conjectural navel gazing; jesus in lint form

monasticism and church

Coffee is brewing. I do so love the bean. I have been online this morning commenting where I think helpful or encouraging. There have been a few interesting conversations about church, the bounds and growth of it, that I have been paying attention to. Cliff and his Orthodox cohort are hammering out how they understand the bounds of the church. It is interesting to read how they understand the church. I have only piped in to give them encouragement and to be a little silly. I have nothing to contribute to their conversation other than my attention.

In another conversation with Cliff, it became more and more clear to me that I need to start reading "monasticism" when Cliff speaks of the life of the church or the life of the Christian. I had been stumbling over how he understands the church and Christian life. Reading monasticism into it helps. And, as I said in my comment to his post, that is a certain intentional effort for me. I am very protestant in this way. Monasticism still feels like something from the past, a romantic Umberto Ecco spin on Christian history. Even living in a monestary for four years has not cured me of this. I still think of the life of the church as being located in that spired building on the corner of the street....no tall maple trees, no church. That is how much my understanding is influenced by my experience. I truly believe that not growing up with Catholics around, or professed religious around me makes a huge difference in how I envision Christianity. It is not that I am irrevocably tied to this one expression of Christianity, but my initial imagining and experience of Christainity is tied to the Baptist church. We have no monastics. We have no professed religious. We have politicians and colleges. Ha! Individuals like Glenn Hinson will try to reclaim our AngloCatholic roots, but it is an uphill climb to say the least. Many early Baptists rejected monasticism alongside other Protestant groups. Many of us still do reject monasticism. The line is that it is a false "professionalism" of the church. This is the downside to the priesthood of all believers. Though we are now all priests, the priesthood has be brought low. We have not been brought up to the priesthood. This saddens me. I understand it more the other way around. If we are all priests, all monks if you will, then we can express our faith with monestaries and cathedrals and fireside masses singing Byrd or Tallis. We may even employ icons for our use. But as it stands, the baby went with the bathawater and we can still fight with one another as if it were the 16th Century. Depressing. Anyway...moving on.

AKMA has an interesting post on the nature of church models and such. He links to Jordon Cooper's post. I had to chime in since I am deeply engaged in building a church with some other folk. We discussed various models of chruch development when we first started gathering as a congregation. I find them useful descriptors but as guides...I am still uncertain how to emply them if at all. What I like, however, is this quote from Jordon's post:

If there's anything I've learned over the last decade visiting expressions of the body of Christ all over the world, it is that those preoccupied with doing church rarely get to experience body life to its full, while those who are preoccupied with Jesus find church life that is vibrant and awesome.

This is not anti-institutionalism. It is about the purpose of the gathered body. If the purpose is to grown an institution and not the worship of Christ Jesus, then we may have a problem. So there exists a tension. The church development model serves a purpose, but is not an end on its own. The purpose is to articulate the movement of the Spirit. The model should not shepherd the Spirit. The Spirit is the shepherd and we are the sheep.

Posted by tripp at February 8, 2005 06:49 AM