Saint Martin of Tours, patron saint of soldiers and conscientious objectors?

Saint Martin of Tours, whose feast day is November 11th (tomorrow) in the West, as well as being something of a big noise in France, is also officially the patron saint of soldiers, but might I reckon  just as well be the patron saint of conscientious objectors.

He was around in the fourth century AD, and was a real European, born in Hungary, growing up in Italy and ending up in France.

Martin, a forced conscript at the age of 15 into the Roman army in which his father had served as an officer, was hardly a model soldier.In fact there was not much that Martin of Tours modelled which had anything to be said for it in worldly terms.

Martin of Tours was a youngster when he decided that against the ways of his family, he wanted to join the Christian church. He secretly became a believer, and when in his mid teens he was conscripted into the legion, he apparently had to be chained up before he would take the oath.

Once taken though, Martin felt he must uphold his oath, and faitfully carried out his mainly ceremonial duties as a soldier, albeit an unconventional one.

One of the most famous stories concerning Martin’s unusual behaviour is from his time as a soldier, it has the young officer riding out on his horse when he saw a beggar half frozen in the street. Instead of ignoring the man and riding on like his fellow officers, Martin jumped down and slashed his own cloak in half, giving one half to the poor man, and keeping the other half for himself. It seems as if this was a turning point for him, he is said to have dreamed that night that he had given the cloak to Jesus, in a stark reminder of the words of Jesus…

I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.

It was about two years after this time that Martin was finally sent out to war, when nomads invaded and he was called up to fight in the front line. His previous determination to fulfill the oath he had made seemed to have waned and become replaced with a determination to follow Jesus’ ways, and rather than fight he said:

“Put me in the front of the army, without weapons or armor; but I will not draw sword again. I am become the soldier of Christ.”

It was with these words that he became for me, the patron saint of the conscientious objector. Not a coward, not a desertor, just someone who refused to fight.

He went on to become a sack-cloth clad monk, and to live his life in a way that should stand as an example to all of us, eventually being buried in a paupers grave despite his family’s social standing.

Among other things he can be credited with is the establishment of monasticism in Gaul (France) and a missionary career marked by going to meet people in their homes, rather than demanding they come to him in a church or temple.

Martin of Tours was faithful to his beliefs, famously he got things wrong and wasnt always well recieved, but he was faithful and carried on anyway.

All of which reminds me of a prayer which Mark Berry posted the other day, written by another soldier of Christ, Thomas Merton, which neatly sums up the attitude which I think we each should take to this life of Jesus following:

My Lord God I have no idea where I am going.
I do not see the road ahead of me.
I cannot know for certain where it will end.
Nor do I really know myself, and the fact that I think that I am following your will does not mean that I am actually doing so.
But I believe that the desire to please you does in fact please you.
And I hope that I have that desire in all that I am doing.
I hope that I will never do anything apart from that desire.
And I know that if I do this you will lead me by the right road
though I may know nothing about it.
Therefore I will trust you always
though I may seem to be lost and in the shadow of death.
I will not fear, for you are ever with me,
and you will never leave me to face my perils alone.

(Thoughts in Solitude.  Thomas Merton)

Visit either of these two sites for more of a biography of Martin of Tours.

If you can’t be with the one you love, then love the one you’re with

Or the strange fascination God’s people have with the world they’re in.

Stephen Stills was a great songwriter, and there’s no doubt ‘Love the one you’re with’ is a catchy song, which accounts for the fact that it’s been covered by gazillions of artists since Stills released it in the early 1970s.

But for me I find the amoral nature of the lyric fairly nauseating:

And if you can’t be with the one you love
Love the one you’re with
Love the one you’re with
Turn your heartache right into joy
She’s a girl, you’re a boy,
Get it together make it nice
Ain’t gonna need anymore advice.

It’s just more of that crappy hedonism that was and is preached by the kings of cool and which has proven to be oh so great for all of us.

But my problem with this notion goes further than a bit of a grumble about a pop song, after all many of my favourite tunes have morally ambiguous lyrics if I’m honest.

My real gripe is that this very sentiment is being played out each day by people who claim to follow Jesus, and from time to time, more often perhaps than I’d like to admit, by me too.

Somehow because of the nature of God, being all invisible and difficult to focus upon, and the very hyper-reality of the world we live in, we choose to forsake the apparently absent one we (say we) love, and instead have an affair, or at least a fling, with the one we’re with.

Perhaps it’s as Stills says:

…you’re down and confused
And you don’t remember who you’re talkin’ to
Concentration slip away…

…There’s a girl right next to you
And she’s just waiting for something you do.

There’s a real need for us to remember who we are talking to, to remind ourselves of the reality of our situation. Not to be so distracted by our surroundings that we forsake the one we love, for the one we’re with.

How can that be done? There’s a real question of discipline here, which again I’ll be the first to say I have not got a good enough hold of. But perhaps there was a good reason that the Jews and the early Christians chose to pray seven times a day, perhaps the Muslims have a point in their ritual daily observances!

Perhaps we have lost something by rejecting the Sabbath and letting the ways of the world in to our day of rest and ritual observance. Perhaps our choice to forsake the telling and retelling of stories of God and his people in preference to weak sermons and flashy multimedia presentations has had unforeseen consequences.

Perhaps we’ve mucked up by abandoning fasting as a regular part of our life, and allowing our every desire to be sated in a whirlwind of consumer culture. Maybe our unwillingness to take on the challenge of meditation in a world where information flies around at the speed of light is a bigger loss than we thought, as it has the potential to connect us to the unknown and unseen and remove us from the realm of the immediate.

Maybe the monastics really do have something to teach us in all this… I guess you know I think they do.

I suppose this is a mournful call for a return to spiritual discipline, in the knowledge that we walk only by grace any how, but in the sincere hope that with a renewed focus on the reality of the closeness of God, comes a greater faithfulness to him.

Robert Crumb’s Genesis – a review

I recently got a copy of Robert Crumb’s illustrated book of Genesis for review. I’m not going to print my whole review here, it’s going elsewhere, but I am going to give a quick/short form review as I know lots of people will be interested in the book.

Of course Crumb is a justly famous artist, his mastery of pencil and pen is amazing, and the artwork in this version of the Genesis text is incredible.

Moreover he doesnt take any liberties with the text, it’s basically ‘as is’ (albeit with the mandatory additions of chapters, and the occasional Crumb footnote).

It’s a beautifully illustrated book, and the illustration is very well researched, adding a new dimension to the text in places.

My only grumble with the book is that in my opinion Crumb has over-sexualised some of the female characters. I think he does this to try and emphasise their power and importance, but I think the pneumatic breasts and rounded buttocks which appear clothed and unclothed as the the stories demand, are at times unneccesarily exagerated.

Textual literalists may also complain that while Crumb doesnt add or subtract from the words, he does add some new layers of meaning (although well researched of course) via facial expressions and background contexts in certain scenes.

In all, an excellent book, really beautifully drawn. There are issues surrounding sexualisation, and in my opinion this is a consistent issue with Crumb, but if you can ignore that, then there is the real possibility that this will open up the ancient and awesome book of Genesis in a new way for the reader, and that is always welcome.

Parental advisory: contains sexual and violent content.

Book Progress

So the book is progressing, which is kind of exciting. Because it is now out of my hands I dont really feel like its a real entity at the moment, except for brief flashes of excitement now and then, like today when I was sent a bunch of potential covers to have a look at, actually I thought there were about four really good options in the bunch, but one stood out as my favourite, and the same one was picked out by a couple of others I asked, so I now think I have an idea what the book will look like.

Nice.

Publishing date is still the same, looks like May 2010 barring any set backs, I was thinking of asking the Pope for a foreword… worth a try?

For anyone who doesnt know by the way, and cares, because you need to care and not know to want to read this next sentence… The book is called New Monasticism UK, and its about the themes of new monasticism, in terms of rules, rhythms, community and so on, and it is mainly made up of interviews with people living in what I consider to be new monastic ways. I would think it would make a really perfect gift for anyone fom the age of 5 upwards… oh darn I forgot to include colouring pages!

Simon Mann is the tip of the iceberg, mercenaries are mainstream

The news that Simon Mann is being released from his confinement in a deep dark African jail is no doubt cheering for his family, but probably less so for the likes of Mark Thatcher who will no doubt be rueing the day that he ‘paid for an air ambulance’. Mann’s remarkable ability not to remain tight lipped will surely result in some candid remarks to newspapers in weeks to come.

But surely, one might think Mann is something of a one off, an unusual case, there can’t be many mercenaries knocking about, ready to go off on half baked coup plots. Well ok, most of them may not be ready to get involved in such nonsense as Mann did, but there are certainly plenty of them around.

I speak dear reader, as one who knows, having been involved in one way or another with two separate groups of people who were directly involvedin these kind of activities. Strange for a pacifist I know, but there you go.

I am not going to name names, but one chap I did some research work for a number of years ago recently returned to the Uk after a sojourn in Sudan, where he was working for one fo the rebel factions. Like Mann he is an outwardly posh, smart looking figure, who has an air of authority and mystery which is carefully cultivated to impress those who pay him. They might be heads of multinational corporations or insurance companies, or they might just as well be leaders of rebel armies.

Another group I worked for during another contract were led by a quiet, friendly looking chap who seemed more interested in walking in the countryside than working on a computer, he it turned out had been a senior NCO in the SAS for a number of years. I beleive he is right now in Iraq, where he has been providing private security services for a number of years.

During the time when I worked for these men I came into contact with lots of other people working ‘on the circuit’, this being just after the twin towers fell, they were all of a sudden in great demand, today I beleive there is much less demand, and the massive pay packets demanded by skilled ex SAS men have been diluted because of the flood of much cheaper gun carriers from Eastern Europe.

Most of these guys dont look like Simon Mann, many of them are very inconspicuous, that’s how they are trained to be in fact. Their leaders may be a bit more toffish, but in my experience most of the guys who do the shooting are working class men with families to look after. And if what they told me is true, most of them are Scottish.

Remember Margaret Thatcher’s comment about the SAS men she met having ginger hair and moustaches? I found that to be true too, often not very tall either. Apparently the muscular guys dont fare so well in ‘the Regiment’ where stamina and an ability to be bloody minded are prized assets. The guys with the big shoulders tend to end up in the Royal Marines, or the shaky boats (SBS) where their ability to climb up ropes and swim at 100 miles an hour is more valuable.

Until the Government does something about PMC’s (Private military companies) there will remain many mercenaries available for hire here in the UK, anyone with enough money could get a small army together pretty quickly, and providing they are whisking them off to foreign soil, they wont exactly struggle to find volunteers.

EDIT: The best of today’s crop of articles, albeit somewhat sympathetic to Mann, is possibly this one from the Times, which raises his involvement in EO and Sandline, two legends of the Mercenary world.

The Freeconomy pilgrim has become the Cashless man

About a year and a half ago, or perhaps a bit more I began to be intrigued by a guy called Saoirse who was planning to walk to India in a kind of pilgrimage to spread the word of the ‘freeconomy’ where people give things to one another without using the usual trading mechanism of money.

Poor old Saoirse you may remember got as far as France, where unfortunately his caper came to a sad end when he realised he couldnt speak French, and the French realised he had no money to travel with. I always thought this plan was a bit thin, I couldnt see how he was going to get Visas for one thing, but anyway, he came back to the UK.

Not one to be daunted by a knock back of this sort Saoirse reverted to his old name of Mark Boyle and began a year long experiment of living with no cash. Admittedly there was a bit of compromise involved, he lived off the cast offs of a cashfull society, food thrown away, land that belongs to someone, an old caravan and so on, most controversially of all he used a mobile phone and a laptop, to allow him to publicise his adventures. The truth is of course that living in a truly money free way, is, like living in a truly vegan way, basically impossible in this society.

To a degree I am now a bit suspicious of Mr Boyle, not that I’ve ever met him, but I recognise in him the trait I’ve seen in others, of a strong self publicist who will use stunts to get attention. I agree that his cause is an interesting one, and I am as you know very much pro the anti consumption/simple life message, busy living it as best I can in fact.

However, aside from being a good publicity stunt, do I think there’s much value in what Mark’s done? I dont know, but I think perhaps not. The good thing is that he’s stirred up a lot of people, his two posts  (1& 2 )on the Guardian Blog have got lots of comments from people defensive of thier own lifestyles, well that’s to be expected.

But the evidence shows that those people arent likely to be converted to a lower impact way of living by Mark’s efforts. There are understood to be three groups of people, a minority of people who are ‘true believers’ who will do everything in their power to live according to their beliefs, in this case, they will live on as little as possible, consume as little as they can and so on.

Then there’s another minority of people who are really anti – who will argue against this or that, in this case they will slate the very idea of living on less or nothing. The sight of someone doing something extreme like this will not help or encourage them to change their opinions.

The majority of people sit in the middle, they are largely ready to live more ethically, but will only do so if it is easy and uncomplicated, the prospect of living on nothing is neither of these. Most people are in the system, they arent able to opt out completely, they may have families or debts which they have to consider, its too simplistic to expect them to change radically.

What would be more welcome are more straightforward role models of alternative lifestyles, living a lower impact lifestyle in a quiet way, chipping away at the man rather than batting him in the face with a hammer.

I now feel a bit flat by the Cashless man thing, I feel like its a bit of an empty stunt, an interesting if tame (no real danger) experiment perhaps. I’d like to see more people doing ordinary things in a radical way, lets have more people living on much less, giving more away, being more committed to simplicity as a virtue, and fewer publicity stunts.

Back to the future? New Monks, New Friars and a return to the 1930s…

What is new monasticism? What is the difference between monks and friars? And are we heading for a 1930s revival? The/my answers to all these questions, plus a competition and a joke are all to be found in the following article…

In the 1930s much of the world was gripped by a severe financial downturn, this downturn was one of the factors which (arguably) precipitated the rise of right wing politics, and even the second World War. But it also precipitated a birth of a wave of ‘New Monasticism’ among Christians in UK, Europe, and the USA.

Chief architects of this wave of New Monasticism were the German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who posed the thought that what was needed was a ‘new type of monasticism,’ the American radical Dorothy Day, who founded (with Peter Maurin) the Catholic Worker Movement, and George MacLeod, who established the Iona Community.

There are many interesting points to draw out of this period of activity, and I try to draw some of them out in my book, which is due out next year. But I want in this article to try and get across some of my perspective on some points which have been raised on the interweb recently.

They are all related, so hopefully it wont be too disjointed…

1) Andrew Jones reckons we are heading for a revisiting of the 1930s, citing certain shifts in church thinking which will lead to a more sustainable platform for new forms of church and mission, including the new monastics. He thinks people will be paying more attention to writers like Bonhoeffer (of course) and also Dorothy Day.  It’s interesting to me, because I see this as a cyclical thing, he suggests new enterprises will be the way to support new forms of church, and this has been tried over and over again, with different measures of success. I dont want to get bogged down in discussing the ins and outs of enterprise, business as mission or so on, I just want to say that I agree to an extent. I think that aspects of the 1930s are already appearing in the church landscape, and in many ways that is very welcome.

Which leads me on to point two, but first a precursor:

None of the three people I mention above (Bonhoeffer, MacLeod and Day) were (self defined) monastics, they are however inspirational to a generation of new monastics.

2) Maggi Dawn mentions briefly that there’s a lot of chit chat about ‘urban monasticism’ on the internet, which she describes as an ‘oxymoron’ and promises to talk more about some other time.

We come here to the main point of this post, is it oxymoronic to suggest there’s such a thing as urban monasticism? In my opinion, no it is not.

The reason we’ve come to understand monasticism as we do now, is that we’ve accepted as our all consuming definition of monasticism the one offered by the Roman monastics. Now it’s fair to say that they’ve been around a long time, Benedict of Nursia was born only about 450 years after Jesus died, there’s a lot of heritage there! However, the roots of monasticism are further back and more diverse than this.

And this is the point where my other strand of grumblement comes in, the way that people are dividing up Monks and Friars. So ok, this might be quite boring if you’re not a monk nerd, but stick with me, I’ll throw a joke in before too long.

My assertion is this:

Monasticism as drawn from the root ‘Monos’ meaning alone doesnt just refer to cloistered Roman type monks or nuns. Yes, that is what the Roman and many Anglican orders now say, but they are actually relatively speaking, the new kids on the block.

Monasticism draws its inspiration right back to the Old Testament, to prophets like Elijah (if you can tell me which Monastic order is named as they are because of something to do with Elijah, you win a prize, post your answer in the comments below).

One of the first great monastic figures identified as a ‘proto monk’ by some, is John the Baptist. He has many of the hallmarks of a monastic, having the aloneness, and the element of having retreated, gone through what monastics later described as ‘purgatio’ or the ‘desert experience’ and also the simplicity, which is usually a by-product of the desert experience (suffering causes one to get a proper grasp on the value of material things.)

Then of course there are the desert fathers, many and varied where they, some lived in sketes, some as hermits, some eventually formed the first proper monastery… etc.

Anyhow, the way that this way of life was passed on to the Celtic fringes of the UK is still a mystery, there are many theories, but to cut many long stories cruelly short we can say that the Celts had monks knocking about in Ireland, Cornwall, Wales, Scotland and then Northern England, before the church of Rome got a grip over here.

(I’m not even going to talk about the Eastern Orthodox monks who lived in Constantinople!)

How did these monks live? For many/most/perhaps all there was the initial period of purgatio again, of ridding oneself of earthly desires and so on, but they then lived together in communities which formed the very heart of thriving communities full of business, healthcare, agriculture, you name it. In fact their here in Britain some settlements are marked still by place names, throughout places like Scotland and Ireland  you can see Kil as a prefix to a town name which denotes a monk’s cell.

Andrew Jones’ point about business or enterprise springing up to support ministry was pretty much pioneered by the monastics, who were doing all kinds of stuff to keep their communities afloat.

In later days the Roman monastics excelled at this, many orders corrupting themselves by growing too rich through their success at business.

If you go into an ordinary town now, you will find evidence of monastic life, roads named after monks or Abbeys for instance. As often you will find places named after Friaries, or Friars, and this reflects the fact that as one of the many iterations of Monasticism came the Friars.

I’m not going to do the whole history thing now, it would be dull (er). I’ll keep it simple and quick (ish). The orders of Friars were distinct from the Roman Monastics because of a number of peculiarities; for instance they took the same vows as the monks (poverty, chastity, obedience) with one exception, that of stability. The Friars were able to mooch about, interacting with communities, teaching, healing, preaching or whatever. They didnt have that same tie to a monastic house or particular place, they did however (to begin with) have a very strict adherence to the vow of poverty, unlike some of their monastic brethren.

There were/are of course other differences, the main duty of a monk in the Roman tradition, one must understand, is to pray the office. Monks are basically bound to pray, regardless of whatever else they do. They are set apart for God (in the Old Testament Nazirite tradition) and their job is to seek him at all times.

Friars however are part of what Catholics call ‘Religious Life’ as apart from Monasticism, members of Religious Life orders (including the Friars and others, such as the Jesuits) have other jobs besides the praying of the office.  Does this mean they are less ‘Monastic’? Only by one definition of the term, and certainly not if we accept the precursor monks, be they those of the Old Testament, Desert, Orthodox or Celtic Fringes as Monastics. They had a duty to pray, of course, they (sometimes) had vows, they were not cloistered though, and they were able to dwell in all kinds of different situations.

So to draw an incredibly long and rambling post to a near close I’ll try and sum up my ramblings (I’ve not forgotten about the joke, just wait a little moment longer):

1) I agree with Andrew Jones, and believe we’re heading towards/already in an era where the works of 1930s new monastic inspirations like Day, Bonhoeffer, & MacLeod are given real prominence.

2) I disagree with those who say there is a profound difference between ‘new monasticism and new friarism’, I beleive that the distinction between Friars and Monks, which labels one as monastic and the other as not, is incorrect. They both draw from the same root, the later interpretation of Monastic as cloistered is a recent division, and neednt be applied across the board.

3) Which means that I probably disagree with Maggi Dawn, and think that  Urban Monasticism can exist, people can be set apart, alone together, or alone alone in any setting, the urban environment can be just as much a desert as a literal desert.

Anyway, I promised a joke… so: this guy goes into a  chip shop called ‘Monastic fish and chips’, he sees a guy in robes behind the counter and asks a fellow customer ‘Ah, is that the fish Friar?’ To which the other replies: ‘No, he’s the chip Monk.’

I didn’t say the joke was any good. Hope you found this interesting, I talk more about this stuff in the book, and look at a number of communities which according to some wouldnt be seen as ‘monastic’ because of the places or ways they live, but to me they are quite clearly drawing upon the same source for their ways of life.

Phil’s dead

Norman Painting 1924 – 2009

A very fine actor, and a legend of radio drama.

I’m always sad when someone in The Archers dies, dont know why. But I know my sadness is nothing compared to what his family must be feeling, they can I hope be comforted a little by the knowledge that his work was appreciated by so many.

Chestnuts toasting beneath an electric grill…

Yeah ok, it doesnt quite have that same Christmas time ring to it, but unless you happen to have an open fire handy (not in this flat mate) it’s a good deal more practical.

If you are living tramp style, with a campfire and a load of chestnuts, try sticking them in a pan over the fire and cooking them like that, yum yum.

Anyway, for those of us without campfires to hand… So you want to know what to do with those windfall chestnuts you scrounged?

In fact there’s plenty you can do, boil them, roast them, microwave them, or as in this example – toast them.

No, don’t go sticking them in the toaster, that’s a recipe for disaster, instead use the grill, think cheese on toast, not pop tarts.

First, get your chestnuts:

They come out of little spiky shells, like a cross between beech nuts and conkers I suppose…

Then you need to score them, cutting through the shell, but trying not to cut into the ‘nut flesh’ (ouch!) We do this to ensure the little fellas dont explode while being toasted (holy exploding chestnuts batman!)

Then toast the beggars, bung them under the grill and toast them as if they were pieces of bread, you want them in there until the shells are kind of dark/blackened and peeling off.

In the above peculiarly bad picture, you can see one well toasted chestnut, and two others which seem less well done. They all tasted nice though.

Toasted chestnuts make a good snack, the sweet chestnut was actually introduced to the Uk by the Romans, who brought it in as a high calorific staple, which was handy really. Apparently they don’t germinate very easily, so if you fancy a chestnut tree of your own (me too, me too) then you’re most likely best off buying a young tree from a reputable supplier.

If you’re serious about growing your own food, then chestnuts can be an important part of a diet, providing as they do those necessary calories, which other things just dont have. Also trees are very important for bees, the amount of flowers on a tree is much greater than you might think, and can make a massive difference to the amount of nectar and pollen around – got to keep those bees busy!

Vampire Weekend – Horchata

Vampire weekend are a band that I really rate, they mix a wide selection of musical styles and quirky lyrics, and make fantastic tunes.

The first song I heard of theirs which really made me prick up my ears was Cape Cod Kwasa Kwasa, which is a really great tune. More recently though I’ve been thrilled to hear Horchata, which is just a superb tune. Its on the forthcoming album ‘Contra’ which is released in January 2010, but you dont have to wait (or pay) to get the song, it’s free to download right here.

Brilliant band, great tune, well worth a listen. Also check out their myspace, which has other great tracks, including Cape Cod Kwasa Kwasa.