Kevin Rains and Rachele Mee-Chapman are engaging a great conversation asking...what is the role of the (or a) leader in group spiritual formation? I guess I'm wondering what a modern day abbot or abbess looks like... How is it different to how we understand 'pastor'? ie What sets it apart from other titles/modes of leadership?
You know how there are people who talk about a new kind of Christianity, and then there are people who actually are a new kind of Christian? Or how some people write books about postmodern faith and some people live it? (Not that they are always mutually exclusive, but there is kind of a trend there.) Kevin Rains is one of the latter – a top notch practitioner of neo-monasticism and part of the first wave of folks to explore alternative pastoring in the late nineties and early 2000’s. Kevin and his family live with other families, singlets, and pilgrims in an old vicarage and the neighboring re-built convent house. Together, the community acts as caretakers to a crumbling mini-cathedral/artists’ hive; practices the keeping of the hours and the acts of the liturgical year; and runs an auto repair shop. They are well known for humble, re-life discipleship; a warm and open table; and plenty of hookas and beer. In short, Kevin and the gang are my kind of people!
Kevin’s recently taken on a research project as a part of his ongoing quest for higher education. We thought it would be fun to let y’all listen in. You can read our chat here and Kev’s info. exchange with postmodern abbots and abbesses over at his place.
Welcome to the conversation...Here
I find this "emerging" appropriation of the term "Abbot" or "Abbess" to describe a re-styled appraoch to pastoral leadership quite interesting.
Call me cynical, but it strikes me as yet another "trendiness", like discovering candles and icons, etc. I think I'll just start calling myself an "Abbot" because I can. It's that simple in our culture. Appropriate any title or anything you like, even if the way you are using the term (or practice) makes fundamental changes in the meaning and practice of it. The "emerging church" is becoming expert at this sort of thing, creating a pick-and-choose eclectic theology and practice at little cost and effort. Without historical continuity.
My opinion anyway, and I know most who read this will disagree.
Posted by: Antony | July 13, 2006 at 07:30 PM
Brother Antony, perhaps I could have chosen a better title for this post...maybe that's the problem.I know from recent discussions around monasticism, there is a trend to pick the " easy " elements, the things that bearly scratch the surface...a monasticism without vow, a rule, commitment, obedience and discipline.I know in your own journey you take the monastic life serious.
But what intrigued me by Kevin and Rachele's conversation was not the idea we could just peel off and change the labels of pastor to abbot or abbess,but what can we learn from the leadership of the abbot. Is there a difference in the leadership of spiritual formation between the two, and what can we learn from the abbot. I would love to hear your thoughts on this. Pax...Ron+
Posted by: ron | July 14, 2006 at 12:38 AM
Funny thing is we were chatting round our meal about this last night...
one of our 'visions' is... "To seek not to plant A Church but to model ourselves as a monastic core (living by Scripture and with a spiritual rhythm and rule) which lives out as synapses creating a network of node communities & safe/sacred spaces."
... so what is my roles as 'leader' in this? We looked at the term Abbot (obviously) in the sense that the leader is not the CEO who manages the community and is responsible for the direction of each dept. etc. but is the 'guardian' of the community and especially of the vision. i.e. the Abbot(ess) is the metre, who helps the community and individual memners to evaluate specific thoughts/ideas/visions against the core vision. Secondly, the Abbot(ess) is responsible for maintaining the rhtymn and rule of the community (and its Missional dna).
I understand the gripe that people have with EC 'mining' ideas without context... yes we are guilty of that... but my relfection on this particular one is the opposite... we are developing a new vision of a faith (missional) community that does not seem to resonate well with inherited/modern models of consumer church... focussed on a weekly worship gathering, lack of interpersonal commitment and therefore support and accountability, focus on blessing of the members not transforming communities etc. sacred/secular dualism etc. It just happens that the communities that are developing have begun to find the historical resonances they lack in momnastic thought/community in particular celtic traditions... the focus on missional living, community living and structure, sacrificial hospitality, spirituality, multi-sensory, , 24/7 faith! etc. etc. Hence my view is in this case the opposite if Andrew... the models are following the experience and struggles.
Posted by: Mark Berry | July 14, 2006 at 04:08 AM
I have no problem with any and all of us learning from each other. We had better do so, or we are in peril. Monasticism has some deep riches that the whole church can profit from. Ron knows that I would be the first one to say so.
Perhaps my only problem here is with the "self-styling" that I see and hear, as I alluded to in my former comment. It's pretty simple: An Abbot is by definition the leader of a monastic community. If you don't have a monastic community, then you don't have an Abbot, and if you call what you have an Abbot because you adopted a style of doing things that semi-monastic in some ways, then you distort the meaning of the term.
Learn from the Abbots, by all means, but don't walk around calling yourself one when you aren't.
And now I've said way too much and probably made some enemies. I'll shut up now and go away.
Posted by: Antony | July 14, 2006 at 10:56 AM
"An Abbot is by definition the leader of a monastic community. If you don't have a monastic community, then you don't have an Abbot, and if you call what you have an Abbot because you adopted a style of doing things that semi-monastic in some ways, then you distort the meaning of the term."
Antony, I think you've said it prety much the way it is...clarity is a good thing. I think by adopting a style, we've labeled as a Neo-monasticism, "a monastic-lite" and do a great injustice to the real thing.It is the same old story of wanting something comfortable, less threatening...rather than the challenge of an authentic monastic community. Pax Ron...and thanks for your honesty Antony.
Posted by: rron | July 14, 2006 at 01:40 PM
Antony, I don't disagree with that at all. The only thing I would say is that there are and have been many types of monastic communities... we have looked at several in particular Roman (Cistertian) and Celtic... but we could go right back to the Desert Fathers... and of course comes from the greek abbas meaning father. It seems to me that often we only see 'monastic' in the light of Roman models - closed communities with the three fold rule, Celtic, Greek and Coptic monastries were all very different in their own way. Some Celtic monastries were 'co-ed' and indeed Monks and 'Nuns' often married. Monastic communities reflected the theology (and ecclesiology) of their age... many (including us) are exploring new-monasticism (not neo-M) meaning trying to work out what a Missional, committed community might look like... I do not agree that ALL want a light version... quite the opposite, they (we) want a sense of Missional, spiritual community that is deeper, more committed than 'church'... and most are really exploring rhythmn and rule.
Posted by: Mark Berry | July 14, 2006 at 02:13 PM