i think he's on to something
i think charles de foucauld got it right. i think he was on to
something.
he recognized that a problem of monastic communities is that
they start out poor and humble and small and dependent on God,
but they always end up large and institutional and wealthy
and comfortable. every monastic movement and monastery has had
to be reformed. no monastery or movement has ever been able to
maintain its faithfulness over the long haul.
why?
foucauld had the idea that part of the problem lies in the size
of the monastery. most monasteries start off small and poor. but
over time, their radical faithfulness attracted people to their
group. so people joined. and before you know it, a small monastery
of three or four or five who lived in a single, dilapated house
and who shared their meager possessions is now a giant institution
of 40 (or 400) who owns thousands of acres of land, a giant,
ornate cathedral and a couple successful businesses. the bigger
the monastery got, the wealthier it got. the wealthier it got,
the less faithful it became.
and after a few years, a handful of insightful monks would go,
"wait a minute, i thought jesus said to sell all you have and
give it to the poor. not just accumulate possessions and become
a big, wealthy institution. hey, lets go out and start our own
monastic community that will be poor and radically faithful."
and they would...and people would become attracted to their
faithfulness and come and join and the same cycle would repeat
itself.
foucauld bristled at this seemingly inevitable pattern. he began
to ponder the life of jesus. not the 3 years of healing and
preaching and teaching and table-flipping. but the first 30
years. the years that no one pays attention to. the "hidden
years" as he called them.
did jesus go out and a start a monastery or an organization
or an institution? did he call together a bunch of like-minded
individuals and say, "okay, let's all live together and share
our possessions"? or did he just live as a faithful jew amidst
the poor? did he embody the beatitudes for thirty years before
preaching them? did he live the life of a poor, day-laborer in
a leaky hamlet? did he just live the love of God in small,
everyday ways with his neighbors?
foucauld pondered these small, hidden years and decided that he
wanted to explore that mode of faithfullness. maybe there was
something in those hidden years where jesus lived a steady
life of love and self-sacrifice amongst the poor that could help
inform foucauld and the Church on how to live faithfully without
becoming institutional and wealthy and disengaged from the poor.
so he set out to live this hidden life. he implanted himself the
poorest of towns and lived as a poor man amongst the poor, not
preaching and teaching and starting aid organizations, but
rather, emulating the hidden, peasant jesus--embodying the
beautitudes and "accompanying" the poor in their struggles. i
will be poor with you and love you and struggle with you.
we're in it together.
foucauld decided he did think other christians should do this
together, but not too many in the same place. so when he drew
up his rule of life, he included a very important feature--his
monasteries would never be bigger than four people. the
communities would be mini-communities. only 2-4 people. no more.
his thought was that since most families never got bigger than 4
or 5 people, why congregate christians in groups bigger than that?
any bigger than a family, and the group can easily slip into
becoming an institution. any bigger, and it can more easily
slip into becoming wealthy, disengaged and insular.
so his communities are small. they embed themselves in the poorest
of settings like urban ghettos, third world slums, remote eskimo
villages, nomadic tribes in middle eastern deserts. even the circus.
(lots of traveling circuses are manned by poor immigrants).
they dont start organizations or programs. they dont go out and
help people institutionally. instead, they take everyday jobs in
the neighborhood and just live the daily life of their neighbors.
they share the love of jesus over a walk to the liquor store,
standing on the sidewalk waiting for the bus, toiling side-by-side
in a factory and at over the dinner table. foucauld thought,
"jesus was a neighbor. so that's what we should be."
this idea of smallness has captured by attention. i think foucauld
is on to something. i think he has found an answer to the reoccuring
problem of communities becoming wealthy, comfortable and insular.
keep it small, keep it personable and the rest will follow.
i love that idea.
love,chico
something.
he recognized that a problem of monastic communities is that
they start out poor and humble and small and dependent on God,
but they always end up large and institutional and wealthy
and comfortable. every monastic movement and monastery has had
to be reformed. no monastery or movement has ever been able to
maintain its faithfulness over the long haul.
why?
foucauld had the idea that part of the problem lies in the size
of the monastery. most monasteries start off small and poor. but
over time, their radical faithfulness attracted people to their
group. so people joined. and before you know it, a small monastery
of three or four or five who lived in a single, dilapated house
and who shared their meager possessions is now a giant institution
of 40 (or 400) who owns thousands of acres of land, a giant,
ornate cathedral and a couple successful businesses. the bigger
the monastery got, the wealthier it got. the wealthier it got,
the less faithful it became.
and after a few years, a handful of insightful monks would go,
"wait a minute, i thought jesus said to sell all you have and
give it to the poor. not just accumulate possessions and become
a big, wealthy institution. hey, lets go out and start our own
monastic community that will be poor and radically faithful."
and they would...and people would become attracted to their
faithfulness and come and join and the same cycle would repeat
itself.
foucauld bristled at this seemingly inevitable pattern. he began
to ponder the life of jesus. not the 3 years of healing and
preaching and teaching and table-flipping. but the first 30
years. the years that no one pays attention to. the "hidden
years" as he called them.
did jesus go out and a start a monastery or an organization
or an institution? did he call together a bunch of like-minded
individuals and say, "okay, let's all live together and share
our possessions"? or did he just live as a faithful jew amidst
the poor? did he embody the beatitudes for thirty years before
preaching them? did he live the life of a poor, day-laborer in
a leaky hamlet? did he just live the love of God in small,
everyday ways with his neighbors?
foucauld pondered these small, hidden years and decided that he
wanted to explore that mode of faithfullness. maybe there was
something in those hidden years where jesus lived a steady
life of love and self-sacrifice amongst the poor that could help
inform foucauld and the Church on how to live faithfully without
becoming institutional and wealthy and disengaged from the poor.
so he set out to live this hidden life. he implanted himself the
poorest of towns and lived as a poor man amongst the poor, not
preaching and teaching and starting aid organizations, but
rather, emulating the hidden, peasant jesus--embodying the
beautitudes and "accompanying" the poor in their struggles. i
will be poor with you and love you and struggle with you.
we're in it together.
foucauld decided he did think other christians should do this
together, but not too many in the same place. so when he drew
up his rule of life, he included a very important feature--his
monasteries would never be bigger than four people. the
communities would be mini-communities. only 2-4 people. no more.
his thought was that since most families never got bigger than 4
or 5 people, why congregate christians in groups bigger than that?
any bigger than a family, and the group can easily slip into
becoming an institution. any bigger, and it can more easily
slip into becoming wealthy, disengaged and insular.
so his communities are small. they embed themselves in the poorest
of settings like urban ghettos, third world slums, remote eskimo
villages, nomadic tribes in middle eastern deserts. even the circus.
(lots of traveling circuses are manned by poor immigrants).
they dont start organizations or programs. they dont go out and
help people institutionally. instead, they take everyday jobs in
the neighborhood and just live the daily life of their neighbors.
they share the love of jesus over a walk to the liquor store,
standing on the sidewalk waiting for the bus, toiling side-by-side
in a factory and at over the dinner table. foucauld thought,
"jesus was a neighbor. so that's what we should be."
this idea of smallness has captured by attention. i think foucauld
is on to something. i think he has found an answer to the reoccuring
problem of communities becoming wealthy, comfortable and insular.
keep it small, keep it personable and the rest will follow.
i love that idea.
love,chico