The Anglican Church as the monastery of this age

I've had this thought tumbling around for some time.  It's still tumbling.

Once upon a time a culture collapsed.  I, like many who have a fondness for dates, would suggest the deposition of the last Western Roman Emperor (476) as a nice symbolic event.  The responses to this collapse were varied;  one response was the rise of communal monastic life.  Within several decades of each other, Benedict could form his monastic community, and Boethius could use the figure of Lady Philosophy to drive home an essentially Christian message.  In chalkboard level history, one was forming a community in order to survive the shift in culture, while the other was freed to look around and take from the culture something which could be of service to the faith. 

I propose that there were two unthinkables at work here.  The first is that it would have been unthinkable to Christians only 400 years prior that a community cut off from the world would have been a desirable goal for the church.  The second is that it would have been unthinkable for Christians only 400 years prior to suggest that the figure of Lady Philosophy could play the role of handmaid to the faith.

All of this overly simplistic analysis is merely to say this:  the Anglican Church of Canada as we know it is, I submit, mostly like the monastic community of old, even while it struggles to engage the culture in which it finds itself.  This is not in and of itself a bad thing.  The monastic tradition has been (in either solitary or communal form) a vibrant part of Christian tradition from earliest times.  When the culture shifts, there is a certain comfort in knowing that certain things are being preserved;  that treasures are being safely stored; that at least some of the "things that were" are still preserved in ritual and in particular places.  Yet it was never a simple task to join the community.  In some traditions, the would-be novice had to stand at the door and knock for some days (in order to test his perseverance, we are told).  The community was a "solid" place, to which those who were destined were called.  And once inside, the novice found himself subject of a particular way of doing things, under an hierarchical structure which sought to bring order to a society in which chaos had come to be the norm.  The monastery had walls, it had order.  It was, in many ways, a self contained community.  Perhaps too many of our parish churches have become Benedictine in their construction and outlook:  we are a safe haven against the changes and chances of this fleeting world.  Those who would become members must essentially become novices, and then find their place within the established order.

All of this at some juncture has to do with being a monastic or a missional kind of community, or at least being able to combine the best of both.  When I have that figured out, I'll sell you the book and become a celebrity.

Comments

[JP]

Interesting, Joe. Our bishop was talking to his curates a couple of weeks ago (I'm a curate in the UK) and suggested that the monastery offered a helpful model for thinking about contemporary church.

At the heart of the monastery is the chapel, symbolising worship being at the centre of all that we do.

Next is the chapter house, which reminds us that we should be a community who talk to one another and learn from one another.

Then comes the cloister, which was the place of scholarship and learning.

Finally comes what he called curtilage (four Cs) - the outbuildings of the monastery, where the church engages with the world.

In other words, our external mission is dependent on having worship, conversation and learning at our centre.

That's a crude summary - but you'll get the idea. It's certainly open to criticism (how does the church learn from the world, for example?), but I found it interesting.

[Troy]

Joseph,

How does being faithful to the truth of the gospel figure into your analogy? Monasteries as centres of learning are not necessarily theologically innovative in the way that some parts of the Anglican Church presently are. Orthodox monasteries have done very well, tremendously well as centres of learning, but I don't think very many would call them innovative.

[joseph]

JP - thanks for your comments. The monastic movement underwent numerous transformations over its course of development, and in certain forms it did try to engage "the world" in what was at that point in history a largely "Christendom" culture. I've been thinking about the pre-Christendom forms of monasticism, and working out the relationship between them.

Troy - I think that is where the task of evangelism comes in. I suggest that sometimes we forget about the curtilage - the "outbuildings" as JP says, in which the church intersects with those outside its walls. BTW, the Coptic monsateries in Egypt are doing exceedinly well with new vocations.