I know there are some churches (mostly Episcopal and Catholic in the US) that have daily morning/evening/noon prayer services like those in a monastery and a few folks even come! I personally would like to see more of this in my own (Methodist) denomination since we already have liturgies in the hymnal/worship book for such services. An emphasis on simplicity really will be a challenge to our Evangelical (and otherwise) churches. I am currently reading Richard Foster's "Freedom of Simplicity" and it challenges (but excites) me quite a bit.

This is exactlly at the core of what emerging conversation is getting at...

It is along the lines of what Robert Webber and others have predicted as the "ancient-future" faith. Being at a Seminary that is in the thick of many things, I can say, I do believe that the church will only find its hope in calling much of its adoption of popular culture a sham and instead reach deep into the wells of the historica orthodox Christian faith to find its bearings!

This also includes revisiting the Christian churches relationship with our Jewish brothers and sisters.

So much of what gets passed off as "spiritual formation" is really only "event attending" that does not move people into counter-culture living, following the way of Jesus.

What if we dared to not be so arrogant as to ignore these tried and true ancient CHRISTIAN spiritual practices???

I guess the biggest sticking point in my mind here isn't the inability to engage with "culture", but finding how you actually engage with people. And while I'm sure that half the problem in my head comes from having images of Monty Python and the Holy Grail come to mind when I think of Monastery, but a church that doesn't engage with the people in the world, is a church that really only exists to please itself.

Great article. I was thinking that the closest approximation most of us have to the monastic life is mission trips and retreats. If you ask people what their most significant corporate spiritual experiences have been, 9 out of 10 will reference mission trips or retreats. We go, we pray, we live close, we get alone with God, we leave behind our cell phones, our work is fulfilling, etc. So we have this (usually) seven-day monastic life and we come back pledging to do more, but our own lives don't work that way. On a mission trip, our only engagement with the culture around us is proactive. We go to share and we do not go alone, but with our missionary friends, all primed and ready and packing bibles. When we get home, we go out into culture alone, tired, and irritable and we fail to be good witnesses of Christ and we lose heart. Then we long to be back on the mission trip.

About a year ago, I was talking with some friends and we asked the question, "if mission trips are our most affecting experiences, then how can we make our church like one long mission trip? That is the question I am trying to live out now both as a pastor and as co-founder of Mission M Possible, which engages students in church planting. Thanks for bringing my head back around to this way of thinking, and for reminding us that those who went before us made a lot of sense.

Lots of time people reflecting on "retreating" reference Jesus and the disciples on the mountain with Moses and Elijah and say, "we cannot stay there, we have to go back to the real world." But what did that mean for the disciples? Long stretches on the road together, talking, praying, studying scripture, stopping and doing meaningful work (like feeding people or healing the sick), and spending lots of time with Jesus. Their life was not isolationist, but was quite monastic and fits your description above. That is something to think about.

This describes well what we hope the core DNA of our church community to be

We don't have to go too far to practice silence and solitude. Or read, meditate, and study God's Word. Or sit and journal our discoveries along the way. Or see our daily life as an offering to a Holy God.

We just need to get out of our comfort zone and make some hard decisions about our undisciplined use of time.

But, oh what joy awaits when we get to that place!

Hmmm, let's see. Submission to authority, silence, simplicity and discipline. Ok, now that you listed the reasons why people would not want to be Christian...

Ah, Kevin; you troubler of Israel. I want a spiritual formation curriculum full of cartoons that sells booklets and CD's for $595.00 to busy pastors.

Definitation of Evangelical Pastor: "A person obsessed with the spiritual condition of others."

Definitation of Jesus: "A person concerned about his own spiritual condition."

What is interesting in your posting, Kevin, is the assumption that physical proximity is an important aspect in the relational side of spiritual formation. It is interesting to me because there seems to be a tacit assumption in much online discussion whether within church circles or out that online relationships or community is virtually the same as those we have with people with whom we are physically present. I believe there is a world of difference between the two, and physical proximity is a more important ingredient in spiritual formaiton that is normally given credit. Why? Because without it we can live in a fantasy world of our own imaginations and spin a life to those online that makes us seem other than we are.
At one level we are talking about the spirituality of proximity and at another, a spiritual geography to roots us in a particular place and time, with real people, and a community of opportunity. I think this is missing from much discussion.

I spent a week at a Trappist abbey once, in Missouri, and it was one of the best weeks for spiritual formation I've ever had. And I spent most of it lying on my back because I have not taken seriously the command of the Lord to rest in him!

After that experience I spent a considerable bit of time reflecting on the lack of a monastic tradition in our Evangelical churches. In our fear of disengaging with culture (we are right to be engaged, I think) we have thrown out all that is good with monastic traditions and we have lost something.

What the Emergent church is saying about living in community is a good counterbalance. I still wish we were had more options to retreat on a regular basis without huge expenses to spend time on spiritual formation.

Regards,

Rich
BlogRodent

The problem with Emergents is that they uncritically assume that Ancient = Good. It's a very romantic view of history - however I'm not sure that Mediaeval monastic life was a great model for Spiritual development. And you could argue that the Reformers felt that we'd tried this method of Spiritual development for 1000 years, and it had been found wanting.
In any case how American to look for MODELS and METHODS for spiritual development.

Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't the "monastic" lifestyle the life that all Christians are called to live, inside or outside of a monestary? Isn't the local church supposed to help facilitate these habits in people's everyday lives? Why does one have to live in a monestary to practice them? Moreover, wouldn't doing so limit the opportunity to reach out to unchurched and unbelieving people? What about the prototypical missionary, Paul? He wasn't removed from the everyday world, nor did he encourage the churches he led to live in that manner, either. He DID live a life of simplicity, submission to authority, community with insiders, etc., but he did this in the midst of the world, not apart from it. Thoughts?

I just caught your article through a daily search I run. I am a cooperator of Opus Dei. I am glad to see that other outside of the Catholic Church find value in the methods and practices that have been so beneficial to me. But with anything in this life the greatest benefits are reaped through the greatest efforts. This is certainly the case in spiritual growth. The truth is that many people do not have fortitude to stick it out to reap those benefts. That is not a condemnation, but more a commentary on the spiritual state of the world today.

Peace

Replying to Graham's comment that the Reformers felt we'd tried the monastic model and found it wanting:

Martin Luther's main concerns with monasticism were these:
--emphasis on righteousness through effort rather than through faith
--elitism, and the consequent devaluation of all other occupations
--required celibacy.
Those issues are not inherent, though, to a monastic-like model of spiritual formation. I still find plenty of righteousness-through-works and elitism in Christians using today's models. True, I don't find celibacy; instead, I find sexual overindulgence, which hardly seems an upgrade.

Henry VIII's concern with the monasteries was that they held land and money he desperately wanted for himself, his political allies, and his army. His greed says nothing about the validity of the model.

The Puritans essentially tried to recreate the monastic model in the nuclear family, replacing the abbot with the father. As J. William Black and Jennifer Trafton write in Christian History magazine (www.christianhistory.net), "The father was charged with the responsibility of overseeing the spiritual life of the family, leading daily devotions, catechizing the children and servants, and being a godly role model." Evangelical ministries like Focus on the Family continue and support that tradition. In today's culture, though, increasing divorce and an ever-increasing percentage of adult singles, means that the "family as monastery" model is available to, and utilized by, an ever-smaller number of people.

Bottom line: I wouldn't count out monastic-like models just yet.

I spent a month at a benedictine monastery one summer and then two more weeks the following year taking classes in spiritual formation. It was awesome! We lived in community with the monks and siters, and learned and lived much. To give this perspective, I grew up Conservative Baptist and was taught to shun anything Catholic. Bad idea. These days, I struggle with integrating that life into my "normal" life. How do I go from being an active sports loving, Xbox playing, rowdy music loving, extrovert, to "monking around" with a more monastic life at home? As for the church life, we are trying hard to adjust our small group structure to incorporate some of these aspects, and learn how to "live out" the faith instead of just learn it. But that will also be a road of it's own.

I listened to an interview by Dr. Milton Rosenberg on "Extension 720" here in Chicagoland (WGN radio) given earlier this year around the time TDVC move was released, and he interviewed a priest (numerary), a supernumerary, and a cooperator from Opus Dei. The interview was enlightening and it sure sounded like Opus Dei had hit on a good mix of monasticism, counterculture, and engagement. Opus Dei is an orthodox expression of Catholic faith allowing for varying degrees of involvement and "calling" within the order. If you are simply called to a deeper faith walk and greater discipline you can be a cooperator, you don't have to take vows of celibacy (as with the monastic vows or in priesthood) and you enter into community where you are at in whatever profession God has called you to. A deeper level of commitment is the supernumerary level, and even deeper is the numerary level (and this, I believe, entails living in the Order's living spaces).

In all levels of commitment, the order encourages participants to pursue their life calling and vocation whether it's as a stay-at-home mom, through workforce employment, or the academic/scholarly pursuits. And in all levels of commitment the members are challenged to view their work as their calling and to be incarnational representatives of Christ wherever they are at, and the members are not required to leave their particular congregation.

All in all, I thought it was a brilliant way to create a counterculture within the Catholic church without become separate from the church and within secular culture without becoming separate from culture.

On the face of it, based on what I heard in that program, it sounds like a model well worth exploring. They may be on to something.

Regards,

Rich
BlogRodent

I am constantly amazed by the attempts to redefine everything under the contemplative / emergent banner. Instead, let's just get serious about discipleship, walking in the footsteps of the master, with a higher regard for Him & His word than for my own selfish desires & ideas. The "monastry" model is just another attempt to reinvent the wheel, & make some money in the process. Until the "emergent" (& increasingly contemplative / mystical) church gets serious about Christian truth claims & stops pussyfooting / dancing with the devil in the name of tolerance (as now ill defined), I prefer to stick to promoting personal & corporate commitment to simple, biblical, discipleship.
Make it clear what you believe about Christian truth claims, and I might be more inclined to listen.

We cannot discount the impact of monasteries -for 1000 years, almost all advance of the gospel happened through monastic orders.

We are seeing a blending of the monastic and the ecclesiastic in our setting - a ministry that acts like a monastery but does not have the retro weirdness attached to it. But more monastic than Sunday-service oriented.

We started out calling it a monastery but have since stopped because of the missconceptions - but yes - monastic style structures for spiritual formation, discipleship, training, outreach, business models, mission advance, arts and new media. ohhh yes.

Good article Kevin...

The difficult task we all face is the tension between retreating for spiritual formation and going into the world. Some become self-indulged in personal growth - others become self-indulged with the world - others with retreating from the world - others with power - and others with obedience.

Given our propensity to self-indulging in every form - it would seem that simplicity and discipline is exactly what is lacking in our culture today...assuming we don't over indulge on that too!

Why so enamored of the Catholic "models"? There is a model that follows yours point by point, it's called the family, and it was initiated by God. And in John 17, Jesus makes it clear He wants us in the world, not out of it. If you want simplicity, why not get back to basics?

It is interesting that you should mention YWAM, as I find it provides a good example of what you are mentioning. My desire, as someone who is part of the mission, is to see YWAM be more intentional about its monastic approach AND be more intentional in embracing those outside its immediate members. Great thoughts!

Peace,
Jamie

The thing about the Family, Janet, is that, for starters not everyone has the benefit of being immersed in family life. Second, the nuclear family is a recent development (the past 100 years or so).

I have participated in 3 separate "retreat" days with small groups of women (5-6)using the Liturgy of the Hours to set the pace of the day. When planning the first one I was skeptical that we could accomplish all that we set out to do and keep to the schedule. We observed the hours from Lauds to Compline and incorporated quiet time, a service project, exercise, rest, play as well as cooking and eating together. To all our amazement the flow of the day went as planned and we felt at peace within and without. We often reflect on the perfect balance of the day and how to incorporate it into the daily life of today's culture.

I find the discussion refreshing, but want to add a more recent historical thought.
It is interesting that some things come around again and again. Back in the 70's many young people seeking to love Jesus fully, gathered in communities to more fully understand and grow in faith. These experiments were not a panacea and sin often messed up good intentions. There was a "headship" movement also that sought to implement some of what has been discussed above. It too forgot to account for sin and often resulted in abuses of authority.
I know of a couple who opened there home to young people to form a community of life and faith. It was refreshing and sweet. However, after many years their own children rose into leadership, decided to become Roman Catholic, and kicked their parents out of the community. Go figure.

An American model in this style is the Church of the Savior in Washington D.C. It has struggled with and adapted the essence of the monastic life to fit the needs of the modern world since 1946.
http://www.inwardoutward.org/?page_id=7

Kevin - Thanks for the response, and for some tough arguments. That was a neat piece of Rhetoric siding me with Henry the Eighth.

I'm concerned with what actually went on in mediaeval monasteries - or ancient monasteries for that matter. They produced quite a bit of corruption alongside spiritual growth - especially when they took on the important social role of saying masses for the confraternities, or the wealthy.

My main concern, though, is with the very idea of providing a MODEL of spiritual growth. This seems very managerial, very American. Perhaps I'm misreading you, and if so I apologise.

In any case, thanks for taking the time to argue back - I've found it very helpful

Kevin,
I've thought overnight, re-read the posts, and I think that I can sum up my concerns with a little more clarity.

1) I don't think that we can develop a simple six or seven step programme to Spiritual growth. The guidance of our Saviour and Paul seem to be much more complex. I think the New Testament teaching on Spiritual Growth resists reduction to a Model.

2) I think that this is because individuals and communities are too complex for one approach to Spirituality.

3) I think that the Monastic model was essentially elitist - it was always viewed as a higher path of devotion. That is why it was and is imitated. The imitating communities want in on the Higher Way.

4) If the Puritans and the Salvation Army are Monastic, so is everyone else. Family resemblance between spiritual practice in two groups does not mean that the different movements are essentially the same. If that is the case, Muslims are Jews, and Buddhists are Hindus.

5) In any case by the middle ages Monasticism was anything but counter cultural - it played an essential role in the culture of the day. The economic success of many of the Monastic communities marked them out not only for calumny, but also justified criticism.

That said I have found your thoughts and arguments very helpful.

Thanks, Graham, for your kind replies. A few thoughts on your points:

#1 and #2: I agree. I would not want to reduce spirituality to any one model. My point is that the monastic and monastic-like models offer value for today.

#3: Yes, the original ascetic impulse, beginning in the third century, was heroic and to some degree elitist. However, that elitism was greatly tempered by Cassian and Benedict, and then even more tempered by the English Reformers (who kept morning and evening prayer) and others since then.

#4: The Salvation Army and Puritans, while not being precisely monastic, are closer to the model than are almost any local churches today.

#5: My read of monasticism in the Middle Ages is that it was both in the culture and countercultural. Which of those two dominated probably varied from house to house and region to region and century to century.

The Northumbria Community, which is rooted in and branches out of the Celtic Christian tradition, is another helpful resource for this conversation. They actually have their hands in two pots, the Celts and Anglicanism, so much so that they developed a resource called Celtic Daily Prayer (HarperSanFrancisco) which includes a daily Anglican style office with Celtic content and many helpful readings from Celtic saints. While they do have a worshiping community in NE England and the daily office that hold them together, companions and friends of the community are worldwide. For some, the community life is their church; for others, it is a supplement to local congregation participation. http://www.northumbriacommunity.org/

I don't know that I have much by way of substance to add to this conversation. But I do have my own experience.

I served as a Dean of Men at Covenant Bible College in Canada for two years. CBC is an intentional community focussed on discipleship for college aged students.

I have served the Church for 10 years and those two years were the only two in which I felt like I was actually a part of something that was really about spiritual formation.

That is my 2 cents.