shmatt.com

I have of late gained a little interest in monastic spirituality. 

This encompasses in part New Monasticism, which has a focus on community to the extent of even living together and sharing possessions with others.  Louisa especially would like to be able share a home with both close friends and those who need some support.  In this vein, I am looking forward to hearing Shane Claiborne of The Simple Way speak at the coming UNOH conference.

But I am also interested in the spirituality of traditional monasticism - Monks, hermitages et al.  I must say that I have never liked the idea of cloistering ones self long term in order to “find communion with God” - I find this approach quite selfish.  However, the act of separating yourself at times to pray in solitude, and living in simplicity and authenticity has great appeal to me. 

A few months ago, I stumbled across the web page for a film titled “Into Great Silence“.  Shot over a period of a year, it is a rare glimpse into the lives of Carthusian monks at the highly ascetic and silent Grande Chartreuse monastery in the French Alps.

I was pleasantly surprised to find this film playing at Cinema Nova in Melbourne this week, and was able to go along to see it.  The cinematography is amazing, and the film, while long and at times hard going (like life in the monastery) was fascinating.  These men seem truly content with their chosen life.

I’ve formed some ideas lately on ways to encompass some aspects of this spirituality into our lives;

• Silent nights - no TV, computers or electric lighting.  Maybe even nights where we don’t even talk.  Try this one with three young kids!
• I’d love to own or share a small cottage in the bush somewhere.  No electricity.  Just a fireplace and time to reflect and pray.
• Getting out into nature.  Recently I went back to Tassie for another three day walk into Pelion plains with a mate.  There is no phone coverage up there.
• Breaking bread before meals.  We try to do this as often as possible at home.  We turn off the lights, light a candle and share communion, taking time to remember Jesus’ sacrifice for us.  This brings some daily ritual into our busy lives.

I’d love to hear other ideas that people have..

In light of my last post, and the ensuing conversation, I appreciate this post from Alan Hirsch..

The word simplex has appeared a few times on this blog. Its probably time to try and to eloborate on the idea behind my use of the this term. Well…while I use it is a nuanced way, it is stolen from the realm of biology, the humble naughty virus herpes simplex no less! Nonetheless, I have hacked the term to to try and bring two key ideas together–simplicity and complexity.

(more…)

Source: the issue of simplexity
Originally published on Wed, 23 May 2007 03:57:29 GMT by Alan Hirsch

I was lead to some reading after following a link over the weekend (N.T. Wright on “Pierced for Our Transgressions”) on theological positions behind the cross of Jesus.

In some circles this sort of discussion is regular and passionate.  It has always been.  And you could say it is justified - after all the cross is central to our faith.

Some of the recent discussion owes its thanks to, in part at least, the increasingly popular “Christian” TV series “Way of the Master“.  Starring the ex-teen-sensation Kirk Cameron (you know - the guy from Growing Pains), WOTM makes well known its dogmatic commitment to what is called ”penal substitution” theology.  I’ve heard a WOTM man point out that the book of Acts never once mentions the love of God and that God will “Squash” you.  True enough of a fact (the Acts part), but he also fails to point out that it is one of the only books in the New Testament part of the bible that does not mention this dominant theme of the Love of God. 

In a short (crude) sentence, penal substitution is the angry god / loving Jesus perspective on the cross, that says that we all deserve punishment because of sin, but Jesus died on the cross in our place so that God is allowed to forgive us.

On the flip side of the coin is the “Christus Victor” understanding that says (again, crudely) that a loving God doesn’t send people to hell, but instead paid the ransom (Jesus/Cross) to purchase us back from the slavery of sin, who then stuck it to the devil by raising again from the dead.

My problem, is that both sides of this argument have valid arguments for and against them.  Penal substitution makes sense rationally, until you start to ponder on even the little we as humans understand about love - then it doesn’t make sense.  And yet, a quick reading of the first few chapters of Romans (in the bible) makes it clear that God does indeed hate sin, and retribution does indeed form part of the equation.

So my logical brain was left wanting.  But you know what, I think it is allowed to remain that way.

I read a timely entry today from “Angry and Shallow“.  Read it, and then my comment:

I just spent the weekend going over such stuff .. really, it did my head in. I wanted to come up with a statement of exactly what I believed, but just could not.

But you are right. What happened on the cross was supernatural and divine. It cannot be understood fully in human terms. We now look through a “glass darkly”.
What we have though are magnificent types and symbols the show as that through whatever happened, the old has been made new, and we now have a hope and a future.

Thank you for allowing me to not need a formulation.

So where I am at - I think both sides have truths.  But with all metaphors, they fall short.  I think that we do not fall into the trap of committing to metaphors or logical reasoning, but allow a healthy amount of mystery and paradox to leave us in Awe.  Actually, come to think of it - I think that’s probably God’s intent.