson-whatever his name is on the relationship between the communities and the church). Note that "the church" is constantly appearing as something that is outside of the communities that they need to relate to. The communities wouldn´t normally call themselves a church (Missio Dei being a good exception, due to the anabaptist influence?). The communities also seems to be dependent upon the established churches for the administering of the sacraments, and avoids talking about priesthood, the Lord´s supper and baptism.

    I my view, the NM-communites are true churches, but they would to well to understand themselves as "churches" and putting forward there way of life as (roughly) for all. But this would open the doors for even tougher criticism and might close the doors to the platforms of the established church.
    • ^
    • v
    By the way. I know that there are sectarian tendencies within many christian groups that wants to keep oneselv distanced from other people (even/especially some anabaptists), even from true believers within other churches (often by ignoring their existence). This is IN NO WAY what I am opting for by using the word "separatism". Our separatism should be directed towards structures (the powers), and not towards people. As Jesus seems to have been doing (and is still doing). Marpeck might be the best example in the sixteenth century of this attitude, keeping up the dialogue with people everywhere, but strongly opposed to the corrupt practices of the established church (violence, baptism, bad church discipline). By the way, interestingly, "his" group didn´t survive. Maybe we are not called to build a city (institution) that lasts (Hebr 11), but being God´s voulnerous pilgrim people.
    • ^
    • v
    This is part of the problem. There really isn't a common face nor a central stream to the movement. What you are seeing is the publisher's facsimile of the movement.

    There are all kinds of groups, though with many common concerns and commitments. Folks love to lump them all in together.
    • ^
    • v
    Mark. Yeah, but this is not the fault of "the folks". It´s because that people have been trying to marketing NM under a label, publishing a book etc, and there are no voices out there from within the movement distancing themselves from this project, and least none that have reached my ears. It is the same thing with every other denomination-like structure that exists. There are always important differences, but they are downplayed by the hierarchy that seeks a unified movement that they can control.

    Can you relate to what I say about a group understanding themselves as a monastic community or as a church? (Shane for example has said that maybe we don´t need more churches.) Is this an issue for you? And how would you personally feel for example for the chapter in 12 Marks about "humble submission". Would you agree? And doesn´t the whole argument presupposes that "the church" is something that are not present within the community and close related to the structures of the institutional church? And why are many new monastics very "alternative" in relationship to mainstream american society, but not that alternative towards the established way of being church.
    • ^
    • v
    True. It is the "branding" of new monasticism that is to blame. I wasn't trying to blame "folks" in general...just the "folks" that try to sell books and whatnot.

    Well, consider me a voice from within the movement calling for a recognition of greater diversity. I don't want to diminish what Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove or Shane Claiborne are doing. Not at all. But I think they have failed to push against the centralization and branding of the movement when they should have fostered greater diversity at the national level. I am quite confident that they foster diversity at the real, grassroots level.

    But I'm not convinced that the blame should be placed primarily upon them. And I believe the movement as a whole is too "fringy" for it to matter to most people if the movement centralizes.

    Personally, I'm not sure that the 12 Marks are the best way to categorize the movement. I've talked about 8 core impulses in the communities I've contacted. There are all sorts of people who are embracing some of these 8 core impulses that aren't connected with the networks that Shane or Jonathan have been fostering.

    I am all for "humble submission" within the church. We should all practice mutual submission. But I think that they mistakenly assume that their communities aren't churches. This is where I disagree with them. Missio Dei fits every definition of church that matters to me. Sure, we could be bigger and raise funds easier if we didn't call ourselves a church, but we are one.

    There are MANY communities that I know about that challenge the etablished church. Most of them are very anabaptistic. These communities don't get as much attention. Missio Dei being an example. But we are not alone in this.
    • ^
    • v
    Mark, I'm sorry that I haven't time for more than hit-and-run comments. It's a great - and important - discussion that you guys are having here.

    When I mean "specialist" I don't mean counter-cultural. On the contrary, I'd argue that many Communitarian groups have simply placed their culture on top of the current one. I meant instead that the sociological structure of many new monastic communities forces "membership" to be limited to the few, rather than the many. This leads to the situation that Jonas rightly laments where we have a two-tier approach to Christian life and discipleship.

    I'm aware that there is a great deal of variety within the NM movement. In fact, I'm tempted to say that the 'movement' doesn't exist outside of the perception of it. This is where I think that Jonas has an important point to make. Is 'community' of 'NM' enough to distinguish these groups? Does an anabaptist, peace-making, Jubilee community really have enough in common with a Just War advocating Catholic group to be perceived to be part of the same movement?

    I have contacts and friends that have been involved in communal Christian living for more than 2 decades. They have mostly flown under the radar. So, of course, I believe that it is possible and desirable. However, I'm nervous that the kind of attention seen in articles like the one above could actually derail a 'movement', when it should still be deciding what exactly it is - and why.

    I'm not sure if any of that makes sense?
    • ^
    • v
    it just makes sense to me Mark, I mean what more can I say. I feel that coming back to Jesus, looking at the way he lived and trying to model some of those rhythms of life is the way to go. I work with YWAM (Youth With A Mission) and we have some neighbors from Holland. Their 2 year old is always coming into our house and our girls are always going into theirs. The other day Karene asked me if it was OK that Maria Elizabeth, their daughter was sitting by me. I told her that she should always consider everything they do, or their daughter does OK and visa versa unless one of us says other wise. We have and continue to pray with them, challenge each other in the disciplines of life that we have chosen to take on and live simply, because we are YWAMers and that's the way it is. That is beautiful to me.
    • ^
    • v
    Mark. Thanks! What you say sounds very interesting and hopeful. Even though I still have concerns (I agree with what Graham said in his last post), you hand on a more nuanced picture. And you seem to be genuinely aware of the problem, which I haven´t noticed in Jonathan and Shane. (Actually, I would have written about my concerns to Shane, but because of his vast popularity, which he himself has accepted, he has made himself hard to get in touch with.) Where can I read bout your eight core impulses?

    One problem is that when you have created a movement (of course, what God´s spirit is doing cannot be created, but we often try to put it into a box, labeling it etc), it tends to move in one direction and in tends to become more and more controlled by the oligarchy/hierarchy. The only way to opposes the official picture finally becomes to step out from under the umbrella. "NM" is only in its childhood and the future will tell where this is all moving. My feeling would be that "NM" has already moved so strong into the monastic heritage that it will be hard to get groups that relate to the "NM" label to view themselves as churches. This, as always, will cause some conflicts and divisions within the movement.

    My dream is that we could see more churches that were formally independent and avoided connecting to these kind of labels that divides God´s people and creates confusion. In this, I might well be too idealistic...
    • ^
    • v
    There is great diversity in the Church and rightfully so. There is also great division in the Body of Christ and this is a scandal. We have the hope of Jesus' prayer in John 17 that the Church will be unified as a witness to the world; as Christians we need to be living with this confidence.

    Now monasticism, or people living in intentional community, is as old as Christianity itself and even predates the birth of the Church. It is nothing "new" nor did it ever go away. We must take a historical view of the movement because we are only building on what has preceded us. So, is "new monasticism" on the fringe? No, not unless you take a particularly narrow view of the Church, a view formed by living in our modern North American version of Christendom. Unfortunately, this seems to be the dominant view of the media and many of our Christian brothers and sisters. But frankly, what others think of me or new monasticism is none of my business!

    It seems obvious to me that Christian monastic communities are "churches", but they are also part of the Church. I think the reluctance of some to identify new monastic communities as churches arises from their desire to separate themselves from the typical church they see in American Christendom. That may be understandable, but not n