Developing a Politics of Peace in
the Practices of Anglican Franciscan Spiritual Formation
‘Make me
a channel of your peace’1. is the phrase most commonly
associated with the life of St Francis and the Order he birthed. His practice of peace-making ‘struck at the heart
of the currency of sovereignty in terms of power, law and payment’ (Mitchell, 2013,
ch. 3, loc. 932). This essay will explore whether contemporary Anglican Franciscans
are bringing peace in society. It will also explore the hindrances to
practicing peace-making in a liberal, agonistic and post-secular culture. Finally
features of kenarchy will be explored as a potential way to help the Franciscan
Order connect with their charism of peace-making.
Literary Review
Foucault’s
History of Sexuality Volume One will be
referenced to explore the way bio-power may have influenced the commodification
of Franciscan spiritual practices. This is augmented by an example in Zizek’s
article From
Western Marxism to Western Buddhism.
Jersaks’s dissertation, We Are Not
Our Own will draw attention to the way privatized spiritual practices may
do little to subvert the agonistic nature underlying liberal consumerism. Pickstock’s
chapter Postmodernism in Peter Scott and
William Cavanaugh’s The Blackwell Reader in Political Theology will highlight
the way postmodernism allows for privatized devotion, perpetuates the
separation of clerical and lay power and disguises the agon of the marketplace.
Mitchell’s
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. La Clochette, 1912
Church, Gospel and Empire will then be referenced throughout
the essay to reflect on the way St Francis and his Order continued to
supplement hierarchical sovereignty rather than replace it. The bureaucratization
of religious institutions as a feature of bio-power affecting spiritual
formation will then be explored in Coakley’s article Has the Church of England Lost its Reason and Rothery’s
Missional:
Impossible! the death of institutional Christianity and the rebirth of G-d. Bretherton’s Christianity and Contemporary Politics will also question the way
liberal state-church partnerships may potentially distort the practices of Faith
Designated Groups (FDGs). Hannah Arendt’s Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil invites reflection on the way bureaucratic
language can create a lack of empathy. Mitchell’s The Fall of the Church and Church,
Gospel and Empire will also reveal the way transcendence has been subsumed
by sovereignty in the theological approach to kenosis inherent in medieval and
contemporary Franciscan spiritual formation.
Finally in considering the development of kenarchy in Franciscan formation,
Foucault, Jonathan Sacks’ The Dignity of Difference, Graham Ward’s Cultural Transformation and Religious
Practice and Mitchell and Tomlin’s, (eds), Discovering
Kenarchy will be used to discuss the creation of social practices that
make space where difference and the other can be engaged and gifts exchanged which
facilitate the practice of a politics of peace.
The Third Order of the Society of
St Francis
The European Province of the Third Order of the Society
of St Francis
in the
Anglican Communion was founded in 1936. Tertiaries remain in society but take
vows to live out the ethos of a Franciscan Rule of Life as a dispersed
community. There are now more than three thousand members world-wide,
divided into Provinces in Europe, the Americas, Asia-Pacific, the Pacific and Africa. Within each Area there are Local
groups which meet monthly. The 3 aims of the Order are 1. To make Jesus loved
and known everywhere2. To spread the spirit of love and harmony and 3.To live
simply. 2.
Recently
the European Province has been exploring the extent to
which it is achieving its aims, particularly in the area of community
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. The Manuel of the Third Order of the Society
of St Francis : tssf.org.uk
and spiritual
formation. There is also a sense of a need to re-connect
with or
redefine its purpose. Since the Order was founded Europe has undergone massive social and
political changes in the post war era such as increasing bio-power as described
by Foucault. The Anglican Church in general also reflects a liberal view of
society marked by a tolerance of difference but at the same time colluding with
its agonistic nature. Tolerance perhaps contributes to maintaining a kind of
diffidence in a society and church shaped by neo-liberal values rather than a
wholehearted embrace and engagement with difference and the other. Consequently
this adversely affects the ability of the Order to form Tertiaries that can
engage in a lifestyle marked by emptying out self, making space for the other and
engaging with them in the practice of peace-making through self giving.
Political Factors Affecting
Franciscan Formation:
Bio-power and the Commodification
of Spiritual Practices
(Foucault,
1990, p. 140-141) writes ‘ This bio-power was without question an indispensable
element in the development of capitalism; the latter would not have been
possible without the controlled insertion of bodies into the machinery of
production and the adjustment of the phenomena of population to economic
processes.’
The
consequence of bio-power is that nothing remains outside the influence of the
market and the disciplines that regulate society for it to function efficiently
and effectively. This has created a bio-political world of total observation
and control. What effect does living in such a society have on the development
of spiritual practices? (Van Valkenburgh, 2014)3. cites
Slavoj Zizek’s criticism of Western Buddhism which can be used to illustrate
the influence of commodification;
‘Zizek
cautions that while meditation may seem to come from an edgy counterculture, in
fact Americans practice it in a way that is often consistent with consumerist
capitalism:
’….although
‘Western Buddhism’ presents itself as a remedy against the stressful tension of
capitalist dynamics, allowing us to function as its perfect ideological
supplement …One is almost tempted to resuscitate the old infamous Marxist
cliché of religion as the opium of ‘the people’ as the imaginary supplement to
territorial misery. The Western Buddhist meditative stance is arguably the most
efficient way for us to participate in capitalist dynamics while retaining the
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.. S. Van
Valkenburgh, The dangerous
American myth of corporate spirituality; How invocations of
"karma" and Zen are being used to justify deeply unequal systems of
power (Salon, Sunday, Oct 26, 2014)
appearance
of mental sanity….’’
In
other words rather than helping yogis become more socially conscious spiritual
warriors, Buddhist meditation can get hijacked by the status quo. It only
brings us a shallow peace that makes us less likely to question what counts as
normal.’
Contemporary
Franciscan spiritual formation may encounter similar difficulties due to the
effects of bio-power in the UK context. When people undergo formation
within the Franciscan Order they develop a Rule of Life by meeting quarterly with their
Novice Guardian over a three year period. Together they develop a structure of spiritual
disciplines around the practices of Eucharist, Penitence, Prayer, Study,
Simplicity, Self-denial, Work, Retreat and Obedience. Obedience is expressed in
individual spiritual direction and monthly local group attendance. Practices
are channelled through the 3 ways of service-Work, Study or Prayer. These
practices are mostly interpreted and applied in a private and personal way. Tertiary
formation also shapes Novices primarily in the context of private meetings with
Novice Guardians and Spiritual Directors.
Although
the Second Aim of the Order is to bring a spirit of love and harmony in society,
it is questionable whether its practices help members to do so. Interestingly
the development of what could be termed fraternal or social practices in an
explicit way are absent from formation. Novices do attend local groups where
they express their commitment to the Order. However, in these contexts there is
a tendency to regard the Rule of Life as an individual and private matter.
Details about daily life and commitments to spiritual practice may be discussed
in a general rather than a personal and open manner. This has the effect of reinforcing the
impression created in the private nature of Franciscan formation that
spirituality is a private and personal matter. The formation that occurs in
these communal contexts also tends to have a bias towards supporting other
organizations involved in aid and relief work around the world. This emphasis can
also imply that what is required in terms of social practice as a Tertiary is
prayer and financial support to other organizations. If social action is
undertaken it is implied that the best way to do so is through organizational and
procedural means rather than in a direct and interpersonal way.
Placating Liberal Hegemony or Engaging Shalomic Justice?
The emphasis
described above does not help Tertiaries to become channels of peace in society.
Rather a tacit complicity with the neo-liberal status quo is maintained along
with the assumption that neo-liberal hegemony is in alliance with Christianity.
In this way the agonistic nature underlying liberal consumerism is perhaps perpetuated
rather than subverted. In the formation described above peace can be unconsciously
assumed to be a product that is desired or that one is seeking to possess rather
than find in connection with others through participation within the Order and
in a pluralistic society.
Political
peace in the pluralistic public square may also be assumed to be maintained through
the power of liberal procedural and managerial mechanisms. Therefore fraternal
encounters with others of difference in a pluralistic society need not be part
of what it means to bring peace through personal reconciliation. In such an
approach to formation peace may be understood to be realized through passive compliance
with the governing state and church structures, rather than kenarchic rhythms
of self emptying subversion and submission with others of difference encountered
within those structures.
(Jersak, 2012,
p. 310) has described the way a liberal hegemony can also create a sense of a
false peace;
‘Behind advertised ideals
like freedom and tolerance …. autonomy always pursues mastery and produces
oppression. Liberal hegemony in practice creates disparity, economically
enforcing an Orwellian society where some are more equal than others. The
imagery of Animal Farm thus applies as much to laissez-faire capitalism as it
did to Stalinism. Liberal democracies might talk rights and tout freedoms but
in truth, have become dominant and coercive hegemonies, both domestically and
internationally’
(Jersak, 2012,
p. 262) also quotes Glenn Runnels in clarifying the hegemonic nature of the order
maintained through liberal democracy;
‘I understand that at the
human level people have two ways of relating to each other; shalomic or
hegemonic. By hegemonic I mean the
ordered flow of capital (material and social) between the dominant centre and
the margins/frontiers. Hegemony assumes disparity and will use coercion to
maintain order. By shalomic, I mean the practice of hospitality between
people(s). Shalomic assumes invitation, receptivity and generous acceptance.
Shalomic uses mediation to maintain peace. Any human system will tend toward
the hegemonic or the shalomic. Most (all) large scale systems tend toward the
hegemonic.’
Similarly
Pickstock, in (Scott & Cavanaugh, 2007, p. 477) has also highlighted the
agonistic nature of post-modern society and questioned whether there is any
difference in the way power is exercised between the modern world of certainty
and the post-modern world of relativism and pluralism;
‘If all are to be free and
aim for anything, then paradoxically, behaviour must be made more and more
predictable; but, inversely, an essentially content less behaviour always
proclaims freedom and the sublime gesture. ‘’Post-modern’’ civility and
‘’modern representation’ therefore continuously spring up together. And they both conform to a ‘’certain
Middle-Ages’’: a middle ages tending to privatize devotion and separate
clerical from lay power-thereby immanentizing the latter.
Civility and rights coalesce around the
idea of a normative formalism. Rights allow an appearance of peace through
regularity that disguises the agon of the marketplace and competing state
bureaucracies’
Increasing
globalization, consequent interpersonal conflict and a need to defend personal
identity and political space has thereby been multiplied, along with
sovereignty, to the multitude.
Personal Piety or Political Peace-making
?
When
people enter the Franciscan Order from a society and a church shaped by the agon of the marketplace as
described above, the privatized nature of formation seems to stifle practitioners
from developing a more shalomic lifestyle.
Consequently in precept and practice Anglican Franciscan spiritual formation
could be described as developing a bias towards
a personal piety of peace rather than one socially engaged in a politics of peace-making.
Without doubt practitioners are socially involved, but their involvement with
others, such as in prison visiting or care for others can tend to acquiesce to
the agonistic liberal status quo, rather than ameliorate it through
encountering those who are different in a vulnerable way on common ground or in
unknown territory. New opportunities for vulnerable connection can in this way
be avoided and disconnection and alienation can be perpetuated.
Obedience
to Christ through submission of life to the disciplines of the Order, when
practiced only in terms of establishing peace through personal piety, can also foster
an unquestioning deference to superiors. Superiors within the Order and the Anglican
Church may themselves be subject to views of transcendence subsumed by
sovereignty that placate rather than subvert and submit within a neo-liberal
status quo. Peace can be falsely understood to be maintained through a self
sacrificing submission to authority, rather than through cycles of engagement, subversion
and submission. It can therefore become a formation process that in fact practices
a tacit obedience to the neo-liberal hegemony expressed in church, state and business
corporations.
Filial obedience
to the church-state hierarchy of his day is also reflected in the example of St
Francis himself. As (Mitchell, 2011, p. 94) notes, ‘It seems that the
acceptance of apostolic sovereignty under girded by heroic martyrdom remained
for Francis the essential structural ontology of the medieval church.’ For St. Francis
this understanding of obedience was informed by deference to the authority of
priests in the celebration of the Eucharist and in society; ‘Despite his devotion
to the Jesus of the gospels, a strong emphasis on the inverted Christ of the Eucharist
is prevalent in Francis’ theology.’, (Mitchell,
2011, p. 93). Whilst there were clear non-hierarchical elements in the practice
of Francis, such as giving others leadership, involving others in decision making and
relinquishing leadership, ‘these innovations supplemented rather than replaced
sovereignty in his underlying perception’ (Mitchell, 2011, p. 92).
Bureaucratic Factors Affecting
Franciscan Formation:
Mimetic Institutional Isomorphism and Amtssprache
Another
factor influencing the process of contemporary Franciscan formation is that of a
growing perceived need for bureaucracy. Franciscans pass through various stages
during formation as aspirants, postulants, novices and finally professed. In
local regions people take on voluntary roles to support the life of the Order within
a pastoral team such as Area Administrator, Area Novice Guardian, Area
Formation Guardian, and Area Minister.
These roles oversee the process of spiritual formation during the
novitiate and after profession. As the Order has grown so has the need to
maintain a paper trail of formation. Computerization and the use of email have also
enabled the development of communication and systems of monitoring and accountability.
This has dovetailed with a growing rise in a managerial approach to life in the
wider church and society.
The Anglican
theologian and philosopher Sarah Coakley (2012) 4. describes this phenomenon as ‘the secular bureaucratization of the
episcopate’ and warns of; ‘the danger of the covert assimilation of worldly or
bureaucratic notions of power and authority into the Church about Episcopal
standing and oversight.’ (Rothery, 2014, p. 37) has also cited Max Weber’s understanding
of bureaucratic administration as a form of ‘domination through knowledge’ in
connection with the growing managerial nature of mainline institutional
churches in the UK.
Whilst
the Third Order of the Society of St Francis stands alongside the Episcopal structure of the Anglican
Church it nevertheless has adopted a paper and electronic system of monitoring and accountability. Those in
positions of authority within the Order are Anglicans influenced by its culture
of bureaucratization and bring this understanding of governance to the Order. Throughout
the process of formation novices submit written quarterly feedback reports on
progress whilst the Area Novice Guardian administrates the formation process using
a number of forms which are sent back and forth between different parts of the
Order. 5. Bureaucracy also provides a method
of accountability regarding financial donations. The Third Order is a
registered charity and also therefore legally accountable to Her Majesty’s
Revenue and Customs. 6.
Legal and
financial accountability to the UK Government increase the amount of administration
required and tie the Order into complying with these requirements. These
responsibilities are also passed on to other members of the Order in local
areas. They also become accountable in the structure and necessarily involved
in the systems of feedback, communication and information gathering. This process is then understood to be
necessary for efficiency and effectiveness within the Order and can become increasingly
justified as essential in terms of
feedback to charity commissioners. These
bureaucratic requirements can then begin to affect the culture and ethos of the
Order. The need for efficiency and effectiveness in a total system of bio-power
can create practices that subvert the relational and loving nature of
Franciscan fraternity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. S.
Coakley, Has the Church of England Lost its Reason
(ABC
Religion and Ethics, November 23rd, 2012)
5. Guidance for TSSF Guardianship: http://tssf.org.uk/attachments/article/244/TANG_PART_III_Guidance_for_Novice_Guardianship_April_09.pdf
6. TSSF Chapter Handbook:
http://tssf.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/TSSF_ChapterHandbook_June2014.pdf
(Bretherton, 2010, p. 46) has also drawn attention to the procedural nature of authority inherent in liberal democracy as promoted by the political philosopher John Rawls. ‘Rawls gives what is termed a proceduralist theory of equality and justice: that is, his account seeks to secure justice by emphasising procedures rather than a normative or substantive account of what justice consists of.’ In examining the limits of the state, the money system and community, (Bretherton, 2010, Ch. 1) has noted the ways in which partnership between state and FDGs can distort their ethos due to the bureaucratic nature of the feedback mechanisms and controls required by the state. This creates a process of mimetic ‘institutional isomorphism’ which ‘means the adaptation of technologies or organizational procedures so as to copy or conform to the prevailing or hegemonic organizational structures and procedures’ (Bretherton, 2010, p. 44).
(Bretherton,
2010, p. 42) also concurs with (Jersak, 2012, p. 210) and (Pickstock in Scott
and Cavanaugh, 2007, p. 477) regarding the agonistic influence of liberal
hegemony in a pluralistic society;
‘The partnership between government and Faith
Designated Groups (FDGs) is an unequal one and one that can both distort the
FDGs themselves and foster conflict between the different religious traditions.
Much of the anxiety about drawing FDGs into partnership with the state centres
on the fear that religion is a socially divisive force. However it is not
necessarily FDGs that cause the conflict. Rather it is the way the state
structures its relationships with them’
The
introduction of paper and electronic systems
of
monitoring and accountability might seem an innocent and necessary practical step to maintain order in
a growing movement. However these systems can be used as a mechanism to drive Franciscan
formation within the Order, consequently weakening fraternal bonds which are
created through face to face encounter and dialogue. This is the nature of
bio-power as a system which drives itself. Bureaucracy also contributes to a
growing, albeit unintentional, centralization of power. Whereas before the advent
of email and paper systems of accountability spiritual formation would
necessarily have been primarily relational and organic, the process has become more
bureaucratized.
One of
the ways this manifests itself is that the annual renewal of vows has become
individualised, requiring members to submit on paper or by email the way in
which they have fulfilled their vows. This is supplemented by meetings with
individual spiritual directors and a formal ritual service of renewal. However
the essential nature of ongoing personal formation is not discussed in local groups,
nor is there a culture which encourages this. Communal formation at renewal of
vows is not practiced, yet written individual feedback is a requirement. Ironically
Franciscan spiritual formation has in this way become a private matter in a
religious Order that is clearly identified in its history and in the
contemporary UK context with the promotion of a life
of fraternity.
Anecdotal
feedback also suggests novices being surprised at the bureaucratic nature of
the formation process. Professed members of the Order also complain about it
becoming increasingly bureaucratic, as do those who choose to rescind their
vows. Growing bureaucratization also seems to be directly at odds with one of
the primary aims of the Order, which is to live simply. As (Bretherton, 2010,
p. 42) has noted above, the procedural nature of liberal systems of hegemony
creates an agonistic culture. This also conflicts with the second aim of the
Order which is to spread a spirit of love and harmony. The very nature of love
is relational rather than primarily procedural and bureaucratic.
(Van
Gelder & Rosenberg, 1998)7. have drawn
attention to the way bureaucratic language reduces empathy and relational
connection. In their work they cite (Arendt, 1965, p. 47-9)
repeatedly claiming that the Nazi war criminal Eichmann was incapable of
thinking. Apparently not lazy, not unwilling, but genuinely possessing an
“inability to speak [outside of ‘Officialise’ (Amtssprache) )]…closely
connected with an inability to think, namely, to think from the standpoint of
someone else.’’ This suggests that the very nature of bureaucratic language caused
a decrease in personal empathy, responsibility and agency, whilst increasing
compliance through utilizing an efficient, utilitarian but coercive form of
communication.
Theological Factors Affecting
Franciscan Formation:
Transcendence Subsumed by
Sovereignty
(Mitchell,
2011, p. 171-195) has outlined the way kenotic theology became a key feature in
the Christianity of the 20th Century. The Anglican Franciscan Order lies within historic
expressions of
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. S. Van Gelder & M. Rosenberg, The Language of Non-Violence
(Yes
Magazine, June 30th, 1998)
Christianity
and its theology is therefore informed by these influences. As (Mitchell, 2011 p. 174) has observed ‘Many
configurations of kenotic theology use kenosis as an attempt reconcile imperial sovereignty and humility in God, so that his humility becomes
a moral component of his sovereign power on the continuing assumption that
sovereign power is necessary to divine transcendence’’.
The way
kenosis is interpreted can create an attitude towards sovereignty that result
in an attempt to placate the anger of the sovereign Father God through a
strategy of appeasement and propitiation by a human Son. As (Mitchell, 2011, p.
80) notes ‘Bulgakov maintains monarchical hierarchy within transcendence and
Balthasar, refers to ‘here’ and beyond’ in a way that seems to make the God of
beyond greater than the God who is incarnate here.’ In this way sovereignty
attributed to God the Father is maintained. Therefore the only solution to
conflict with sovereign authority is to deny the dignity of divinity inherent within
the human being. The Son is understood as inferior to the Father within the
Trinity. Therefore the human is always seen as inferior to the divine and a
problem to be dealt with or put off, rather than inherently divine. Transcendence
is not understood to be present in the human being except with the exercise of
kingly authority to which humans are subordinate.
Within
the Anglican Franciscan Order this theology results in reinforcing a
hierarchical attitude to authority in church and society. This understanding has
remained consistent in the Order since the time of St Francis;
‘Such was the extent of
sovereignty’s penetration of medieval thought forms that innovative
eschatological initiatives such as those of Joachim and Francis could still
only make prophetic, transient moves towards an alternative Jesus and ecclesia
that pointed to a radically different realization of the eschaton. …despite
their creativity and courage they remained supporters of sovereign hierarchy at
a fundamental level.’ (Mitchell, 2011, p. 95).
In an
attempt to deal with the problem of sovereignty being attributed to the divine
Father, other approaches to kenosis have resulted in emptying out God
altogether. (Cupitt in Hick ed, 1977) rejects the doctrine of incarnation as a
way of dealing with the imperial sovereignty attributed to the divine. However,
as (Mitchell, 2011, p. 185) notes;
‘Once incarnation is rejected as sovereignly
transcendent or denounced as anthropomorphic, the Death of God and the
atheology represented in the writings of Mark C Taylor and the and Thomas J.J.
Alitzer appear to be the only viable alternatives. These radical forms of
kenosis do not describe attributes of God but are theories that, as a consequence
of the identification of transcendence with domination, empty out the divine
nature altogether.’’
This approach
results in immanentizing the human, thereby leaving it autonomous and totally free.
However these modern and post-modern conceptions of freedom can lead to
employing force and an excessive emphasis on autonomy to overcome the other as
the perceived enemies of personal rights and human freedom. As (Jersak, 2012,
p. 310) has described it;
‘Primacy of the will
co-opts the language of justice on the left so that ‘rights and freedoms’
justify the escalating violence of autonomy, rebellion and ultimately
revolution against allegedly oppressive religious and political authority.’
Personal Penitence and Self Denial
or Self Giving?
Associated
with ideas of a ‘subsumed transcendence that …. abused service, submission and
sacrifice’, (Mitchell, 2013, ch. 5, loc. 1871) is the Franciscan spiritual practice of self
denial. In wanting to avoid a rebellious
and violent reaction to transcendence being subsumed by sovereignty Anglican Franciscan
formation tends to see the practices of penitence and self denial as ways of bringing
peace. However, as previously noted these
practices can be interpreted in a somewhat self focussed way. The Franciscan
Manual 8. states that;
‘Penitence refers to the feelings of sorrow and regret arising from
knowledge and recognition of the shortcomings which continually mark all our
lives, individual and corporate, and in accepting God’s forgiveness of them.’’ In
this way penitence and self denial could also be seen to dovetail with the
language and practice of appeasement of the divine which is integral in the
view of transcendence being subsumed by sovereignty.
In
reflecting on the nature of penitence and self denial the experience of Simone
Weil can invite some further reflection. ‘While Weil’s profound understanding
of the emptying out of the will to mastery basic to sovereign power takes us to
the heart of the matter, she has a frustrating tendency to regard the will
itself as evil.’, and that ‘for her the will needs to be more than surrendered
it needs to be eradicated.’
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. The Manuel of the Third Order of the Society
of St Francis: tssf.org.uk
(Mitchell and Tomlin (Eds), 2014, ch.1, loc. 435). Viewed in this
way self denial is not an experience of a positive expression of will in which;
‘Divinity yields to love for ‘the other’ including ones enemies, as is manifest
in Jesus’ life…..The will to mastery can be surrendered and replaced with the
will to love.’’ (Mitchell and Tomlin (eds), 2014, ch.1, loc. 435). The
difficulty with eradication of the will, which may be inherent in attitudes
towards the practice of self denial, is that it can result in a tendency
towards passivity, and potential nihilism, rather than an expression of love
which is essentially mutual. Self giving perhaps reflects a more kenarchic
understanding of the way Christ gave his life on the cross, rather than self
denial in order to appease.
The Eucharist
is also a primary feature of a Franciscan formation. Within the Catholic
tradition and emerging out of a context of oppression and torture in Chile, (Cavanaugh, 2002, p. 14) has suggested
developing a ‘kind of Eucharistic counter-politics which forms the church into
a body capable of resisting oppression.’ To do this he envisages a local
community of mutual participation that is connected to the universal community
of the church. In doing so he seeks to re-invest the Eucharist with
counter-political power. However the hierarchical structure of the Catholic
Church and the centrality of priests who retain a mediatory role do not
sufficiently change the monarchical character of authority in the local
community. Franciscans within the
Anglican Communion experience similar problems regarding the hierarchical
structure of the Church and the centrality of priests who retain a mediatory
role. As (Mitchell, 2011, p. 179) has noted;
‘the configuration of the Eucharist as the
resolution of God’s sovereign power and man’s failure to submit, by the
appeasing interposition of Jesus’ death and blood, was …..misconceived, together with its legitimating function
between cleresy and people.’
Developing Kenarchic Practices in
Franciscan Formation
Contemporary
Franciscan spiritual formation seems to struggle at creating a politics of
peace because it remains privatised. In tolerating difference it tends to placate
neo-liberal hegemony, rather than engaging with difference and pluralism in
society. To become more kenarchic Franciscan practices could re-connect in a
stronger way with their original social practices of fraternity in society and
penitence toward all creation.
(Foucault,
1990, p. 145) suggests that bio-power can be ‘turned back on the system that
was bent on controlling it.’ The systems of communication being used to bureaucratize
the Order in an attempt to create efficiency are also available to the members
of the Order to self-organize around personal and social engagement for peace-making
in their local communities. The Order is now considering ways to increase
grassroots participation and involvement in decision making. However it seems
to need to devolve responsibility for formation to area and local groups,
rather than channel it solely through individuals in the structure. Local groups
need to become communities of fraternal practice, that in turn galvanize a more
fraternal and kenarchic practice in pluralistic society. To increase a sense of
fraternity, a culture of increasing dialogue and openness about the social
practices of Franciscan formation needs to inform the ethos of local groups.
As a
major part of that local dialogue Franciscan formation also needs to take far
more seriously the challenge of fraternal engagement in a pluralistic society. (Sacks,
2002, p. 83) has noted that;
‘Just as community is built on the willingness
to let the ‘I ‘be shaped by the ‘We’, so society is made by the readiness to
let the ‘We of our community be constrained by the need to make space for other
communities and their deeply held beliefs.’
To make
space for the other means to be open for more potential for conflict and
disagreement. However, a Franciscan desire for peace-making is well placed to
engage in a kenarchic way that empties out power by making space for the other.
In order to do so, Graham Ward’s ‘standpoint theology’ can provide further
insight. He has pointed out that no one is truly objective but that everyone
understands the world from the mixture of influences interacting in their own
culture upon them; ‘it is not only that the cultural axis of any standpoint is
never pure, but it is always under negotiation itself at any time at which the
standpoint is engaged.’ (Ward, 2005,p. 97).
Those involved in conversations where differences are encountered, are
influencing each other in the conversation and changing one another. What
emerges in the space between them is a truth that is not propositional but
primarily relational and is created in their particular time and context, from
the perspectives that begin to coalesce. (Sacks, 2002, p. 84) points towards
this relational truth when he states;
‘it is precisely in and
through that conversation that we become conjoint authors of our collective
future, rather than just dust blown by the wind of economic forces. Conversation-respectful,
engaged, reciprocal, calling forth some of the greatest powers of empathy and
understanding-is the moral form of the world governed by the dignity of
difference.’
Finally, to
counter an unhelpful emphasis on self denial in formation, the development of a
culture of self-giving could be developed. Penitence can be re-imagined in
terms of restoration of relationships with humans, plants and animals through
gift giving. Rusk in (Mitchell & Tomlin (eds), 2014, ch. 5. loc. 1302) has
described it as;
‘the
gift carrying the greatest potential to change everyone involved is the one
that crosses psycho-social boundaries, which does not worry about balance or
fairness, and which multiplies loving connections beyond the current economy of
relationship without expectation or return.’
These
practices echo the Prayer of St Francis when it says; ‘it is in giving that we
receive, and in pardoning that we are pardoned’, and ‘in dying we are born to eternal life.’9.
Bio-power,
neo-liberal hegemony and a theology informed by the politics of Empire have
stifled the relational nature of contemporary Franciscan formation. To become
more kenarchic the task of formation needs to devolved to local groups, who in
turn can foster a culture of courageous conversation and gift exchange. Tertiary
Franciscans could then increasingly begin to extend to the other and make space
for the stranger through emptying themselves out in love for them in their
local communities.
Brother David Steindl-Rast (2012)10. re-imagines a faith beyond religion through
kenarchic encounter in community;
‘Egalite, fratenite and
liberte…..they stood for the things Buddha and Jesus stood for……and Buddha and
Jesus realised this through small communities. So I think it can only be lived
in a small community, in a non-violent, sharing, caring community…. It is a
non-violent revolution against that power structure.’
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Brother D. Steindl-Rast, Beyond Religion, MIT, 2012.
video.mit.edu/.../beyond-religion-ethics-values-a-we..
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. La Clochette, 1912
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS
H. Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil (New York: Penguin Books, 1965).
L. Bretherton,
Christianity and Contemporary Politics
(Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010).
W. Cavanaugh,
Theopolitical Imagination
(London and New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2002).
M. Foucault,
The History of Sexuality, Volume 1
(London: Penguin Books, 1990).
R. Mitchell, Church, Gospel and Empire
(Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2011).
-------------- The Fall of the Church
(Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2013). Kindle Edition.
R. Mitchell & A. Tomlin, (eds) Discovering Kenarchy.
(Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2014). Kindle Edition.
F. Rothery,
Missional: Impossible! the death of
institutional Christianity and the rebirth of G-d.
(Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2014).
J. Sacks, The Dignity of Difference
(London, UK, and New York, NY: Continuum Books, 2002).
P. Scott and W. T. Cavanaugh (ed.), The
Blackwell Companion to Political Theology, 2nd Edition (Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.,
2005).
G. Ward, Cultural Transformation and Religious
Practice (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005).
OTHER SOURCES AND RESOURCES
S. Coakley,
Has the Church of England Finally Lost
its Reason
(ABC
Religion and Ethics, November 23rd, 2012).
D. Cupitt,
’The Christ of Christendom’ in
John Hick
(ed) The Myth of God Incarnate,
(London: SCM Press, 1977).
Guidance for TSSF Guardianship :
http://tssf.org.uk/attachments/article/244/TANG_PART_III_Guidance_for_Novice_Guardianship_April_09.pdf
B. Jersak,
We Are Not Our Own: The Platonic Christianity of George P. Grant:
From the Cave to the Cross and Back with Simone Weil (unpublished
dissertation from Bangor University, 2012).
La Clochette Magazine,
(Paris: La Ligue de la Sainte-Messe, 1912)
The Manuel of the Third Order of
the Society of St Francis.
tssf.org.uk, July 2014
C. Pickstock,
‘Postmodernism’ in Scott & Cavanaugh (eds) The Blackwell Companion to
Political Theology 2nd Edition (Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.,
2005).
Brother D.
Steindl-Rast, Beyond Religion,
Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (2012).
TSSF Chapter Handbook:
S. Van
Gelder & M. Rosenberg, The Language
of Non-Violence.
(Yes
Magazine, June 30th, 1998).
S. Van Valkenburgh, The dangerous American myth of corporate spirituality; How invocations of "karma" and Zen are being used to justify
deeply unequal systems of power
(Salon, Sunday, Oct 26, 2014).
S. Zizek, From
Western Marxism to Western Buddhism
(Cabinet Magazine, Issue Two, Mapping Conversations,
Spring 2001)
No comments:
Post a Comment