On the occasion of 21st century, christian spiritualism has a big challenge from secular world. Even though the 20th century’s christian theology emphasized the theology of hope, which were promoted by Moltmann and Pannenberg, it seems that there is still no hope in the contemporary christianity. Christianity don’t have any solution of the contemporary issues, such as environmental destruction, economic polarization, world conflict, cultural divergence, destruction of social security, even moral hazard. It is required for christianity to be a religion of hope again in these situations. One of the responses of this requirement is the necessity of an alternative christian movement, the new monasticism is one of the movement. The new monasticism was organized in 2004 by some certain christian communities, such as the Simple Way, Rutba House, Camden Community, the Psalters, etc. They have agreed with the “12 Marks of New Monasticism” in order to make an alternative christian community of communities. Instead of the formal evangelicalism, they would like to pursue the counter cultural christian life and new spirituality. Because of the ethos, the new monasticism has been paid attention to the church in terms of christian spirituality. First, it is oriented communitarianism to overcome the problem of the individualism which prevails in modern society. Second, the new monasticism is oriented simple life and sharing their possessions in order to overcome the problem of capitalism. Third, it seeks to realize the ethical praxis with emphasizing social justice and positive community involvement in order to solve the issues of modern society. Fourth, the new monasticism seeks to expand the Kingdom of God through practicing the counter-culturalism, the non-imperialism, and nonviolent pacifism. Fifth, it conducts the new christian movement with making a community of communities which has accepted the interdenominational diversity. Even though there are some significances in the new monasticism, we can discuss some limitations of it too. Firstly, the new monasticism cannot perfectly be a alternative christian movement, since it has some radical aspects to solve the contemporary issues. Secondly, the new monasticism has a certain theological limitation, because it only emphasizes the practical elements of faith rather than all biblical dogma. Thirdly, this movement cannot realize the culture command of God in this world because it infers to the counter-culture, such as non-individualism and non-consumerism, to overcome the problem of contemporary capitalism. And lastly, the new monasticism has the limitation which is related to the possibility of development, because it has some weak points, such as absence of the systematic mission strategy, flexible solidarity between the communities, inclusive interdenominational mind. It’s very clear that the new monasticism has some limitations, Nevertheless, it proposes to the contemporary christian society an important solution of the issue of the christian spirituality. Through the emergence of the movement we are able to think of the christian spirituality as well. Holistic spirituality should be the most important element which we have to pursue to recover the religious authority nowadays. The new monasticism is one of the movement which we have to regard as an alternative christian spirituality.

The starting point of this work is to refute the argument of Peter Brown that the leadership of bishop as “lover of the poor” is not to confine the inspiration to within the Christian church and it would be considered from the social-political structure rather than ecclesiastical-monastic view. Brown insisted that Basileia, which was built for the relief of the poor by Basil, is a striking outcome of the great imperial endowment by which the church was granted its privileges in return for a fully, public commitment to the care of the poor. Even though the leadership of bishop as “the lover of the poor” is in part influenced by the socio-political structure, the religious and spiritual structure of human being is taking precedence over the socio-political structure of human being. Therefore, this work is to present how much as a bishop called “the lover of the poor,” Chrysostom was influenced by the monastic ideas. John Chrysostom, a deacon and presbyter from 381 to 397 in Antioch and a bishop from 398 to 404 in Constantinople, died in exile in 407. He spoke over eight hundred sermons, two hundred and forty two letters, and fourteen treaties on poverty, the rich and the poor and alms. He is called “the lover of the poor.” His understanding of above issues is greatly influenced by monasticism, because the monastic ideal is ‘the voluntary poverty.’ St. Antony died in Egypt in 365, and Pachomius died only a short time before Chrysostom was born. Therefore, definitely he was influenced by monastic ideal very strongly. Chysostom basically adopts the monastic ideals as his life model, and uses them as a basis for how he believes Christian ought to live in the city. The early years of the fourth century had already witnessed the popularity of the ascetic forms of Christianity in Palestine and Syria. In the second half of the fourth century, the manner of the lifestyle of the monks, both in Syria and in Antioch, was no longer unfamiliar. For Chrysostom monks are the models of Christian citizenship and monastery is the model for the city. His desire is to bring the monk’s way of life to the city. For Chrysostom, the monastery is the “city of virtue.” He wants to bring that virtue into the city, where the pursuit of glory prevails. In fact, glory is a key motivator for maintaining the city in an ancient society. Chrysostom challenges the vainglory pursued by so many, through his frequent preaching. In late antiquity, the dignity of the city was measured by the greatness of the city, represented by the Orchestra, the Hippodrome, gym and theatre of a city. He argues that the most important factor for maintaining the city is humility. While Chrysostom takes his ideal for the Christian life and for society from the norms of monasticism, his attempts to implement his ideal in reality represent in almsgiving to overcome the gap between the rich and the poor. He defines wealth itself as neutral. He focused on the function of wealth as utility, consequently he encouraged people to give alms. Therefore, he is called “the lover of the poor.”