Category Archives: Monasticize the World

Chapter 1.vi …and not look for those things that outside the monastery they were unable to have.

Those that have no property in the world must not, in the monastery, look for those things that, outside, they were unable to have. But let them have what their frailty requires, even when they were so poor that they could not provide even the necessities of life.

Last time we explored the nature of property, possessions and our relationship with them. The Rule of St Augustine does not immediately require a vow to poverty (the complete disowning of property and possessions) but rather a vow of sharing. The acquisition of wealth is not completely shunned but rather the utility of wealth is of greater import. In the previous verse those who had wealth when entering the monastery were to hand over the ownership of property and possessions to the whole community. This is biblical. The community of Acts, which St Augustine looked to as a model, sold property and gave the income to the community but also shared all they had, not just wealth but the use of wealth too. In the current verse we see the mirror of this: those that come into the community with nothing also are to learn a different way of being.

As I said, last time, I would rightly consider myself middle-class and come from a relatively wealthy family. I grew up in the poorer end of a wealthy town (Royal Tunbridge Wells). When I first moved out I lived in the rich end of a poor part of London (Archway). Later, Sarah and I moved into the poorer end of a rich part of London (Twickenham) and then in curacy we lived in the rich part of a poor area in York. I tell you this because it gives you an indication that I seem to end up in places where rich and poor live literally side by side. In my current context you can have a family with an expensive car and delightful interior design choices living next door to a family who struggle to pay for any furniture. This wealth divide is a microcosm of our world today.

In his commentary on the Rule of St. Augustine, Tarsicius J. Van Bavel OSA notes,

The social problem caused by the immense gulf between the many poor and the few rich is one of the most prevalent themes in Augustine’s sermons. This affluence of the few was the cancer of the society of his time.
Van Bavel, The Rule of St. Augustine, p.54

It is important to place the Augustinian Rule in its global context because it is similar to our own. St. Augustine was writing at the collapse of the Roman Empire as this global super power began to crumble along with all its institutions. With his came a great deal of social unrest across the world. We remind ourselves of what we said previously about times of scarcity and the division of resources. To offer a way of life within this context that sought to bring rich and poor together should be seen as a bold and hopeful act. The community at the Abbey of St. Victor, of which Hugh was one of the first and, arguably, the greatest pioneer of the way of life, along with hundreds of others at the time, rediscovered the Rule at a time of great reform and renewal in Europe.

The purpose of this exploration of the Rule of St. Augustine is for me to begin to articulate my own sense of how this short depiction of a community focussed on being of ‘one heart and mind in God’ could offer the world a much needed alternative way of life, starting with the Church. So far we’ve touched on inequality (see Chapter 1.iv) and possessions (see Chapter 1.v) and in both these cases we’ve discovered that the outward lives only reflect the inward lives and it is there that the work must be done. There is, however, in Hugh’s ‘On the Formation of Novices’, a strong emphasis on ensuring the outward life reflects the inner life. It is both true that “what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this is what defiles. For out of the heart come evil intentions, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander” (Mt 17:18-19) and also, “you will know them by their fruits.” (Mt 7:20). How we act says much about what we think and believe.

This relationship between inner and outer lives is significant when looking here, in this current section of the Rule of St. Augustine, at possessions because the guidelines are about the external issues of who gets what but they also touch upon the internal requirements of the heart and mind. Those that enter the community with nothing are going to benefit from the system of sharing whilst their, previously wealthier, brothers or sisters are going to be disadvantaged. St. Augustine, however, gives to both a challenge: for the rich, to relinquish the power of ownership and for the poor, to relinquish the desire for such earthly pleasures.

So here I come to my main reflection that immediately stand out for me relating to the Church and how we might ‘monasticize the clergy’ and ‘monasticize the world’: how we deal with perceived privilege.

I acknowledge my many privileges. I understand that I am in a certain position due indirectly to my biological reality, as well as my cultural inheritance. I do not believe I can change those things (that is a different socio-philosophical debate which I won’t get into now!) What then do I do with my reality? What do I do as a white person when my black brothers and sisters suffer unduly? What do I do as a male when my sisters are disproportionately fearful of walking alone? What do I do as a middle class person when when my neighbours, both figuratively and literally, are struggling?

My wealth I can use to assist my poorer neighbours but I must be careful that I do not do so from a position of power, as though I give to them rather than rightly share with them. It begins not by me just giving them my stuff, wealth, etc. but rather seeing them as interdependent persons and establishing an economic of mutuality. When I reassess what is valuable, I am more likely to share that with others. This looks like establishing relationship with them on a personal level and listening to their story and their struggles and seeking to walk with them into the reality of God’s Kingdom. It is also requires them to be able to listen to my story and my struggles and seeking to walk with me in to the reality of God’s Kingdom. In the Kingdom of God we both will be transformed and we will both be challenged to change and convert. This verse in the Rule is directly applicable, however, to warn the net recipient of earthly wealth to not fall into the trap that their wealthier brothers and sisters are being taken out of.

The warning given in this verse, to not look to gain that which you previously lacked by the rehabilitation of one’s wealthier brothers and sisters, sounds like the wealthy again do not face up to the pain and struggle they caused by hoarding the resources. Reparations must be paid! St. Augustine, however, has already established that the whole community, whether rich or poor, must change the value system. This re-valuation is enforced by external doctrine and explicit concord in order to change the heart and mind but it must not just be the external but also be of internal desire and understanding. I can imagine it is easy to demand that justice means getting what you deserve; both positively and negatively. What if our understanding of justice is not right?

It is easy to equate justice with the reparation and to desire to see those who have punished unduly to be punished themselves. There is a deep seated desire to see them ‘experience the pain and heartache they caused others.’ This is a natural response. We believe that it will lead us to feel better about it but it never does. The reason forgiveness is so hard to do is because we get a kick out of winning and of being in power. For those who have been robbed of power and agency the only way they see they can achieve satisfaction is by taking it away from those who have. In times of scarcity this is what happens. What this actually means is that the oppressed seek to use the same means as the oppressors to take what they rightfully feel is theirs. ‘To take back control’ is a powerful statement because we all know that is what we truly want. The problem is it isn’t.

What the Rule of St. Augustine offers us is a way of life that explicitly mitigates against the perpetuation of a broken system. I often state that the familiar saying, ‘one must fight fire with fire’ is absurd; it just creates more fire. Alternatives, however, sound to the oppressed and the poor not enough to satisfy their understandable and historical hurt and pain. Forgiveness only sounds worthwhile to the perpetrators and not the victims. That is, unless, we reassess our values and change the rules of the game. What if, for example, my privilege is not seen as privilege? What if we re-define the status I am in and say that the benefits I have received due to my biology are not benefits, are not things to be lauded and desired? What if we say wealth and possessions are not the highest goal? What if the power wielded by those in authority is not what is good for us?

Briefly, I want to say something about the Black Lives Matter protests taking place across the world in response to the devastating and ongoing issues of race within the U.S.A. This particular issue is not just about race and to suggest that it is is to ignore the cause and therefore avoid the solution. It is about the wider, underlying issue, at the very heart of the American ideal (and perhaps the wider Western system): individualised capitalism. Within the very founding documents of the U.S.A. there is an explicit value of individual rights. These rights of ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ are put front and centre. Their shared way of life is based on a principle that they are owed unalienable rights. Everyone deserves equal; equal prosperity, equal power, equal privilege. We return, again, to equal outcomes vs. equal opportunity and the confusion between the two. Black Live Matters is important because it could be about the equality of respect under God, unfortunately, at this point in the history of the American Empire, it so often becomes about economics and power.

The current system perpetuates a zero sum game where one’s benefits equates to others’ losses. At this time of perceived scarcity, or at least where the narrative is one of scarcity, the ownership of the limited resources becomes the source of value. When the value system suggests that you are owed life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and they are all based on the ownership of resources and power you begin to fight for those rights particularly if they are God-given. In this social narrative it is easy to adopt the neo-Marxist worldview that interprets reality as an eternal struggle between the haves and the have nots. The power games that are being enacted at the moment rely upon the division of the world into oppressed and oppressors.

Focusing on identity, for short term political gain, is a zero sum game. Identity is the last refuge of political mediocrity. Parties, which are bankrupt in ideology and short on demonstrated success, are the ones most likely to use “traditional identity” as a means to gain political support.
Sanjeev Ahluwalia, “Avoid zero-sum political games”, The Times of India, February 11, 2014, found on https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/opinion-india/avoid-zero-sum-political-games/

What if this narrative is wrong? What if the world is not like that? What if the world is full of people who are all hurting and are in need of love and respect? Why is there so much blame, cynicism, guilt and shame being thrown around? Why is everyone claiming oppression upon themselves and others? Why is there so much protest and demand to be heard and why is it that everyone thinks that those other people are to blame for the problems we face? What if we all just pause, for a moment, breathe, and admit we all want unity? That is, of course, if we do want unity, which I don’t think we all do… How we avoid a zero sum politics is a challenge and is the work of us all to discover the solution. We cannot do this whilst still playing a zero sum game; it requires, therefore, agents who choose to play by different rules and I would suggest that a community that lives out a different set of values would be good brokers of conversation within the public square.

The idea of community ought never to lead us to equate people with one another, and to leave it at that. Uniformity reduces people to ciphers and effectively means the destruction of personality. Love, on the other hand, respects what is characteristic of each person with his different needs and gifts, his own irreplaceable temperament and character.
Van Bavel, The Rule of St. Augustine, p.53

In this current climate, my privilege often means only unresolvable guilt and shame for being who I am biologically. That is because my position, status, possessions, etc., all that divides me from others, those with less, becomes my identity and I am seen as only having these things because others do not. The Rule of St. Augustine encourages, like the Bible, to review that understanding. What if my possession of material objects of perceived value and indeed of socio-political power was not seen as mine, individually but ours, collectively? What if more value was given to being in greater relationship with others and contributions to the wider social functionality.

To return to Black Lives Matters, no change will come about when we all just demand equality within the current political game because it is zero sum and so the ‘opponents’ whoever the protestors have united against as their common enemy are forced to compete and enact the combative politics which will see only violence perpetuated. The change will only come when the rules of the game are changed and that will involve, as St. Augustine lived out, Hugh of St. Victor encouraged, we begin to live under a different Rule. A Rule where the explicit value is to be of one heart and mind in God. To seek the benefit of the community above one’s own individual pursuit of happiness. To believe that my value is received when it is given to the wider community and no way else. That I should seek to receive what is needed but not at the expense of a brother’s or sister’s needs. My frailty is the responsibility of the whole community just as theirs is mine. So if a brother or sister suffers, I suffer, and when a brother or sister is privileged, I am privileged.

It is of no use, I do not think, for me to perpetuate the zero sum game. It is not useful for me to force others to hand over power by making them feel guilty or shamed because they will merely hold tighter to what is clearly the most valuable thing in our society. Change comes when we follow in the footsteps of Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela and, ultimately, Jesus Christ himself, who lived a different narrative and chose to seek first the Kingdom of God where all are invited, rich and poor, strong and weak, male and female, to work together to see that sharing resources and power is not zero sum and that there’s plenty to go around. This will, of course mean that the rich and powerful will need to give up ownership (and they will need gentle but persistent love to do that) but it also requires those that lack to not fall foul of the self same temptation.

This all requires a new social narrative to be told, one where the pursuit of happiness is given a communal focus and happiness is properly understood. That happiness cannot be rooted in individual earthly desires, be they possessions or power. Taking St. Augustine’s own definition,

For what do we call enjoyment but having at hand the objects of love? And no one can be happy who does not enjoy what is man’s chief good, nor is there any one who enjoys this who is not happy. We must then have at hand our chief good, if we think of living happily…Such, then, being the chief good, it must be something which cannot be lost against the will. For no one can feel confident regarding a good which he knows can be taken from him, although he wishes to keep and cherish it. But if a man feels no confidence regarding the good which he enjoys, how can he be happy while in such fear of losing it?
St Augustine, Of the Morals of the Catholic Church, 3.iv-v.

Augustine goes on to say that our chief good is not earthly, for that can diminish and be taken from us, for it is limited and finite. Our chief good is to be in relation to God for He is infinite and and eternal.

For the sweetness proceeding from God has in itself a certain wonderful and limitless abundance; so that these words have been spoken concerning it: “Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man, what things God hath prepared for them that love him” (1 Cor. 2:9) Whence again it is written: “I shall be satisfied when thy glory shall appear.” (Ps. 16:15) This kind of satiety must be our happiness.
Hugh of St. Victor, Explanation, p.15

Chapter 1.v Be willing to hold all things in common…

Let those that have property in the world, as they enter the monastery, be prepared to willingly hold it all in common.

It would be amiss of me not to mention, for those of you who have not been reading the poetry I have published over the last two months, that on Friday 6th July my wife, Sarah, died. Words still cannot express the devastation that I am still experiencing. The vast abyss that now characterises my inner life and the challenges I face in the chaos of my external life is exhausting and often overwhelming. I have had no inclination to do anything and continue to struggle to know which direction to move in. Slowly, however, I am becoming accustomed to this new state of being. The wound is slowly scarring and I am daring to look forward to the day when I can, like all scars, speak of healing, hope and God’s redemptive power… that day is not yet nor on the horizon, but it is a whisper of a future I cannot see but trust will be.

I start by talking about my lack of motivation in part to explain why reflecting on how the Rule of St. Augustine speaks to the strategy and structure of the Church has been far from my mind. I share my current situation, also, to say that it is in this context that I pick up the Rule of St. Augustine and continue to read on the importance of sharing property and possessions if a community is ever to share one heart and mind. This current verse is paired with the next which is its reverse, ‘Those that have no property in the world must not, in the monastery, look for those things that, outside, they were unable to have.’ I did consider putting the verses together and tackle both simultaneously but decided against it. I chose not to for the simple reason that the next verse is accompanied by further, significant teaching on ‘frailty’ and the state of poverty itself. Although I will touch on this subject here I want to say much more about it than can fit into this post.

From the outset I need to be upfront on my own particularity: I am middle class. I come from a relatively wealthy family; ‘comfortable’, we would say. I can count on one hand the times when I have experienced personal poverty in regards to possessions/material wealth and so this verse is clearly speaking to me and those in my economic bracket. It needs to be said as well that the Church of England is almost totally made up of people like me. Yes, there are wonderful exceptions, but the clergy and, therefore, bishops are mainly replicas of me, economically speaking. This verse, therefore, speaks to the Church of England. As I stated at the beginning of this series, I am interested in how the Rule of St Augustine speaks not primarily to me personally but to the wider Church as I ask how we might ‘monasticize first the clergy, by imposing on them a standard of life previously reserved for monks, and then the entire world.’ (Giles Constable, The Reformation of the Twelfth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) p.6)

When I came to my current context there was a clear intent to reach out to the estate which constitutes over half of our parish. This estate, like the one in my last parish, is not large nor does it have the levels of depravation seen in other parts of the country but it still has its profound issues with poverty. “Why,” I asked myself, “if there is such a desire to serve the estate, are we not encountering the people of that estate very often?” Like my previous parish there was a conscious effort to reach out and ‘impact’ the estate but nothing seemed to be making a difference. I battled with this missional confusion for many years. It was not until I started reading the testimonies of the Oxford Movement’s slum priests and their spiritual descendants who served in my very parish context that I realised the problem. It was not about them, the situation or the model. It was about us.

It is too easy to subtly and unconsciously slip into doing things for or to ‘the poor’. When we talk about reaching out it can, due to our deep-seated fear and insecurities, be changed in our mind to feel we are called to reach out to ‘them’. We should not berate ourselves too much, however, as this is understandable but we should name it and face the truth. Since this realisation I have been deliberate in talking about becoming a ‘church of the poor’ not just for the poor. This means that we are to seek not to offer aspirations of material and cultural wealth, to merely alleviate financial difficulty but to seek to be transformed, ourselves, in order to have relationship with others. In this way we become more like the Christ presented by St. Paul in Philippians 2:1-8 and 2 Corinthians 8:9, who gave up the riches of heaven and became poor in order to have relationship with us.

How, therefore, do we become poor whilst also seeking to help the poor?

There is a story in the gospels of Jesus being asked by a ‘certain ruler’ what did he need to do in order to inherit eternal life. Jesus responds by listing some of the Ten Commandments (interestingly he does not list them all but, I would argue, he lists only those that legislate human relationships: adultery, murder, stealing, lying and honouring our father and mother. For more on this and the rest of the passage listen to my sermon on it here.) to which the ruler responds, “All these I have kept since I was a boy.” Jesus replies, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” There are several things I struggle with in this passage but I want to name just two of them: 1. Sell my property to whom? and 2. Who are the poor?

Buying and selling is a transaction where two parties agree on the relative value of certain items in order to give a fair exchange for them. When Jesus suggests the ruler sells everything he has this would require the ruler to give measurable value to all the items he he has and find someone who could give him the equivalent in return; most likely in currency (gold, silver, etc.) This is an important exercise for us all to do. What value do we give to the things we possess? What are we investing our time and money in? The gospel writers, at this point tell us that the ruler went away sad because he was ‘very rich’. He may have quickly totted up a handful of items and gave them significant market value and that would require the ruler to sell the property/possessions to another rich person. Consider the next step though. After exchanging these items for money Jesus suggests giving it all to the poor who will then use that money to buy similar items that had been sold from other people: the rich. Certainly the ruler would become poor but it would not deal with poverty itself. It will not help the poor in anyway it will only help the rich. The poor would no doubt struggle to purchase the same items at the same value, the rich would be seeking to make a profit from the purchase and so will sell it for higher value. Jesus isn’t attempting to solve the economy of the time but is talking about a personal response to wealth and where this particular person invests value. Selling everything and giving to the poor is not a catch all command. I am not suggesting that it is not a good thing to be challenged to do but we underestimate the deeper lesson being taught here.

The ruler’s initial question betrays his individualistic vision of the life of faith: “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” For this ruler, the life of faith is a private individualistic endeavour which does not impact other people. Eternal life is another possession he can have. Others can also have it but he doesn’t need to share it. The pursuit towards eternal life, for Jesus, is a shared journey; we inherit eternal life. That’s why, I think, Jesus only mentions the social commandments. To tackle this problem Jesus begins to prod the rich ruler towards the heart of his personal issue. This command to sell everything is about his attitude to those possessions, the value he invests into them and the lack of value the ruler truly gives to the pursuit of eternal life. Selling our possessions doesn’t solve economic issues. Our current economic issues are symptomatic of our messed up value system. Consider briefly the hierarchy of financial value we, as a society, give to different jobs. Or consider what we as a society spend our money on and why. Buying and selling only ever benefits those who control the value system of the society in which they operate. For the ruler, as with us, we must begin to enter into a new value system.

The second concern, who are the poor that Jesus speaks of, may seem pretty obvious but let us ponder the question further.

When the rich man sells everything, he no longer possesses anything. All he has at this point is a pocketful of cash and no pockets because he has sold all his clothes! Where is he going to live? What is he going to wear? Makes me think of this great sketch by Richard Herring and Stewart Lee.

When the ruler gives money to the poor he is handing over his only possibility of survival. From that day on he will be reliant on the generosity of other people giving to him. He is entering into the life of poverty where he can no longer afford to be alone in the world. ‘The poor’ to whom he gives his money may be some of the people he will rely on and so he will return to them and beg for some of the money back. I wonder how he might phrase that request for alms. Maybe he will give his money to some distant poor who he won’t encounter again and, therefore the people to whom he goes to beg from will not know his situation nor his history.

The reason I am investigating this aspect of the story is to draw our attention to the final bit of Jesus’ suggestion, “Then come, follow me.” This is the only real answer to the ruler’s initial question. How do I inherit eternal life? Firstly I do not inherit eternal life but I share in the inheritance of eternal life given to those who pursue it together with one heart and mind. The way we inherit eternal life is by following Jesus, drawing close to him, relying on him to lead and direct our every thought and choice. The rest of life is given its proper value through the lens of Christ. If we look at the world without that lens we misvalue everything and we struggle. Jesus challenges the rich ruler as he should challenge us on our value system.

Since Sarah died I have spent time sorting through her possessions. I have had to make decisions on what I should keep and what should be given away. In order to decide what goes where I have tried to ask myself, “why did Sarah buy this?” This is trying to discern what value did Sarah give to the item and what new value do I give to it. There have been some items I couldn’t get rid of quick enough, mainly because Sarah bought them during one of her many fads/short lived hobbies. Others I got rid of because I was never going to use them, e.g. toiletries and make up. Most of her clothes were given to her friends and the rest given to charity shops for other people to enjoy (I have kept some items for the time being to act as mementos as I continue to grieve and say goodbye.) Most items, however, I have kept because we shared the. They were no longer hers or mine but ours. There are lots of things she bought for herself but I have used so often that I consider them mine. There are items, like her craft equipment, which I may use once in a blue moon but I am not sure where to put them or send them to.

St. Augustine commands that those with property and possessions, earthly riches are to be willing to hold those things in common with the community. To become poor, in this way, is to re-evaluate the riches we have. To consider that what we possess in earthly things is of little value compared with the goal of our true pursuit. To hold things for usefulness but to share out that use to others. In this way we continue to enter into the mindset we discussed last time.

So abundant was the outpouring of spiritual grace in the Early Church, that not only were the faithful content with little, but they esteemed it joy of the highest kind to feel that they had nothing of their own. “Having nothing, yet possessing all things” (2 Cor. 6:10)(Hugh of St. Victor, Explanation, p.12)

In Hugh of St Victor’s commentary he suggests there are ‘two things we must renounce for God’s sake: the right to possess and the wish to acquire.’ (Hugh of St. Victor, Explanation, p.13) By being willing to sell everything we have if necessary is a process of letting go of our right to possess anything at all. Giving that money away is relinquishing our capability to acquire new things. For the rich ruler this impacts not just his earthly life but his eternal life too in that he must let go of his right to possess eternal life through some moral superiority of fulfilling criteria and relinquishing his capability of acquiring eternal life through his own strength, rather relying on others to inherit it with him.

To monasticize the clergy and indeed the whole Church, therefore, begins by intentionally re-evaluating our values and our assets, both earthly and spiritual and ensuring that we prioritise all these gifts in proportion. Selling and buying only benefits those who control the value system, so how might we be a church of the poor whilst helping the poor in times of great financial crisis? I suggest it is about offering an alternative value system that judges the poor to be poor. St. Augustine is inviting us to consider that we let go of our sense of entitlement to value and possession and to see them as gift and then to relinquish our desire to invest value in objects rather than relationship. When we prioritise the relationship with brothers and sisters in pursuit of following Jesus then we receive back infinite value which possessions never return. This is the first step to growing a unity of heart and mind.

Therefore our Lord says in the Gospel: “Every one of you that doth not renounce all that he possesseth cannot be my disciple” (Lk 14:33). And again: “If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself” (Lk 9:23). The first of these divine utterances refers to earthly goods: the second to the will. For it is not enough to give up exterior possessions, unless we cut off all interior concupiscence as well.(Hugh of St. Victor, Explanation, p.13)

Chapter 1.iii Being of one heart and mind in God

Before all else, the reason that you are gathered together is that you live in harmony in one house, being of one heart and mind in God.

In an introduction to the Rule of St Augustine, Tarsicius J. Van Bavel OSA suggests,

Pachomius, Basil and Augustine all laid great stress on community life. The reason for this was that they were convinced that the orientation to one’s own self and individualism formed the greatest obstacle to the realisation of the gospel.

For those who have been reading my blog for some time will not be surprised to hear that I agree wholeheartedly with Pachomius, Basil and Augustine. It is the pervasive perversion of the gospel by our increasingly narcissistic culture that must be addressed before all else and it is this which Augustine (after some short preliminary sentences) begins his Rule.
Chapter 1.3, quoted above, is filled with ‘oneness’; the community is gathered ‘as one‘(tr. together), to live in ‘one spirit'(tr. harmony) in one house being of one mind and one heart in God. This oneness, however, is rooted in reality of plurality of persons within community. This is not about being single or unique, cut off and divorced, as if we are to achieve some atomised autonomy; rather the complete opposite. The oneness Augustine is alluding to is a simplicity of life, for him, achieved only in community. In his sermon on Psalm 4, Augustine concludes,

…singleness is observed among the saints: of whom it is said in the Acts of the Apostles, “and of the multitude of them that believed, there was one soul, and one heart.” (Acts 4:32) In singleness, then, and simplicity, removed, that is, from the multitude and crowd of things, that are born and die, we ought to be lovers of eternity, and unity, if we desire to cleave to the one God and our Lord. (St. Augustine, Exposition on Psalm 4,x)

It is in sharing a single-mindedness in God which is the source of unity. We are to, if we are to achieve the oneness expressed in Acts 4:32, cast off the multiplicity of this world, all things temporal and transient and seek the eternal, the things of our totally united, one God. It is the trinitarian unity that is our goal not some individualised peace.

This touches on an important lesson I continue to learn in our current debates on unity within the Church. We have adopted the language of tolerance which is a poor attempt at unity. Tolerance asks us to accept the presence of difference as a necessary price for peace but fails to demand the movement into true relationship with another. Tolerance says, “You’re ok as long as I don’t have to interact with you.” Tolerance keeps difference at a distance, small as that may be. Peace, the kind given by God, brings difference into a unity. This is impossible for us humans to achieve because we are hardwired to self-protect. Tolerance is an outward peace; we are to seek an inner peace of perfect unity.

In another sermon, this time on Psalm 132, Augustine observes,

Only those in whom love for Christ is perfect truly live together in unity. For those in whom love for Christ is not perfect may well live together, but they are unpleasant, troublesome and rebellious… Many sisters and brothers in religious communities are like this; only to outward appearances do they live together. (St, Augustine, Exposition on Psalm 132, 2 and 12, cited in Tarsicius J. Van Bavel, The Rule of St. Augustine (London: Darton Longman and Todd, 1996) p.44)

It is not sufficient for Augustine for people just to live together side by side sharing an outward life together. If there is not a shared conviction that they seek to be united in mind and heart then there outward unity means nothing. Hugh of St. Victor suggests, ‘it is of no avail that the same walls encompass us if difference of will separate us.’ (Hugh of St. Victor, Dom. Aloysius Smith (tr.), Explanation of the Rule of St Augustine (London: Sands and Company, 1955) p.3) Our attitude to difference in the church interests me immensely. We seem to use the celebration of difference as a form of ‘get out of jail free’ card. This is not to say that I dislike difference or believe it should be eradicated; no. We do, however, too often claim ‘the celebration of difference’ when we feel the challenge to engage with it in our inner life. In celebrating it we hold it up as an object outside of our heart. We can continue to be us, separate from the other without any compulsion to relate intimately with them. Our celebration avoids the discomfort that should compel us to love as Christ loved us, at great cost.

This causes me to speak briefly on ‘Mutual Flourishing’.

I serve a parish in the diocese of Sheffield which, last year, was gripped by fierce division over the appointment of +Philip North as Diocesan Bishop. +Philip North is a traditionalist bishop who does not agree with the ordination of women. How would a Diocesan Bishop preside over the ministry of the Church in communion when they do not recognise the ordained ministry of nearly half his priests and deacons? As people protested and everyone shared their opinion, demanding one thing or another, a conversation on the 5 principles of mutual flourishing arose. It seemed that these principles, the single piece of legislation which enabled women to be ordained into the episcopacy, was good if it achieved the desired outcome (women flourishing as bishops) but when the principles impacted us negatively (those who disagreed were allowed to flourish) we began to question their validity.

I don’t agree with +Philip North on the issue of the ordination of women. I need to say that in case I’m pigeon-holed! I did, however, support his appointment and was willing to work with him in discovering with the whole Church how we worked towards ‘Mutual Flourishing’. I was deeply pained, therefore, with the way in which he was treated and the way in which many brothers and sisters spoke to, and about, one another. It was clear, throughout the sorry process that our love for Christ was not perfect. The form of political discourse that now runs rampant within God’s Church is unbecoming of the Bride of Christ and destroys her unity with each manoeuvre made by opposing polemical forces. For me, again and again, it is not the legislation which needs the work but the inner hearts and minds of Christ’s disciples. Our outward unity (the little scraps that remain) means nothing if we are not intentionally seeking an inner unity.

Hugh of St. Victor writes,

For what chiefly conduces to concord is that each one study to do the will of another unto good, rather than his own. This is the sign of great humility… if I seek my own will and another is intent upon following hers, forthwith divisions arise and quarrels, anger and dissensions spring up, all which are the works of the flesh.(Hugh of St. Victor, Explanation, p.4)

As Christ’s Church we must seek to learn, in humility, what it means to work towards other people’s flourishing. Mutual Flourishing will never work when the focus is to ensure our own flourishing but rather when we begin to sacrifice our own flourishing for the sake of someone else’s. My most powerful relationships are the ones forged in the crucible of radical, risky self-denial when we dared to decide to outdo each other in love and honour and thus dismiss our own compulsion to look after ourselves first. It is when we have served one another, not looking for our own needs to be met but to meet the needs of the other, that our needs do indeed get met and, often, I have found that my perceived needs were not needs at all but wants. It is in this mutuality of love that I have found peace in being gifted the care and wisdom of others over my limited understanding of my own requirements.

This unity of mind and heart, for Augustine, repeatedly is stated as being ‘in God’ for it is in true relationship with him that we have access to the eternal unity of his very being. It is in the way the Trinity interact with one another that we are to be shaped. Perfect love is modelled in the self giving of each person to the other. Each receives honour from the others and, in their difference, unity in love is outpoured.

This is the kind of love that the world so desperately needs to see and know. It begins, not with those other Christians understanding and growing in love, but me. The judgement which I pass on those mistaken Christians who selfishly push their own will on to others, demanding to be heard and to have an impact, must be turned and used to remove the log of pride which blinds me. I must set my will on seeking the growth and flourishing of my brothers and sisters and trust that the Lord will honour my attempts at love and surround me with a mutually loving community. This community must, therefore, be intentional at sharing this single-minded will to be formed into the likeness of Christ, the image of God, Trinity in unity. Without this unity as the epitome of life the rest is useless.

Since the Psalm says, “Behold, how good and how pleasant is it, that brethren should dwell together in one”, why then should we not call Monks so? For Monos is one. Not one in any manner, for a man in a crowd is one, but though he can be called one along with others, he cannot be Monos, that is, alone, for Monos means one alone. They then who thus live together as to make one man, so that they really possess what is written, “one mind and one heart”, Acts 4:32 many bodies, but not many minds; many bodies, but not many hearts; can rightly be called Monos, that is, one alone (St. Augustine, Exposition of Psalm 133,v)

Monasticize the World

I read a quote recently which struck at the heart of my thinking and its implications for the Church and the world.

There was a common concern at the time, and especially in the period from 1100 to 1160, with the nature of religious life and the ideal of personal perfection. A set of values as well as a way of life, embodied in various institutions, was at the heart of the movement of reform, which can be seen as an effort to monasticize first the clergy, by imposing on them a standard of life previously reserved for monks, and then the entire world (Giles Constable, The Reformation of the Twelfth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) p.6)

I found the quote in a book on the theology of Hugh of St. Victor who was a canon regular in Paris during the twelfth century renaissance. Canon Regulars are priests who live together and follow a common rule and share their property in common. Most, but not all, follow the Rule of St Augustine written during the fourth century over 100 years prior to the Rule of St. Benedict. Carolyn Bynum, in her article on the spirituality of the Canon Regulars saw these priests falling between the clerical reforms of Pope Gregory VII and the Cistercian reforms of monasticism taking place at the same time. This movement saw a shift away from the monastic ideals of shared property and common life to embrace a more pastoral and evangelical ideal. Bynum distinguishes three characteristics of the canonical movement:

a conviction that contemplative action is superior to the purely contemplative life.
an emphasis on preaching.
a renewed emphasis on sacraments and history.

Hugh of St. Victor is a fascinating writer whose work centres on the theme of reformation, both personal and ecclesiastical. Again and again he writes on our need to seek God’s restoration of our nature from the fallen state that we find ourselves and to allow God to build within us a dwelling place for Himself. For Hugh this was an ordered and systematic work of prayer, study and active service. In his time the Church needed a total structural overhaul and Hugh saw this starting with a disciplined life of learning and teaching within the Church. Discipleship was an ordered way of life aimed at creating people who participated in the wisdom of God.

I am an ordained priest in the Church of England serving in a parish with a history with The Company of Mission Priests. This is important as this parish has a history of ‘monasticized’ clergy who took the service of those suffering in poverty seriously. I have been asking myself what it might look like to return to that form of ministry. I have been exploring and studying the New Monastic movement for many years, with a particular interest in the historic examples of how the monastic tradition has led the Church through renewal and reform in the past. I have a deep sense of vocation to a form of monastic life but, being married, I am limited in the way I can engage in this vocation through traditional paths. I have explored tertiary and oblate schemes as well as dispersed new monastic communities but it is the sharing of common life that is at the heart of my calling. A deeply sacramental model of parish ministry and a commitment to a social gospel, particularly in areas of deprivation, is emotionally demanding. I often feel alone in the pressures of living with such immediate and unavoidable pain and suffering. I have been praying for a community to share with me in this radical and sacrificial ministry. I am not alone, either. I have a few ordained friends who are crying out for a life of living and working alongside others, sharing the joys and struggles of ministry among the most needy in our society.

I also have a particular focus on reformation and restoration within my ministry. At this time of ‘Renewal and Reform’ I often ask myself how much are we genuinely seeking to listen to the monastic tradition as our forebears did (often after a struggle!) Hugh of St Victor’s methodical approach to the construction of an inner Ark to house the presence of God and to his commitment to the monasticizing of the clergy and, indeed, the world strikes me as deeply important and relevant to our urgent need at this time.

Whilst I served my curacy I reflected on the Rule of St. Benedict, asking myself what it might look like to live out a Benedictine life in the parish context. Many people found these reflections helpful and interesting but by the end of the project I was more convinced of my monastic vocation and, therefore, more grieved by the lack of community to share my life with. Having now moved to a new context and started a new ministry, I am returning to those deep questions of what it is God is calling me to. My journey in Parish Monasticism? was a personal one, asking questions of the individual things I could do to engage in this monastic spirituality. I am now asking more structural questions and the increased urgency for reformation causes me to think beyond the personal and seek to challenge the Church wider to take seriously the fading ‘fad’ of new monasticism.

Renewal and Reform are not new to the Church of Christ. We would be foolish to miss out on Hugh of St. Victor’s extensive writing on the subject. I want to start to explore this theme using the Rule of St. Augustine which he lived under and used to shape his life and of which he wrote an excellent commentary/explanation on. The Rule of St. Augustine is small treatise on the life within community but it is, compared to St Benedict’s later Rule, relatively bare on details. Augustine rather uses it to flesh out his major theological themes in lived relationships. Hugh and Augustine share many ideas and concepts; they share a love of urban environments, a distress at the fallenness of humanity and an appreciation for the beauty of order. I hope to sit with them both and listen to what they teach. As I learn from them I hope to pass on the wisdom and thus embrace a more canonical approach. Bynum observed,

Canonical authors see canons as teachers and learners whereas monastic authors see monks only as learners. (Carolyn Walker Bynum, “The Spirituality of Regular Canons in the Twelfth Century”, Jesus as Mother: studies in the spirituality of the High Middle Ages (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982) p.36)

Once more unto the breach, dear friends. I pick up the Rule of St Augustine this time and, rather than ask ‘Parish Monasticism?’, proclaim ‘Monasticize the World’. I do hope you will join me.