Fresh Expressions / New Monasticism

Coincidence or not…there was one significant difference between my proposal and what has become Fresh Expressions…location. I suggested a movement that was located ‘parallel’ to the Church… autonomous but interdependent….rather than authorized and therefore potentially supervised by the Church. As one Anglican Priest commented, ‘in Fresh Expressions there is a real danger that new monasticism will be domesticated by the very institution it may well be meant to rescue.’ LAST BLOG

I decided to do a bit of investigating myself and headed off to the Fresh Expressions website. I was particularly interested in learning in what ways Fresh Expressions as a movement was getting alongside the Church and in particular, in what ways New Monasticism could be regarded as a  Fresh Expression as is increasingly suggested within their literature?

So where to start? Well I love real stories about real people so I clicked on the Fresh Expressions stories page and sat for several hours reading, listening, watching videos of a host of Fresh Expressions: Café Church, Messy Church, Goth Eucharist, Black Sheep, Church down the pub, on the beach, in the street, for the poor, on the bus and the stories go on. People praying, working, crying, laughing, learning, I just loved it. Good on you all you Fresh Expressions I think you lot are bloody brilliant.

After that I read the home page and about us, to get an idea of the ‘self understanding’ of those promoting Fresh Expressions. This is what I discovered and I quote directly from the Website:

1. Fresh Expressions are a response to our changing culture
2. A fresh expression is a form of church for our changing culture established primarily for the benefit of the people who are not yet members of the church.
3. A fresh expression is a church plant or a new congregation.
4. It is primarily for the un-churched – for those who have never been or for those who have stopped going and are not willing to go back to what they experienced before.
5. There is no standard model of a fresh expression of church.
6. The fresh expressions of church are not meant to replace existing forms of church, and they are certainly not in competition with them.
7. Fresh Expressions are not a half-way house, a bridge project, which people belong to for a while, on their way into Christian faith, before crossing over to ‘proper’ church. This is proper church.

Now I guess these statements must be examples of ‘messy church’ and I for one wouldn’t like to tidy them up. But I do have a number of questions and comments to make in regard to 7. This is proper church?

If I could digress for a minute, and muse for a moment on XX Rowan Williams understanding of ‘Proper Church.’  Rather than go into this in detail, here is a link to a recent contribution he made to the debate about the appointment of  Women Bishop’s:

http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/articles.php/2349/general-synod-archbishop-rowan-speaks-in-debate-on-women-bishops

His contribution was specifically directed towards this debate, and he commented on the nature of Episcopacy in the Church, and specifically the role of a Bishop. He unwrapped the relationship of a Bishop with his/her Priests and Deacons who through their ordination are ‘qualified’ to receive the Bishop’s Licence and are delegated his/her authority to preach, teach, heal etc on behalf of him/her and the church. In order to exercise this ministry, the Priest/Deacon must be ‘plugged in’ to the legal and canonical order of the church (….the proper church implied…my comment) 

Now, this appears to me to be a very clear and tidy exposition of a specific aspect of the life of a proper church, and as a person who celebrates 30 years of Priesthood this year, I can confirm, that any attempt to disrupt that order is treated with the utmost caution and if necessary exclusion. (This was the lived experience of many faithful believers during the 70’s charismatic renewal when all kinds of new expressions exploded in the institutional churches and were either excluded or ignored by church authorities…new monasticism included)

So, how is it that these two very differing ideas of ‘proper church’ are co-habiting under the banner of Fresh Expressions?  I decided to dig deeper, and returned to listening to the stories again on the web site.

It was there that I spotted it. I had never seen it before, an entirely new species: a BMO.

I was fascinated by the appearance of a BMO in so many of the stories I read about Fresh Expressions. It is only when I read that xx Rowan had authorised a BMO and created ‘The Order of the Black Sheep’ that the penny dropped:

A Bishop’s Mission Order is a new legal device in the Church of England created as part of the ‘Dioceses, Pastoral and Mission Measure’. It enables a bishop to legally recognise a mission initiative that will lead to a new Christian community – a fresh expression of church.

This is a most amazing ‘sleight of hand’ and whoever came up with it should be commended or censored and history will most definitely make a judgement on this one.

On the one hand, a BMO effectively raises a hand of friendship and a sign of affirmation to various mission and home grown communities, many of whom would have been rejected a couple of decades ago by the C of E.

On the other hand, a BMO supported by Pioneer Priest’s and new narratives such as ‘a mixed economy’  ‘messy church’ effectively gives the church potential full control over every Fresh Expression.

Once again this is either utter genius or complete madness. What seems to be clear, the Church and every Fresh Expression are on course, at some point for either a creative or damaging collision.

Let’s just mull this over together for a minute…..

There are many who argue that the introduction of the BMO in 2007 has accelerated the growth of fresh expressions and given the Anglican Church the opportunity to diversify in ways that were impossible before. Yes, I agree, these are very good points and worth consideration.

However: Fresh Expressions is viewed by many as a visible sign of hope that the Church is having a change of heart and no longer needs to resist or suppress agents of change. Instead it is believed to be in an ongoing dialogue, collaboration, encouraging creative and challenging tensions to facilitate its own transformation. However it would appear that we are in the middle of a Foucauldian type drama, where power and agency are used subtlety to create an illusion of freedom and dialogue when in reality there is none. Fresh Expressions that have a BMO are in fact indirectly subject to the authority of an Anglican Bishop who can withdraw his favour as quickly as he gave it.

This is a seriously prickly subject and I would appreciate hearing the points of view of those of you who read this blog.

So what about New Monasticism?

I am almost afraid to take this further, as I am not sure where we will end up but move on we must and address this comment:  ‘In Fresh Expressions there is a real danger that new monasticism will be domesticated by the very institution it may well be meant to rescue.’

Remember, this was not my comment, but my intention is to explore if there is any truth to it? I decided to speak directly to Bishop Graham Cray the Archbishop of Canterbury’s appointed co-0rdinator  of Fresh Expressions. Unfortunately my introductory emails and Facebook invitations to connect were either lost or ignored.

Next, I decided to get familiar with the Moot Community who appear to be spokespeople for New Monasticism in the UK. The thing that caught my attention most on their website was that they were an ‘Authorised New Monastic Community’ in the Diocese of London.  How intriguing, for one who for many years experienced the ‘exclusion of the proper church’ in regard to new monasticism to see the welcome mat out.

I was fortunate to have Aaron from the Moot community contact me directly in response to a blog about Fresh Expressions. This was followed up by a Skype chat with Aaron and lunch with him and another member of the core community, Vanessa. These are delightful people, warm, friendly, passionate and thoughtful about their vocation. On returning home I listened to a Fresh Expressions in-house pod cast where Ian the core community leader of Moot and Vanessa responded to the interviewers’ comment that he had noticed they had changed and grown over the last couple of years. Their acknowledgement of this, together with Vanessa’s explanation of the ethos behind Serum, her open and inclusive meditation groups, and Ian’s continuing exploration of contemplative prayer, were very warming and encouraging.

Moot are a young, vibrant, inquisitive new monastic community in formation. They need space to explore experiment, embrace some of the peculiarities and particularities of both the ancient and new monastic ways of living and discover what their own unique contribution is. So it was again somewhat perplexing to discover a conversation was going to take place with the Bishop’s Council to see if Moot could be not only authorised but acknowledged as a bona fide new monastic religious community in the Anglican Communion. Should the responsibility for such a decision be placed on the shoulders of such a young community?

Surely, such a conversation if it actually takes place should be in the form of a consultation that takes into account the historical development and formation of a new type of monasticism since Bonhoeffer first coined the phrase in the 1930’s?  Should it not have an ecumenical dimension reflecting the ongoing work of those  who have pioneered a new type of monasticism alongside the ‘one holy catholic and apostolic church’ in her rich unity and diversity. Should it not include members of the older monastic orders, whose wisdom and experience the new monastic community would be foolish to ignore?  Should it not include, communities that have been living the ‘theory and praxis’ of new monasticism in visible and demonstrable ways, in some cases for over three decades?

My only suggestion to the Moot Community is that they might find some wisdom in a anecdote from my monastic mentor the late Brother Roland Walsl when he tells the story of the foundation of The Community of the Transfiguration.

‘There were just two of us when we started out to explore out monastic vocation. As Priests    we were well schooled in the ways of the Church, and knew that in order to travel the monastic road there were many things we had to unlearn and leave behind. Right from the beginning the church, both Anglican and otherwise presented us with a series of opportunities and options that on the surface would justify our existence and even may give us a leg up to being recognised as a ‘legitimate and purposeful religious community.’ Perplexed we went to visit the Abbot of Nunraw to ask for his advice on how to respond to the advances of the Church. His advice was simple, practical and later we discovered, essentially monastic;  Advise your Bishop lovingly but clearly to bugger off and leave you alone until you are clear yourself of ‘what God had got you into and how you live and work it out.’

Before I comment on Fresh Expression / New Monasticism, may I express a concern I have for those dear Fresh Expressions whose stories I read on the website.

They may discover they do not have the freedom ‘within’ the church that they may well have maintained if they had stayed ‘alongside’ the church. As a result, many may find themselves susceptibleto the looming storm in the USA Churchwhich is being fuelled   by the call for insurrection, revolution and the overturning of all institutional expressions of church. This, may I add, is an American problem, rooted in a rather outdated ‘conversation’ between evangelical ideology and the emerging church movement.  Although this is an essentially American folly it will be exported to Europe and once again distract us from own quest to become part of a ‘New Expression of an Ancient Faith.’

I do not believe that new monasticism is or will l become a Fresh Expression they are radically different in their ‘theory and praxis.’ If the conversation does take place between Moot and the Anglican Church and there is an attempt to ‘bolt’ new monasticism onto the Anglican Communion then it will simply implode because the very nature of the monastic ethos is subversive. Sadly, it would also slow down and possibly distort the ongoing conversation between ‘a new type of monasticism and the one holy catholic and apostolic church’ a conversation that is still relatively new. It would very definitely lead to an attempted domestication of a small part of the new monastic community.

One of the most poignant symbols of Irish/Celtic Monasticism is the Wild Goose, and it is to her call, echoing across the centuries that we have responded.  Domestication of creatures from their natural habitat relies upon their willingness to conform to the needs and desires of their new masters and their willingness to adjust to their new environment.

A New Type of Monasticism should not be constrained (Caged) not at the stage when we ourselves are only learning to appreciate our new found freedom to fly. However I think the danger of domestication may well come from within the movement rather than from outside.

rojects and I am friends with some of the folk who are working in them. Most of them are not Anglican but have bought into the Fresh Expressions vision because of the leadership of Bishop Cray. Most of the projects I am aware of would have been previously regarded as the mission of the Church, and most are radical in nature and a great personal cost to the folk involved.

Now, if I can digress a minute. Before writing this blog I listened to a speech given xx Rowan in relationship to the current debate about women Bishops. He spent sometime outlining the nature of Authority, as invested in a Bishop, and that Authority is then delegated to his/her properly appointed Priests who have received his/her Licence to Preach, Teach and Administer the Sacraments in their Diocese.  It was a very clear explanation of the Episcopal nature of Church Leadership as practiced in theAncientChurchfrom its earliest days.

This is my concern…

When you put Fresh Expressions alongside the self understanding of theAncientChurch then you will reach a fork in the road where the two will collide and my concern will lie with the ordinsry

CS Lewis said: ‘Prayer should be neither theoretical nor theatrical’

We have made it our goal that whenever we talk about Émigré; a new type of monasticism: it should never be theoretical or theatrical.

What we share with you on this site we have actually lived, learned and experienced for ourselves. There are no second hand stories or theories; what you see, what you hear, is what you get, it’s just that, no nonsense.

We also stay way from the theatrical because we believe style distracts from the substance of the new monastic vocation. We do not dress ourselves up or new monasticism up in any way if that suggests this is some religious or mystical journey that is beyond the reach of ordinary folk.

We have been living this life for over 30 years and although it has been one fantastic adventure and a first hand experience of the love of God Father Son and Holy Spirit, we have had to take further and more risky steps in availability and vulnerability in our Discipleship to Jesus the Christ, The Son of the Living God. We have found it very tough and at times overwhelming because we are not special people just ordinary folk responding to the call of Jesus.

If you are looking to feel more secure in your present lifestyle then this is not the site for you.

New Monasticism is a vocation not a vacation, once called there is no going home.

My heart, my heart desires him

My heart, my heart desires him

The vision of His beauty has

pierced me deep within

To whom else can I go?

Come away my love

Come away my love

Come way my love

Come away

Andrews/Skinner Émigré ©1986

Gareth Hutchinson

Born in Northern Ireland and brought up in a Christian family, the Christian journey has always been part of my life.  Baptised at the age of 14 and attending church each week my Christian faith was more of a hobby than something which truly sought to impact life in every area.  In 2002 I went off to university to study a BA in Business and Marketing.  Confronted with the realities of student living and the fact that my faith was not central to life, I was faced with a cross-roads…

Either live completely for Christ, or stop calling yourself a Christian.

 

I choose the former and this has been my journey ever since.  Continually foolishly thinking I’ve made it, and then mercifully hearing a challenge from God that I need to surrender another area of my life to Him.

It was in October 2007 that I first came to Turkey to spend time with John and Linda Skinner whilst training to become a minister.  Since then John and Linda have patiently offered me guidance and wisdom as I’ve continued on my journey.  It was John who introduced me to the writings of Bonhoeffer, and the New Monasticism which does not call us to become monks or nuns, but simply demands that Christ be allowed to invade every area of life.  Since then I have worked with John, his family, and a variety of others as we seek to either live completely for Christ, or stop calling ourselves Christian. It is my heart’s desire that the Church (both the organisation and the people) will continue to work out this call within secular society.

Part of this continuing work with John and Linda is coordinating the Émigré School of New Monasticism (E-Connexion).  Over the coming months we hope to bring together a variety of resources which can be used by people, communities, and churches who wish to interact with this way for living.

It has taken sometime to retrieve the letter that was sent to Archbishop Rowan…this is it….it speaks for itself……

Fr. John T. Skinner
St. John’s Place
Langton Hill
Hamilton HM13
Bermuda
441 292 6802
johntskinner@fkbnet.bm

Lent 2004

Dear ++Rowan

We almost met over two years ago when John Lee introduced us via my CV and you offered me a job in Wales. I ended up in Bermuda, and will end my contract here in May.

In another life, I am the founder of the Northumbria Community, joint editor and complier of Celtic Daily Prayer and Celtic Night Prayer. For my sins, I introduced Bonhoeffer’s “new monasticism” back into mainstream thinking, and have spent the last twenty years creating images, metaphors and ideas that give meaning and substance to this alternative way of living as a Christian in our ever changing world.

In 1998 I left Northumbria, and the Community, for Europe, specifically Turkey. Since then I have been developing the Émigré Communion, a body of individuals, churches, communities and associations who share a common vision to contribute to the

“renewal of the Church through a new type of monasticism”.

In July of this year we open our first Centre, in Selçuk (Ephesus) Turkey.
Several others are planned in Europe and the Turkic World.

For the last two years we have been having informal discussions with Dr. Wooding of Lampeter University under the banner of our daughter charity Monos- a society for the continuation of monastic culture.
In 2005, Monos in partnership with Lampeter will host a conference on New Monasticism. We are also seeking to develop an accredited Certificate/Diploma Course with a curriculum that has at its heart, monastic themes, but also covers emerging paradigms.
Our concern is that New Monasticism is rooted in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and a genuine expression the ‘first fruits of the kingdom’ and not become a ‘post-modern theatrical company!’

Émigré and myself are currently facing a dilemma
and this is the reason I am writing to you.

2.

Autocephalous Movement

Last Year, I was approached by Bishop’s from the autocephalous movement. They were familiar with Celtic Daily Prayer and my work on New Monasticism.
I was asked to consider if Émigré would become an Independent Jurisdiction within the movement, and myself a Bishop.
I dismissed this suggestion immediately, having always maintained both in the Northumbria Community and Émigré that members stayed true to their Church affiliations and that New Monasticism was not an alternative Church.
I firmly believe that alternative movements must run parallel with the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
(This has not been easy. Only 20 years ago I was censored by an Archdeacon in Northumbria, asked not to attend the local church, and warned of arrest if I impersonated an Anglican Clergyman. It was only the humility and courage of Bishop Alec Graham who apologized to me several years later, authorized Eucharist ministry at the Community house, that brought me home.)

However, recent events within Émigré have led to a serious discussion with the Covenant Community that affiliation with the autocephalous movement may be a step that we need to take.

First: In recent months I have been approached by two leaders within the House Church Movement, asking about ordination and affiliation within Émigré. They are seeking association with the Ancient Church and Her Creeds. Such an affiliation would mean entry of several interconnected churches.

Second: Central to my own understanding of monasticism, the Church and Her Mission is the Eucharist. New Monastic communities need Priests, men and women who are authorized to hold the ancient truth in their hands that “God is with us”, connecting us with the past and the future.

Third… Some time ago you kindly saw Chris Haggerstone who was seeking guidance, with regard his vocation. Chris has been my “deacon” for over twenty years! He was an early pioneer of the Northumbria Community, and is a Trustee of Émigré. Chris’s DDO has just suggested he meet his Bishop, for recommendation to ABBM. He has a dilemma. He feels very clearly he has a vocation to Priesthood, but feels the context of his vocation is within a Monastic Community. His DDO has the same discernment. However, Chris would like to work that out within Émigré, and after a visit to Turkey, in our new house.
Disclosure of that to his DDO will no doubt end his current journey to his vocation.
We need Priests.

3.

Archbishop backs guerrilla tactics in war on secularism

I wept when I read this report in the Times in January. Twenty one Years ago I sat with Bishop David Jenkins and I discussed with him Jacques Ellul and the Post Christian Society. I outlined a new movement, Secular Monasticism, running parallel alongside the Church, looking at alternative ways of Christian living, ministry and mission. We talked about new religious movements that would fill the void caused by the privatization of Christianity. I was full of hope, anticipating his support. He said to me, that the Church was not ready for this, and the only way he could help was to encourage me to stay in the desert until the time was right.

there are words that slip into the vocabulary of popular culture almost unnoticed: secularisation.. new age.. new physics.. postmodernity..
long before they reach our lips they have made a journey through the recesses of human understanding the power and force of their meaning
has already transformed or swept away former perceptions.
We imagine we can dialogue, find common ground; only then
do we awaken and find the ground has moved from beneath our feet..
our house has fallen…we are internal émigrés John Skinner

My concern in the Christian community, is the misconception, that having caught up with the cultural changes created by previous paradigms we now have a “handle” on the whole thing. This creates an inertia in our true need for metanoia, to have the courage to take steps that initiate the profound reconstruction of the Church in all its forms to participate confessionaly in the emerging culture.

I confided in a former Church Warden that I planned to contact you, and what I would say. He is a very traditional, middle church communicant. I wanted to test his reaction.

He said he was once the Chairman of a substantial insurance company. The natural disasters in the ‘80s coupled by paradigm shifts in the insurance business left his corporation reeling and in need of significant reconstruction. An evaluation of corporate culture suggested that significant change would take a considerable period of time. Long established policies, procedures and executive resistance to change left the corporation too slow to respond to new market forces. Without change the company would breakdown.

He decided a different tactic. He created a Treaty Partnership with small companies, whose small infrastructure left them able to move quickly in the new market. In return for sharing the risks, the smaller companies benefited from the corporate connection with the bigger company. Eventually the corporate culture of the bigger company due to the interaction with the federation of smaller

4.
companies began to evolve and grow, and eventually emerged in the market with a new identity.

“It seems to me” He said “that the church has to make a similar journey”

He suggested I speak to you, something I was already planning to do.

In the Émigré Community we are now in a very painful dialogue trying to find away forward.

The autocephalous connection would give a link, no matter how fragile or enigmatic, to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. It would provide an answer to some of the challenges we are currently facing. Without that link to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, the alternative movement will position itself in privatized religion, taking part in a conversation that has already ended, and more alarming, not even be aware of it.

I am an Anglican. You are my Father Bishop. I have maintained throughout my ministry that we must maintain Canonical Obedience to those the Lord has placed over us, no matter how painful or difficult our journey together, or it all just falls down.

In the dialogue within my community, I have expressed my concern in damaging that relationship.
It has been suggested that we put forward one of our senior people for entry into the autocephalous movement. This would mean we remain a communion who has within its ranks a bishop in the Autocephalous Communion, as well as other types of Christian leaders.

Is there no small step the Anglican Communion can take that would help us to reconcile some of these difficulties? Can we not show leadership and initiative in helping Émigré and those like us to walk closely with the Church, while sharing the risks in our new culture?
Is there no way we can help people like Chris, or the house church ministers who very clearly have vocations, but who just can’t translate them into the traditional mould?
Is there no way we can form alliances with smaller communities and communions who are awake to the present crisis, and are sincerely seeking alternative ways of Christian living that will contribute to the renewal and reconstruction of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Not unlike my Church Warden’s Treaty Partnership.

5.

Forgive me ++ Rowan. Your time is precious. Thank you if you got this far.
I am back in the same place I was twenty years ago speaking to Bishop David.
This time, I hope I am a little more articulate, and in the Northumbria Community, and the Émigré Communion I have something to point too to give a little glimpse of what I meant.

I am afraid you will say “Back to the Desert”, or worse dismiss me as a post- modern wacko. I have taken the risk.

Any response at all you can give would be sincerely and greatly appreciated.

The Lord Bless You Dear Archbishop Rowan.
We pray for you daily in my Parish in Bermuda.
These are difficult yet exciting days.
May God give you courage to follow your heart.

Fr. John Skinner

Comment The Archbishop sent me an informal reply through one of his aids. He said he was sympathetic to the comments made in my letter but felt he was unable to support an initiative like this at this particular moment. However, and it may be coincidental, the following year saw the launch of Fresh Expressions, a movement within the Anglican Communion whose aims and objectives seem rather close to those I first proposed to Bishop Jenkins in 1985..and in this letter to Archbishop Rowan:
‘Twenty one Years ago I sat with Bishop David Jenkins and I discussed with him Jacques Ellul and the Post Christian Society. I outlined a new movement, Secular Monasticism, running parallel alongside the Church, looking at alternative ways of Christian living, ministry and mission.’

Coincidence or not…there was one significant difference between my proposal and what has become Fresh Expressions…location. I suggested a movement that was located ‘parallel’ to the Church… autonomous but interdependent….rather than authorized and therefore supervised by the Church. As one Anglican Priest commented in a recent email to me: ‘In Fresh Expressions there is a real danger that new monasticism will be domesticated by the very institution it may well be meant to rescue.’

• My final question is this: if the starting point for NM movements is a social critique, how should they locate the ‘public square’ with which to engage? It seems that in the US NM communities easily become ‘one issue’ movements. By contrast, could disengagement be a truer expression of the monastic tradition – a kind of ‘passive aggression’ towards the prevailing powers?

John T. Skinner

In 2009 Steve Silvester asked if he could visit us in Turkey to conduct an interview about the origins and development of contemporary new monasticism.
I found Steve’s questions not only interesting but very well informed, and as a result requiring considered responses. To answer this final question I have had to take some time becoming acquainted with New Monasticism USA. I have been helped in this quest by several friends who have read and reviewed several new monastic USA publications. We are also in the middle of recording a new video series which we have called ‘Rock and Roll meets Punks New Romantics.’ In this new series where we examine the roots, beliefs, theology, of A New Type of Monasticism (NTM) which has been on the scene since 1980 and the US New Monastics which emerged sometime around 2000. This final question from Steve gives us the opportunity to get the ball on the pitch and have a practice kick around.

Lets start with what first seems to be a critical observation of US NM:
‘
‘It seems that in the US NM communities
could easily become ‘one issue movements.’

This comment was made in response to an earlier conversation about the relationship between a new type of monasticism and intentional communities.
At the end of the 70’s and the beginning of and throughout the 1980’s we were looking for communities who could give us living examples of what a new type of monasticism might look like. Our search was not limited to Europe and the UK, but we also looked at the USA. In the US we found many intentional communities which had emerged, quite rightly, as a social critique of various political, social and economic difficulties they were encountering as a result of changing cultural paradigms. The major themes of these groups were peace mercy and justice, and their location was mainly on the other side of the law and the status quo. They were champions of the poor and oppressed, anti war activists, supporters of human rights, and political campaigners on behalf of those in society who had no voice. As a result they often came into conflict with the ‘powers that be’ including the CIA, FBI and whatever other agency, government or otherwise had a job or an interest supporting the status quo. Within this movement there are some inspiring characters: Dorothy Day 1897-1980 a journalist, social activist, catholic, who was a co-founder of the catholic worker movement was described as a Christian anarchist and whose life remains an inspiration for the intentional communities movement. Daniel Berrigan Born 1921- a poet, priest, peace activist who was on the FBI’s most wanted fugitive list for his protest and active resistance to the Vietnam War. Throughout the 60’s 70’s 80’s intentional communities sprang up at a very fast rate to address various political, social and economic issues. They also died back very quickly as issues were addressed, dropped or lost. So Steve’s comment is in no way critical, but a genuine question given US NM has been significantly influenced by the intentional communities movement.
Jim Wallis and the Sojourners Community were contemporaries of ours and they were influenced by similar people such as William Stringfellow and Jacques Ellul. However, we recognised that the Sojourners Community were breathing new life and vitality into the intentional community movement in which they were firmly located, and to which we did not feel attracted.

Although we were amazed at what the intentional communities movement were living we decided it was not a way forward for us in regard to a new type of monasticism. This was for two reasons. First, many of the issues addressed in the movement were culturally specific to the USA and the demise of America’s supremacy in world affairs. We had already faced that situation in the UK and in Europe with the demise of our Empires and the continual shame of our Colonial past.
Second, and perhaps more significantly, a new type of monasticism did not emerge as a social critique, as I said earlier in this particular blog:

‘We were aware of being part of a vast crisis in the western human psyche, and those momentous changes and forces that were re-defining our culture. We looked in vain for some explanation of this crisis within the Church. It was this crisis in the human psyche rather than a social critique that drove me into the desert.’

NTM emerged as a response to three profound existential questions that have been echoing in the human heart as a result of the crisis in the human psyche. We believe these questions have their origin in Christ, have urgency about them and are addressed specifically to post Christian Societies: ‘Who is it that you seek?’ (What are you looking for?) ‘How then shall you live?’ (What kind of people do you want to be?) ‘To whom shall you go’ (Who is inspiring you?)

NTM has a significantly different starting point to US NM and as a result the two movements, though complimentary are also conflicting in various areas, in particular in regards to the fundamental nature of what it means to be ‘monastic.’
This is one of the subjects we will explore in our new series: ‘Rock and Roll meets Punks New Romantics.’

So, coming back to Steve’s comment:

‘It seems that in the US NM communities
could easily become ‘one issue movements’

US NM has matured significantly over the last five years and the influence of the peace justice and mercy movements while considerable are not the only focus.
Many of the intentional communities who originally aligned themselves with new monasticism have begun to question if they made the right decision, and if new monasticism really describes their vision and mission. As a result there is still awkwardness and some hesitation to fully commit to the new monastic community. This is proving to be a good thing for all concerned as it is helping both US NM and Intentional Communities focus on their meaning and values.

The crisis of faith in the US Evangelical community has also sent the question ‘How then shall we live?’ to the top of the list in the Christian community. My recent excursions into Cyber Space have left me breathless at the massive exodus that is taking place in, or should I say, out of the Evangelical milieu, followed in many cases by the complete rejection of and hostility to this once eminent Christian tradition in the US. As a result, once outside of the constraints of evangelical thinking all kinds of new dialogues are being initiated regarding what it means to be Christian? Many appear to be fuelled by the dying embers of post-modernity rather than biblical themes with an emphasis that the more outrageous the proposals the more radical and authentic they must be. As the American economy slides towards bankruptcy, and American foreign policy invalidates claims of spiritual and moral legitimacy, the religious institutions that have uphel the status quo will continue to be seriously undermined.

As I have followed the development of US NM from its inception until now I have been encouraged to witness a more comprehensive response and consideration to the nature of the crisis that we in the West are in. At NTM we have been warning and witnessing to the grave dangers we are facing as a church and society for more than 25 years. However the myth of a prosperity (Debt Fueled) both in church and society meant we had an unreceptive audience, which, before the advent of the internet it was difficult to communicate.

Rather than suggest US NM is a one issue movement, I think it is uniquely positioned and has the people, resources, commitment and most of all hope, to carry forward the vision NTM :

To embrace a way for living that will encourage the Community of Christ to have a voice, a vocation, a location in this new age, that has come and is coming. To embrace a way for living that makes us available, authentic and shares the vulnerability of a Society going through a profound cultural transition.

Neville promised he would return to let me know if and how the ‘old dodgers’ in the company responded to their crisis. I was astounded by what he had to say when he did return.
To illustrate and contrast his response I would like to share with you a cartoon story I saw in a newspaper several years ago, followed by a story from my own imagination.

First Story
There was a small boat in a very big and troubled sea. Alongside came a cruise liner who offered to take the crew on board and tow their boat to their common destination. In the cartoon the crew of the small ship is seen boarding the cruise liner looking very pleased with themselves as they anticipate the comfort and security of their new transport home. We are then shown a picture of the giant cruise liner moving off into the distance towing the small boat behind it.
The final picture is a close up of the stern of the ship and a caption of its name; HMS Titanic.

Second Story
There was a large Cruise Liner in a very big and troubled sea. Alongside this ship came a vast flotilla of small boats of different shapes and sizes. They offered the people on the Cruise Liner safe passage to their common destination. The crew and passengers were unable to believe that such an offer was being made to them yet wondered why so many boats of different shapes and sizes were making such an outrageous invitation. That is, until they heard the announcement over the public address system: ‘Abandon Ship.’
The flotilla is last seen going off into the distance with the cruise line passengers safely on board as their prestigious ship sinks slowly and gently into the troubled sea.

If we could let these two stories travel side by side in our imagination, we can then draw on them to illustrate and contrast what happened to the very troubled though prestigious Insurance Company as it negotiated its own troubled sea.

This is what happened.

The Company Directors once again contacted the Management Consultancy and requested their help to negotiate the troubled waters. The response from the Consultancy was simple and straight to the point: “Abandon Ship” or ‘Go Under’ There was no other alternatives.
The majority agreed it was time to abandon ship.
(Now imagine yourself in a troubled sea, what would you choose, an old familiar
prestigious cruise liner or a small untested ship to grant you a safe passage?)

The plan in itself was simple, the acceptance and cooperation to do it was much more complicated. The company would form a network with existing and newly emerging companies whose flexibility enabled them to respond creatively and practically to the changes and challenges resulting from major cultural changes. In return, the company would give their network the right to use their name, brand and reputation. The network could draw on the extensive resources and expertise of the company when developing new products and for pursing new opportunities they had identified themselves. Customer Data bases were shared and marketing and sales were handled both cooperatively and specifically by different specialists within the network.
All of the major operating systems were gradually dismantled and decentralised, greatly assisted by the advent at that time of computer software. Senior Management were encouraged and supported to form their own companies who remained intimately connected
and contributed to the new emerging network.

There were many difficulties that needed to be addressed during the process of growth and
change but two kept reoccurring;

First and rightly expected, many employees of the company felt completely unsettled by and unprepared for the changes that were being proposed. This was expressed in open hostility to sincere concern. All responses were treated openly and honestly, under girded by a genuine belief that each response may contribute to the overall shape of the new expression of the company. Those who felt they needed to resist the changes were encouraged to stick it out and come up with creative alternatives to avoid then having to give up on the changes.

Second, there were members of the network of new companies who mistook interdependence for independent and in some cases used the new relationship to further there own agendas. This often took the shape of openly and consistently criticizing and maligning the older company to bolster their reputation. As the success of the whole undertaking was dependent on interdependence it was agreed by all participants that this type of attitude was damaging to every one and was simply unacceptable.

Over a period of a few years, the older company which was a single, monolithic structure emerged as a network of interdependent and interconnected companies, orbiting around the hub of the restored and reconstructed company.

Neville’s story challenged me to think over once again the relationship between a new type of monasticism and the one holy catholic apostolic church. When I visited Bishop David Jenkins in 1985 to ask him to support and locate a new type of monasticism within the Church I was unconsciously thinking in traditional monastic ways of a religious order attached to the Church. As the years went by it became clear that a new type of monasticism could not be bolted on to any church structure in that way, because the church structures themselves were collapsing. Over the years we had experienced and witnessed churches who had tried to do that and they simply imploded. As we became more aware of the new paradigms that were fuelling cultural changes and social upheaval, it became apparent that a new type of monasticism was in the first place ideally located alongside the church rather than inside.
If Bonhoeffers vision of the ‘restoration of the church through a new type of monasticism’ was to be realised then steps needed to be taken that set things going both at local and national levels. To that end, in 2004 I sent a letter to Archbishop Rowan Williams with a request for some advice and some thoughts on how we might move forward in doing just that.

• In relation to this I am interested in your location in Selçuk. We stayed for 2 weeks in the summer of 2007 in Sirince. As we lived there and visited early Christian sites I was overwhelmed by the degree to which the Christian presence in Turkey was a thing of the past. (While in the UK we did try to make arrangements to meet with Christians in Turkey but realised that this could make life difficult for them.) Is your choice of location to do with returning to historical roots or about living in an undeniably post-Christian environment?

John……

That is a really interesting question, and certainly has got me thinking down new avenues. I was first introduced to Turkey by John Patterson in 1991. He asked me if I wanted to join him on a visit to Istanbul and Selçuk. We were just getting ready to move to the Mother House of the newly established Northumbria Community, so I said no thanks. John was persistent, and continued with his invitation. One day he rang me up, said I should come to Turkey as a tourist, and was I aware that Istanbul was once called Constantinople; Selçuk was adjacent to the ancient city of Ephesus; St. John the Apostle and Mother Mary used to live in the are; and this was the region where the Seven Church’s of the Revelation were located. No, I was embarrassed to say, I had not made the connection that modern day Turkey was the Asia Minor of biblical times. (Over the years I have discovered I am not alone, lots of other folk share my ignorance!)
When John rang, I was in the middle of reading a book by Edward W. Stimson: ‘Renewal in Christ; as the Celtic Church led the Way’ Vantage Press 1979 (Its in our Bookshop!) a history of the spread of Christianity from Asia Minor through the Community of St. John the Apostle, and in particular the growth and development of the Early Irish/Celtic Church. John’s phone call and reading that book were to change the direction of our lives completely, and leave Linda and I inextricably connected to Selçuk where we have lived for six years.

So yes, we came because we were returning to our historical roots, in particular the ancient community of John the Beloved Apostle and Mary, Mother of Our Lord Jesus Christ. We believe it is from these ancient wells, fresh water will flow, bringing repentance, renewal and refreshment to those who are seeking God, and wanting to live as citizens of His Kingdom. Getting here, staying here, has been the most difficult and demanding period of our lives, and continues to be so.

I was interested by your comments about living in a ‘post Christian environment’ and wondered if you had chosen ‘environment’ over ‘society’ deliberately? In Turkey, are we living in a Post Christian Environment? I think the answer is Yes. Is a Post Christian Environment the same as a Post Christian Society? I think the answer is No.

Let me try to explain;

Asia Minor has an ancient history and has been peopled by several civilizations, both before and after the birth of Christ. It is sometimes referred to as the ‘Cradle of Civilizations.’ In the 3C the Emperor Constantine restored and renamed the city of Byzantium; Constantinople (now Istanbul) and proclaimed it the New Rome of the Roman Empire. He also agreed to the ‘Edict of Milan’ 313 which granted religious freedom to all peoples, including Christians. The Roman Empire had rigorously persecuted the Church for nearly three centuries, with a particularly nasty and brutal persecution conducted by the Emperor Diocletian, a former superior to Constantine. This was to be major turning point for the Christian Church. I don’t know about you, but if I was a believer in the 3C with a family I would be praising and thanking God for the Edict of Milan. I would also be encouraged by the opportunities it now presented for the Christian’s to openly speak about the Kingdom of God to all sections of society. At the same time, I would be terrified and bewildered as to the decisions that we would have to make in regard to ‘How Then Shall We Live’ in this persecution free environment. As a result I might well have headed down the desert for a while, to seek God, and work some stuff out!

The Byzantine Church would have a 1000 year reign in Asia Minor, yet all that is left are the architectural monuments that speak of another age, another time, another life, and a small community of Byzantine Christians who support the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I who is the Archbishop of Constantinople and head of the Eastern Orthodox Church. I met Patriarch Bartholomew I, and several other Patriarchs and Archbishops from the Eastern Church which has 250 Million members. I was overwhelmed by the sense that I was in the company of representatives of an ‘Ancient Faith’ and at the same time felt their sense of dislocation from what they still regard as their ‘Ancient City’ Constantinople, more than 500 years after the event.

As you rightly observed during your holiday in Selçuk, the dislocation from Christian memories, language and traditions in Modern Turkey are for the most part complete. In 1453, the Ottoman’s (Turks/Muslim) sacked Constantinople and brought to an end more that 1000 years of Byzantine Rule. The Eastern Church was allowed to continue and keep her lands in return for accepting Ottoman Rule. However she never recovered her primacy and activities of state were transferred to Ottoman rule with recourse to an Islamic rather than Christian frame of reference
In the case of Byzantine Christendom, the threat of ongoing institutional violence, together with a promise of continuance under agreed conditions led to the gradual dilution and eventual dislocation of the Christian memory of that period and led to a post Christian environment. This dislocation was completed during the foundation of the Modern Turkish state.
If we consider the criteria put forward by Jacques Ellul for a post Christian society then it is not a consequence of violence from outside but rather it is an ‘inside job’ a rejection of Christianity from within;

‘The post Christian society is a society of men who are at the point to which
Christianity brought them, but who no longer believe in the specific truth of the Christian Revelation.’
Jacques Ellul

‘The last and most important fact about the post Christian society, is that it feels as if it has experienced Christianity, and left it behind.’ Jacques Ellul

Living in a post Christian society you still retain the cultural memories, language and to a certain extent, the traditions from that shared history. In a post Christian environment the stark reality is the almost complete dislocation from Christian memory and presence. A dislocation that underlines the importance of a Daily Office to retain not only your identity but also your sanity! Thanks for those questions Steve…still got me thinking in lots of new directions. However, you have saved the best question until last, and answering it in the next blog will begin the ‘creative collision’ between; a new type of monasticism and new monasticism USA.

Émigré Ekklesia
working towards the affirmation,
location and formation of a new type of
monasticism in the one holy catholic
and apostolic Church

First, on www.northumbriacommunity.com we will be looking at some historical perspectives with regard to a new type of monasticism and the relationship it has had with the Church in Europe.
Second, on www.newmonasticism.com we will be looking at the most recent developments and initiatives we have taken towards locating a new type of monasticism in the Church.

So let’s begin….
In 2002, Linda and I took a break from our new monastic journey, and we went to Bermuda for a short time so I could exercise a full time ministry as a Priest in the Anglican Communion, and recover from heart surgery.
Bermuda is a tiny dot on most maps, and is located in the North Atlantic Ocean, off the east coast of the USA. It is a very beautiful place, with a turquoise sea, pink sands and warm and friendly people.

Our job was to help empower local communities to ‘take back’ their neighbourhoods that had been over run by drug pushers and users. We solicited the help of the National Government, the Business Community, and listened to the needs, aspirations, and initiatives of the local communities. Two of our local Anglican Congregations who had participated in securing human rights and desegregation in the 60’s and 70’s were at the centre of these neighbourhoods, and though older and depleted in numbers they once again rallied to join this new initiative. Although we had a very supportive Bishop, Rector, and Parish the speed at which the Church could manoeuvre the complexities of the various partnerships and decision making processes was extremely slow and debilitating. As a result we had to form a ‘tactical community group’ that had the authority and ability to act quickly, when circumstances required it.

One afternoon, I was sitting drinking tea with Neville, a friend of mine, a ‘pillar of the parish’ for over 40 years. I was sharing with him the difficulties we were facing with the ‘Community Renewal Projects’ and in particular the ability of the Church to make decisions when faced with new challenges. He responded in a very ‘matter of fact’ kind of way with a story that I thought was both a profound and prophetic explanation of the predicament the ancient historic churches find themselves in today.

He explained that there was an old and well established Insurance Company which had for many decades been a trusted and respected leader in the Insurance Market. In recent years it began to lose its share of the market. As a result its share price began to fall, and its executives came under pressure to evaluate and address what the problem was. They called in a well known and progressive Management Consultancy.

They reported that the company was no longer in a position to respond to the ‘revolution’ that had and was taking place in the Insurance Industry. The company’s products no longer fitted the needs of their customers, and they were unable to keep up with the pace of their competitors, whose company infrastructures had been created to manoeuvre quickly to anticipate and respond to market trends.

Shocked by the results but committed to doing what ever was required to change and adapt to the new business environment, the Executives of the company asked for a plan of action they could execute to introduce the necessary revisions in the company approach and infrastructure.

The response from the consultancy group was devastating. First they concluded that the company culture was founded on the belief that they couldn’t fail. Second, they believed they had overcome change in the past, and this current market situation would pass, they just had to ride out the storm and then they would return to their prime position. Third, this optimism was shared by the majority of senior and middle management, most of who had been with the company throughout their working lives. Fourth, the company still had the appearance and feel of ongoing success providing a false optimism to most employees who were unaware of the real situation, that they were living off their reserves rather than their income. The conclusion from the consultancy was that no change would be sort until circumstances demanded it, until then any discussion would be pointless. As a result they said they were unable to help.

At this point Neville put down his tea cup, reached for his hat and said to me; “You know John, the Church is in the same position as that company, for similar and very different reasons. We have to be honest and humble enough to admit we need help.” “OK, I am off then, we can talk next time and I will tell you how the old dodgers in that Company got on.” He was then off out my front door without another comment.

I sat in silence for sometime. Neville had just explained to me in layman terms the predicament of the historic churches in this new epoch of human history that was now upon us. By historic churches, I mean those churches that make claim to Apostolic Succession and share an ancient history. Neville had put into layman terms what I had been trying to express philosophically for many years: We are in a period of history, a major turning point in western civilization, out of which the historic churches will emerge, bruised and battered, but transfigured into a new expression of an ancient faith.

In the new monastic community any discussion related to the relationship between a new type of monasticism and the historic churches is based on the proposition that the transfiguration into a new expression of an ancient faith is inevitable rather than optional. A new type of monasticism cannot be bolted on to a structure that has been served a ‘relocation notice’ in the new era.

Neville promised he would return to let me know if and how the ‘old dodgers’ in the company responded to their crisis. I was astounded by what he had to say when he did return.
Next time…..

This leads to the next question: is NM predicated on a conviction that we are in a post-Christian age? I am of that conviction, but many within the Anglican Church would query whether post-Christendom has really arrived. If it has, is NM really necessary – or is it really a question of the church waking up to where it now is and becoming ‘more fully the church’ (as Stanley Hauerwas argues)?

John Skinner…

In 1977 when Jacques Ellul proposed we were living in a Post-Christian Society (Era) he was reflecting on the place of the Church in a society undergoing a major cultural transformation. In his mind, the source of this transformation was a period in history called The Age of Enlightenment, which from the middle of the 18C had proposed that human reason should be the primary frame of reference in all aspects of human society. This began a critical questioning of all traditional institutions, including the church, and the result, many decades later was what Ellul described as a Post-Christian Society:

“The last and most important fact about
the Post-Christian Society, is that it feels as if it has
experienced Christianity, and left it behind.” Ellul

Ellul, like many other Christians at that time was trying to understand the place of the Church in a modern world created by enlightenment thinking. I started my theological education in 1979, and the focus of our attention was the role of the Church, and therefore the Priest, in the Modern world. However, there was a major problem: The Age of Enlightenment and the Modern World it had created was itself being called into question, and was ‘colliding’ with another world view, the result of discoveries in Physics in the 1920’s.

Fritjof Capra in his book The Turning Point 1984 presents a convincing argument that we are at a turning point in western culture as we move from a world view associated with the Modern World (Mechanistic) to a world view he describes as the Solar Age (Holistic) It is this ‘colliding’ of two major ways of understanding the world that explains the ‘tremors’ in the human psyche. An earthquake in the material world lasts a few minutes and depending on its size wreaks destruction in minutes, with tremors felt for days after the event. An ‘earthquake’ in the human psyche usually last a considerable time longer and we may only begin to recognise the dramatic changes that have been caused long after the event though we will ‘feel the tremors’.
We felt the first major ‘tremor’ as a result of the collision between the two world views in the 1960’s which caused major social upheaval and dramatic changes in human self understanding. The Hippy movement, though parodied today, started a series of dramatic social conversations about the nature of human sexuality, religious consciousness, ecological awareness, social justice and the abuse of political power.
These social conversations continued through the 70’s 80’s 90’s to the present day, and vast social networks have emerged, supported by new technologies, that have been able to translate the results of many of these conversations into main stream thinking and being.

I would suggest that New Monasticism is in the ‘liminal space’ between these ‘colliding’ world views which basically means we are ‘in an in between place’ or ‘on the threshold’ of significant transforming moments that are emerging all the time, to a greater or lesser extent. It is also in this liminal space that a major dialogue has been going on as to ‘How then shall we live’ in the age that is coming: Ecologically, Economically, Politically, Spiritually, Socially, and Relationally …. every aspect of life is not being left unturned. It is in this dialogue that you become very aware of how faint the Christian contribution has been, although there have been some seriously brave hearts out there! As mentioned before: We have to stay true to our vocation: to respond to the call of Christ: ‘Who is it that you Seek’ and ‘How then shall we live,’ To embrace a way for living that will encourage the Church to have a voice, a vocation, a location in this new age, that has come and is coming. To embrace a way for living that makes us available, authentic and shares the vulnerability of a Society going through a profound cultural transition. It is in this liminal space that new monasticism is posited.

You made a comment that there are folk in the Church who still would question the notion of a Post-Christian Society. That I believe is both true and tragic so I think it may be worth exploring .

Os Guinness in his book: The Gravedigger File uses the work Sociologist Peter Berger to illustrate, in a story, the effects of modernisation on the Christian Faith. One such effect is called Privatisation. (I will try and keep this brief and to the point using old lecture notes)

PRIVATIZATION
This is the process through which modernisation produces a
cleavage between the public and the private spheres of life
and focuses the private sphere as the special arena for the
expression of individual freedom and fulfilment.

Public Life:
This is defined as the rise of major institutions, i.e. multinational
corporations, government departments, social security departments etc. The
public world is largely an impersonal one, anonymous in character and
incomprehensible in its workings.

Private Life:
This is the micro world of the family and private associations, the world of the
personal tastes, sports, hobbies and leisure pursuits.
The private sphere in general, and the family in particular, has one over riding
concern: the personal needs, expectations and fulfilment of the individual,

The Results of Privatisation:
i) It does not represent authentic freedom, freedom in our
private lives does not necessarily effect the public
world. It is only real when the private effects the
public.

ii) It serves as a form of compensation. It makes for
ineffectiveness in public, only to be made tolerable by
the private. For Christians it means that they become
‘privately engaging but socially irrelevant,’ Guinness

Most Churches have there feet still firmly planted in the Modern World, and are still, as Jacques Ellul once commented: “beating the dead horse of the last century’s understanding of the universe, or else is pinned under it.”
As a result most Churches are still located in the Private sphere of life, as was stated earlier: This is the micro world of the family and private associations, the world of the personal tastes, sports, hobbies and leisure pursuits.
The private sphere in general, and the family in particular, has one over riding
concern: the personal needs, expectations and fulfilment of the individual.

As a result, talk of a Post Christian Society may seem absurd, as it did to most Christians I used to share this with 25 years ago. The same applies to talking about ‘Society going through a profound cultural transition.’ when it appears not much has changed in the private world.
My fear, is that the Church will only ‘wake up to being the Church’ when the ‘tremors in our public life’ begin to shake the doors and windows of homes and Church buildings:

“There are words that slip into the vocabulary of popular culture almost unnoticed: secularization, post Christian society, post modernity, new paradigms, new physics, new age. Long before they reach our lips they have made a journey through the recesses of human understanding the power and force of their meaning has already transformed or swept away former perceptions We imagine we can dialogue, find common ground. Only then do we awaken and find the ground has moved from beneath our feet, our house has fallen,
we are internal émigrés.” Skinner 1986

• In the meantime, I am off back down the desert, we are still getting provisions ready for the arrival of a new generation of young people ready to take a new type of monasticism to the next level!

This raises a fundamental question for me. Bonhoeffer talks about finding a new monasticism that would lead to ‘the restoration of the church’. The relationship between monasticism and the church in any age is fascinating. You say that you originally intended to locate new monasticism within the church, but instead chose the desert. I have been drawn towards NM for personal reasons but also because I see the need to provide young people with a means of living an alternative lifestyle while immersed in contemporary urban culture. So my question is whether this is possible within a church context, or whether NM always requires a prophetic distancing from a church that has compromised with the pervading culture. Bonhoeffer, in a sense, did this through identifying with a confessional church that was withdrawing from the compromised state church.

John Skinner

• I firmly believe that the ‘mission’ of new monasticism is intimately bound up with the restoration of the Church. By the Church, I mean The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, in her multiple expressions. I was keen from the beginning to locate new monasticism in the Church. However, the Church at that time did not share the same enthusiasm. In the early days I found myself in constant tension with Church Authorities even though I had given up my Licence. This took the shape of being asked NOT to attend our Local Parish Church: Being asked to leave a Church building in the middle of a conference: Being heckled at a Baptist Ministers Retreat: The list goes on. For nearly ten years our small community (before Northumbria Community) was treated with suspicion and hostility by most denominations. It was the traditional monastic community that came to our rescue. First SSF at Alnmouth, with Br. Jonathan, Br. Colin Wilfred and Br. Ramon. Then Br. Roland Walls of the Community of the Transfiguration who became our long term mentor. I believe the Church was right to test our motives, challenge our position, and discern our intentions. It is the responsibility to the Bishops to guard the flock and maintain the ‘Household of Christ.’ I also discovered that the Monastic Communities who supported us, stood up for us, do not have that responsibility so they could be creatively subversive! When the Northumbria Community came into being I insisted that we maintain our unity with the Church. To assist that, we would not hold services in our Chapel on Sundays, encouraging all believers to go to a near by church. We would encourage people to honour their giving to the Church before the community. We recognised all ministers properly appointed by their Church Authorities and respected them accordingly. As a result the suspicions and hostility diminished. Ministers began to both join and endorse the Community. My own Bishop invited me to resume ministry. Community is a gift of God. Sin has deeply distorted our personalities. What God did with us in Northumbria was to genuinely remove the labels, take down the barriers, open our hearts, until it was no longer possible to identify our Church backgrounds when we met as a community. In Church, I am Anglican, in Community I am. The Call to Community cannot be a conscious judgement of the Church. When the Desert Fathers were asked why they went to the desert their reply sums it all up: “Because I am a sinner.” We are the church, there is no them and us. Back to your question: So my question is whether this is possible within a church context, or whether NM always requires a prophetic distancing from a church that has compromised with the pervading culture.

I believe that if New Monasticism ever consciously attempts to be a ‘prophetic witness’ ‘teacher’ or any thing else to the Church or Society it then announces the failure of its own vocation.
We have to stay true to our vocation: to respond to the call of Christ: ‘Who is it that you Seek’ and ‘How then shall we live,’ To embrace a way for living that will encourage the Church to have a voice, a vocation, a location in this new age, that has come and is coming. To embrace a way for living that makes us available, authentic and shares the vulnerability of a Society going through a profound cultural transition.

In my heart and mind, despite the many bitter encounters with Church Authorities and members in the early days, New Monasticism should be intimately alongside the Church and actively alongside Society as each in our own way seeks to answer the question: ‘How then shall we live’ or ‘What kind of people to we want to be’ in this new era.

A continued and hopefully creative tension between the Church and a new type of monasticism seems inevitable in the future… especially when we start getting up close and personal!
As a Church leader, you could welcome and locate those who are struggling to workout their new monastic vocation alongside both Church and Society, in your own Church Community. As a Church leader, you could share with your colleagues and superiors the value of developing an intimate relationship with ‘a new type of monasticism’ and encourage their involvement. Finally…you could send off those who hang around your Church and communities heralding New Monasticism as the answer to everything….!
I am tempted to comment of Bonhoeffer, but will just leave this to ponder: The Stuttgart Declaration

http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/projects/niem/StuttgartDeclaration.htm

NB. Steve Silvester is an active bridge builder between the Church and a New Type of Monasticism. JS

John Skinner…
• I am embarrassed to say that I know little of the genesis of New Monasticism in the USA. I hope to change that this year and catch up with what is happening. So, at the moment I can’t comment on any of the intellectual influences with regard to new monasticism in the USA. You suggest that new monasticism in the UK and the USA ‘began with a sociological critique rather than an ecclesiology.’ I nearly said Yes to that, so I understand why you would say it. However, critique suggests you look at something from an objective point of view, something you examine, make a judgement about. In order to have that kind of objectivity the event(s) would have already taken place and to an extent have run their course. Back in the 70’s we did not have that kind of objectivity. We were aware of being part of a vast crisis in the western human psyche, and that momentous changes and forces were re-defining our culture. We looked in vain for some explanation of this crisis within the Church. It was this crisis in the human psyche rather than a social critique that drove me into the desert. My first objective was to seek God for an understanding of what was going on, and to follow my instinct, that monastic renewal may be a credible response. This is why Bonhoeffer appealed to me. I sensed he had made a similar yet more demanding journey. Tragically, in his case, a prison cell became the location of his monastic confinement, yet, thank God, it was there he gave birth to some of his most penetrating theological insights. However, the key that opened the door of my understanding came from an unexpected source; Fritjof Capra. Capra is a leading figure in what was once known as The New Age Movement. His first book; The Tao of Physics explored the parallels between modern physics and eastern mysticism. This was a first step towards a revolutionary synthesis of a major paradigm in western science and an eastern mystical religious worldview. (In my mind this remains the most serious challenge to the human community) In his second book; The Turning Point, Capra applies the holistic, systems based approach developed in the Tao of Physics to include important areas of contemporary life, including medicine, psychology, economics, political science, ecology and physics. I would suggest you read The Turning Point before any of the other writers I have recommended to you. While the critique of society is an important aspect of new monasticism I don’t believe it should be the starting point. That said, we can now move on to our social critics. Again, I can only comment on my recommendations, Berger, Ellul, and Stringfellow and what insights I gained from them while developing a philosophy of new monasticism. Here are a few brief pointers that may save you wading through all their works. From Berger I took his insights into Secularisation, Pluralization and Privatisation to suggest the reasons why the Christian myth which had provided the foundations of western culture was being replaced by a series of secular myths. Their source found in the synthesis between western science and eastern mysticism. I was always unhappy with Berger’s Secularisation, and was glad to hear him admit recently that he was too! It was Jacques Ellul who suggested that it was de-Christianization which was at work in our society not secularisation. This was leading to a Post Christian Society. Back in the early 80’s finding Ellul’s Post Christian Society was one of the single most important discoveries for me. It confirmed the importance of the emergence of a New Monasticism at this moment in history. William Stringfellow asked the question: ‘How do we live humanely in the midst of the fall’ which became for me the ‘raison d’étre’ for a new type of monasticism. This question explodes in your ears when you have some understanding of the critical situation we are in at this moment in our history. It demands an answer, and thank God, there are many genuine and positive replies other than new monasticism.
Reading tips:
For Capra; The Turning Point
For Berger A Rumour of Angels The Heretical Imperative
For Ellul; The New Demons
For Stringfellow: An Ethic for Strangers and other Aliens in a Foreign Land

The Émigré Connexion course; Internal Émigré goes into detail with the above. It is also included in my Introduction to New Monasticism.

Émigré Initiatives are everyday attempts to work out in a down to earth kind of way how new
monasticism, relates and interacts with various aspects of life, faith, and daily living. Some of the initiatives are new, while others have been quietly but significantly influencing the shape and form of new monasticism for over three decades.
Join us in further developing Émigré Initiatives to meet the challenge of the rising popularity and rapid growth of new monasticism that is anticipated in this decade.

Some of our group have been involved with Émigré and new monasticism for many years; others have only recently started on the journey. As a result, we can see a problem arising as we each look at the Émigré Initiatives from a different starting point. For example with the initiative Émigré Ekklesia;

Émigré Ekklesia
working towards the affirmation,
location and formation of a new type of
monasticism in the one holy catholic
and apostolic Church.

It was in 1986 when we first approached David Jenkins the then Bishop of Durham to support the location and formation of new monastic communities in the Anglican Church. He wisely declined, suggesting the ‘desert’ would be a better place to start. This was the beginning of what would become an ongoing dialogue with the church(s) and new monasticism which in the early days was for the most part was confrontational, tense, and at times, decidedly unpleasant.

Recently, I had lunch in Izmir, with several of our clergy, and our Assistant Bishop, David Hamid. We had a brief conversation about the relationship between new monasticism and the Anglican Church. He said some very positive things about Fresh Expressions and the way in which New Monasticism was interacting in some sectors of the Anglican Church. It was very encouraging to have such a conversation and to finally see such progress taking place. However the struggle to make such progress began many years earlier in less favourable circumstances.

To help overcome the difficulty of approaching Émigré Initiatives from different starting points we plan to run alongside our discussions both the history and recent developments for each initiative. History will be managed on John’s Blog on www.northumbriacommunity.com and recent developments managed on the blog at www.newmonasticism.com
Please feel free to join us…