Category: new monasticism

2009 Anabaptist Conference : New Monasticism

I was at the Anabaptism and New Monasticism conference in Melbourne from 23-26 January. The speakers were all associated with intentional Christian communities and ‘New Monastic’ to lesser or greater extents; the term isn’t one any of the groups had consciously adopted.

I want to share my impressions of four Melbourne communites who spoke (there were others speaking too, with just as interesting stories to tell):

The Community of the Holy Transfiguration from near Geelong are a group of Baptist monks who have been living in community for forty years; that’s a significant achievement to my mind. But the thought of living in community with the same people for forty years horrifies me. I don’t think I’m very monastic. Too easily people say that someone has become ‘like family’; forty years is truly becoming family to each other. To me, it seems they are psychotherapic in outlook: the community is built around a group of broken people trying to recover through community.

Jahwork is a community of five households in Doveton. They seem to have the most similarity to Peace Tree in Western Australia. They have energy and youth and have managed to sustain five households with no designated leaders and working by consensus. They have common meals every night that everyone is invited to. This year they are taking over a cafe.

Urban Seed and UNOH are more structured. I’ve spent a long time being suspicious of ‘structure’, but it seems to me that it could make a big difference to communities being sustainable. At nearly 28, I’m ready for some structure.

Urban Seed is a series of Christian households in Melbourne supporting the work of the NGO. I visited their household in the city and was so impressed. They work with homeless people and the urban poor every day in their drop in centre/cafe. They seem to have negotiated common life really well too and have a good balance between ministry, work, life – without those being too compartmentalised.

UNOH has a board and formal policies about the shape of the common life of its houses. UNOH missionaries commit to one or three years and they truly live ’embedded’ in their neighbourhoods; they must spend eight hours of their day in the local neighbourhood. From what the speaker, Gabriel, said, they have thought through many of the hazards of the mission. Missionaries are given one day a week for personal enrichment – in his case painting; this is in addition to a sabbath day. Their whole family goes to another house away from the neighbourhood for a day. UNOH seems truly effective over the last fifteen (?) years and I’m going to read one of the books by Ash Barker, their founder, because I think they’re doing something amazing.

(Last year I wrote about how radical Christianity needed to learn from the Sydney Anglicans who have a disciplined, designated path for adherents to follow; in UNOH in particular, I think I see just what I was calling for. Whether I would be up for it is another question. But the idea of living in any of these last three communities appeals to me, from my first impressions; I think they’re living the kingdom really well.)

All the communities face the problem of what to do with people outside the core group. There are opportunities for associates to work with them in the projects they are doing in their local communities. But what of people who work nine to five and don’t have time during the day to give? Hospitality fills some of the gaps; the open table policy of some of the groups must give associates a good opportunity to participate. The UNOH community who spoke run Rainbow Church, which impresses me a lot: by creating a gathering that all can come to, they are including so many more people. The world is crying out for churches built on a radical vision of God’s kingdom, gatherings of people even for those who can’t or don’t want to live in intentional community.

Political engagement: embodying the change AND speaking truth to power

Wonderful article by Jim Kumfer discussed last night at the Newbigin Group. (We didn’t get there, having locked ourselves out of the car and house as we were about to leave. D’oh.)

Kumfer uses Yoder’s Body Politics to suggest that we need to combine the approach of Shane Claibourne and Jim Wallis. Shane Claibourne and his Simple Way community are living out the kingdom in amongst the homeless and the poor and the broken. They tend to think the system’s so broken there’s limited use engaging it.

In contrast, Jim Wallis (apparently) is these days spending most of his time in suit and tie trying to influence government policy to make it resemble the kingdom more. (I’ve only read his old stuff when he sounded more like Shane.)

Kumfer looks at how Yoder calls for the church to embody the new social practices as models for the whole world. Thus binding and loosing as peacemaking is a model for the world to use mediation rather than fighting things out in court. As a small example.