Didn't watch the event video, but from the screen shot it looks like the typical white male event. Sigh…..

Oh and first and I read the article. Just looks like more extreme right leaning white male reactionary foolishness.

The biggest criticism I’ve heard of the Benedict Option is this: Benedict’s Rule was designed for monks and nuns, not laity living in the world. Dreher’s trying to make Benedict’s Rule something it was never intended to be.

@ Deb:

So, you and Mitch think it’s beneficial to alert us to your “impression” and what it “looks like.” How about we do the more difficult work of actually listening and understanding what is being proposed? After which, you can responsibly agree or not. I do not know if I agree with Dreher or not, but I’ve read enough of his work to know that he’s not a simplistic reactionary. And 99% of commentary on social media is from people who have never read the book, have no intention of reading the book, and have never even read his online material.

My son is Orthodox. I am too tired to listen to the links now (my husband just got out of the hospital today and we are both exhausted) but it will be interesting to see what this is about. I do know my son does not vote (although he grew up in a VERY political household -my husband loves politics) and he follows the Orthodox tradition in very strict seasonal fast days and seasons. I see it as a very legalistic faith as practiced although there certainly are many sincere lovers of Christ who belong to the Orthodox tradition. On the other hand many orthodox (I am thinking of Greek here since they are the ones I am most familiar with ) are simply born into the faith and it is simply part of their cultural identity -sort of like there are some Catholics who are very serious and some Catholics who just show up at Mass to make Grandma happy.

@ Velour:
I’ll keep vigil tonight, Velour. The timing seems right for it for some special needs among the TWW community, yes.

Deb wrote:

@ Velour:
Thank you for sharing those prayer requests via EChurch. Keeping those folks in my thoughts and prayers.

Thank you, Deb!

I want to go back and watch the videos because I don’t have time right now but I’ve been seeing this Benedict Option here and there, myself.

My first thought on asceticism is Colossians 2:23 –

“These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.”

The Benedict Option sounds a bit like withdrawing from the larger world, like the Amish? Anyone who has looked into the issues they have should pause to think this through. (A thought provoking article, for anyone interested http://legalaffairs.org/issues/January-February-2005/feature_labi_janfeb05.msp ) You can’t remove yourself from sin by withdrawing from the world, it is right there within all of us, wherever we are.

Jesus sent us as ambassadors into the world. Christians today seem to have become very sensitive. If the culture around them does not reflect their own values, they either want to take control of it and force it to, or else take their toys and go home. What about just living Christ-honoring lives without worrying about what non-believers are doing?

@ siteseer:
You are correct, Siteseer. There is nothing appropriate in the Benedict Option. More on this here – http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/?p=22392

The Jesus Option: contagious joy and obedience. “I do not ask You to take them out of the world, but to keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is trurh. As you have sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world.”

Holy Spirit-filled believers in the risen and glorified Savior telling hungry sinners about the Bread of Life! What a glorious privilege! This little Light of mine…

siteseer wrote:

You can’t remove yourself from sin by withdrawing from the world, it is right there within all of us, wherever we are.

Jesus sent us as ambassadors into the world. Christians today seem to have become very sensitive. If the culture around them does not reflect their own values, they either want to take control of it and force it to, or else take their toys and go home. What about just living Christ-honoring lives without worrying about what non-believers are doing?

Nail, squarely hit on head.

If you read Dreher’s column in American Conservative, you’ll see that he is REALLY spun up about LBGTQ gains in the wider culture. He’s absolutely apoplectic about it. He is convinced that Christianity and queer-tolerant culture are totally incompatible. And since the prospects of reverting the culture back to the 1950s is pretty much zip, it’s time to take our toys and go home to the monastery and wait out the coming Dark Age.

What I find really ironic about all this is that, when Dreher was still a Catholic, he wrote a book called *Crunchy Cons* lamenting the captivity of Republicanism and evangelicalism to big business interests. It (and the chapter by chapter debates over it on his National Review website) played a large role in my transition out of Culture War evangelicalism. It’s sad that he missed one sandtrap and fell squarely into another.

David Brooks at the New York Times had a great response to Dreher in a column last week (“The Benedict Option“).

siteseer wrote:

What about just living Christ-honoring lives without worrying about what non-believers are doing?

What a concept! I would simply add to share this love of Christ as appropriate.

Christianity today has turned in to some other religion as far as I can tell; devoid of the power of the Holy Spirit to change a person. Instead, I see men and women intent on trying to force change upon the world via law and political power.

Dale wrote:

I do not ask You to take them out of the world… As you have sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world.

Hear, hear.

It’s often struck me that true holiness is contagious. Under the Old Covenant law – and it came from God, unlike the screeds of man-made regulations littering the religious landscape – you couldn’t touch anything unclean because it would defile you. If you touched anything in the holy of holies, it would destroy you.

In complete contrast, as it’s often been pointed out: Jesus didn’t catch any kind of defilement from lepers – they “caught” health from him. Likewise if you sneaked up behind him in a crowd and touched the edge of his cloak, fire didn’t come out from him and consume you.

The Eastern Orthodox Church places heavy emphasis and awards a high level of prestige to traditions of monasticism and asceticism with roots in Early Christianity. . . All Orthodox Christians are expected to participate in at least some ascetic works, in response to the commandment of Christ to “come, take up the cross, and follow me.”

Fr Orthocuban (former commenter at Internet Monk) claimed once that the most common way for an EO to flake out is the “Monk-a-bee”, taking on all the outer trappings of an Orthodox monk — beard, ascetic discipline, black robe, ascetic discipline, ascetic discipline, See How ORTHODOX I Am, ascetic discipline, See How Holy I Am — without actually taking vows or placing themselves under an abbot or other authorities. And going as overboard as possible (See How Holy I Am?)

Then there are Cage Phase Orthodox (usually new converts) — remember Cage Phase Calvinists? Same thing — except instead of CALVIN CALVIN CALVIN it’s ORTHODOXY ORTHODOXY ORTHODOXY as the Answer to Everything (with lotsa Greek theo-babble). Like Cage Phase Catholics who go full Tridentine Latin Trad.

Matilda wrote:

I just think it’s ironic that right-wing fundamentalists are promoting this book. Oh the cognitive dissonance, normally they are preaching AGAINST Catholicism and the Eastern Orthodox faith, monasticism etc and telling their followers that those beliefs lead directly to hell.

Wasn’t Monasticism “Romish Popery”?

500 years into The Reformation(TM) and the heirs of the Reformers and Reformed are giving Borgia Popes a run for their money; we’re also due for the next 500-year major shakeup.

@ scott hendrixson:
From the “Benedict Event” video, I didn’t really see it as a “white male event”. I did see some different ethnicities though a fair number of women wearing headscarves (Mennonite?)

Anyways, I’m unimpressed, the “Benedict Option” will no doubt make Dreher a lot of money but will ultimately be on sale in garage sales and thrift shops within 5 years.

Tucker Carlson’s characterization “the bad guys won” sounds petulant. It tells me “we couldn’t force your kids to pray in public school, we couldn’t force the gays back in the closet, we couldn’t force women back into the kitchen, we couldn’t force the public school curriculum to adopt creationism or intelligent design so we’re taking our toys and going home”

It’s a repudiation of pluralism, and the “Christians” are going back to their own cantonments. In Dreher’s vision there will be pentecostal silos, calvinist silos, episcopal silos, orthodox silos, catholic silos. Everyone back in their bunker!

In some ways Dreher is against the very freedom and individuality that makes America, well, America. (and this is from a Canadian). Sure it doesn’t work all the time. No the streets aren’t paved with gold, racism and poverty are still with us but of all possible worlds, it gives us the best opportunity for our species to grow. The guiding principles in the Constitution at least provide a framework for a just society – and yes I know it was written by white dudes looking out for their own interests but like the Magna Carta it inadvertently became a blueprint for something more.

Hostile to Christians!? Puhleeze! Our liberal democracy had given Christianity an opportunity to reach others on a scale that would have had the apostle Paul doing cartwheels.

Go back to your miserable, austere and unfun bunker. Disengage from those heathens and heretics and those other pesky religions and faiths.

Dialog and action not disengagement is the only way to a better world.

I have not yet read the book but I plan to do so.

First, about St. Benedict and whether some of his thinking may be applicable in today’s setting.

I first heard of the Benedict Option a bit back when our rector gave a Wednesday night series on the Rule of St. Benedict. I still have a copy of that here somewhere. He emphasized that some of the rule was clearly limited to people in the monastic life and some it is applicable to everyday life of everyday people. At the time I thought that some of what he said was similar to the ideas behind Opus Dei.

There is a good article on St Benedict of Nursia in Wiki. Anybody who has not read at least that really might consider doing so. It is one thing to listen to people who are either ‘for’ or ‘against’ something but it is far better to check it out at some sort of more or less objective source. And BTW, the Anglican Communion also venerates St. Benedict along with the Orthodox and various Catholic groups.

Next, regarding he idea of ‘intentional community” here is a link to an intentional community of one kind which our church is involved with/ sponsors.

https://theabrahamproject.net

At the same time our church lends some help to a Moravian intentional community here in our town. I have been over there, and what it seems to be is two or three people who live in an old house which is owned by the adjacent old Moravian church in a part of town that has become run down. The people in the intentional community are doing what looks like community service especially for the children. We furnish then children’s books and stuff and occasionally other stuff. I see nothing but good from this particular community.

This sort of thing, that is to say multiple ways of living in intentional communities, some of which are even semi-monastic has been going for a very long time. It has proved over time to be advantageous for some but not for all. Why on God’s green earth would anybody want to stamp this out? Nobody is being required to do it.

To be continued.

A few things,

— Dreher left the Catholics due to his disgust of their mishandling of abuse. You’d think that would give him and TWW a little connection.

— Reading the endorsements on the flap you see men, women, whites, Native Americans, Calvinists, Catholics, Orthodox. That’s a pretty wide swath, and far from the “right-wing male” stuff floating around. I can name two published female colleagues not on the rightwing/Calvinist bent who are urging friends to read this as they were given advanced copies.

— I’m halfway through this book, and if there’s a section telling us to head for the hills and ignore everyone around us while we go off to count beads I’ve yet to find it. Just the opposite, really — so far there’s more about homeless shelters, crisis pregnancy centers, welcoming strangers, and building communities than there is about running away. It’s just contra the American Family Association/GOP world of dealing with cultural change.

— If you just are not a little familiar about Eastern Orthodoxy, this book is going to have a learning curve with it (his previous Catholic faith was of a more Eastern bent as well). I don’t agree with it all, and the Eastern Christian tirades against “Western Christianity” get old no matter who is making them. That said, reading through this I can see the Orthodox mindset is going to scrape against those primarily in evangelical Protestant circles. It’s quite visible in the reviews — particularly in the hysterical Twitter rants Rachael H Evans had awhile back.

— The comments about “I wish they’d just stop focusing on X and stick to Jesus” sound exactly like the comments people make about TWW when they rightly bring up abuse in the church and the good old boys club. We all know how that goes. As we know, you can focus on Jesus and have other interests and concerns about the direction of the church and culture.

Preacher’s Wife wrote:

But the worst part of the movement was that it took the salt out of the world.

I have issues with the idea that we should remove ourselves completely from ‘worldly’ life because I think the proper ‘witness’ is supposed to be people simply seeing Christians living out their faith in a way that shows love and honesty and all the good things that we are supposed to be. I think that removing to communities and being separate and refusing to have friendships outside of your church, etc, is directly detrimental to this.

I’m getting tired of hearing about the Benedict Option, though I thank you, Deb, for posting on TWW. I think it is impractical and easily becomes a form separation that leads to cultic higher spirituality. I think a far more Christian reaction to Western culture would be to live in the midst of a corrupt culture while standing up in the face of materialism. We don’t need to follow the world into bigger, more costly homes, vehicles, boats, vacations, etc., etc. There appears to be no difference between Christianity and the non-Christian world in this realm. John and I have made a very conscious effort to live economically and give a lot more of our income to humanitarian and environmental causes. I surely don’t say this to brag as we are hardly living on the edge, and fortunately our greatest enjoyments—hiking, biking, kayaking—cost very little. Sure we sometimes go out to eat and John has a taste for good beer, but otherwise spending money for things simply doesn’t give us pleasure. We recently up-dated our joint trust; kids and grandkids are not forgotten, but half will go to charities. I could wish Christians would buy into what I suggest we call the Treasure Option from Mt. 6: “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth. . . . For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”

First of all, I’m digging Dreher’s glasses. Very Ward Kimball-ish.

I noticed that the event video was hosted by a young woman with a headcovering, and a long skirt. I noticed other women in the event, dressed similarly, although there were a few women who weren’t dressed that way. The video was from “Bruderhof,” which seems to be a network of about 20 Christian communities in different parts of the world. Sounds like they are also communes. Sort of neo-Amish, but with technology and without private property. Maybe even neo-Shaker, to some degree. Dreher’s ideas may be connected with them. Dreher and the Bruderhof certainly seem to be kindred spirits. If someone knows more, it might be helpful. I’m certainly curious. And concerned.

I wonder, what are Dreher’s thoughts on women in leadership, in the workplace, in church?

Bruderhof in German means “the court of brothers.” Sisters, not so much. Then there’s this:

“This paper will examine how this new religious movement has developed into a single belief system — a religious totalism– commanding unquestioning obedience of members to authority. This minority religions concentrated near absolute power in the hands of a supreme leader and his retinue, creating opportunities for the abuse of power and the unbrotherly exclusion of believers in the name of doctrinal orthodoxy and unanimity of belief.”

http://www.culthelp.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=114&Itemid=8

I haven’t read “The Benedict Option”, nor do I plan to do so. But, what I have read about the book seems to be contradictory to Jesus’ words. …….. Go he therefore……….I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.

Given the state of the world in the 1st century, why didn’t the apostles live like Dreher suggests? Why did they go into pagan cities where people worshipped false idols? Why didn’t they isolate themselves as much as possible?

@ dee:
Looking forward to it!

Also, while I don’t follow him or agree with some of his emphases (and note his obvious problems, about which I have written a bunch), Doug Wilson has an interesting take on the Benedict Option. I thought it might appeal to him, but even he is cautious.

https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/catacombs-or-cloister.html

dee wrote:

See my comment about a true view of the ministry movement. I think I will need to write a post on this. I took a course on the Church in the Middle Ages and it blew me away! It was much different than I thought.

It would be great if you would write a post on this; there is so much lack of information out there.

dee wrote:

Jack wrote:
a fair number of women wearing headscarves (Mennonite?)
Dee: They wear cute white caps.

Here in rural Southern Kentucky, we have several different varieties of Mennonites. I have seen the cute little white caps that tie under the chin, the lace doilies that are pinned on top of the head, the prarie-style bonnets, and the headscarves.
When my youngest niece was a toddler, her baby sitter was a Mennonite. When my niece was at their home, they dressed her like a little Mennonite girl – a solid color dress with a black apron, and black prairie bonnet!

dee wrote:

This is interesting and I must admit I need to read more on this subject. So, you are saying his idea is a strategic withdrawal to shore up our troops and the reengage on the political front once again?

Retreat, regroup, return?

I posted a puppy update on e-church – distemper outbreak!

dee wrote:

So, you are saying his idea is a strategic withdrawal to shore up our troops and the reengage on the political front once again?

I may have been concluding too much from just this article and one video (and haven’t read the book, likely won’t), but that’s *somewhat* the impression I got from the 4-minute video on Fox News. Sort of “requalify” ourselves to be in the public square but more local than not. Stay involved at the national level at least to keep religious liberty intact. But Mr. Dreher is *not* using a Moral Majority – Dominionist – “Culture Warrior” metaphor. Instead, it’s more almost an agricultural metaphor he could be advocating: Go back, plow, plant, water, wait, and present the produce we harvest to the world around us.

In terms of what Robert Webber would say, Mr. Dreher is not advocating a control-transform-Calvinist approach to cultural takeover and domination; it’s more the separate-Anabaptist version of church/state relations — which has the inherent tendency to turn into isolation and repulsion. If you overfocus on piety and staying unstained BY the world, you end up not really offering anything of the good news embodied IN the world.

Anyway, in the Fox News video, Mr. Dreher says (around the 3:45 mark) that we need withdraw from mainstream society somewhat in order to rebuild our identity through our roots and the Bible and traditional practices, “but we have to withdraw so we can continue to go out into the world and present the face of Christ as He really is. If we don’t withdraw and study and pray and build our practices up, we can’t bring the world the gospel. We have to withdraw from the world so we can be for the world who Christ wants us to be.”

There is also a connection between Dreher and… wait for it… Mohler. Dreher spoke at Southern last month, [“…the first 100 students will receive a free book.”] and has been interviewed by Mohler on albertmohler.com. He’s also being discussed by Chandler, Moore and Piper. All the usual suspects.

http://news.sbts.edu/2017/02/02/dreher-deliver-southern-seminarys-gheens-lectures-feb-7-8/

I’m dismayed by the commenters going ahead and dismissing what is probably one of the more important ideas of the early 21st century because the audience in a video appears to be mostly older white men. Are ageism, sexism, and racism suddenly acceptable arguments?

mitch wrote:

Oh and first and I read the article. Just looks like more extreme right leaning white male reactionary foolishness.

Certainly seems that way.

Christiane wrote:

the thought of 9 Marx including the Benedict Option makes my blood run cold …..
cult-formation and isolationism by a group of 9 Marx neo-Cal types by adapting and corrupting the monastic Benedictine ways which belong wholly to another faith tradition …. only bad can come from this

On the other hand, it might make the antichrist cult nature of 9Marx more obvious to the world.

Preacher’s Wife wrote:

The description of his book on Amazon sounds like an older man who looked around and said, “wait, we’re not a Christian nation? Oh no!”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WO6_IiZ_WI
(too good a lead-in to pass up…)

Rod Dreher gushed about my former cult in an article, now gone, on his former Beliefnet blog. I wish I had known back then the need to archive such things. In a more recent piece for the American Conservative website he writes:

It’s easy to be pessimistic about the viability of Benedict Option-style communities. History gives countless examples of intentional communities that began with high ideals but foundered on human frailty.

. . .In central Texas, Homestead Heritage, a Pentecostal-style back-to-the-land commune with Anabaptist overtones, has been the target of scathing accusations. A 2012 Texas Observer investigation revealed what the newspaper called “families broken apart, child abuse and allegations of mind control, cover-ups and secrecy.” In a statement, Homestead Heritage denounced the charges as “slanderous and inflammatory.”

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/benedict-option/

Let’s just say that “intentional community” combined with authoritarianism/Shepherding is, in my experience, a sure recipe for disaster and abuse.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

And doesn’t Judaism place a LOT of emphasis on “Just Live Your Life/L’Chaim!”?

Yup. Be the best you can be (not perfect) with what the Almighty has given you in the here and now. Acknowledge Him with thankfulness and don’t do the kinds of things to others you wouldn’t want done to yourself and you’re good to go.

John wrote:

I just can’t see white american evangelicals going for the Benedict option of withdrawal from power and politics, especially now.

I can’t see ‘evangelicals’ doing it either. But I can see some fundamentalists utilizing some of the ideas, and like I say my church/denomination might have some people who would be wanting to focus on spirituality and tradition and learning instead of politics. That aspect of it has a certain appeal for people. It takes all kinds. Freeeeedom.

http://erlc.com/resource-library/articles/the-benedict-option-what-it-is-and-isnt
Okay ……… if I understand this article correctly, isn’t this what we are supposed to be doing already?

Muff Potter wrote:

Yup. Be the best you can be (not perfect) with what the Almighty has given you in the here and now. Acknowledge Him with thankfulness and don’t do the kinds of things to others you wouldn’t want done to yourself and you’re good to go.

That’s pretty much the philosophy I’ve adopted, albeit less eloquently, after picking the meat and spitting out the bones of current era evangelical thought. Then again, as someone who doesn’t fit within the compulsory “one man, one woman, 2.5 kids, and a white picket fence” paradigm, I pretty much had to arrive at this mindset, lest I risk going insane.

John wrote:

I just can’t see white american evangelicals going for the Benedict option of withdrawal from power and politics, especially now.

Not when (in their own minds) they’re right on the threshold of The Republic of Gilead with God’s Anointed Wonder Prez. Power Struggle Without End, Amen.

(Whichever Culture Warrior started the idea of “God’s Anointed Choice for POTUS” needs to get beaten like a gong. Ever since that meme locked in, “God’s Anointed Choices” among the GOP Candidates have gotten scuzzier and scuzzier with each election cycle.)

BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

I’m not sure what to make of Dreher. He rolled up his sleeves to help out during the Louisiana floods. Can you imagine one of the Gospel Glitterati doing that?

Not at all. God’s Anointed Gospel Glitterati stay safe in their perfumed palaces and do Theological Analyses on Twitter — “SMITE! SMITE! SMITE!” (Ringing for the help to bring tea up the stairs to the Holy of Holies.)

Dreyer put his boots on the ground, you have to give him that.

Josh wrote:

That’s pretty much the philosophy I’ve adopted, albeit less eloquently, after picking the meat and spitting out the bones of current era evangelical thought.

And apparently being able to find some meat in all the bags of dry bones “evangelical thought” keeps handing you.

K.D. wrote:

I had been hearing, reading about the ‘ Benedict Option.’ Had almost written a blog on it a week ago….may do so now….
The whole thing is just, ” mind blowing.” And yes, it seems ” cult-like.”

Every cult needs its secure isolated Cult Compound.

Seems like a big temper tantrum that religious “leaders” can’t pick the GOP’s candidates anymore to me.

Yawn at a supposed genius/prophet who didn’t recognize serious problems in the American church until 2016, and what’s left of the Moral Majority is culturally irrelevant.

Yawn at books billed as crucially important to the existence of Christianity itself, but not provided for free or at pay-what-you-want.

Here’s an option: be a good citizen, participate in a quality ministry, love your neighbor, and trust in the Lord.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
I agree… I was raised in IFB tradition, and they did not say nice things about Roman Catholicism and EO… in fact, they did not say nice things about anything that was not IFB..

@ Kevin Davis:

“Or, Mitch, you could stop the stereotypes and listen attentively, respectfully. Then you can agree or disagree.”
++++++++++++++++

or, kevin, you could stop with the accusation of stereotyping and acknowledge that an all-white male participating group means something.

at the very least, ask the question ‘why are other people groups not there?’

@ SteveG:
Baronelle Stutzman was violating U.S. commerce laws that have been in existence since the 1800s. If your business is open to the public you must serve the public. Can you imagine if the Gas Company and Edison (which are not government entities) were to discriminate against some group? Sorry, Mrs. Stutzman violated U.S. law and got what she deserved (actually better than what she deserved; the State of Washington was extremely lenient with her).

Deb wrote:

Darlene wrote:
It certainly is nothing akin to Neo-Calvinist Patriarchy. If I’m wrong about this, I’m willing to eat crow.
Did you know that Rod Dreher and Neo-Cal Patriarch Russell Moore are really good friends?
Here’s a recent interview in advance of the publication of the Benedict Option.
http://www.russellmoore.com/2017/03/10/signposts-conversation-rod-dreher/
Link to Podcast: http://www.russellmoore.com/signposts/Signposts_E48-RodDreher.mp3
At the conclusion of the 19-minute podcast, Moore recommends Dreher’s blog The American and even remarked that it’s the first site he (Moore) checks in the morning.

No, I didn’t, but I’ll read your links. I just might have to eat crow after all! 😉

Deb wrote:

Dreher has just recently come onto my radar screen

I was only passing familiar with his name from the political sphere (possibly have read articles over the years although nothing sticks out in my brain), the religious stuff is new to me.

Christiane wrote:

the thought of 9 Marx including the Benedict Option makes my blood run cold …..
cult-formation and isolationism by a group of 9 Marx neo-Cal types by adapting and corrupting the monastic Benedictine ways which belong wholly to another faith tradition …. only bad can come from this
REASON:
individuals are ‘called’ into the monastic life; it is not a life-style to be imposed as a structure on the ‘inmates’ of a neo-Cal cult, no

I can’t imagine a child in a family going through a monastic existence, no ….. it is a very adult thing, the choosing to ‘come away’ and have a life of prayer and work in community ……

Christiane, I agree with you. The issue for me, and I think for you as well, is that God works with our free will. He works with an attitude that willingly and freely chooses to sacrifice for Him. And the ways in which one Christian sacrifices will be much different than than the way another sacrifices. What Christ instructed to the Rich, Young Ruler,- to go and sell all that he had and give to the poor – He does not instruct to all of us. Yes, we must all be compassionate toward the poor, and give as circumstances and the Holy Spirit lead us. But how each of us put that into action will differ. I’m definitely not about One-Size-Fits-All Christianity. We were not meant to be Cookie-Cutter Cut-Outs of one another. That is how cults get started.

Deb wrote:

@ Darlene:
Dreher has just recently come onto my radar screen, so I have lots of research to do. I do find it intriguing that Neo-Cal websites like The Gospel Coalition keep focusing on the Benedict Option.

Yeah, I hear ya, Deb. I just can’t see Orthodoxy (Dreher, after all is an Orthodox Christian) and Neo-Calvinism locking arms. It would be like oil and water mixing. Further, many Neo-Calvinists don’t think Orthodox Christians are even “saved.”

dee wrote:

Glad you got us started on this subject. My guess is that the dudebros will leap on this as the latest *thing.*

I don’t know how reliable this website is, but:
http://bigplanetwatch.com/albert-mohler-john-piper-and-matt-chandler-promote-the-benedict-option-a-monasticcatholic-promoting-book/

BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

I’m not sure what to make of Dreher. He rolled up his sleeves to help out during the Louisiana floods. Can you imagine one of the Gospel Glitterati doing that?
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/louisiana-flood-loss-gain/

I’m pretty sure Piper said Louisiana deserved it, while he sat up in his tower drinking tea. He did say “we all” deserve it, but really, when has his worm theory applied to him? Oh wait, he’s elect and preserved by God, right?

http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/was-katrina-intelligent-design

@ Deb:
the place where the two roads cannot come together is over ‘free will’:

any form of chosen simple intentional Christian living, to follow Our Lord, and to honor Him, MUST BE A WILLING WALK …..
neo-Cal existence is built on obedience to a male-headship figure, with punishment built into failures or even attempts to escape the community where such a male leader imposes HIS WILL, his ‘vision’ the neo-Cal’s like to call it….. and no, they are not talking about Our Lord’s vision.

Neo-Cal determinism doesn’t mix with the willing free gift of self. It never did. It never will.

Bunny wrote:

My son is Orthodox. I do know my son does not vote (although he grew up in a VERY political household -my husband loves politics) and he follows the Orthodox tradition in very strict seasonal fast days and seasons.

I see it as a very legalistic faith as practiced although there certainly are many sincere lovers of Christ who belong to the Orthodox tradition.

On the other hand many orthodox (I am thinking of Greek here since they are the ones I am most familiar with ) are simply born into the faith and it is simply part of their cultural identity -sort of like there are some Catholics

I will address some of these points that Bunny has made. As an Orthodox Christian – one who converted to the faith – I hope I can give a perspective as one who is now an insider (so-to-speak), as well as one who was formerly an Evangelical Protestant.

As far as your son not voting, that is most definitely a choice he has made. It is not something he learned from Orthodox teachings. I have discussions with our bishop frequently on Facebook (yes, he actually enjoys interacting with people on Facebook) – and he discusses political issues from time to time. In fact, the conversations can get a bit lively, because he enjoys people bringing different perspectives to the table. So liberals, conservatives, centrists, socialists, etc. will comment on social/political issues. Oh, and by the way, the bishop votes. 🙂

As far as Legalists – yep, we have them just like all other churches have them. Honestly, I think legalism often stems from fear – and I don’t mean the kind of fear of the Lord that Proverbs speaks of. It’s a fear that if I don’t do/or do X, God will punish me. And I’m not speaking here about specific Scriptural admonitions, such as to refrain from fornication, adultery, murder, gossip, stealing, revenge, etc. The X I’m referring to are rules that are considered equal to Scriptural precepts. For example, women who will only wear dresses down to their ankles and no make-up because it’s supposedly ungodly to show leg skin or want to look attractive.

And yes, Orthodoxy can be very much like a cultural thing, especially in the Greek parishes. I have encountered this culture from time to time, and many Orthodox folks recognize that this can be problematic within our churches. But here’s the thing. Having been around the block a few times and having been a part and encountered all sorts of Christian communities, I can say without a doubt that Christianity as a cultural identity exists all over the place. I’ve been down South enough times and met many Southerners (my sister’s family that she married into), and I encountered Christianity there as a cultural identity. I’ve seen billboards with religious admonitions to “Repent of your sins and Trust Jesus” down South. I’ve met Southerners who will say something to the effect of: “I walked down the aisle and accepted Jesus as my Personal Lord and Savior when I was a child” and they believe because they did that they’re going to Heaven. Don’t matter a hoot what they did/do from that point all the way through the rest of their lives. They got a ticket to Heaven because they walked down that aisle and said The Sinner’r Prayer. Of course, I’ve met many a Christian who believe the same thing up North, so I reckon it ain’t just a Southern thang. 😉 Of course, right here in lovely Pennsylvania we have the Christian cultural identity of the Amish and Mennonites. And I’ve seen similar billboards when driving through the countryside such as “God is Good.” Or “Receive Jesus Into Your Heart Today!” And I can’t forget the various Lutherans and Methodists whom I have met that were born into the faith, baptized and consider themselves Christians because they were raised that way. Christianity as a cultural identity…me thinks it exists in all three branches of the Christian faith: Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox.

Maybe this is just me, but it reminds me of a kid who is playing ball and when they start to lose, they take their ball and go home….it’s like only ‘we’ deserve to be Christians or only we need to share the faith within our group….only. We didn’t win, so like Cartman in South Park ” Scr*w you guys, I’m going home.”

So, I watched the 19-minute video and had some thoughts.

Mr. Dreher states overtly that he is not advocating isolationism. He talked about Christians being among the people in their communities, but also living out their faith together.

He does use some language that raised warning flags that I’d suggest require more research to understand more specifically what he means.

* He talked about Christians as choosing “voluntary exile” from the culture, and not doing so from anger or merely withdrawing from the bad, but in order to move forward toward the good — which includes figuring out the practice of faith in community while in a country that is anti-Christian. While this may *sound* like what I understand to be missional theology and practice, I don’t think it is. Missional theology tends to talk about being “sojourners” in the culture, so it is an emphasis of being among. “Exile” has more the sense of being away from. Maybe I’m trying to be too nuanced, but language matters, and it is just a point to consider.

* In his presentation, he talked several times in terms that I’d characterize as the theme of looking for continuity with our past, refinding and refining our identity. But I have this warning sense about how this relates with culture. He may overtly decry isolation from culture, and promote our creating “Christian culture,” but I have this feeling that it’s almost detached from current culture. And yet he wants us to be/become countercultural.

When the parameters of what it means to “withdraw” from one thing and toward another are vague, and when he advocates “experimenting” with creation of Christian culture, I suspect it will be very easy for people who try this approach to fall into the inherent weakness of it (as I mentioned in an earlier comment) — that withdrawal from becomes isolation.

* Also, the term “Christian civilization” that he used set of warning bells — sounds like another term for Christendom. It’s one thing to continue developing Christian culture — which I’d describe as the application of theology to all domains of life — but we have to beware that we don’t become new dominionists. He talks about the Benedictines preserving Christian tradition and culture through the dark ages … but what are his views of about Christendom?

* Finally, I was struck by how much this sounded like what we heard 20 years ago in the emerging movement. Revising structures, developing culture, deconstructing problems of the past, forging new/renewed identity, embodying the gospel and transferring it to next generations, experimenting (which often leads to looking for “tips” on “what’s working where you’re living?”). As with what happened with the emerging ministry movement, I can easily see this becoming The Next Big Thing, and instead of adherents figuring things out in their own culture, they just try to synthesize tips from elsewhere and become simulacras — copies of copies of copies, to the point where you can’t even tell any longer where/what the original was or is.

So — he has some important analysis to consider, but from the history of the emerging movement and from studies of other ANCIENT Christian approaches to Church/state and empire, this needs some substantial critique. It could just as easily lead to a new wave of authoritarian and legalistic forms of Christian communities as it could to those that could be appropriately protective and productive.

okrapod wrote:

It bothers me that similar things were said about girls going into convents in pre-V II days; about how families were pressured to designate so to speak a boy to the priesthood and/or a girl to some religious order. I have no idea if that happened

Although I know there were a number of stories (true or not?) I read about girls being pushed into convents for various reasons going back a long time, what this mostly made me think of was families designating one child for the church as a profession. Jane Austen novels are full of this, although obviously these were not catholic so not issue of marriage being out of bounds, with the clergy paying reasonably well and being a part of the gentlemanly set.

ishy wrote:

I see that as an outcome of the neo-Cals following it. I dunno if that was what Christiane was thinking. Dreher might not be a neo-Cal, but if the neo-Cals are adopting it, it seems to me the logical outcome of why and how they would do so.

Control Freaks gonna control freak.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Control Freaks gonna control freak.

Yeah, if it’s not this, it’s going to be something else.

Darlene wrote:

Muslin, if that is truly Dreher’s intentions, then I agree with you! This has my curiosity piqued. Perhaps Dreher is thinking along the lines of an Amish community.

Despite what shows up on the Christianese Fiction shelves, the Amish also have their problems.

Nancy2 wrote:

Given the state of the world in the 1st century, why didn’t the apostles live like Dreher suggests? Why did they go into pagan cities where people worshipped false idols? Why didn’t they isolate themselves as much as possible?

Every time somebody brings up “the state of the world in the 1st Century”, I always include this link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhP-OUt1Eos
THAT was the surrounding society during the time of the Book of Acts.

brad/futuristguy wrote:

When the parameters of what it means to “withdraw” from one thing and toward another are vague

I would ask what he’s talking about when he talks about culture.

Lea wrote:

Hardcore History did a podcast on the Anabaptists during the Münster Rebellion and mentioned one of the reasons they found it easy to ‘convert’ the nuns over is because many hadn’t actually wanted to be nuns in the first place.

It’s what happens when you dabble in the Heresy of Clericalism — that only Full Time Professional Christians count, NOT the laypeople. In that milieu, “Full Time Professional Christians” meant only Priests, Monks, and Nuns. Nowadays it means Pastors, Missionaries (especially to Darkest Africa), CCM/Worship Superstars, and best-selling Theo-authors on the conference circuit.

Christiane wrote:

I don’t think Dreher’s ideas are new or revolutionary, but it’s a bit frightening to think about where some of these authoritarian pastors would take the idea of monasticism.
//
Yes, that is very much along the lines of what I was thinking. Thanks.

Plus, we know how the neo-Cals like to willfully misunderstand things.

@ brad/futuristguy:
Dreher has gone through more than one ‘metamorphosis’ on his Christian journey: Methodism, Catholicism, Orthodox ….. now he is hob-nobbing with another group of people whose tradition is very different from all the previous settings ….

is he getting ready for another change, perhaps?
…. does he not realize who he is courting with his ideas? and what they might use them for?

I think he may know. And if this is true, I suspect he is not blind to what he involved in. I hope I’m wrong. Maybe he wants good to come and doesn’t realize the nature of them what are now celebrating his ideas and anticipating how they may be corrupted and applied as ‘control’ obedience disciplines in the neo-Cal authoritarian settings.

?

dee wrote:

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Left Behind, Purpose-Driven Life, I Kissed Dating Goodbye, Prayer of Jabez…
We’re about due for another Latest New Thing fad.

Bam! Well said!

Add to that list Experiencing God, Don’t Waste Your Life and Radical. Like Rosanne Rosanna Danna said, “It’s always something.”

Preacher’s Wife wrote:

From the Fox News video it seems like he is advocating for Christians to calm down politically and start trying to make an impact in their local communities and with their neighbors rather than taking on society at large. I’m all for that. But, when he said “building up our schools and institutions” I assumed public schools and communities. If he means erecting more walls around our Christian bubble, than I would have to disagree.

There are parts of the monastic movement I like – I really like communal living! But the worst part of the movement was that it took the salt out of the world. So again, if this is all about building bigger walls around our Christian bubble, than I have a problem.

I agree with you about the Christian bubble. We’ve seen the dangers of Quiverful teachings. The Christian Bubble philosophy can turn into a very self-righteous attitude of thinking: We’re so much more committed and faithful to Christ than all those other worldly Christians out there. As far as communal living goes, many of my experiences from living that way in my former Christian cult are not pleasant at all. And yes, we thought we were more committed and zealous than all those other blind, worldly Laodicean Christians out there.

okrapod wrote:

I am not entirely sure what was so bad about it

At a certain point aren’t you mostly just talking about roommate drama? I’ve never had a roommate without at least a little bit.

Anna A wrote:

I have not looked at the videos yet, but the idea of the Benedict Option gives me the creeps. It bothers me because I am very connected to a Benedictine Abbey, and just love the men and women I have met there. I mourn when I see fresh graves, I rejoice when I see young faces in the choir, and I am thankful that I am allowed to briefly share in their prayer life.
It is a challenging life, but joyful.
I have a hard time seeing how it could work with evangelicals.

My former Christian cult stressed something quite akin to the Benedict Option model. Of course we added some evangelical twists to it here and there, but it was definitely a lifestyle in which we separated ourselves from the secularists and even those other worldly Christians. The only time we had contact with the greater society at large was in Evangelism (we were very big on street witnessing and practiced it daily), oh, and those members who “worked for Pharoah” as we used to say. Eventually it was stressed that members should quit their jobs in the “world” and work in the church businesses.

Lea wrote:

At a certain point aren’t you mostly just talking about roommate drama? I’ve never had a roommate without at least a little bit.

What was rumored was a bit more dramatic than that, but since it was only rumor I am not going there. I do know that a classmate of mine from nursing school had to go through a counseling and evaluation process at a baptist medical center before the board would consider her appointment. The issue was ‘why’ was she not married.

dee wrote:

Did you know that Mark Dever, ruler of what constitutes a gospel™ church, does *allow* people who leave church to go to an Orthodox Church without disciplining them. He does not feel the same way about Catholicism. one of these days I must write about this.

I can just imagine (not that I give a rat’s rip mind you) what Dever says about free-thinkers and rogue anomalies (like Potter) who reject large swaths of Augustinian theology.

I’m an Orthodox Christian, a convert at age 50 from a lifetime of sincere Christianity, during which I attended three churches, the first of which was Methodist and apostatized (Jesus wasn’t God), the second and third of which were Presbyterian, each of which I attended for extended periods of time, and I am exceedingly thankful for both of these churches. I’m not a bitter convert, nor do I disdain my past or those who were in it. I am thankful for it and for them. That’s the backstory.

It is very easy to look at Orthodoxy from the outside and see it as legalistic and “works” based. Yes, we honor monastics and we see asceticism at varying levels as a benefit, but only if the asceticism is in humility, never in pride, and only insofar as it takes very seriously the love and mercy of God and is done in response to that love. Jesus said, “If you love me, you will do what I command you.” So we pray, we fast, we do acts of charity, because He said to do these things. We also do them because HE did them, and we want to be like Him. From the outside, these can look like legalism or like we are trying to earn God’s love. Nothing is farther from the truth when the practices are understood in the light of God’s infinite love and mercy toward us, and our response to Him.

I will say that if one reads The Benedict Option with an overlay of what one has read about authoritarian churches that have been extensively discussed on this blog, it is entirely appropriate to be alarmed.

As re: all the white males at the announcement event…I would be interested to know how the invitation list was selected and by whom and for what purpose.

I’ve not read the book yet, but I have followed Dreher’s trajectory since before I was Orthodox, which was before HE was Orthodox. :0) In reading his writings over these years, I would say that the LAST thing he has in mind is the layering of a Benedict Option into an authoritarian church structure. Or the creation of “local monastic-like communities.” Interestingly, I have known of two communities of people that have done this intentional community thing, and both were NewReformed…and when someone got out of line with that theology he was seriously shunned…but he can’t afford to leave the community. It’s a mess.

What I *do* think Dreher is talking about is things that take seriously a Christian life, even if it is costly to us in some way, and being “in community” (not in the same exclusive Christian Gated Community) with others who do the same. I know people who have done some of the following things, and I’ll bet it’s going to raise some hackles here when I list them, but these are examples of what it could mean, not prescriptions for everyone or something that anyone can judge for another—only for oneself before God. If it is anything other than an offering or a humble sacrifice of love, it is not worth doing.

—If all the kid’s sports competitions are on Sunday morning, that sport/league isn’t for our family.
—Taking time off from work and/or school to be able to quietly reflect on the trial, death, burial and resurrection of Christ
—Instead of spending some amount of money on a night out, giving that to a community effort to feed the homeless on a regular basis
—Sharing of common equipment so as to simplify lives and manage stuff and so on—eg., get a lawnmower for the neighborhood (even if it isn’t part of the “BenOp community”) and share it out so as to help others with their finances.
—Honoring those who choose to live a holy life rather than wondering if they are mentally unstable or socially unacceptable. Honoring a life devoted to prayer at least as much as a life devoted to earning a lot of money.
—Help with the physical care of a disabled person; be the person who comes once a month to stay awake all night with a child so a parent can get a good night’s sleep. If 30 people sign up to do this, it’s normalizing for the family
—Provide skills among each other as you can. Someone might be good at solving computer issues, another at doing heavy lifting, someone else at mending, another at handyman. These abilities could be offered as the conscience and need of the giver allows.
—Living a simpler life and encouraging one another in it so as not to get carried away by meaningless issues, fads or pursuits that will pass away.
—Providing meaningful end of life care and compassion, including the preparation and burial of the departed without adding pressure to the bereaved regarding purchasing of services that are unnecessary or unwanted.
—Creating educational options that would honor rather than disparage the community’s faith and faith practices.
—If living in close proximity, finding a way to pray together many times a day. Families can do this. (A Presbyterian pastor in Cannon Beach, OR wrote a book about the Benedict Family many years ago and wrote about some very good ideas and practices which his family implemented.)
—Creating a large gathering space for all to use for large group gatherings. Then people can have smaller and more affordable housing.
—Growing and sharing food together.

If this is done together, in humility, as a means of giving and receiving love and in the recognition that we are loved beyond all measure, that is a very different thing from doing it as a means of controlling a group of people or earning one’s salvation.

To tell the truth, a lot of this already happens in our parish. And nobody forces anyone to do anything or judges the worth of any offering. There are no contracts, there is fluidity in and out. As you can see in the examples above, it is not a matter of withdrawing from the world but a matter of living xChristian in the world (x=“eXtreme”—-even here, I draw from the world of sports for my language!), of taking Christ seriously. WHEN you pray, WHEN you fast, WHEN you give alms…not if.

BECAUSE this is a wonderful experience, and BECAUSE I had a healthy church background for all but 2-3 young teen years, the BenOp doesn’t freak me out at all. I get it. But by the same token BECAUSE I have read here about the bad experiences people have had in “churches” and about the controlling personalities in the leadership of these organizations, I do understand why people are freaking out about The BenOp. In those situations, it is a BadOp.

It may be that it can’t be a good option without the baked in (and continually baking in) deeply understood, believed and experienced love and mercy of God.

I’m open to talking about this if anyone wants to; Dee knows my email address and can share it.

It seems unnecessary to say, but I will say it anyway. Please give room in your thinking and responses for understanding the perspective from which Dreher writes, and don’t jump to conclusions about Orthodox Christian practices by seeing it through the lens of modernity or screwed-up teaching. K? :0)

Darlene wrote:

Eventually it was stressed that members should quit their jobs in the “world” and work in the church businesses.

And here comes the rub against that “free will” decision to belong to such a community. Nobody actually forces you to join. But what if the leadership determines a “heart problem” when you question their motives on something? What if your child is molested by another member and you wish to involve law enforcement against the leadership wishes? What if leadership thinks you’re not introspective enough on so-called hidden sin in your life? Are you free to leave? Sure. But not without leaving your church employment and community housing. Not without you and your children losing all those they currently count as friends (because your outside relationships took a back seat to “the Body”). That freedom is going to come at great personal sacrifice depending on how authoritarian each particular community is.

Jerome wrote:

Evangelicals are suckers to publishers: this whole “discussion,” which is no where in the Bible, seems manufactured by publishers to get you all to buy books.
Love God, love neighbor is never enough for evangelicals. Ever. Ever. Wasn’t enough for Fundamentalists nor The Gospel Coalition-ish fans (who are essentially the same kinds of people). Evangelicals always need an additional “strategy.” Anyone else sick of this?

I think this is definitely an element, as much of “Christian culture” seems to be about making money for someone. And it’s something that this groups always seem to conveniently ignore, though they rail against every other sin that they perceive everyone else has.

I don’t consider neo-Cals evangelicals, nor is Dreher an evangelical. And the book is published by Penguin, a secular publisher. They still are pushing the book, I’m sure.

The mystery falls in why the neo-Cals have picked it up and run with it? I just read Mohler’s interview with Dreher, and I’m still flummoxed. Dreher may not be aware of how the neo-Cals work, as many evangelicals are tricked by their double-speak and claims to be all about the “Gospel”. I don’t see that their views line up, but the neo-Cals always seem to have some long-term strategy that we only see years down the road when it’s too late.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

dee wrote:
Thank you. I did not know that was his basic motivation to leave Catholicism. I thought it was based more on doctrine. If you are correct-yay Dreher.
I sure hope that he exposes the same problem in the Orthodox and Evangelical churches.

(Headless Unicorn Guy added)
If he’s a newly-converted Orthodox, he won’t.
In the Cage Phase, ORTHODOXY! ORTHODOXY! ORTHODOXY! Can Do No Wrong.

Ummm…Dreher HAS stood up against this when it happened in Orthodoxy. The priests involved in the incidents were deposed and the bishops themselves called the police.

Neither Dreher nor anyone with 2cents of sense thinks anything involving humans is exempt from hideous sin. The thing is, what do we *do* about it. People on this discussion board know that is the key.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Fr Orthocuban (former commenter at Internet Monk) claimed once that the most common way for an EO to flake out is the “Monk-a-bee”, taking on all the outer trappings of an Orthodox monk — beard, ascetic discipline, black robe, ascetic discipline, ascetic discipline, See How ORTHODOX I Am, ascetic discipline, See How Holy I Am — without actually taking vows or placing themselves under an abbot or other authorities. And going as overboard as possible (See How Holy I Am?)
Then there are Cage Phase Orthodox (usually new converts) — remember Cage Phase Calvinists? Same thing — except instead of CALVIN CALVIN CALVIN it’s ORTHODOXY ORTHODOXY ORTHODOXY as the Answer to Everything (with lotsa Greek theo-babble). Like Cage Phase Catholics who go full Tridentine Latin Trad.

Yep, you’ve got that right, HUG. And many (most) of those CAGE STAGE ORTHODOX “Monk-a-bees” come from a Fundamentalist Evangelical background. So they just switch from being one kind of Fundy to another. 😉

Darlene wrote:

I’ve seen quite a few religious books that were once all the craze being sold for less than a buck in people’s yards.

Yes, you know when a “Christian” book and its author have fallen out of favor when the once-popular ends up on a yard sale table for a quarter. I see Rick Warren’s “Purpose Driven Life” at just about every yard/garage sale I go to. Piper’s books are starting to pop up … a great sign!

@ Max:
I see Bibles at used book stores and yard sales all of the time. I picked up Narnia at one a few years ago.

People read and resell all of the time, it’s not necessarily a sign of a fad or quality.

David wrote:

People read and resell all of the time, it’s not necessarily a sign of a fad or quality.

And sometimes it’s a sign that folks have gotten wise to the scheme and the schemer. Piper’s books will eventually clutter yard sale tables when the New Calvinist bubble breaks.

Jerome wrote:

Scroll down to the screen cap of Bradley’s facebook post and Dreher’s nasty response.

Wow. His response was rather arrogant and snarky. I wouldn’t want him heading up my intentional community. He doesn’t take criticism very well.

@ BeenThereDoneThat:
yes, and them what doesn’t take criticism well also fall very easily into the hands of manipulative flatterers

I think he is still journeying towards some kind of integrity and hasn’t yet arrived at where he will feel ‘at home’. I don’t think Orthodoxy is his last stop, no. Just my opinion. But he seems restless and in need of attention and he’s not getting any hype from the Orthodox world, so I think neo-Cal folks are offering him the attention he is seeking.

You know, humility as celebrated among the Orthodox does not value displays of arrogance and snarky responses to criticism. Dreher seems ill at ease with his Orthodoxy.

ishy wrote:

I don’t see that their views line up, but the neo-Cals always seem to have some long-term strategy that we only see years down the road when it’s too late.

Sociopathic Manipulators usually do.
Twenty Chess Moves ahead of everyone else.

David wrote:

A few things,
— Dreher left the Catholics due to his disgust of their mishandling of abuse. You’d think that would give him and TWW a little connection.

— I’m halfway through this book, and if there’s a section telling us to head for the hills and ignore everyone around us while we go off to count beads I’ve yet to find it. Just the opposite, really — so far there’s more about homeless shelters, crisis pregnancy centers, welcoming strangers, and building communities than there is about running away. It’s just contra the American Family Association/GOP world of dealing with cultural change.

— If you just are not a little familiar about Eastern Orthodoxy, this book is going to have a learning curve with it (his previous Catholic faith was of a more Eastern bent as well). I don’t agree with it all, and the Eastern Christian tirades against “Western Christianity” get old no matter who is making them. That said, reading through this I can see the Orthodox mindset is going to scrape against those primarily in evangelical Protestant circles.

— The comments about “I wish they’d just stop focusing on X and stick to Jesus” sound exactly like the comments people make about TWW when they rightly bring up abuse in the church and the good old boys club. We all know how that goes. As we know, you can focus on Jesus and have other interests and concerns about the direction of the church and culture.

David, I like so much of what you said that I will bold what I want to respond to.

*Yes, Dreher was very disturbed by the sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, but especially the cover-up. I read about his reason for leaving some time ago so I would assume it’s still out there on the Internet.

*You are piquing my interest. I suppose to really understand Dreher’s Benedict Option model, one must read the book. 😉

*Eastern Orthodoxy can seem odd – even weird – to those outside of it. That’s just the way it is. It’s very much like an American going to an Amazon tribe or an African tribe and attempting to understand their culture. But the reverse is true as well. Some of the Orthodox folks in my parish – who have been raised in the Orthodox faith – find Protestantism – especially its hyper-Fundy, Evangelical elements – very odd and cannot relate to it whatsoever.

*The It’s just about Jesus mantra can get old like many things. If it’s just about Jesus and the Bible – then maybe ALL Christians should just stop writing – after all, all we need is the Bible. And why bother going to church and listening to the sermon, because all we really need is Jesus and the Bible. Not some person telling us what the Bible means or what Jesus meant. Maybe ALL Christians should stop saying what the Bible means because after all, anyone can go read the Bible all by themselves and figure it out on their own. So, don’t bother telling me what the Bible says because I can read it for myself and don’t need some human being telling me. No sirreee….just me, Jesus and mah Bible. Now I’ll step Off Soapbox.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:

Interesting state history. I didn’t know that about Utah…good grief. Or, about the Catholic priests/Pope John Paul II. Thanks!

BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

Darlene wrote:
Eventually it was stressed that members should quit their jobs in the “world” and work in the church businesses.
And here comes the rub against that “free will” decision to belong to such a community. Nobody actually forces you to join. But what if the leadership determines a “heart problem” when you question their motives on something? What if your child is molested by another member and you wish to involve law enforcement against the leadership wishes? What if leadership thinks you’re not introspective enough on so-called hidden sin in your life? Are you free to leave? Sure.

I am not so sure about this. Don’t forget the neo-Cal focus on covenants, and oftentimes those covenants are vague, but still treated like legal documents. The neo-Cals don’t tell you what you are signing up for, and they have historically forced current members into covenants just by virtue of previous membership. They believe their elders have the right to make those decisions for members, and they believe they can change the rules at will without members’ consent.

Is that really legal? No. But they make people think it is. And as we’ve seen with a number of stories here at TWW, they have pursued and harassed people for years to submit to their demands. Add that to the previous story, that a church might set a precedent by getting their own police force, and they very well might be able to tamper with evidence and refuse to investigate such cases.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

But there are a lot of ways to exert social/peer pressure without actually coming out with overt force.

True. And I’ve spent the last few years analyzing “how I got here.” One of my favorite quotes is from former People’s Temple member Deborah Layton: “Nobody joins a cult. Nobody joins something they think’s gonna hurt them. You join a religious organization, you join a political movement, and you join with people that you *really like.*”

I suspect many people are going to want to join this new movement because it’s the Next Cool Thing. Some people will join because they crave connection with other like-minded people. There may be lots of reasons. I’m afraid it’s not going to be the utopia they were hoping for.

dainca wrote:

He really doesn’t know much about the Evangelical world; he was never a part of it. I think most Evangelicals will reject his ideas regarding how monastic values can be of help – “too Catholic.”

Given the aversion many Evangelicals have to discussions of celibacy, apparently because it’s too closely related to Catholicism, I see your point.

@ dainca:
are neo-Cals ‘evangelists’ in the real sense, or do they ‘take over’ churches or plant their own churches using the 9 Marks pattern of rules and ‘discipline’ (control)?

I am beginning to think neo-Cals are not traditional Calvinists OR evangelicals in the best sense of the word. I see them at patriarchal male-headship folks who don’t want any back-talk from the sheep and who also will harass any sheep who have had enough and decide to leave.

I have my own definition of ‘evangelicals’ and neo-Cals don’t fit into it.

So the mystery is the ‘connection’ between Dreher and the neo-Cal world who are promoting ‘Ben Op’ which you know they will adapt to THEIR WAY. I see Dreher as ‘an American conservative’ more to the right of Catholicism and Orthodoxy politically. Of course he left Methodism looking for more of a ‘conservative Christian’ model. Catholicism is too social justice oriented for people like Dreher, and now Orthodoxy is ignoring his ‘Ben Op’.

He is still journeying, in my opinion. The neo-Cals LIKE structure, ‘rules’ and imposed ‘discipline’ on steroids, so they will have to corrupt St. Benedict’s Rule if they pull certain features in it out of the context in which these features were meant only for good.

@ Mike:
Thank you for that information. It is helpful context for the discussion.

dainca wrote:

He really doesn’t know much about the Evangelical world; he was never a part of it. I think most Evangelicals will reject his ideas regarding how monastic values can be of help – “too Catholic.”

Where he may find certain streams of Evangelicals giving him a hearing is among those who ARE “missional,” or present themselves as missional, as there is some overlap in interest in developing local church.

And I can see Neo-Calvinists connecting with his work as a potential new way of imposing control, even if he seems to be connecting with them more about issues of religious freedom.

In thinking about this topic over the last couple of hours, I wonder if there might something in this thought: The BenOp is written by a person who has been a political conservative and a Christian in three main branches of the faith. He is not a priest or a pastor but a political commentator; his past books and writings have focused mostly on the secular, and on the conservative end of the spectrum. As in other books, his focus is more on the political but his position is informed by his Christianity. Perhaps that is the key to understanding what the BenOp is: a model for living into both a political ideal and a religious teaching.

I am not speaking for Dreher here. I know people who know him and I believe he is sincere in both his political and religious beliefs.

And I also think that the conflation of *any* political position (at either end of the spectrum) with the Gospel of Christ is going to have bad results. CS Lewis called this “Christianity and ____” and warned against it.

Christianity and the Moral Majority
Christianity and Social Justice
Christianity and the New Left
Christianity and the Alt-Right
Christianity and White Supremacy
Christianity and Ecumenical Unity
…and you can keep going.

A teacher I know has drawn the line here: Paradise v Utopia. The following are my words, not his; I used his to draw the distinction.

When people use Christianity to create a utopia, it doesn’t go well. A political solution is not at hand.

When people set out to be Christians in seeking paradise, well, that involves a cross…as in Christ’s and as in picking up one’s own. It means seeking mercy and justice for all, it means living a moral life. It means being yoked to Christ and pulling in tandem with Him, not against Him–being obedient in love for Him. It means giving up one’s life so one can save it. At least that is what Jesus said. ‘

Maybe the way to understand Dreher’s work is primarily as a political work and not as the latest Christian fad (or fad wannabe). That doesn’t mean the ideas are BAD but maybe it gives a clearer lens for reading the work.

PaJo wrote:

It seems unnecessary to say, but I will say it anyway. Please give room in your thinking and responses for understanding the perspective from which Dreher writes, and don’t jump to conclusions about Orthodox Christian practices by seeing it through the lens of modernity or screwed-up teaching. K? :0)

My family is Armenian Orthodox. I’m quite familiar, and have nothing against Orthodox that I don’t have against all other Christian groups. But I don’t think Dreher represents anything close to the Orthodoxy I learned. I agree that it would be a shame to judge all of Orthodox based on Dreher’s muddle. I also think it is a shame that some Orthodox support his silliness just because he’s part of their tribe.

Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
<…snipped. But I don’t think Dreher represents anything close to the Orthodoxy I learned. I agree that it would be a shame to judge all of Orthodox based on Dreher’s muddle. I also think it is a shame that some Orthodox support his silliness just because he’s part of their tribe.

Agreed. This thought was kind of what was behind my post two before yours.

Mike wrote:

living as we know in a different kingdom and under a different King than today’s world

Which is what Jesus had in mind when He exhorted us to be in the world but not of the world. Jesus preached a lot about experiencing the Kingdom of God on earth in the here and now; most Christians live a lifetime without getting a handle on that.

Good input Mike. Thanks for contributing to this blog thread.

@ Deb:
Is it a crime to be white?

Christiane wrote:

I am beginning to think neo-Cals are not traditional Calvinists OR evangelicals

Russell Moore openly rejected the evangelical label last year.

and Albert Mohler announced last month that he did not think evangelicalism would survive “either this epoch or much beyond.”

http://www.albertmohler.com/2017/02/13/benedict-option-conversation-rod-dreher/

Mohler also claimed that Canada was down to “one major evangelical higher education institution” (Trinity Western).

Is that true?

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

God’s Anointed Choices” among the GOP Candidates

…did not have fake Greek temple columns and claim to stop the seas from rising. 🙂 Sadly, the desire to have a Great Man (or Woman!) save us and miraculously solve all our problems is not new and not limited to US politics of any party. It is an incurable weakness and a longing, IMO, for our Good Creator God in our collective human heart.

PaJo wrote:

What was the benefit to members to living on the land? Why did one wish to do this?

Basically to live in intentional community with other brothers and sisters. To live an agricultural lifestyle that would sustain us when the economy collapses. To raise families not tainted by “the world.” To live in a countercultural Christian environment– a city set upon a hill. The church owned the property. Members purchased or built their own homes and paid the church rent for the space.

I heard from the pulpit more than once that “we have the answer for what this world needs.” After they made headlines for the convictions of 5 (or 6?) pedophiles, the mantra was “it happens everywhere.” So, intentional communities are apparently just as prone to pedophilia as the culture at large. Go figure.

Does teaching submission encourage abuse? by Carol Howard Merritt
https://www.christiancentury.org/blog-post/does-teaching-submission-encourage-abuse

Princeton Seminary, the flagship seminary of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), is giving an award for Excellence in Reformed Theology and Public Witness to Tim Keller, one of the loudest, most read, and most adhered-to proponents of male headship in the home.

BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

PaJo wrote:
What was the benefit to members to living on the land? Why did one wish to do this?
Basically to live in intentional community with other brothers and sisters. To live an agricultural lifestyle that would sustain us when the economy collapses. To raise families not tainted by “the world.” To live in a countercultural Christian environment– a city set upon a hill. The church owned the property. Members purchased or built their own homes and paid the church rent for the space.
I heard from the pulpit more than once that “we have the answer for what this world needs.” After they made headlines for the convictions of 5 (or 6?) pedophiles, the mantra was “it happens everywhere.” So, intentional communities are apparently just as prone to pedophilia as the culture at large. Go figure.

OK, with THAT arrangement I have a problem. If the church owned the property and the houses, and people paid to live there (like rent) and agreed to live according to certain principles, then if they leave the principles, they leave the property. But if the church owns the property but the members paid to have their houses built and have to leave them behind without compensation … that’s not right. I am familiar with a situation where a “pastor” (who declared himself “bishop”) bought property with the giving of the membership but held the property in his own name –Bishop X.Y.Zee– and then closed the religious services, and sold the property for at least 10x price over a 20 year period and pocketed the money himself. THAT I have a problem with, too. But it happens all the time.

And the pedophiles/it happens everywhere -shrug-nope. Just nope. It goes to the paradise/utopia comment I made upthread.

Christiane wrote:

Darleneo wrote:
My church ends every worship service with this:
Pastor: The worship has ended.
People: The service now begins.
I love how this way of ‘being sent forth’ is said!

I like it in that it points out that we carry Christ with us into the community. But worship never ends…we just can’t keep it up 24/7… So we enter into worship that is already going on, and leave what still continues because, well, we gotta eat, I suppose. :0) (I wish that fell into the category of “feeding the hungry”–I’d be golden!

ishy wrote:

I don’t consider neo-Cals evangelicals, nor is Dreher an evangelical. And the book is published by Penguin, a secular publisher. They still are pushing the book, I’m sure.

Let’s take a walk down memory lane with C.J. Mahaney the high school graduate charismatic who formed a partnership with Mark Dever the Reformed PhD from Cambridge. Was that more unlikely than Dreher and Mohler? I don’t think so. Penguin and Crossway can make a deal. I know they can.

@ dainca:
I’m not optimistic about Mr. Dreher’s doings with the neo-Cals, but I appreciate you sharing your opinion.

I don’t think the neo-Cal folk would use Mr. Dreher’s ideas for good, no.

nK.D. wrote:

I had been hearing, reading about the ‘ Benedict Option.’ Had almost written a blog on it a week ago….may do so now….
The whole thing is just, ” mind blowing.” And yes, it seems ” cult-like.”

I would just like to interject something here on the usage of the word cult. I’m all for warning people to look for the Red Flags in order to know whether or not a particular group/community/organization/church is a cult. As a former cult member, I get that, I really do. But I think that sometimes the word is misused and/or misunderstood. That is why I think Steve Hassan’s BITE MODEL that identifies the characteristics of a cult is a very good guide to go by. When I speak of a cult, I’m specifically revering to the Social Structure and Constructs within that particular community.

As far as the Benedict Option goes, I think people can form a Christian community with this in mind and not become a cult. Conversely, I also think people can attempt to live according to the Benedict Option and become a cult. It all depends upon the circumstances. Who are the people getting involved? What are their pre-conceived ideas as to how the B.O. will/should work? What are the various personalities of those people like and how will they interact with each other? I don’t think it’s fair to just label the Benedict Option as Bad, Cultish, Dangerous, etc. It all depends upon various factors as to what the outcome will be of living according to the B.O.

Steve Hassan’s BITE Model.
https://freedomofmind.com/bite-model/

Jeffrey J . Chalmers wrote:

@ Nancy2:
A very good point…. i would not call the 1st Century a very “Christian” era..

Is there ever a “Christian” era? Or perhaps a better way of putting it is: Since Christ rose from the dead, there have been Christians in all eras of history up to the present. In each of those eras, there were some egregious beliefs and practices that harmed people. All the way up to the present. There are no Good Old Days. Each and every generation has had its foibles and will continue to do so till the Eschaton.

SteveG wrote:

The problem is that non-believers don’t always leave us alone. Just ask Baronelle Stutzman. I suppose you could say in theory, that if the Religious Right had never arisen there would have been no culture wars, and we’d all be getting along just fine today. Personally, I think that’s naive, whether it’s coming from pundits on the right or left. It was Francis Schaeffer who famously asked, How Then Should We Live? From what I can tell so far, the book is Dreher’s attempt to answer that question in light of our current situation.

I guess I don’t really relate to Baronelle Stutzman’s dilemma. How is refusing to sell to a gay couple serving Christ? Refusing to sell to certain clients strikes me as harsh and cruel. How would you feel if you walked into a business and they said, “sorry, we don’t sell to your type here” ? Is that how Christ wants us to come across to the world? I could understand not wanting to perform a gay marriage if a minister’s conscience is against it but as I understand it, that is a different situation and is protected under freedom of religion. If selling products is considered religious freedom, could grocery stores keep certain people out? Could certain ethic groups or religions find themselves closed out from buying products? Is that how a Christian world would work?

I guess I really don’t understand the gay paranoia that Christians have today. There have always been gay people and there always will be. The fact that they exist doesn’t threaten your or my ability to have faith in God.

My husband and ran our own business for many years. We’ve had many gay customers. We never considered not doing work for them. In fact, they’ve been some of our best customers, as far as being reasonable nice people, paying their bills on time, etc. I’d like to think treating people as human beings created in God’s image is a better way to represent Christ than refusing service.

I guess I just don’t understand what the fear is of. There are people all around us whose lifestyles and belief systems are not what we’d choose for ourselves. We all have to respect each other’s right to exist and live in peace.

Daisy wrote:

Princeton Seminary, the flagship seminary of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), is giving an award for Excellence in Reformed Theology and Public Witness to Tim Keller

Shouldn’t a pastor receiving such an award be able to exercise his “public witness” by answering the question “What is the Gospel?”

After going through intellectual gyrations, he never answered that question at this event: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0g-s4Qhtyk

Max wrote:

The Benedict Option would be a good thing for Evangelical Christianity in America if all the New Calvinists would disappear into the wilderness to pursue Eastern Orthodoxy!
Dreher has got the attention of Al Mohler. Who knows what the New Calvinists will do next?! http://www.albertmohler.com/2017/02/13/benedict-option-conversation-rod-dreher/

Ha! Orthodoxy and New Calvinism are worlds apart. Neo-Cals would have to leave quite a few of their beliefs and practices behind if they were to actually get serious about becoming Orthodox Christians.

siteseer wrote:

We all have to respect each other’s right to exist and live in peace.

And part of that is respecting other people’s consciences, IMO.

Darlene wrote:

Yep, you’ve got that right, HUG. And many (most) of those CAGE STAGE ORTHODOX “Monk-a-bees” come from a Fundamentalist Evangelical background. So they just switch from being one kind of Fundy to another.

Don’t forget the full on new-agers* who convert to fundagelicalism and also the one-time fervent fundagelicals who convert to hard core atheism. It seems it’s whole hog or nothin’ with these folks (of either way), with no such thing as a balanced middle.

*There’s a radio talk show host here in Southern Cal. who makes a point of telling his listeners about how he was once a hip-and-all-inclusive-new-ager until he found the Jesus of fundagelicalism.

dee wrote:

Therefore, instead, we should be optimistic about the church’s longevity. In other words, “She will persist.”

Yes!

So much of the time we hear something along the lines of “If the church doesn’t [fill in the blank] then [prediction of doom] is going to happen!”

Muslin fka Deana Holmes
I’ve observed intentional housing experiments go absolutly sideways when push came to shove. I can’t even imagine what would happen if religion was added to the mix.

I can. I experienced it in Real Life. It ain’t pretty.

IF this becomes a Christian trend, here is what I think will happen:

Let’s assume just for the sake of my case that the BenOp *could* work. Just play along.

What will happen is that a few big mouths will get in on the action, set up the *utopian* communities, with themselves as BenedictJunior without knowing a single thing about WHY he is SAINT Benedict. Some people will follow along, with varying amounts of rationality, without knowing what to expect from the leadership of someone who ended up being called a SAINT. To the degree that people are going here to escape the world, they will be to that degree disappointed.

Human failing will enter, varying degrees of sinful behavior will exhibit themselves, the most humble will be the most hurt, the thing will collapse and the BenOp will be called a failure.

Never mind that Benedictine monasteries have existed for hundreds of years in continuity, that people in the world link themselves to the monasteries as oblates to try to bring the principles into their lives in the world.

Again, if we seek paradise, we will find it. It comes from picking up one’s cross, from staying ON one’s cross, as did the thief who found himself alongside Jesus.

If we seek utopia, escape from one world to make a better one better suited to our own ideas…all we will find is failure.

Utopia-seeking hasn’t been all that great for the religious of the world. The Nazis thought their plan would bring utopia. 6 million dead. The communists thought their system would bring utopia. Stalin did in at least 12 million and maybe up to 20 million of his own people to bring about utopia. Both of those are within living memory.

I wonder how many times in history we have to learn this.

@ Jerome:

Bradley was on the money (as he often is) with his second paragraph about how loving God and your neighbor isn’t good enough. A week ago, I was telling my small group about how at my previous gospel™-centered church, the small group leader decided we’d send a nightly text message to each other asking if we did that thing single guys are known to do that day. And that’s the exact same point I made about such a different thing – it declares loving our neighbor as ourselves taken care of, so we can move on to a practice made up advanced Christianity.

I also liked one random dude from Twitter’s comment: it sounds more like the Doug Wilson option.

@ siteseer:

Only one comment on this, and that will be all from me.

Ms Stutzman did not refuse to sell flowers to a gay customer; she had sold him flowers for years, knowing he was gay and knowing he was giving some of those flowers to his partner. That was not the issue for her. She considered him a friend, and he had always acted in a friendly way toward her. The issue was participating in an **event** that violated her conscience. She recommended other florists she knew would have no problem providing the flowers for the event, so she was not in any way trying to stop them from getting married or having flowers at their wedding. She was not discriminating against the gay couple; she was refusing to participate in an event she views as incompatible with her religious beliefs. There’s a difference. Again, you may not agree, but don’t pass along incorrect information.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
HUG: No, my former cult was not the Koinonia House Christian Fellowship. But all those Christian communal fellowships back in the 70’s and 80’s pretty much shared the same m.o.

BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

ishy wrote:
I am not so sure about this. Don’t forget the neo-Cal focus on covenants, and oftentimes those covenants are vague, but still treated like legal documents.
I may have been just a tad bit sarcastic with my “sure.”
I’m just going to quietly slip this in here. I’ve mentioned before the 127 page covenant we signed twice a year for communion. Let’s just say it’s very comprehensive.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7f-4astA-1zbjZSVGFzMkp5S2M/view?usp=sharing

Oh my, what enjoyable reading in a comfy chair with a nice hot cup of herbal tea….NOT. Been There, which church was this? I assume all potential members were required to read this?

PaJo wrote:

But if the church owns the property but the members paid to have their houses built and have to leave them behind without compensation … that’s not right.

I only personally know of one situation where this played out, because I happened to be friends with the victim’s son. Wife was finally fed up with the authoritarian atmosphere, and left to return to her native UK. The husband followed her to try and work things out. He was eventually persuaded by the cult to return to Texas, because his higher covenant was to The Body. But they had already packed up his household belongings and given his home away to someone else. That didn’t sit well with him. He remained for a few more years (I think) before joining his wife permanently in the UK. He just happens to be a master woodworker, and wrote the cult’s woodworking curriculum. He basically changed the curriculum a little bit, and used it to launch a successful woodworking school in the UK. Shortly thereafter, the cult distributed an Intellectual Property Assignment to all other members to sign.

I really can’t stress enough that people disabuse themselves of the idea of finding a Utopia. If it seems too good to be true, it most likely is.

Off topic but possibly of interest:
By your friend and mine, Owen Strachan (formerly of CBMW):

The Alt-Right Is What Happens When Society Marginalizes Men
http://thefederalist.com/2017/03/21/alt-right-happens-society-marginalizes-men/

The above is on a right wing site. I’m a right winger but not always in agreement with everything on that site.

I’ve at this point only read about the first third of Strachan’s paper. I hope he doesn’t think the solution is Complementarianism, or that the standard conservative boogeyman (or boogeywoman) to blame is Feminism.

I shall keep reading to find out, unless it gets too awful, in which case, I will close out of that browser window.

dee wrote:

David wrote:
Dreher left the Catholics due to his disgust of their mishandling of abuse. You’d think that would give him and TWW a little connection.
Thank you. I did not know that was his basic motivation to leave Catholicism. I thought it was based more on doctrine. If you are correct-yay Dreher.
I sure hope that he exposes the same problem in the Orthodox and Evangelical churches.

Several years ago he admitted that his real reason for leaving Catholicism was that he disagreed with its teaching on contraception. Also, since leaving, he has bashed the Catholic Church at every opportunity while largely giving his new communion a pass. Orthodoxy does have a clergy sex-abuse problem (see Pokrov.org), but Dreher is mostly mum about it. When asked about this, he says he is so worn out by his experiences with the Catholic Scandal that he just can’t go there WRT Orthodoxy. Somehow this does not prevent him from continuing to bash Catholicism.

There is more I would like to say, but it involves private stuff (involving a third party), so I will email privately about it.

@ PaJo:
I’ve always thought that those who ‘left the world’ so to speak and went into monasteries/convents weren’t really running FROM something so much as running towards something. I have no doubt this is true for many. There are protestant monasteries and convents also. The wonderful ‘Call the Midwife’ series on PBS is a story about a convent of nursing nuns who are Anglicans.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfwTSZzjh8E

dainca wrote:

@ siteseer:
Only one comment on this, and that will be all from me.
Ms Stutzman did not refuse to sell flowers to a gay customer; she had sold him flowers for years, knowing he was gay and knowing he was giving some of those flowers to his partner. That was not the issue for her. She considered him a friend, and he had always acted in a friendly way toward her. The issue was participating in an **event** that violated her conscience. She recommended other florists she knew would have no problem providing the flowers for the event, so she was not in any way trying to stop them from getting married or having flowers at their wedding. She was not discriminating against the gay couple; she was refusing to participate in an event she views as incompatible with her religious beliefs. There’s a difference. Again, you may not agree, but don’t pass along incorrect information.

I get it, Dainca. Here’s another scenario. A Christian family starts a catering business. One day they get a call from some fellas who want to have their strip-tease, Bachelor party catered. Should they be forced by the law to cater an event where they must watch women dancing in the nude? If they refuse, do the fellas have a right to sue? Think about that long and hard when discussing this issue of rights and privileges various folks have in our society.

Christiane wrote:

@ PaJo:
I’ve always thought that those who ‘left the world’ so to speak and went into monasteries/convents weren’t really running FROM something so much as running towards something. I have no doubt this is true for many. There are protestant monasteries and convents also. The wonderful ‘Call the Midwife’ series on PBS is a story about a convent of nursing nuns who are Anglicans.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfwTSZzjh8E

You are right about that, Christiane. My husband’s great aunt was a nun in the Anglican Church – full habit and all. Sister Lucy Mary was her name. And my husband asked her forgiveness not long before she died because of the rude ways he had treated her during his evangelical days. She said something to the effect of: Johnny D (she was one of the few that could get away with calling him ‘Johnny’) (oh and the ‘D’ stands for David, his middle name) – I already forgave you long ago. She was a precious lady.

Christiane wrote:

@ PaJo:
I’ve always thought that those who ‘left the world’ so to speak and went into monasteries/convents weren’t really running FROM something so much as running towards something. I have no doubt this is true for many. There are protestant monasteries and convents also. The wonderful ‘Call the Midwife’ series on PBS is a story about a convent of nursing nuns who are Anglicans.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfwTSZzjh8E

I agree.
“Running towards” is motivated by love and is a call to carry a cross and enter paradise.

“Running away” is motivated by fear and confidence in one’s ability to escape a cross and shape a utopia.

Monasteries aren’t perfect either. But they can provide a structure for those who seek Paradise in a very focused/deliberate way., even as others do so while living in the world.

dee wrote:

I have found that recently in my church. Our goal is to receive support and reach outwards.

That sounds amazing; I pray that my family will find.the same.

David wrote:

dee wrote:
David wrote:
’m halfway through this book, and if there’s a section telling us to head for the hills and ignore everyone around us while we go off to count beads I’ve yet to find it. Just the opposite, really — so far there’s more about homeless shelters, crisis pregnancy centers, welcoming strangers, and building communities than there is about running away.
See my comment about a true view of the monastery movement. I think I will need to write a post on this. I took a course on the Church in the Middle Ages and it blew me away! It was much different than I thought.
Thanks. I didn’t see this, but I tend to agree.
FWIW, I know that Dreher may be overstating his case for Western collapse. I know that there’s not a lot on how this may look in different lights (i.e. women and/or minorities in the West). That certainly a blind spot. However, I think what I’ve read so far mirrors so much with what non-reactionary bloggers have said (think Internet Monk’s Coming Evangelical Collapse for an example) that it warrants hearing out before jumping to conclusions.
And PaJo, thanks. I’m not Orthodox but I read Orthodox authors occasionally and know the lingo I think the cultural divide is going to be too much for some…

I don’t see anything alarming about the Benedict Option. It seems to be about creating safe, functional communities where people preserve what they can of civilization while the broader culture is likely to become more dysfunctional, corrupt and violent. If it is kind of a withdrawing, what of it? If people for years have been told that their kind has no place in the public square and they really shouldn’t be seen or heard, so finally they get the message and opt out as much as possible, then they are giving the culture exactly what it has demanded of them. If the broader culture insists on building on sand then maybe the most you can do is avoid the danger areas and try to keep your own house in order.

Jacob wrote:

If people for years have been told that their kind has no place in the public square and they really shouldn’t be seen or heard, so finally they get the message and opt out as much as possible, then they are giving the culture exactly what it has demanded of them

I’ve heard this before. At one time, Christianity was the dominant faith. Now other voices join the table and boom, poor us, we no longer control the conversation. Sorry, Jacob, I hear this from folks who don’t want to listen, they are so convinced of their superior faith that if they can’t control and dominate, they don’t want any part of it.
That’s fine with me. You have freedom to do so, courtesy of your friendly neighborhood liberal democracy.

Jacob wrote:

If it is kind of a withdrawing, what of it?

I do not think Jesus and his disciples withdrew from the society.

What I don’t see is why some people think that this man is proposing actual monasticism. He is not. He is proposing some degree of withdrawal from the larger culture with a focus on some aspects of Christianity which seem to have been neglected. Whether he or anybody else has a workable plan to implement that I have no idea. Whether or not it is a good idea remains to be seen. But that is not monasticism. It is more like the old saying that one should have lots of acquaintances but few friends. It is more like the pre-vatican Ii / pre cultural revolution idea that catholics and protestants certainly can do business with each other but they cannot let their children date each other. That sort of thing may well be excessive in today’s culture, we may well say that we have come beyond that-but it is not monasticism.

And somebody please read the rule of St Benedict. He has some very down to earth stuff in there which is good advice inside or outside of the monastery. The mere mention of his name and/or the sentence which I have just said is not an affront to the man or his religious tradition. And as far as I know the copyright on his ideas has expired.

okrapod wrote:

What I don’t see is why some people think that this man is proposing actual monasticism. He is not. He is proposing some degree of withdrawal from the larger culture with a focus on some aspects of Christianity which seem to have been neglected. Whether he or anybody else has a workable plan to implement that I have no idea. Whether or not it is a good idea remains to be seen. But that is not monasticism. It is more like the old saying that one should have lots of acquaintances but few friends. It is more like the pre-vatican Ii / pre cultural revolution idea that catholics and protestants certainly can do business with each other but they cannot let their children date each other. That sort of thing may well be excessive in today’s culture, we may well say that we have come beyond that-but it is not monasticism.

And somebody please read the rule of St Benedict. He has some very down to earth stuff in there which is good advice inside or outside of the monastery. The mere mention of his name and/or the sentence which I have just said is not an affront to the man or his religious tradition. And as far as I know the copyright on his ideas has expired.

Why not just live out our lives as Christians guided by the Holy Spirit?

These days as soon as I read the words ‘radical vision’ it’s like several neurons blow up in my brain & it refuses to go any further. ‘A long obedience in the same direction’ is absolutely more my speed these days…

Gram3 wrote:

PaJo wrote:
This is pretty surprising to me. Princeton has not been known for many decades as a bastion of conservative Christianity. Wow.

Keller is cool. That is all that matters.

Seriously. It seems to go like this – People know his name: Must give award.

I think Keller is one of the ‘soft’ types at least right, but still. Annoying.

Gram3 wrote:

but preparing flowers or cakes or whatever for the celebration of an event that offends the conscience of the florist, baker, photographer, or whatever.

I also think this generally involves delivering to the wedding, setting up and actively being involved in a way that selling someone lunch does not.

Jack wrote:

Sorry, Jacob, I hear this from folks who don’t want to listen, they are so convinced of their superior faith that if they can’t control and dominate, they don’t want any part of it.

“Better to rule in Hell than serve in Heaven”?

Muslin, fka Dee Holmes wrote:

“The Dispossessed: An Ambiguous Utopia” (1974) was my first introduction to how intentional communities (don’t) work.

Sounds like an interesting read, except to a few Amazon reviewers. And I think it’s a shame that it very rarely works. The couple who founded my former community were hippies before they “came to God.” I think some of their hippie dreams never really left them. This world can be a cruel and crazy place whether you are Christian or not, and I think it’s normal to wish that there was a better way to do life.

Muslin, fka Dee Holmes wrote:

How is that different from telling an interracial couple that you won’t bake their cake or sell them flowers because your religious belief says you cannot accept interracial marriage?

I think that would be silly, but the *principle* remains. I was a member of a SBC which might have split over an interracial marriage, but the pastor handled it wisely, married the young couple, and the church went on to grow. As I said, public accommodation laws were formed in a different era under *very* different social and economic conditions. I remember them well, and public accommodation is a different issue since there are rarely limits on alternative choices or unique circumstances.

mot wrote:

It is only a crime in the “christian” world to be a woman. Being snarky this morning.

It’s never been a “crime” to be woman in the Christian world, only in the religious world. The teachings and traditions of men have put women in bondage, not the teachings of Christ.

“All of you who were baptized ‘into’ Christ have put on the family likeness of Christ. Gone is the distinction between Jew and Greek, slave and free man, male and female — you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28).

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

monks are called to be monks. Laypeople are not

Shhhhh … don’t tell the New Calvinists that! We need as many of them as possible to get on the bus to the desert 🙂

God does indeed create a wilderness place for some, but you don’t make that choice or select that option. Whom He calls, He equips … and He often does that with obscure folks in obscure places who experience the Jesus Option. I keep waiting for anointed folks (not the educated, but the anointed) to step out of the wilderness to take the church back from the enemy … but He won’t do it with Calvin’s gospel – He will do it with His.

Jacob wrote:

If people for years have been told that their kind has no place in the public square and they really shouldn’t be seen or heard, s

Ah, you mean like women are treated in most churches? Yeah, I opted out.

Deb wrote:

@ Max:
Maybe our prayers are being answered.

I don’t for one second believe the neo-Cal leaders would be carting themselves off. They’d just cart off the people that dare to have an opinion or who might try to walk away from their precious covenant.

@ Josh:

Teaching teenage boys to how to violate other peoples’ sexual boundaries – what could possibly go wrong?

@ Muslin, fka Dee Holmes:

I saw that. It was a very intense account. He calls out the gospel™ crew as an enterprise of old white men from the south, which I agree with.

Daisy wrote:

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
According to my source (a long-ago comment thread at Internet Monk), this contributed to clergy sex & other abuse scandals in Ireland, as it resulted in a LOT of priests and nuns who weren’t really suited for the job.

I think I remember reading that. Someone posted a long comment about it and/or a link to a really long article, most of which I read. It was interesting.

I’m pretty sure it was “Martha of Ireland”, on the background of the clergy sex/abuse scandals in Ireland.

Martha of Ireland is a 60-something Irish spinster who’s also an old school SF litfan. She was also my “cold reader” for the F&SF I’ve been doing for the past couple years. She hasn’t commented in a while; I’m wondering if she’s OK.

ishy wrote:

I don’t for one second believe the neo-Cal leaders would be carting themselves off.

Yeah, their power would be significantly limited in the desert. But we can only hope some of them will go.

Deb wrote:

@ Lea:
Shepherding – 21st century style

KYLE: But Dad, isn’t that Fascism?
KYLE’S DAD: No it isn’t, Son. Because we don’t call it Fascism. Do you understand?
KYLE: Do you?
— South Park, “Sexual Harassment Panda”

Lea wrote:

Stan wrote:
at my previous gospel™-centered church, the small group leader decided we’d send a nightly text message to each other asking if we did that thing

This kind of stuff still amazes me.

Not if you remember one thing:
Christians are just as sexually obsessed as everyone else, just in a different direction —
“THOU SHALT NOT!” instead of “YEAH! YEAH! YEAH!”

And in Medieval theology, masturbation was THE WORST sexual sin because it was the farthest off from procreation. Parallels to Quiverfull noted.

Boston Lady wrote:

Daisy, do you remember that great “Christian” hit “The Prayer of Jabez”? That had every Christian claim all and sundry, bigger land, bigger cars, bigger muscles…all to “reach” the lost and bless people “through ME.”

AKA The Secret (remember that?) with a Christian Coat of Sickly Pious Paint.

I for one would be very happy if the religious right would withdraw from politics, leaving individual Christians free to exercise their citizenship duties as they see fit and not as the church tells them to. But this movement seems unlikely to leave individual Christians free to do anything the religious authority isn’t telling them to do.

David wrote:

communes with abuse history.

I’d say the Kirk (Wilson’s Moscow church and associated schools) is more Kult than Kommune. 🙁

@ Max:

“Dreher has got the attention of Al Mohler. Who knows what the New Calvinists will do next?!”
++++++++++++++++

seems to me that the purpose of Al Mohler & co (TGC, T4G, SBC, etc.) is to find a way to make the slipping-away-sands of the sandcastle stop slipping away. any vehicle will do, as long as $ and power are preserved for those who have it, and homosexuality is quarantined.

seems to me, he/they sense critical mass forming with the words Rod Dreher, and The Benedict Option. An opportunity for traction. A vehicle to co-opt for their own purposes.

(but i think this point has already been made)

ishy wrote:

There’s no utopia on Earth because every human can bring evil with them. Maybe Jesus could have created a separation, but even He had Judas. How many times did He rebuke His other disciples?

It’s a pipe dream.

I agree. Utopia is a fool’s errand, and in my opinion, so is the idea of a ‘perfect heaven’. I no longer believe that the Almighty ever demanded ‘perfection’ from his creatures. So long as we restrain the worst in us and do the best we can with what we’re given in the here and now …What is man that thou art mindful of him?, I believe we’re good to go.

Another concept from missions theology relevant to considering the Benedict Option is the work of Roland Allen. He was an Anglican missionary in China in the early 20th century, and became a critic of the “mission compound” methodology. Instead of evangelizing people of China and equipping them to minister in their own culture in their own ways, the British missionaries taught them to withdraw from their culture. So, the only places these Chinese Christians could work would be in the mission compound. They’d converted not just to Christ, but to British Anglican cultural Christianity as well.

So, Roland Allen’s insights from over 100 years ago could help illuminate what I believe is one of the inherent tendencies for systems implosion where theologies of church/state talk about “withdrawal” from culture. They often result in isolation, insular thinking, and authoritarianism. The tendency seems inherent, but the results are not inevitable. But if people are going to embrace and develop the Benedict Option, they’ll have to deal with the meaning and limitations of “withdrawal,” and from looking at social media the past few days, that seems to be a key term people are fussing over (for good reason).

A main resource is *The Spontaneous Expansion of the Church*, and another main book he wrote is *Missionary Methods: Saint Paul’s or Ours?*

https://www.amazon.com/Spontaneous-Expansion-Church-Causes-Hinder/dp/1579101984/

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

F&SF

HUG, yes, and to quote you…they HAD a verse for that Jabez fad!

If we are going to say that the church is wrong in preaching and teaching what it is preaching and teaching, and in ‘go’ing as in new church plants, and is wrong in trying to impact the larger culture with it’s concepts of ‘whatsoever I have commanded you’, which does seem to be what some people are saying,

And

If we say that the church would be wrong to pull back from all of the above which we have criticized the churches for already anyhow, and focus on self renewal, focus on regroup, focus on some kinds of spirituality as opposed to political activism- wrong to do that

Then

What is the church supposed to do? The great commission does not even remotely suggest that the church is to enable or empower anything which is not ‘whatsoever I have commanded you’. So,if we say to the church that it cannot live it, preach it, teach or much less convert people (as witnessed in baptism) what is left? What then is the mission of the church?

I do not personally see in scripture that Jesus came to preach the gospel of innocuousness.

Also, a general note of concern based on what I’m seeing in Rod Dreher’s videos and interviews so far: He seems to focus on the family unit as where much of this preservation and development happens, and building from there. So — as usual — where does that leave those of us who are single?

brad/futuristguy wrote:

I haven’t read the book yet and probably won’t anytime soon. But that is one of the key issues that typically comes up with a “separate from the world” viewpoint.

Reminds me of Tribulation Force’s grand strategy according to Slacktivist’s page-by-page of Left Behind:
1) Dig a really really big hole.
2) Hide in it until Jesus returns.

okrapod wrote:

What is the church supposed to do? The great commission does not even remotely suggest that the church is to enable or empower anything which is not ‘whatsoever I have commanded you’. So,if we say to the church that it cannot live it, preach it, teach or much less convert people (as witnessed in baptism) what is left? What then is the mission of the church?

Bedroom Evangelism and Culture War Without End.

ishy wrote:

Ah, this may be a piece of the missing puzzle as to why the neo-Cals are all up in this. They probably see it as the family unit under headship of a husband who acts in perfect “harmony” with the elders.

The Umbrellas of Overlording Authority Benedict Option?

brad/futuristguy wrote:

It’s always a tension, “withdraw” = “retreat.” But when so much of what there has been in the last 3 decades is Christian “warrior” imagery, this seems to be a retreat.

The boots and noobs who brag about what Mighty Warriors they are are always the first to not only retreat but rout.

The warriors you have to watch out for are the experienced Sgt Rocks, not the Nick Fury Howling Commandos.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:

Precisely. If we shut off every avenue for what it means to live out the mission of the church then all we are left with is non-christianity. It would be better to just take a short cut in the first place and forget the whole idea.

But I think that the church for centuries upon centuries has taken the option of ‘all of the above’ including go and stay, preach and dig wells, accommodate both leaders and followers, married and single, young and old, secular and monastic, whatever and whichever.

But we seem to be in a stage right now where nothing is considered acceptable. We act like we can’t even stand to be around ourselves or something.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Sing with me…

Every youknowwhat is sacred
Every youknowwhat is great
If a youknowwhat is wasted
God gets quite irate.

Is noncontraception / quiverfull a thing in Orthodoxy? Are these B.O. communes intended to be grown by … shall we say … multiplication from within?

Josh wrote:

multiplication from within

A few days ago the media gave us what they said was a quote from a political leader in elsewherenation recommending that very approach for ‘his’ people. So, I would suspect that included in the withdraw and regroup movement one might find be fruitful and multiply, as well perhaps as restore the concept of the multigenerational extended family and at some point maybe even polygamy for some outlying groups.

Why do I think that? Because those are ideas as old as the hills. One way to think about whether something will happen is to ask if it happened before. ‘Doc, I have this pain.’ ‘Hmm, have you had this pain before?’ ‘Yes.’ ‘Well, it looks like you have it again.’

Kristen Rosser wrote:

I for one would be very happy if the religious right would withdraw from politics, leaving individual Christians free to exercise their citizenship duties as they see fit and not as the church tells them to. But this movement seems unlikely to leave individual Christians free to do anything the religious authority isn’t telling them to do.

I for one would be very happy if the religious LEFT would withdraw from politics, leaving individual Christians free to exercise their citizenship duties as they see fit and not as the church tells them to. But this movement seems unlikely to leave individual Christians free to do anything the religious authority isn’t telling them to do.

Quoting Dreher (last couple of minutes of long video): “If you take your Christianity seriously, you will have to take the Benedict Option…that is the only way to hold onto our faith and pass it on…it will either be Benedictan or it will not be at all…”

My scattered thoughts:

He speaks in absolutes.
He is speaking about American Christianity only.
Christianity can survive in concentration camps and Communist China (underground), so if American politics absolutely prohibits Christianity, and since Christianity is not predicated on governmental sanction, it can survive, and perhaps thrive, if that were to occur.
Is our goal as believers to avoid persecution completely, even to the cost of our lives? (Thinking about martyred saints in China, for example).
What is our ultimate goal? Is it the relative comfort of forming our own community (Dreher said that communities would have their own laws) of believers? What happens when children, who are born within the community, grow up and do not share their parent’s faith? Are they rejected so as not to poison the well?
Is our ultimate goal to die to self and be willing to suffer for our faith, even if costs us our bank accounts, our livelihoods, our family, our life?

No, I don’t think that the absolutes of Dreher are valid directives of Christianity in America.

ishy wrote:

I’m single! They can’t catch me!

LOL!!!

Very good question! Yep, the man who wants the rest of us to live semi-monastically and “locally” sure seems to spend a whole lot of time jetting all over the world (sans famille) while scarfing oysters and Veuve Cliquot. 😉

Christiane wrote:

@ Remnant:
question is:
what kind of lifestyle is Dreher himself living?

is he modeling what he is prescribing?

Has this man who proclaims himself to be Orthodox in his Christian orientation abandoned humility to the point where he claims he has the only answer for the way forward?

The good St. Benedict of Nursia and the strident Mr. Dreher can’t be coming from the same place. Not when the prideful neo-Cals get excited about Dreher’s proposals, no.

Remnant wrote:

What is our ultimate goal? Is it the relative comfort of forming our own community (Dreher said that communities would have their own laws) of believers? What happens when children, who are born within the community, grow up and do not share their parent’s faith? Are they rejected so as not to poison the well?

See “Honor Killing” and/or The Village by M Night Shymalan.

brad/futuristguy wrote:

ishy wrote:
Ah, this may be a piece of the missing puzzle as to why the neo-Cals are all up in this. They probably see it as the family unit under headship of a husband who acts in perfect “harmony” with the elders.

The Umbrellas of Overlording Authority Benedict Option?

“Because a goodwife learns to cower
Beneath the Umbrella of POWER;
Under cover of Heaven’s Gate,
I. MANIPULATE.
— Steve Taylor

ishy wrote:

Deb wrote:

@ Max:
Maybe our prayers are being answered.

I don’t for one second believe the neo-Cal leaders would be carting themselves off. They’d just cart off the people that dare to have an opinion or who might try to walk away from their precious covenant.

Ha! A Neo-Calvinist Benedict Option prison with metaphorical bars and cells. We had something like that in my former cult. It was called the Trip Box. 🙂 I kid you NOT.

Add to my scattered thoughts:

Christianity was birthed under Roman occupation and rule politically.
Religiously, it was birthed under the legalistic rule of the Sanhedrin.
Yet The Way grew, spread, thrived, survived.

Shall I dare to say that I find Dreher’s vision of Christianity anti-Christ?
If we congregate unto ourselves, build our own walls and laws, are we not saying to the Holy Spirit of God, “We want a King” like the Israelites said to Moses?
Grumble, grumble, I don’t like what American politics are doing to me as a believer so God, build me a city where I can worship without all this brouhaha.
Anti the Great Comission of “Go, ye….”
Anti the in dwelling Holy Spirit who might tell me to go into the highways and byways.

And, in our Benedictine society, practically speaking, how long will it be before the rule of life is challenged?
Is worship on the Sabbath or Sunday?
Will Sunday be called “Sabbath”? What if I object (as a Jewish believer) to Sunday being called “Sabbath”?
Will we be allowed to play cards?
Can women wear jeans?
Can a woman be on the security patrol? A leader? A teacher of scripture?
How is money earned? In the world with ungodly businesses? Does someone monitor my production and work ethic?
Will there be an evangelistic “team” who gets to travel and wine and dine and write books and have lucrative book deals while the rest of us toil to pay taxes?
And, perhaps, most importantly, are long scraggly beards mandatory?

@ Christiane:

I have read about this. Heartbreaking. The disgusting older men, want to have child brides, so they kick out their sons who would challenge them for these girls.

@ okrapod:
Yes, this is so true–we do act like we can’t stand to be around one another–it is very confusing and I suppose it might mean that we are looking at each other too much instead of focusing on the Lord. But even noting that sounds simplistic and formulaic. I would say humility, but the process to get there seems to involve humiliation and I don’t see people crowding to the front to partake in that experience and we don’t seem to much appreciate other people helping us get humble. Good grief how can God stand us at all–navel gazers and finger pointers that we are. Help us indeed, oh Lord!! I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. I don’t know whether to throw up my hands in exasperation or roll up my sleeves to undertake what needs doing.

nancyjane wrote:

I would say humility, but the process to get there seems to involve humiliation and I don’t see people crowding to the front to partake in that experience and we don’t seem to much appreciate other people helping us get humble.

some thoughts on the nature of Christ-like humility:

‘Humility’ does not involve ‘humiliation’. Far from it. People that humiliate others aren’t helping their victims to become ‘humble’.

If there is the presence of ‘grace’ in a person who is able to be at peace with themselves and with others, chances are that the person is truly humble before the Lord. A truly humble person will carry Christ’s peace within himself, having made room for it by getting rid of his own pride. 🙂

Josh wrote:

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Sing with me…

Every youknowwhat is sacred
Every youknowwhat is great
If a youknowwhat is wasted
God gets quite irate.

Is noncontraception / quiverfull a thing in Orthodoxy? Are these B.O. communes intended to be grown by … shall we say … multiplication from within?

As an Orthodox Christian I can give you a simple answer to your question. No. Contraception is not criticized or denounced in the Orthodox Church. Married couples can have as many or few children as they want; it is their choice. Both married and single people are treated with equal respect. Neither the married life, nor the single life are considered more godly than the other. I hope this answered your question/s sufficiently.

@ Christiane:
In some ways I agree with you. Certainly anyone who has been deliberately humiliated by another person is a victim of abuse. However I personally have at times been most humiliated when the Lord revealed my error, sin, pride to me. The sting of truth seems to come before the balm of peace and humility can be felt and I walk again thru the verses in Hebrews 12 that exhort us to accept the discipline of the Lord that we may be healed. And sometimes I have had to accept that discipline via another flawed sinner. I wish I could say that I was eager for correction but it’s kind of like getting a dr’s shot–I’m just glad when it is over!! The sting is lessened some by pre-emptive confession. Maybe in time, I won’t cringe so much.

nancyjane wrote:

However I personally have at times been most humiliated when the Lord revealed my error, sin, pride to me

what you are speaking of is the work of the Holy Spirit being poured out, but the ‘humiliation’ you feel is more like broken-heartedness for the suffering your sin has caused, as in this Scripture:

“10”I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn” (Zechariah 12:10)

the convicting our conscience when we sin is the work of the Holy Spirit …. there are many names for it: repentance, misericordia, ‘living under conviction’, and it is a sadness that is so deeply felt that it changes us and breaks our hearts and brings us to our knees before God seeking forgiveness and renewal and peace of conscience.

No one can do this for you or ‘correct you’, but the Holy Spirit. It is a work of grace, because the Holy Spirit points us to the Cross and helps us focus on what we have done by our sins.

I would say if ‘another sinner’ points you to Christ, that is good. But the kind of grace that convicts our hearts comes from God and is felt in the depths of our consciences.

Darlene, I think you’re on to something here. For some reason I cannot quite fathom, I am Facebook friends with a lot of Orthodox folks, cradle and convert. And every single one of them seems to have Dreher’s number. Unfortunately some of my Catholic friends seem to be much more gullible. SMH.

Darlene wrote:

brad/futuristguy wrote:

@ Remnant:

Excellent points, all!

In my research, I find that resistance comes in many forms and tends to create multiple kinds of cultures depending on the specific situations in the society. These include different degrees of dissent, on a scale of overt challenge to the powers controlling the organization or society, to covert resistance. So, to speak in absolutes about this being a non-optional “option” may not be such a wise thing to do.

This is a Red Flag to me. The Benedict Option would no longer be a choice, but a constraint laid upon Christians as a means to control and judge their commitment to Christ. As an Orthodox Christian, Dreher should recognize the high value our church places on individual freedom – that God honors our free will, and that He is not an overlord that seeks to force us to do anything. We are to love God freely from a willing heart. This is the kind of obedience God wants from us. I also find it interesting – perhaps even concerning – that Dreher is getting lots of positive feedback from Neo-Calvinists, but where are the Orthodox people promoting Dreher’s book? As I said up thread, I’ve heard nothing about his book in my local parish, or in the Orthodox Church at large.

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

Darlene, I think you’re on to something here. For some reason I cannot quite fathom, I am Facebook friends with a lot of Orthodox folks, cradle and convert. And every single one of them seems to have Dreher’s number. Unfortunately some of my Catholic friends seem to be much more gullible.

I would question whether these Catholic friends identified primarily as American Conservatives and secondarily as ‘Catholic’. It makes a huge difference what their first love is as to what they are willing to overlook for ‘the Cause’ (ie. their first love, and I sure don’t mean the Catholic faith)
You can see this in the way the US Conference of Catholic Bishops sometimes takes political Catholics to task for supporting policies that will bring terrible hardship directly to the poor and the helpless among us.

Catholics are a varied lot, but there are some things they can’t walk away from, and the idea that devotion to God is a willing and free choice for ALL people is one of them. Dreher’s new buddies sing a different song altogether, and I think Dreher KNOWS it, or else he is very, very naive.(?)

@ Catholic Gate-Crasher:
I need to apologize, because I don’t want to start Church Wars either. I’m in a weird place, because the Catholic church considers me “intrinsically disordered,” and from what I’ve heard from people like me who tried to live (even as celibate lay people) in Orthodox contexts, they weren’t very welcome either. So I don’t think I’d be welcome personally in either context, but I still respect the deep, intellectual writings and contemplative traditions of the RCC and Orthodox churches, and see you all as siblings in Christ. Anyhow, I’m bringing this to a close from my end in this thread, because I’m now severely off topic, but if anyone wants to pick this up in the open thread, well, I’ll try to remember to check over there later. Now, back to talking about the B.O… (phew!)

Darlene wrote:

The Benedict Option would no longer be a choice, but a constraint laid upon Christians as a means to control and judge their commitment to Christ.

This.

And maybe this is why the new-Cals are latching on.

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

We are all intrinsically disordered. It’s called Original Sin. {HUGS}

While I’ll concede that my genome is falling into disorder and that I have an expiration date (death), I now flatly reject the notion that I’ve inherited a ‘sin nature’ from Adam which in turn is my ‘default condition’.
There was a time when I wouldn’t dare and question it (original sin), that time is past.

Christiane, I agree 100%.

Christiane wrote:

@ Muff Potter:
The concept that ‘something happened’ to our kind during an event in Eden may or may not be recognized as ‘original sin’….. but we suffer in this world from many troubles and we ‘pass away’ at the end of life on this Earth, yes.

Yet something remained in humankind out of Eden that still lives in us and recalls to us what is good, and just, and life-honoring.

The only term I could never ‘accept’ is ‘total depravity’.
We may have been ‘wounded’ in our natures as human persons by the event in Eden, but we were not totally destroyed, made evil, or abandoned by Our Creator. That David could pray the twenty-third Psalm tells me this truth. Whoever cooked up ‘total depravity’ has to answer for it in eternity, and for all the hopelessness that terrible teaching laid on many souls.

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

However most communions rushed to follow suit, and hard cases became ALL cases.

That’s called Entropy.

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

We are all intrinsically disordered. It’s called Original Sin. {HUGS}

More and more I’m coming to the conclusion that Original Sin was Augustine working out a mechanism for that intrinsic disorder, trying to figure out why Adam’s Fall affected all mankind and why a Virgin Birth was necessary for Jesus. I think Augustine’s theological explanation was applied too broadly and that going back in the direction of the original Christus Victor (Victory over Death) would be a good move.

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

Darlene, I think you’re on to something here. For some reason I cannot quite fathom, I am Facebook friends with a lot of Orthodox folks, cradle and convert. And every single one of them seems to have Dreher’s number.

Wonder if that might be because of Orthodoxy’s emphasis on the monastic. When you’re familiar with the genuine article, it’s easier to spot the fakes.

Darlene wrote:

This is a Red Flag to me. The Benedict Option would no longer be a choice, but a constraint laid upon Christians as a means to control and judge their commitment to Christ. As an Orthodox Christian, Dreher should recognize the high value our church places on individual freedom – that God honors our free will, and that He is not an overlord that seeks to force us to do anything.

I wonder if Dreher’s Orthodoxy is more Russian-style than anything else. The Russian Orthodox church had a reputation for bending the knee to the Tsar’s secular power and “baptizing” what the Autocrats of All Russia wanted (carried on to this day with Putin).
* Remember (according to the Tsars) the two pillars of Russian society: Autocracy and Serfdom.
* And even before Moscow became the Third Rome, the Orthodox Church in the Second Rome used to get cozy with the heirs of Caesar enthroned in Constantinople. (Imperial patronage/State religion works both ways.)

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

but until 1930 ALL churches opposed artificial contraception. Protestants, Orthodox, everybody. In 1930 the Church of England opened the door to ABC at the Lambeth Conference — but even then it was only supposed to be for “hard cases.”

Hang on. The pill is not very old maybe 60’s, correct? Condoms a bit older, although I don’t know how commonly used they were in married relationships.

So when you say contraceptives were opposed, what are you thinking of? Herbs? Abortion?

elastigirl wrote:

i’m curious to know what has led to your conclusion.

A topic best explored on the OD thread. I’m still collating on a reply.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Left Behind, Purpose-Driven Life, I Kissed Dating Goodbye, Prayer of Jabez…
We’re about due for another Latest New Thing fad.

So true…..New book, new trend….failure…..repeat.

BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

Jerome wrote:

Scroll down to the screen cap of Bradley’s facebook post and Dreher’s nasty response.

Wow. His response was rather arrogant and snarky. I wouldn’t want him heading up my intentional community. He doesn’t take criticism very well.

That is classic Dreher, and it is one reason why so many people, including many of his fellow Orthodox, have serious reservations about him.

He once told a woman who questioned one of his ideas, “Good luck finding a husband.” It turned out the woman was married.

There is so much more I could say. Hopefully this weekend I can find time to do so. If that’s OK with the Deebs!

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

We are all intrinsically disordered. It’s called Original Sin. {HUGS}

More and more I’m coming to the conclusion that Original Sin was Augustine working out a mechanism for that intrinsic disorder, trying to figure out why Adam’s Fall affected all mankind and why a Virgin Birth was necessary for Jesus. I think Augustine’s theological explanation was applied too broadly and that going back in the direction of the original Christus Victor (Victory over Death) would be a good move.

Why not both/and? 🙂

Muff Potter wrote:

Gram3 wrote:

There are lots of other things I could add to the links but I might blow up this thread.

Agreed on the thread point. Dialogue on many topics is hard these days. It’s hard because many folks fail to understand that agreement in part with various points of a particular ideology, does not by necessity imply lockstep agreement with its remainder.

Absolutely.

BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

Even Dreher talks about that. But to pop off to people the way he does?

His kind of ‘mean-boy’ snark belongs more to the neo-Cal ‘headship’ boyz than to any Orthodox Christian community.

I wonder what his REAL story includes that we are not aware of; but in the meantime, we have his snarky mouth to thank for revealing more of his true character.

Darleneo wrote:

David wrote:
A few things,
— Dreher left the Catholics due to his disgust of their mishandling of abuse. You’d think that would give him and TWW a little connection.
— I’m halfway through this book, and if there’s a section telling us to head for the hills and ignore everyone around us while we go off to count beads I’ve yet to find it. Just the opposite, really — so far there’s more about homeless shelters, crisis pregnancy centers, welcoming strangers, and building communities than there is about running away. It’s just contra the American Family Association/GOP world of dealing with cultural change.
— If you just are not a little familiar about Eastern Orthodoxy, this book is going to have a learning curve with it (his previous Catholic faith was of a more Eastern bent as well). I don’t agree with it all, and the Eastern Christian tirades against “Western Christianity” get old no matter who is making them. That said, reading through this I can see the Orthodox mindset is going to scrape against those primarily in evangelical Protestant circles.
— The comments about “I wish they’d just stop focusing on X and stick to Jesus” sound exactly like the comments people make about TWW when they rightly bring up abuse in the church and the good old boys club. We all know how that goes. As we know, you can focus on Jesus and have other interests and concerns about the direction of the church and culture.
David, I like so much of what you said that I will bold what I want to respond to.
*Yes, Dreher was very disturbed by the sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, but especially the cover-up. I read about his reason for leaving some time ago so I would assume it’s still out there on the Internet.
*You are piquing my interest. I suppose to really understand Dreher’s Benedict Option model, one must read the book.
*Eastern Orthodoxy can seem odd – even weird – to those outside of it. That’s just the way it is. It’s very much like an American going to an Amazon tribe or an African tribe and attempting to understand their culture. But the reverse is true as well. Some of the Orthodox folks in my parish – who have been raised in the Orthodox faith – find Protestantism – especially its hyper-Fundy, Evangelical elements – very odd and cannot relate to it whatsoever.
*The It’s just about Jesus mantra can get old like many things. If it’s just about Jesus and the Bible – then maybe ALL Christians should just stop writing – after all, all we need is the Bible. And why bother going to church and listening to the sermon, because all we really need is Jesus and the Bible. Not some person telling us what the Bible means or what Jesus meant. Maybe ALL Christians should stop saying what the Bible means because after all, anyone can go read the Bible all by themselves and figure it out on their own. So, don’t bother telling me what the Bible says because I can read it for myself and don’t need some human being telling me. No sirreee….just me, Jesus and mah Bible. Now I’ll step Off Soapbox.

Unfortunately, the sex-abuse problem is roughly the same (percentage-wise) across all communions, including Orthodoxy. And when Dreher encountered it in Orthodoxy, he reacted very differently from the way he had vis-a-vis the Catholc Scandal. He mentioned it only when he couldn’t avoid it, and even then his ton was decidedly mellowed. (Look up his piece about the Blanco mess, in which he averred that we are all sinners, and he had been “blessed” at Blanco despite it all. If he ever extended such compassionate consideration to Catholic perps, I must have missed it.)

Moreover, Dreher himself was actively involved in coverups of clergy sex abuse in the Orthodox Church. Yes, I know that for a fact. I know the victim, and I know how Dreher tried to destroy her. I don’t want to post about this until I have contacted the Deebs privately. I cannot violate confidences.

Dreher is not a nice person.

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

In complete contrast, as it’s often been pointed out: Jesus didn’t catch any kind of defilement from lepers – they “caught” health from him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoU_tv7xB2o

Lea wrote:

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

But barrier methods have been around since antiquity. That’s what the Lambeth Conference countenanced.

Ok. Medicine grew by leaps and bounds in the last two centuries and we know a lot more than we used to know. That and change in tech (ie, the pill) it’s not surprising that most churches changed. The pill was a different animal.

Do we know that, for example, Baptist and Presbyterian and Methodist churches discouraged or banned (artificial) contraception? If so, I did not know that.

To bring this somewhat back on topic, it is true, IMO, that Griswold supported Roe which led, IMO, to the rise of the Religious Right which has now run its course, IMO, and which has now led certain people to think about the Benedict Option. I do not think that the BO requires Quiverfull. Or 9Marks or any particular point on the Christian spectrum. I think we are hearing about it from our Usual Suspects now because I think they realize that things have changed and the Religious Right does not have the microphone that it once had. Or thought that it had.

Gram3 wrote:

Do we know that, for example, Baptist and Presbyterian and Methodist churches discouraged or banned (artificial) contraception? If so, I did not know that.

It has not been true in my lifetime, certainly. But without doing research I can’t speak to the lambeth conference. WAY before my time. I didn’t grow up with anyone but catholics restricting birth control (and that only strict ones, I don’t think most of my catholic friends were on board with that): and quiverfull is fairly new to me.

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

The It’s just about Jesus mantra can get old like many things. If it’s just about Jesus and the Bible – then maybe ALL Christians should just stop writing – after all, all we need is the Bible. And why bother going to church and listening to the sermon, because all we really need is Jesus and the Bible.

Islam’s been doing that with their Koran for a long time.
Look where it got them.

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

He once told a woman who questioned one of his ideas, “Good luck finding a husband.” It turned out the woman was married.

“If you question what I say or do
YOU REBEL AGAINST THE FATHER, TOO!”
— Steve Taylor, “I Manipulate”

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

Look up his piece about the Blanco mess, in which he averred that we are all sinners, and he had been “blessed” at Blanco despite it all.

Thank goodness for Bishop Accountability. They preserved Dreher’s article from the Dallas Morning News. This is what he has to say about the pedophile:

Did other good fruit emerge from this poisoned vineyard? Who knows, and who can say whether it counts for anything? But when Sam Greene is judged, there my little family stands, however reluctantly, as silent witnesses for the defense, pleading on his behalf for the same thing every one of us will one day need: mercy.

Lea wrote:

@ Headless Unicorn Guy

But some don’t. And that’s where I want to be.

Which don’t? And how would one even know? If they are very good at covering up — and if they can fly under the radar — then they can get away with it. And no one is the wiser.

Any place that harbors sinful human beings — that’s everywhere — has more unrevealed dirty laundry than you can shake a wringer at. The purist quest for the Perfect Sinless Church is chimerical and self-defeating IMHO. As a friend of mine once told his wife, “If you ever find a ‘perfect’ church, they won’t have you as a member.” 😉

BTDT, I have been reading the fascinating articles at your excellent website. I was unfamiliar with Homestead Heritage. Kudos to you for escaping that nightmare with your faith and sanity intact!

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Well, possibly a more positive view would be that the church (meaning all those who are in Christ) would be doing their Christ-following in their communities, just like they did when Christianity was not the cultural backdrop. Like the early church. Or like we did back before the 70’s. That would be the leaven analogy of the Kingdom.

The Religious Right was a reaction. I don’t think there would have been a Religious Right as it came to be without Roe. But that is just my opinion having watched it. A contrary view would be that there was just so much chaos after ’68 to attribute it solely to Roe.

Lea wrote:

But some don’t. And that’s where I want to be.

Agreed to that and the rest of your comment.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Mule Chewing Briars over at Internet Monk described Progressive Enlightened Ideology as “Puritanism seven-times refined to remove even the hint of God leaving only the Moral Fury”.

And Moral Fury thrives on the lack of thoughtful consideration of anything much including consequences, unintentional or otherwise. That’s a pretty smart Mule over at IM.

@ Catholic Gate-Crasher:

Hi, Deb and Dee! Is it possible to delete my comment that mainly consists of a huge lonnnng quote? Thanks!!Lea wrote:

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:
The purist quest for the Perfect Sinless Church is chimerical and self-defeating IMHO.
Good Lord, not actively covering for abuse means perfection now? Our standards have sunk low.
I certainly hope my church does not cover abuse. You don’t think there are ANY that don’t? I do not think that is true.

Oy, I think you misunderstood me entirely.

But yes, color me cynical, but I would be very surprised if there were *any* church that had never covered up for abuse at some level. I think you may underestimate the pervasiveness of this problem.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

And Islam is the current Pet Foreign Religion du Jour, especially since it’s dead set against Mummy & Daddy’s Christianity. I’ve heard stories of Social Justice Warrior types who believe when Racist Fascist Homophobic Islamic AmeriKKKa is finally destroyed, their pet Third Worlders (including Islam) will all sit dewy-eyed at their feet thanking and thanking and thanking them with trembling lips, in total awe of their Great White Benefactors.

My kids know SJWs who claim that the burka, honor killings, and female genital mutilation are all “liberating” for women. I am not making this up. It’s all part of that intersectionality stuff, which seems to get hopelessly complicated, with one intersection tripping over another one….

Well, I’ve watched the long video and read through all the comments. It took me a while, since I did it in between work and chores and taking care of other things. I know I’m late to the party, but I hope no one minds if I share a few thoughts.

I can understand people who want to give Dreher at least a hearing. Certainly we need to know what his ideas are before we can critique them. I think this is very difficult for us now, because Dreher refuses to get into specifics, and concretely define what the “Benedict Option” means.

In that twenty-minute speech, he talks about withdrawing from society (to some extent) and the importance of family units and preserving “Christian culture” (whatever that is), but doesn’t spell out how he envisions it working. I haven’t read his book, so I don’t know whether he offers more concrete advice there. Does he also include any of that on his blog somewhere? If not, then I suspect that Dreher is not interested in sharing his ideas, so much as selling them.

Based on what little I can understand from the video, Dreher’s motivations do strike me as quite reactionary, to be honest. He seems to harp a great deal on gay marriage, as though this is somehow one of the Signs of the Apocalypse. It’s hard for me to understand why this makes him so nervous. “Everybody is afraid of what’s coming”, he says. Well, I’m not afraid, so he’s wrong. At least, I’m not afraid of gay marriage or homosexual people, or that they’ll take away my rights to what I believe. (I have other fears about what’s going on in the U.S., but they have little to do with LGBT rights.)

Dreher’s strange appeals to authority are something of a red flag, too. The way he calls the words of certain writers “prophetic” — if I remember correctly, he even refers to the men themselves as “prophets”. I wonder whether he should be doing that.

If nothing else, I think Mr. Dreher should be choosing his words (as well as his growing circle of friends) more carefully.

P.S. Could someone please explain to me what he means by, “Indiana Happened”? What exactly “happened” in Indiana? Sorry if this sounds ignorant, but I’m a Canuck living in Japan. We get some U.S. news here, but not every single sound bite.

I think this is very difficult for us now, because Dreher refuses to get into specifics, and concretely define what the “Benedict Option” means.

Bingo. The BenOp is infinitely malleable, apparently. It can mean anything you want it to mean. And it constantly changes shape like something out of HUG’s sci-fi novels. 🙂

@ Serving Kids In Japan:
I was pleased to see that you picked up on this from Dreher: ” “Everybody is afraid of what’s coming” and I liked your response to that, this:
” Well, I’m not afraid, so he’s wrong.”

I see him as a far right political culture warrior activist who is enthralled with ‘authority’ as a controlling mechanism;
and OF COURSE he must be thrilled at having found a willing and eager audience to take in his ideas (which are a corruption of a beautiful and ancient monastic Christian tradition). The ‘corruption’ is this:
to look at a self-giving, willing way of monastic community living and to replace it with the externally authoritarian control IMPOSED on individuals. Monasticism doesn’t work that way.
To a monk in a ‘cell’ where he retreats for prayer alone with God, the isolation from the outside world is for him a blessing…… for a Southern Baptist to live in a monastic community GOVERNED by authoritarian leadership and heavily ‘shepherded’ looks more and more like a scene out the ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ than out of a Benedictine Abbey.

Thank you for you insightful comments ….. you have helped me clarify my own feelings about Dreher, a man who hawks ‘fear’ and lacks humility. He will likely come to dwell in a land of ‘religious authoritarian conservative commanders’ some day and will be looked at as a ‘prophet’ ….. it may be what he thinks is ‘needed’ but if this true, then he is a far more tormented soul than even his comments about ‘fear’ indicate.

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

And yes, unless your church consists of just a handful of people with 24/7 access to each other’s lives, I would be willing to bet money that it has happened among y’all, too, at one time or another.

There is a difference between leadership response to and abuse in churches. This was my original point. What happens when something comes out?

Christiane wrote:

for a Southern Baptist to live in a monastic community GOVERNED by authoritarian leadership and heavily ‘shepherded’ looks more and more like a scene out the ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ than out of a Benedictine Abbey.

AFAIK Southern Baptists are not being herded into camps. The worst that happens is that we get dis-affirmed or keyed out or ex-communicated. Big deal. There is another SBC church that is willing to take us in. It really is not like you are portraying it. What 9Marks is doing is very bad, certainly. But unless you think Jonathan Leeman or Mark Dever or Al Mohler is going to force people into BenOp camps, then I think you are overstating things a bit.

Gram3 wrote:

then I think you are overstating things a bit

Yes. I am not even a southern baptist any more but I get really tired of hearing misrepresentations of SBC faith and practice, as if baptists are dumb sheep to the slaughter in the hands of brown shirts at the railroad yards. So let so me as a notanymore southern baptist stand with you on this. I don’t even know how this idea of baptists got started, but it is time to get that train back on the track.

I make the same distinction. That’s why I kept using the term “coverups.”

If the leadership is successfully covering up, the truth doesn’t come out, so how would you even know about it? That’s the point. Don’t assume that, because something’s not in the open, that means it isn’t happening. 😉

Example: The Old Order Amish. Until relatively recently everyone assumed they were quaint, pious saints. Now it turns out that they have a HUGE abuse-and-coverup problem. They successfully kept it hidden for years, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t happening. It just means no one knew about it. But in the end, as Our Lord said, nothing is hidden that won’t be revealed. That’s why *no* church should be complacent. And IMHO it’s especially dangerous to play the role of the Pharisee in the parable of the Pharisee and Publican: “I thank Thee, Lord, that my church is free of Sin X, unlike those dirty papists and Calvies over there.” Not that you were doing that. 😉 But as I said before: Famous last words.

FYI the Catholic Church now has a zero tolerance policy and we are working very hard to enforce it. Even Boz Tchividian concedes that we have made dramatic strides, more so than many other communions. We are still working hard on it, though, because when it comes to protecting children, we must never relax our vigilance. Or assume that we have it all fixed and perfect.

Lea wrote:

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:
And yes, unless your church consists of just a handful of people with 24/7 access to each other’s lives, I would be willing to bet money that it has happened among y’all, too, at one time or another.
There is a difference between leadership response to and abuse in churches. This was my original point. What happens when something comes out?

Complacency or Vigilance?
I think vigilance is better under the circumstances, lest the ‘changes’ that come are subtle, small steps in the wrong direction.

I remember first reading how Wade Burleson picked up on some of the ‘changes’ in the SBC that affected missionaries and women,
and how he paid a price for speaking out against the powers that had come to be….. and HE valued Calvinism. He saw ‘abuse’ and addressed it.

As long as someone speaks out, there is hope. It’s the ‘don’t over-react’, ‘keep quiet’ business you need to watch:

we Catholic folk are trying to tell you that monastic ways won’t work for good under neo-Cal rule …. it’s just a warning. Don’t kill the messengers. We suffer when you suffer.

@ Gram3:
What is your personal experience of the monastic traditon, GRAM 3?

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

My kids know SJWs who claim that the burka, honor killings, and female genital mutilation are all “liberating” for women. I am not making this up. It’s all part of that intersectionality stuff, which seems to get hopelessly complicated, with one intersection tripping over another one….

That’s garbage. I’m a SJW from before there were SJWs and this is completely ridiculous. I’m having to restrain myself from using language that would get me banned so fast from the Deebs’ blog…

While I don’t doubt there are misguided persons who think this garbage, the reality is that they’re working from a position that grants overwhelming and undue respect to established cultures. All three of these actions-forcing women into the burqa, honor killings and FGM are part and parcel of the patriarchal culture that says women like myself are not able to make basic choices about our lives because we are female. None of these alleged SJWs have given a moment’s thought to the idea that male-imposed and male-enforced cultural norms were decided upon without the full and free consent of the women they affect.

I could go on, but I’m on my phone. I just wanted it out tere that this kind of thinking is hardly just and doesn’t respect the basic humanity of women to make choices for ourselves.

I don’t think a ‘social justice’ ‘warrior’ would advocate anything that violated the dignity of the human person,
but then again, you have to look at how people define ‘social justice’ these days. My own definition of it is profoundly catholic and Catholic. Without the concept of the ‘dignity of the human person’ there would be no push in the faith towards ‘social justice’ as we define it in my Church.

Others will see it differently.

It’s like how people play with ‘truth’ these days. You really have to know who is using a term and how they are using it.

Understanding each other is much more difficult than it used to be, but still worth all the effort, yes.

Muslin, I hear ya! This is not the social justice stuff of the ’70s. It’s not the feminism of the ’70s. It’s a whole other thing. But believe me, it’s rampant on college campuses. At least in certain fields (Poli sci, anthropology, sociology). Those happen to be the fields my kids are interested in, so they’ve been exposed to a lot if it.

During my one rather weird year at Harvard Divinity School (1975-76), the radical feminist Mary Daly gave a speech there that covered three ways Patriarchy oppresses women: African female genital mutilation (or maybe it was Indian sutee? I am fuzzy on the first one after all these years); Chinese foot binding (sure about that one!); and “American gynecology.” Ms. Daly must be spinning in her grave now, as the intersectionalists defend and champion the first two while still condemning the last one. 🙂

Muslin fka Deana Holmes wrote:

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

My kids know SJWs who claim that the burka, honor killings, and female genital mutilation are all “liberating” for women. I am not making this up. It’s all part of that intersectionality stuff, which seems to get hopelessly complicated, with one intersection tripping over another one….

That’s garbage. I’m a SJW from before there were SJWs and this is completely ridiculous. I’m having to restrain myself from using language that would get me banned so fast from the Deebs’ blog…

While I don’t doubt there are misguided persons who think this garbage, the reality is that they’re working from a position that grants overwhelming and undue respect to established cultures. All three of these actions-forcing women into the burqa, honor killings and FGM are part and parcel of the patriarchal culture that says women like myself are not able to make basic choices about our lives because we are female. None of these alleged SJWs have given a moment’s thought to the idea that male-imposed and male-enforced cultural norms were decided upon without the full and free consent of the women they affect.

I could go on, but I’m on my phone. I just wanted it out tere that this kind of thinking is hardly just and doesn’t respect the basic humanity of women to make choices for ourselves.

Gram3 wrote:

Christiane wrote:

@ Gram3:
What is your personal experience of the monastic traditon, GRAM 3?

I imagine I’ve spent about as many years with Benedict as you have.

I CAN recommend this place for a rewarding retreat, yes:
https://www.osbva.org/

I can also share that they help with grief counseling for those who are needing it

all are welcomed and are treated respectfully, yes

Christiane wrote:

Maybe the ‘place’ of women was the entry point for those neo-Cals, but they are much more than just their intense male-headship patriarchy, are they not, since they are bringing in a hyper-Calvinism that even mainline ‘reformed’ Presbyterian people can’t recognize as familiar.

If Calvin Islamized the Reformation, these guys are its ISIS.

Christiane wrote:

I see him as a far right political culture warrior activist who is enthralled with ‘authority’ as a controlling mechanism;
and OF COURSE he must be thrilled at having found a willing and eager audience to take in his ideas (which are a corruption of a beautiful and ancient monastic Christian tradition).

Anybody else here wish these Enlightened Social Justice Warriors and Christianese Culture Warriors would both find some island somewhere where they could go for each others’ throats and just leave the rest of us alone to live our lives?

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Serving Kids In Japan wrote:
Dreher’s strange appeals to authority are something of a red flag, too. The way he calls the words of certain writers “prophetic” — if I remember correctly, he even refers to the men themselves as “prophets”. I wonder whether he should be doing that.
“If you come upon any preacher who calls himself ‘Apostle’ or ‘Prophet’, RUN!”
— my writing partner (the burned-out preacher)

It kind of depends on how one uses the word. I know what you are talking about as far as people calling themselves prophets to accrue power to themselves, and the word has increasingly become used in that definition. But there is also room for the definition that has been used for a lot longer…the one who speaks out in truth even though s/he is reviled for it. However, we are also admonished to test the words of a prophet to see if they *are* true. And most of the prophets in the Bible didn’t call themselves to the work, and it really kinda stunk as a profession. You got thrown down wells and exiled and all sorts of not so fun things.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

Back when the Catholic Scandal first broke, I remember my Presbyterian and Independent Baptist friends telling me this stuff could *never* happen at their churches.

“I THANK THEE, LOOOOOOOOORD, THAT WE ARE NOTHING LIKE THOSE FILTHY ROMISH PAPISTS OVER THERE….”

Eggzackly! CGC’s Law: If you think it can’t happen here, it probably already has.

(Quoting from memory now, so please bear with me: “I am now perfectly convinced that Mr Darcy has no faults. He owns it himself without disguise.”)

HUG, are you familiar with Amish puppy mills? Not as horrific as child abuse by a long shot, but pretty darned disturbing nonetheless. Yep, those “bonnet-rippers” do not tell the whole story.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:
Example: The Old Order Amish. Until relatively recently everyone assumed they were quaint, pious saints.
Helped along by all those Christianese “Bonnet Books”.
“When I buy a book about the Amish, I want to read about the Amish. Not what some Evangelical thinks Amish are like!”
— blog comment from long ago, possibly on Internet Monk

Just a few thoughts here:

First, the New Testament was written to a persecuted Christian minority living in a pagan society that didn’t just laugh at Christians, it frequently killed them. And the advice that is given to those Christians is to honor their leaders, obey the laws, and as much as possible, live at peace with all men. That doesn’t sound like “hunker in the bunker” to me.

Second, not having read The Benedict Option, I can’t comment on the author’s views. However, I have an interesting perspective on this as the Southern Baptist mother of a Roman Catholic son who is currently studying towards the diocesan priesthood, at a seminary located at, and run by, a Benedictine monastery. The monks there are actively engaged in their community (and beyond) through the businesses that they run (printing and casket-making) as well as through Facebook, blogs, and podcasts, art, music and scholarly pursuits. Hospitality is a big thing for them — “Receive guests as Christ” — and I can vouch personally for how well they do it. Guests attend retreats there throughout the year, on a variety of subjects.
They are not cloistered. The Benedictines I have met are committed to their monastic community, to “Ora et Labora,” but not to withdrawing from any involvement with the world.

@ emr:

That is beautiful. Thank you!

okrapod wrote:

You really do need to learn how to Stay In Your Place.

LOL okrapod! Believe me, from growing up in the PCA and then marrying into the SBC 30+ years ago, I know all about “My Place.” I cheerfully ignore it, but I’ve definitely heard about it!
I take the view of Ann Ross’s Miss Julia: “… tired of church politics that pitted one group of men against another group of men over women’s role in the church. I already knew Pastor Ledbetter’s position. He held that women’s duties consisted of covering their heads, their mouths, and their casserole dishes, and I’d done all three about as long as I wanted to.” (Miss Julia Speaks Her Mind)

CGC, I have found so much beauty in the Catholic church and it has added to my worship. I love being at my son’s seminary and going to Morning Prayer and Evening Prayer with him. It’s not either/or for me, it’s both/and.

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

You got me so fascinated by Homestead Heritage that I stayed up late last night reading the testimonies at Topix

Oy, that forum has a lot of genuine posts mixed with some wacky stuff. There is one poster there who was a staunch HH defender, even when ex-members used to post on the FACTnet forums. Now he calls HH out on his own pet peeves while still belittling those he derisively calls “contras.” That forum is the only one still available for ex-members to share on, so I’m glad it’s available.

I had to Google “deliverance sessions.” HH wasn’t that much into demonic deliverance, but they did do what they called “praying someone through.” Now, sometimes a member would have genuine struggles that “praying them through” might have been helpful for. But it was just as often used to manipulate people into doing what the leadership wanted someone to do. For instance, if you weren’t submitting enough you might be surrounded by brothers and sisters in a home group meeting or a Sunday service. People would lay hands on you while ministering to you about your “lack of submission.” The prayer would be very loud and demonstrative, people would shake your head or push against you, and some might grab your arms and force you to jump around. Eventually you showed that you had “prayed through” by jumping on your own, clapping your hands, running in circles, or speaking in tongues. Everyone else would pray more ecstatically, because you had obviously gotten the victory. I know people who performed as expected just to get the group to leave them alone.

I’m glad your goddaughter began to question and leave Alleluia. She was a part of that about as long as I was part of HH. I’m sure it was a big transition for her to leave as well.

@ emr:
there are people who pray with monks at monasteries as ‘oblates’ and are non-Catholic:

if you have an opportunity to read it, ‘The Cloister Walk’ by Kathleen Norris writes about her experience:
” In The Cloister Walk, Kathleen Norris describes her participation at a Benedictine monastery and illustrates how very relevant the Benedictine way is to our own questions of how to live soulfully with others.

Norris’ authority as a writer of Benedictine ways comes through various paths. The Cloister Walk describes her nine-month stay at the St. John’s Abbey in Minnesota where she is an oblate, one who has offered herself to God. As a freelance writer she has interviewed monks and nuns on a variety of topics, and has researched the classical writings which inform Benedictine practice. As a Protestant she had only recently returned to her religious roots when she sought solace from vocational tensions in the discipline and rhythm of the liturgy. And as a poet, Norris is open to the wonder of the monastic liturgy that “plunges you into scripture in such a way that, over time, the texts invite you to commune with them, and can come to serve as a mirror.”
(from an excerpt of one book review)

@ BeenThereDoneThat:
I think children might be damaged by seeing this kind of thing. At the very least, they would be frightened and confused.

Our Lord would not want that for them.

Of all the terrible abuses done by people who had the opportunity within a Church environment, the abuses done to children are the worst and the most lasting in how they affect their lives.

BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

Will they be educated well enough to function outside of theses Ben Ops if they so choose?

Feature, not Bug.

(Dreher thinks Christian children should be pulled from the public school system. Will these communities establish their own schools? Mandate home schooling? Accommodate for both? Who decides what they will be taught?)

GAWD, of course, channeled by his Head Apostle of the community/compound.

clarissa wrote:

Please, please someone tell me this whole spuddle isn’t about same sex marriage?

Well, according to the gay atheist and Christian seminary (Harvard) grad, the BenOp is about LGBTQ people being accepted in society.

https://thinkprogress.org/atheist-christian-dreher-benedict-option-2bdb68a0b792#.qnhqvbg4c

On a completely different note, I had been under the impression that Dreher had left the Catholic church over child abuse. Imagine my surprise when I read a link (it’s above somewhere) where Dreher basically didn’t think there was so much wrong with the fake monk who was a pedophile because he (Dreher) had been blessed despite the fraud. Nothing about the children who were abused, though. *scowl*

@ Muff Potter:
And it is scriptural. :0)

Okrapod wrote: “much to admire and adapt into my thinking”

Muff replied: “You just might be a closet syncretist and not know it yet.”

Muff further wrote: “I’m a syncretist out of the closet for awhile now. I love “…Hail Mary full of grace…The LORD is with thee…”. It’s one of the most beautiful salutations and prayerful reflections I’ve ever heard.

Okrapod chimes in: No, not in that sense I am not. What I found in catholicism was (a) liturgy and (b) the idea of sacraments, which of course are not limited to catholicism but which were a new mindset for me.

okrapod wrote:

Okrapod chimes in: No, not in that sense I am not. What I found in catholicism was (a) liturgy and (b) the idea of sacraments, which of course are not limited to catholicism but which were a new mindset for me.

Hope you’re not offended okrapod. Syncretism is just a word which I think best describes seeing the good in all traditions.

clarissa wrote:

Please, please someone tell me this whole spuddle isn’t about same sex marriage?

OK:

This whole spuddle isn’t about same sex marriage.

Joking aside, though, it very probably is. And I couldn’t agree with you more.

Here in the UK, and Scotland in particular, it remains the case that gay marriage is one of the few things that will actually get Christians both passionate about a political cause and working together across denominational walls (assisted suicide is another).

It’s not all bad, by any means; there are exceptions and in particular some good nationwide organisations that work really well with local congregations; the one we’re involved with specialises in getting people out of unmanageable debt, for instance, and all of the other problems that often go hand-in-hand with debt.

<irony>If only God could find healing for the PTSD He suffered when people started coming out openly as gay.</irony>

Muff Potter wrote:

Syncretism is just a word which I think best describes seeing the good in all traditions.

well, it seems healthy to see, appreciate, celebrate, and respect the good in all faith traditions;
and it seems healthy to be able to look at problems within one’s own community and address them directly instead of trying to cover them up out of shame, or God forbid try to ‘protect’ the perpetrators of abuse ….

that attitude supports a healthy integrity that calls people to be honestly aware that all good is credited to God, from Whom all good comes;
and all evil, even if it is found among some within the Church, is credited to the work of satan whose mission is to destroy the good work of the Church

maybe what we think of as a ‘syncretism’ movement, it is simply ‘going towards the Light’ as any true unity among the Body of Christ will only be found in Christ

Josh wrote:

I don’t think he’s ever figured out what’s hiding in my closet

For those whom I may have confused, “what’s hiding in my closet” refers to “me.” It’s a joke, and a bad one, and I apologize.

An excellent analysis of the BenOp, from an Eastern Catholic professor:

http://easternchristianbooks.blogspot.com/2017/03/reading-dreher-with-schmemann-and.html

Josh wrote:

I don’t think he’s ever figured out what’s hiding in my closet

A long skinny dragon Trickster made of mismatched animal parts with a voice like John DeLancie?

Josh wrote:

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Ha! Been reading too much Focus on the Family fan fiction lately?

Actually, I’ve been active in Bronydom (MLP:FIM fandom) for a few years, with primary interest in the fan-produced derivative content (fanfic, art, original animations, original music, etc). I am old enough to remember original Star Trek & Star Wars fandoms and I have NEVER seen the sheer volume of fan-produced creative works as with the Ponies.

Didn’t know Focus on the Family also had a crossover — denouncing it, of course?

For those who are interested: https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/glory2godforallthings/

Father Stephen has read and comprehended (Both matter) the works that are at the background of Dreher’s work. The BenOp publishers put hardcore limits on the number of pages they would publish, so you kind of have to do the background reading to get the full picture, as much of it was edited out of the BenOp book.

FYI.

BTW, I am not saying that one must have a history PhD in order to make any historical claims. Of course not. But if one is not a trained historian, then one should at least have the minimal humility to concede that one’s simplistic meta-analysis of Western History may be flawed and inadequate. To present it as some sort of Grand Overarching Schematic By Which We May Understand Where We Got Here is the height of hubris.

Copy and paste from my Facebook page:

Critiques don’t give all the answers, but should broaden our perspectives and sharpen our questions. Sam Rocha’s critical review of *The Benedict Option* by Rod Dreher serves these purposes well.

Mr. Rocha comes from a liturgical tradition in which he can find commonality with Mr. Dreher’s background. And he also uses his own training and practice as a philosopher of education for an “intellectual MRI” to deal with theological, historical, philosophical, and educational deficiencies of this book.

I know that many readers are enthused by The Benedict Option. Perhaps they’re enthralled with it because they hope for some new practice that provides a strategy for effective ministry in the post-Christendom era. That’s understandable — I’ve witnessed that and been part of that with the “emerging ministry movement” 20 years ago. But many reviewers haven’t seemed to identify and dismantle the numerous internal discrepancies with Mr. Dreher’s approach. Mr. Rocha’s review would help them sift through it to see what *elements* may be useful, as it seems the underlying *paradigm* as a whole clearly has too many holes to use as an infrastructure for the future.

This review is intellectually challenging, but I believe worth the effort. Mr. Rocha asks questions that need to be answered by Mr. Dreher and his advocates, if his Benedict Option is truly a possible and practical response to post-Christendom. Otherwise, this strategy needs to go the wayside, like so many of the supposedly practical methodologies of the emerging ministry movement.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/samrocha/2017/04/benedict-option-critical-review/