Christianity is losing its
influence and, therefore, facing the future is a tremendous issue. Christianity is also losing its pull both
politically and theologically – and author Rod Dreher would argue that it is
also losing its moral influence. While
it can be argued that most world religions are also experiencing this decline,
the focus in Dreher’s work is exclusively on the Christian faith.
Dreher argues that Christian beliefs
and living by them “makes increasingly little sense.”[1]
Somewhat refreshingly, Dreher points out that this shift in opinion towards the
Christian faith did not happen overnight or during this or that presidential
term. He lays out eight reasons why there
is a spiritual crisis in the West: 1. The breakdown of the natural family. 2.
The loss of traditional moral values. 3.
Secular nihilism (nihilism being the belief that life has no intrinsic meaning
or value). 4. Culture turning against Christians. 5. Advancement of gay civil
rights. 6. The perception that there is no safe place to
be a Christian. 7. Dying churches. 8. Moralistic Therapeutic Deism.[2]
Dreher then describes or
prescribes a solution: Christians should follow the example of St. Benedict and
the Benedictine monastic model corporately and individually. This isn’t a fix-all solution for
Dreher. In fact it is presented more as
a bunker mentality: society is too far gone to be saved – therefore the
faithful must isolate to survive and then, after society collapses completely,
the faithful will remain and re-emerge to being the process of rebuilding.
So begins Rod Dreher’s book The Benedict Option. After addressing the problem and pointing out
that “nobody but the religious right thinks things can be turned around,”[3]
Dreher then sets out to outline the events over the last several centuries that
have, in his opinion, eroded the Christian faith, witness, and church
establishment.
Yet the proposal to withdraw
from the world is not just abandonment from it.
“This is not just about our own survival. If we are going to be for the world as Christ
meant for us to be, we are going to have to spend time away from the world, in
deep prayer and substantial spiritual training – just as Jesus retired to the
desert to pray before ministering to his people.”[4] To
that end, Dreher lays out the historical watershed moments that have led to the
conclusion that the church needs to regroup.
According to Dreher, there are
five major moments whose consequences have led to the loss of the predominance
of the Christian faith:
1.
In the 14th Century when the belief
in the integral connection between God and Creation was lost.
2.
The collapse of religious unity and religious
authority during the Protestant reformation (sometimes called “revolution” by
Dreher).
3.
The 18th Century enlightenment.
4.
The industrial revolution and the rise of
capitalism.
5.
The sexual revolution.
Dreher then sets out to explain in detail how each of
these long-term events has in some way led to the decline of the Christian
consciousness and efficacy.
In this list, though, the
reader begins to see the theological, ideological, and methodological approach
and views of the author. Dreher begins
to come across as one who is deeply rooted in the “orthodox” traditions of the
church: Roman Catholicism, Easter, Greek, and Russian Orthodoxy and not the Protestant traditions. This is not a negative, but it does make the
arguments Dreher attempts to make a little harder for Protestants to understand
as for many the veneration of Saints, especially St. Benedict, is a though
process that is unfamiliar. Dreher’s
call to faithfulness is one that sees the 18th Century as a time in
which Christianity was displaced by “the cult of Reason, privatized religious
life, and inaugurated the age of democracy.”[5] From a Protestant point of view, this might
not sound like a bad thing – and it does sound very American.
But for Dreher, this
democratization of the faith collapsed the authority of the church. People need not heed the Bishop, Pope, or
priest as religious authority was de-centralized. This is a point the reader needs to consider,
especially as Dreher begins to set up his thesis and strategies for moving
forward as Christians – they will almost all sound like a return to monastic
Catholicism based on a Benedictine model of isolation and monastic
existence. Dreher’s arguments sound, in
many ways, as if he is advocating the creation of Amish-like Benedictine
societies that deliberately choose to set themselves apart living near each
other around a centralized place of worship.
Dreher’s idea isn’t a new
one. For monasticism to be the “answer”
to which we are to return, one has to realize, as Dreher does, that this form
of Christianity has existed for some time – and even in pre-Christian times
there were religious traditionalists and cloistered communities. So Dreher isn’t creating a new idea, he is
merely advocating its contemporary necessity.
Dreher seems to be opposed to
what he might call extreme individualism in which the individual is valued over
the community. This isn’t a new idea
either – even for Protestants. As John
Wesley wrote, “Christianity is essentially a social religion, and that to turn
it into a solitary religion is indeed to destroy it.”[6]
Yet for Dreher, it was Martin Luther who stripped away the collective identity
of Christianity. “The Reformation
destroyed that unity and stripped those under its sway of many symbols,
rituals, and concepts that had structured the inner lives of Christians.”[7]
This point of view should be no surprise from a writer who wishes for
Christianity to gather around the teachings and Rule (the Benedictine Rules of
Order) of “the old master,” St. Benedict.
For someone who champions a
“return” from one thing to another, there has to be the something from which to
return. In this case, Dreher argues, it
is modernity or contemporary post-modernity.
Again, Dreher stresses that the modern church has lost its ties to
community, both inside and outside the church walls.[8] To return to that proper sense of community,
Dreher advocates a return to the Rule.
The Rule of the monastic order,
Dreher argues, is “to free you.”[9] It
is at once interesting and ironic that Jews felt (and feel) this way about the
Torah and that early Christians felt this way about Christ. Dreher, not articulating a return to Judaism
or a Judaized understanding of the Torah and/or New Testament, feels that it is
a return to the Rule that will draw Christians back to a thoroughgoing
Christian life – or orthopraxy. Citing
the Pastoral Epistle of 2nd Timothy and 2nd Peter, Dreher
demonstrates that the rules for orthodoxy and orthopraxy are lined out in the
New Testament and these ideas are the basis for the Rule.[10]
Interestingly, Dreher seems to
overlook the tradition of the Didache, which was a first-Century document that
“unfolds the comprehensive, step by step program used for the formation of the
gentile convert. By following the order
[Rule?] of the Didache, mentors training novices were assured of following the
progressive, ordered, and psychologically sound path that master trainers had
effectively culled from their own successful practice in apprenticing
novices. From the vantage point of the
novice the ordering of events within the Didache reveals how a candidate came
to progressively enlarge those habits of judgment and ritualized experiences
required for a full and active participation in the community.”[11]
For Dreher, who seeks for the
“sacred apartness”[12]
of Christianity, submission to authority lends order and order leads to peace.[13]
Authority for Dreher is in the Rule and, one would assume, whomever heads the
Christian community. Dreher never sets
out the full hierarchy in his book, but the fact that this idea is imbedded on
the Rule suggests that there will be at least one person in the role of
Abbot. At a later point in the book,
Dreher does detail what he feels Christians in general and the following of St.
Benedict in particular should do with their time, money, and social
arrangements. The point for Dreher is
that the community be organized around the Benedictine monastic model which
would, in Dreher’s opinion, foster appropriate ethics and apartness for Christians. This is borne out by his statement which both
expresses and confirms his point: “For the Christian who follows the way of
Saint Benedict, everyday life becomes an unceasing prayer, both an offering to
God and a gift from Him, one that transforms us bit by bit into the likeness of
His son.”[14]
The Rule, in Dreher’s opinion,
will foster a community that is ethical, moral, and is focused on the community
and its needs. Reflective of the ideal
of Acts 2:42-47, Dreher has some very cogent ideas about the community of
faith, including mutual accountability[15]
and hospitality.[16]
A potential point of contention
comes from Dreher’s argument that for there to be community and order, those
who do not conform within the community must be put out of that community,
either for a short time or permanently, depending on the level of the offense
committed.[17] Again, this isn’t an idea
that is new with Dreher. It is one that
is unfamiliar to many Western minds and, therefore, will sound harsh.
In his chapter dealing with
politics, Dreher bemoans the previous administration, though he never mentions
Obama by name, and the fact that conservative Christianity was continually
threatened and marginalized. He does,
perhaps surprisingly, also take issue with the current Trump administration,
saying, “The idea that someone as robustly vulgar, fiercely combative, and
morally compromised as Trump will be an avatar for the return of Christian
morality and social unity is beyond delusional.
He is not a solution to the problem of America’s cultural decline, but a
symptom of it.”[18]
Dreher continues by arguing
that the threats against Christians are very real and very serious. Though he refers to religious liberty taking
a “pounding from the business lobby” and that Christians are in for “hard times,”[19]
he doesn’t go into specifics other than that which he mentioned earlier in the
book – challenges going back to the 14th Century. This is not to say he is off point so much as
it appears to be a rhetorical device often used by the conservative Christian
point of view: light on specifics but heavy on threat.
Yet Dreher does make a powerful
and understated point in contrast to that rhetoric: “If protecting religious
liberty requires us to compromise the moral beliefs that define us as
Christians, then any victories we achieve will be hollow.”[20] His point: the ends do not justify the
means. Faithful Christians, Dreher
argues, may have to decide between being a good American and a good Christian.[21] Still, Dreher feels that Christians are going
to be a “powerless, despised minority.”[22] Why? Because Christians will become internal
exiles “from a community we thought was our own.”[23]
While speaking with Amos-like
rhetoric about the decline and what seems to be the pending vilification of
Christianity in the near future, Dreher argues that Christians, following the
Rule, can develop life which will, in time, develop a better system of
governance.
It is here that Dreher’s
rhetoric becomes more militant. Dreher,
speaking about those who will not conform with structural norms, writes, “Those
people who refuse to assimilate and instead build their own structures are
living the Benedict Option.”[24] He continue, quoting Václav Havel, “The best resistance to totalitarianism
is simply to drive it out of our own souls, our own circumstances, our own land,
to drive it out of contemporary humankind.”[25] With this as his background idea, Dreher
argues that “the same is true for the corrosive anti-Christian philosophy that
has taken over American public life.[26] This idea is central to Dreher’s arguments
about what he calls anti-political Christianity. For Christians to rally against a political
system, they cannot be right, left, or a-political. They must become anti-political.
Dreher describes the true
church as follows:
Instead of being seeker-friendly,
we should be finder-friendly, offering those who come to us a new and different
way of life. It must be a way of life
shaped by the biblical story and practices that keep us firmly focused on the
truths of that story in a world that wants to obscure them and make us
forget. It must be a way of life marked
off by stability and order and achieved through the steady work, both communal
and individual, of prayer, asceticism, and service to others – exactly what
liquid modernity cannot provide.
A church that looks and talks and
sounds just like the world has no reason to exist. A church that does not emphasize asceticism
and discipleship is as pointless as a football coaching staff that doesn’t care
if its players show up for practice. And
though liturgy by itself is not enough, a church that neglects to involve the
body in worship is going to find it increasingly difficult to get bodies into
services on Sunday morning as America moves further into post-Christianity.
Benedict Option churches will find
ways within their own traditions to take on practices, liturgical and
otherwise, for the sake of deepening their commitment to Christ by building a
thick Christian culture. And Benedict
Option believers will break down the conceptual walls that keep God safely
confined in a church-shaped compartment.
That’s because a church that is a church only on Sunday and at other
formal gatherings of the congregation is not only failing to be the church
Christ calls us to be; it is also not going to be a church with the strength
and the focus to endure the trials ahead.[27]
The author then turns his
attention on what a true Christian home should look like, which will probably
be the first place conservative Protestants will find shared ground. It involves putting the life of the church
first, even if that means removing children from sports programs,[28]
limited media engagement, and a hierarchy.[29] Here we have to imagine what Dreher means
specifically. While he does not express
his meaning other than the traditional role of adults over children, it seems
that it would not be a stretch to think he would resonate with the language of
the Promise Keeper movement as to the rightful place of male-female
relationships and the role of women in the house as well as in the church community.
Dreher encourages believers to
move into communities close to other believers.
Jobs are not to be the driving force behind where families live: they
need to circle the wagons, so to speak, to provide a larger community of
believers for the sake of Benedict community growth – home schooled,
Christian-based communities that share resources, grow their own food, and
worship and study together. Should that
mean a loss in pay or a different job, then so be it, because the church “is to
be the center of your life.”[30]
Interestingly, Dreher warns against idolizing the community, even
though he comes very close to doing that himself. Perhaps this comes as a warning not to be too
cult-like[31] or too rigid. Again, though, we find a paradox with
Dreher. Do not be too rigid, he warns,
while at the same time he argues that the Christian community has to be
prepared to excommunicate members as well as saying the community has to be
ready to withdraw from the world.
This idealized Benedictine
community is the end goal for Dreher. It
is to become something of a closed community.
Build furniture, be entrepreneurial, and network with other Christians
to create a microcosm of a Christian society.
This is because one is to be, in Dreher’s estimation, Christian first.
This community must also reject
anything that teaches sexuality other than heterosexuality as normative. It must create a network of home-schooled
children that revolve around Christians and Christian teachings. This is in response to the fact that, as Dreher
sees it, Christians are being robbed of their beliefs and moral values by
media, LGBT agendas, and public education.
To make this point, Dreher spends most of two chapters writing against
the sexual revolution of the 1960s and the LGBT community and agenda. To be pro-LGBT is to be un-Christian.[32]
For Dreher, sexuality is the issue that defines the contemporary
struggle for faithfulness. “Rightly
ordered sexuality is not at the core of Christianity, but […] it’s so near the
center that to lose the Bible’s clear teaching on this matter is to risk losing
the fundamental integrity of the faith.”[33]
“Indifference towards sexual issues is going to mean the end of Christian
orthodoxy.”[34]
It is interesting that this was
not Dreher’s opening argument for the book, as impassioned as he is on the
topic. A reader of Dreher’s book can
find themselves distracted from the larger point of his work in the Benedict
Option as his writings on sexuality seem to come to the foreground like Elihu
in the book of Job. He comes on strong
with strong points, but it does not feel well integrated into the larger whole
of the text. Perhaps Dreher utilized
this work as a means to include what is evidently a subject about which he
feels strongly. While it is in keeping
with points he makes earlier in the book, it does come across as more sermonic
than the rest of the book.
Dreher uses the last passage of
the book to warn of the varying dangers of technology. Though no Luddite, Dreher sees the Christian
community as one that needs to limit their use and exposure to technology both
as individuals and within the church community.
His points are solid, and the chapter reads as a good essay, though it
feels somewhat tacked on to the larger work.
Dreher concludes the final
chapter with a page long summation before an epilogue-like official concluding
chapter. In this one page we find a
clear distilling of his aim for the book.
“If we don’t take on everyday
practices that keep that sacred order present to ourselves, our families, and
our communities, we are going to lose it.”[35] That which threatens the Christian faith is
the liberal secular order. “Our failure
to understand this reinforces our cultural captivity and the seemingly
unstoppable assimilation of the next generations.”[36] The
Benedict Option as a response is “a call to understanding the long and
patient work of reclaiming the world from the artifice, alienation, and
atomization of modern life.”[37]
Some of the issues that stand
out after reading The Benedict Option
are some of his larger claims about Christianity and society. For example, the assumption that America was
“theirs” [read Christians] to begin with is a strong one. While Christianity has had a predominant role
in the history of the country, it has never been a Christian country. It was dedicated to the ideal of religious
freedom. If religion loses its influence
in the American way of life, then that comes from the fact that the country did
not set up one particular religion as the
state religion. Christianity has enjoyed
and profited from its popular status, but that status is changing. And to think that this community “was our
own” is also to perpetuate the myth that this has always been a Christian
nation – except when it was native and we had a divine mandate to bring the
faith to the Native Americans.
In saying that Christians will
be exiles from communities they thought were their own, though, Dreher provides
clear and unvarnished insight into how he views the place of the faith and the
idea that Christian community is to be considered as the only true community. Its displacement is unsettling because for
times to have changed, Christianity has to have lost its power in Dreher’s
opinion. Once the reader grasps this
idea, then the whole argument of Dreher’s book fits – agree or disagree. The framework for the book is what provides
the sense of the Benedict Option argument.
If one is convinced that the bombs are on their way, then the argument
for bomb shelters makes sense, even if the person listening isn’t convinced.
One of the problems Dreher
creates is that of definition. In his argument
for Christians to become anti-political, he argues that culture has become
anti-Christian. The problem with this is
twofold. First, what defines
anti-Christian? Is it that which can be
demonstrably shown as anti-Rule? Because
Christianity, as Dreher sees it, does not look Protestant and one could wonder
if any post-Reformation church and congregation would thereby be viewed as
anti-Christian. Likewise, does
anti-Christian suggest anything not
expressly Christian (Jewish, Muslim etc.) is automatically to be understood
as anti-Christian? It is language that
is too open-ended. It would need to be
defined, which would be the right of the Rule based Christian community, one
would suppose.
Secondly, Dreher’s statement in
favor of those who would not assimilate to culture is a double-edged
sword. Refusal to assimilate is akin to
living the Benedict Option. Yet as
Dreher has demonstrated, society itself has refused to assimilate to the
Christian orthodoxy. In that regard
refusal to assimilate is a bad thing.
Assimilation into a Rule based Benedictine community, though, is a
positive.
This, or courser, is the point
for Dreher. The Benedict Option is the only option. “The best witness Christians can offer to
post-Christian America is simply to be the church, as fiercely and creatively a
minority as we can manage.”[38]
One has to wonder though, that if this mission is successful, how long before
the minority as majority finds itself facing a new Reformation. Because the minority church of the Benedict
Option is one of tightened discipline that kicks out people who will not
assimilate to its Rule,[39]
holds to increased asceticism, and focuses on living in a monastic fashion.
Another point of contention is
Dreher’s description of a true Christian community which sounds, not
surprisingly, like a cult. It certainly
sounds like the FLDS communities that revolve around patriarchal rule and the
sharing of communal goods, life, schooling, and church. While Dreher would not likely appreciate the
comparison, certainly not the theological one – Dreher would be in vehement
opposition to the idea of the Book of Mormon being the center of the religious
community – the idea, plan, and layout do sound strikingly familiar.
Janja Lalich and Madeleine
Tobias, in their book Take Back Your
Life: Recovering from Cults and Abusive Relationships (Berkeley: Bay
Tree Publishing, 2006) created a list of characteristics associated with cults
and cult-like groups. Lalich and Michael
Langone published a list of those characteristics. And while Dreher’s book and ideas do not
cover them all – I seriously doubt Dreher would advocate abuse or abusive
tendencies to keep people in line – there were some interesting parallels.
1.
The group displays excessively zealous and
unquestioning commitment to its leader and regards his belief system, ideology,
and practices as “the Truth.”
2.
The leadership dictates, sometimes in great
detail, how members should think, act, and feel, including where to live, how
to raise children, and what jobs to hold.
3.
The group has a polarized us-versus-them
mentality, which puts them in conflict with the wider society.
4.
Members are encouraged to associate and deal
with only other members.
5.
The most loyal members feel there can be no life
outside the context of the group. They
believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or
others if they leave or consider leaving the group.[40]
I would point out that there
are a large number of characteristics of cults that Dreher’s work does not resemble – abusive tactics, focus on
making money, mind altering practices and so forth. Yet the idea of cult, at its heart, was not
an evil idea but the term that referred to a system of religious veneration and
devotion directed toward a particular figure or object. Christianity, in its earliest days, was a
cult. Only when it became more than just
a few did it move to becoming a religion rather than a sect or cult. Yet Dreher isn’t too far from pushing the
idea of cult-like behavior as the normative for Christians.
What we find late in the book,
after the description of the Benedict Community and the true Christian home and
community, is that the driving force behind Dreher’s argument seems to be
sexuality. He asks, “is sex the linchpin
of Christian cultural order?”[41] The answer seems to be “yes.” Sexuality, as does everything else, has to be
brought in line with “the Rule” as well as the scriptural teachings of St.
Paul.
For Dreher, it is sexuality
properly understood as heterosexuality that truly defines Christians. “Anything we do that falls short of perfect
harmony with the will of God is sin.”[42]
This is a truly unattainable standard.
But Dreher sees it as applicable to Christian life and, in this
particular case, sexuality. Sex within
marriage is “an icon of Christ’s relationship with His people, the church.”[43] Therefore sex is to be utilized
properly. Dreher suggests that sexuality
is not to be understood as something to be done for pleasure, as, he intimates,
homosexuals understand it.[44] As Dreher sees it, procreation is the goal
and therefore if procreation is not an option, sexuality is being misused.
Dreher’s views on sexuality are
troubling to me. And I don’t mean his
views on homosexuality. I mean his views
that sexuality is only for procreation and not pleasure. Though he doesn’t say it, I assume he means
sex outside of marriage when he
speaks of it in this way. Yet to say
that also suggests that the proof of true sexuality is either complete
abstinence or several children. One has
to wonder how Dreher would view someone who could not bear children or had had a vasectomy. Would they be subject to some rule that
prohibits their having sexual relationships within their marriage? If so, then Dreher has strayed far afield of
what might be called Christian sexuality.
If homosexuality is understood to be the misuse of sexuality because
there is no chance at procreation, then sexuality in general has to be understood in this light. Therefore, contraception is likely anathema
(which would be in keeping with Dreher’s leaning both in the book and
theologically akin to Catholicism) as would be sexual relationships within a
marriage. Or so it would seem to me if
Dreher’s points are pushed.
Homosexuality, for Dreher, is
clearly the point at which culture has
pushed its agenda upon Christians. For
Dreher, this is a question of assimilation – here a bad thing – where culture is pressing Christians to assimilate to a
cultural opinion. Dreher’s basic
argument is that “they” want us to conform to their beliefs, but “they” won’t
conform to our own. Of course anyone who
has ever had a Saturday morning visit from a Mormon or Jehovah's Witness has
met with that scenario. It is only
threatening if one of the parties involved is armed and forcing acquiescence.
Dreher’s argument is to set up
the scenario to be an us vs. them argument to which one has to be on one side
or the other: for or against. There is
no middle ground. I don't believe it
would be too far of a stretch to propose that for Dreher there could be no
acknowledgement or acceptance of the possibility of Christians on the side of
gay marriage nor could he hold the possibility that gays might be anything
other than agenda drivers.
For Dreher, as he said,
sexuality is at the center. It is, in
his words, a clear issue. The biblical
teaching is clear[45]
for Dreher, but I would argue it isn’t as clear as he might like for it to
be. While one could make compelling
arguments against homosexual behavior from scripture, one could also argue
favorable for polygamy. That's why 'your
neighbor's wife' is listed with the neighbors cattle, servants, and land. Women were often thought of as merely
commodities, not partners in the marriage.
The question then is this: is
the biblical model of polygamy the
ideal? Certainly the fundamentalist wing
of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints thinks so. Or is the idea of levirate marriage the
ideal? This is where the brother of a
deceased man is obliged to marry his brother's widow, and the widow is obliged
to marry her deceased husband's brother.
That is certainly a biblical witness and one to which Jesus doesn't seem
to object. Of course, this sheds light
on one objection we might have to Dreher’s book in general is that Jesus is
only tangentially connected to the narrative.
The Benedictine Rule is the center, as is “the old master” St.
Benedict.
According to the Benedictine
order, being unmarried was a higher state of existence and that life in the
monastic view was a life of community, for men and, sometimes, women who
weren’t interested in the opposite sex.
This was because sexuality was a distraction. Dreher seems to be right in line with this
idea. I don’t know that he sees it as a
distraction, but it is, in his opinion, certainly something that has to be brought
in line.
This is certainly how Paul
seems to feel in the 7th chapter of 1st Corinthians where
he writes, “To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to
remain single, as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should
marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.” Not a resounding advocation of marriage. On the other hand, neither does Paul
articulate that sexuality is strictly for procreation.
The Benedict Option is an interesting read. For Protestants, many of the ideas will sound
too much like a pre-Reformation call to return to the arms of the “true”
church. Dreher’s concerns may come from
a far more conservative point of view that may not completely resonate with
some readers, predominantly the idea of separating out from the general society
in home, in trade, and in a desire to be faithful.
While many of his points are
legitimate, and his concerns genuine, the book has a negative feel towards
society that is, it seems Dreher believes, already lost. The Christian is to set themselves apart and,
as exemplified in Dreher’s conclusion, be ready to rescue the perishing when
society collapses.
The book is reminiscent, though
not on the same level, of St. Augustine’s The
City of God. And while Dreher is
very much a critic of society, he does see an opportunity to reset culture or
to at least be prepared to do so in the future.
However, his book may articulate a stance of discouragement, albeit not
his point, that might become the thrust of his book rather than the idea of a
structured Christian community.
In some ways, Dreher’s book is
little more than another “get back to basics” tome that echoes Brian McLaren’s Finding Our Way Again and Robin Meyers The Underground Church. Dreher’s concerns are not new, as books like
Francis Chan’s Erasing Hell or LeRoy
Eims The Lost Art of Disciple Making
would make clear. Eims argues many of
Dreher’s points, but he does so from a much more positive point of view
(changing society is a possibility) without the use of “the Rule” or a return
to Benedictine monasticism.
Though his concerns are not
new, Dreher articulates them well. Of
particular importance is the almost easily overlooked point that part of the
problem Christians face is the lack of understanding Christians have regarding
their own religious traditions.[46] In this vein, Dreher echoes Stephen
Prothero’s book Religious Literacy.
The point, ultimately, for
Dreher is to form new monastic communities of faith. His bemoaning of culture is not new (and one
I sympathize with), but his response seems to be. Echoing the Qumran community, Dreher
advocates a separatist posture for the faithful that they might remove the
influence of secularization, liberals, and all that are seen as powers that
threaten to assimilate Christians into culture.
His conclusions are stark and will likely not resonate with all
readers. At times one gets the feeling
that to disagree with him would merely point out one’s status as already lost
and not aligned with “the Rule.”
Yet his point is well taken:
Christians cannot conclude that being American is to be Christian or that to be Christian is to be Republican.
Augustine argued that humans are citizens of Rome and the Kingdom of
God. Eventually they will have to decide
to which they ultimately belong. Dreher
would argue that we have to decide now.
The Benedict Option
Rod Dreher
New York: Sentinel Press, 2017
ISBN # 9780735213296
ISBN # 9780735213296
262 pages
[1] P. 12.
[2] This list is laid out from pages 8-10.
[3] P. 12.
[4] P. 19.
[5] P. 23.
[6] Thomas Jackson III ed. The Works of the Rev. John Wesley (London: Wesleyan Methodist Book
Room, 1872), vol. 5, p. 296.
[7] P. 32.
[8] P. 50.
[9] P. 51.
[10] P. 52-3.
[11] Aaron Milavec The Didache (Minnesota: Michael Glazier/Liturgical Press, 2003) p.
x-xi. Interestingly enough, this book
was copyrighted by the Order of St. Benedict, in Collegeville, Minnesota.
[12] P. 54.
[13] P. 56.
[14] P. 75.
[15] P. 68
[16] p. 71f.
[17] P. 68-69.
[18] P. 79.
[19] P. 85.
[20] P. 88.
[21] P. 89.
[22] P. 91.
[23] P. 94.
[24] P. 95.
[25] P. 97.
[26] P. 97.
[27] P. 121.
[28] P. 125.
[29] P. 126.
[30] P. 131.
[31] P. 138.
[32] P. 180.
[33] P. 203-4.
[34] P. 204.
[35] P. 236.
[36] P. 236.
[37] P. 236.
[38] P. 101.
[39] P. 117 – compare with p. 95 where refusal to
assimilate was lauded.
[41] P. 198.
[42] P. 200.
[43] P. 200.
[44] P. 203.
[45] P. 203
[46] P. 85.
