Those who have followed my work know that I am a strong believer in the Benedict Option, or at least a revised version of it, as offered by Rob Dreher; a version that is larger, more aggressive, and outward-facing. I am also a big fan of the monastic tradition of the Catholic Church, which is something that, overall, is on its knees. One question I am often asked is how we can get to the Benedict option from our current situation. So, I want to try to kill two birds with one stone by outlining a path towards a Benedict Option that might also hold the key to saving the monastic tradition and breathing new life into it.
There are approximately 70 monasteries and priories in the UK; if we restrict ourselves solely to counting the Roman Catholic tradition, this number will rise to nearly 200 when all Christian traditions are included (as an estimate). At first glance, it sounds like robust health until you consider the ages of the average monastic, which is clearly over 60, and the fact that there are very few new entrants into these religious houses. So, for instance, the Guardian reported in 2009 that:
“In 2000, there were about 710 nuns and 230 monks in Anglican religious orders in Britain and Ireland. Eight years later, numbers are down more than a third, to 470 nuns and 135 monks.
It is no better for Roman Catholic orders. The Vatican revealed last year that numbers worldwide Catholics fell by 10% in 2005-06 alone. The Conference of Religious in England and Wales represents around 80% of Catholic communities, some 4,930 nuns and 1,320 monks. In 2007, just 13 men and 16 women became novices. Numbers have been declining steadily for at least 20 years, and the average age of entrants is much higher.”
The Religious Houses have, of course, attempted to tackle this problem and failed. They have tried taster sessions, advertising campaigns, and documentaries. Yet, many monasteries have not had a novice in the last ten years, and most have only a handful of religious members.
Clearly, the writing is on the wall for the religious houses unless something radical is done. We can just stare like rabbits fixed on the lights of an oncoming car; the fate about to befall this tradition, and do nothing, watching as it withers on the vine. Some will, of course, come out with pious babble about ‘GOD being in control’ (a fact, for sure, but often just used to silence intelligent and thoughtful discussion about complex issues). Alternatively, we can try to think outside the box and try something different. So, here is what I propose:
Religious houses could open their vast estates and rooms to those of us in the laity who want to live a communal life. After such proper vetting to check suitability, which would cover religious commitment, understanding that it’s not a free ride, they must work, be committed to the communal life, and submit to certain revised rules in keeping with the spirit of the particular order into whose estate they are moving. The idea is that lay communities move into and around the monasteries and convents of the Churches, live a synergetic life alongside the monks, and participate to a decided degree in the life of the Religious, while working their jobs and being active members in society, forming a halfway house. Now immediately, the knowledgeable reader will say, “Arh, this has been tried before; it is the idea of the oblates’ which, for those of you that don’t know, was the idea of secular individuals attaching themselves to a monastic community and living as closely as they could to the rule of the monastery as a free will offering, on an individual basis. However, what I am proposing – whilst it does have overlap is very different in a number of ways.
- Oblates are individuals who find their way to the monastic tradition of their chosen community. I am proposing not an individual movement, but a movement of hundreds of people at a time.
- Oblates can live far away from the chosen community to which they are committed. I propose that all concerned move into the monastery itself, as well as around the monastery geographically.
- Oblates live their own lives by the rule, but in my proposal, the community lives its life synergistically with the monks.
So, this is quite different! Many religious houses have spare rooms that can be allocated to single men or women (depending on whether it’s a monastery or a convent) on a rotating basis for a year. Many religious houses have tracts of land into which accommodation could be built, and many are close to towns, villages, and cities, which could be consciously colonised over time with the community working together to buy, maintain, and retain property. These communities would include families whose children would be exposed to the lives of the monks, and the adults would take turns participating in the lives of monks and nuns. Individuals would participate more fully in the life of the religious if they were single. The community would be outward-facing and ever-evangelistic, recruiting more members to join its community and increasing exposure to the monastic life. The monastics would have a governing role in the life, culture, and economy of the community, but at arm’s length, not in a micromanaging fashion. People, families, jobs, and social life would, for the most part, be their own affairs, except where they invited the involvement of the religious or where something was proving so disruptive that it necessitated their intervention.
The lay secular community would have the role of generating the money, and the monks would decide how that money would be spent, including creating industries for community members to work in. The religious would then be free to return to whatever their central charisms are. For instance, it included manual work; with the Benedictines, for example, they would concentrate on all the manual needs of the community, such as cleaning, repairing, and cultivating the communal land. Passionists, for instance, would find a ready-made number of people who are suffering with whom they can live their lives, right on their doorstep. The same would be true of several other orders; some, like the Cistercians, might find such an idea difficult, but with imagination, even this is not impossible.
The church needs to consolidate; in such a consolidation, I believe the monastic movement of the Western Church could be breathed new life. In an adaptation, it would once again become the oasis of Christendom in a desert of unbelief; a city on a hill, a light that shines in the darkness. Such communities would then become the powerhouses of the local area and seeking to Christianise all aspects of the local culture, society, and local economy, as well as the politics of the local area, it would then be able to amplify its way of life into the world. The churches need a healthy dose of ‘Dominion Theology,’ but that is a separate argument. People raised in and around the religious would be more open to that vocation; I am confident that more people would hear GOD call them to it. These settled communities would also give a semi-permanent reservoir for the Religious to recruit from.
A new rule for the community would need to be constructed, of course, and that should borrow from the rule of the religious community, which is the centre of this community; however, a secular community does require a different rule, and so a serious borrowing from and thinking through the lives of the Amish and Bruderhof communities would be a great help. I therefore offer this sketch of such a rule to try and get people (perhaps an abbot or mother superior) thinking about the possibilities.
The communities could be confessional or ecumenical in nature; and as such those parts of spirituality common to all Christians could be adopted by the community as a whole; and certainly those not of a particular confession, who joins such a community, can be assumed to be open to a more general involvement and participation (otherwise how would they pass the vetting process). All members of the community should be expected in good conscience to attend all acts of worship they can (children and those caring for them), being exempted except for Sunday worship, with men and women expected to alternate when they can to allow for mutual participation. All should adopt as much of the spirituality and emphasis on the Rule of the Order as they can. Using the Benedictine rule this would look something like this; monks would adopt the full rule, those single men/women with living the monks in close quarters; would adopt nearly the full spiritual elements of the rule, exemptions shown by an * for singles and a ** for families and *** for singles and individuals (or at least a qualified adoption): so: Fear of God, Rejecting one’s own desires***, Obedience to a superior***, Patient endurance of hardship, Confessing one’s weaknesses*, Being content with one’s lot in life, Learning self-reproach and not blaming others, Following the common rule***., Practicing silence**, Avoiding frivolity**, Speaking simply and plainly, Adopting a humble posture.
No one in the community would be expected to remain there forever, though they would commit annually to stay on another year and to give a year’s notice if they wanted to leave; completing what remained of their year if they wanted to leave, to help leave well; tidy up loose ends, and allow for an arrangement and smooth transition with a replacement. The other aspects of the rule, like communal life, moderate living, and hospitality, could all be practiced to some degree by the lay community. However, obedience to the Abbot, like stability, would be qualified to those areas of the shared life and spiritual life, not secular life. A common purse of the community would be held in trust and managed by a group of elders and monks, who would make decisions about how the community’s resources are spent to provide for its needs. All would contribute to and benefit from this common pot. The monks would pursue their charisms, within the community and abroad, as without needing to generate an income (as an obligation) because it is on their land that the community resides and has its being. The community would eventually establish communal businesses in addition to private PAYE work and self-employment. Just as a distinct dress marks monks, so the members of the lay community could and should adopt a distinct dress to mark them out from the world and as a reminder of their ‘communal life and identity’. This community would have established disciplines in place to maintain order and courts to settle disputes if they could not be sorted through informal means. Those who have committed grave sin and show no real signs of repentance could, as a final act, be excluded from the community, as the community would be the landlord for its members. Should a person choose to leave, they are not entitled to the return of money or property; they must dissolve into the common purse to enter what they earn or buy whilst being a member; they would leave with a bare minimum to start a new life outside of the community (remember their working is assumed here). Lay communities between different religious houses could move between one another; not just to mix up the blood over the generations, but as a means of resolving difficulties, and cross-fertilisation. Those born into the community would have to leave it for a time, between the ages of 18 and 21, and then apply to join from outside – if they wish to return. If members did not have a job, they would need to claim benefits and agree to perform the assigned tasks necessary for the upkeep of the community, such as helping the monks with physical tasks that maintain the community. A communal meal would be eaten together insofar as it’s possible; once a day, that all or as many members as possible that would be expected to attend; usually a supper (as it’s simple, easy, and at the end of the day). Those with families would be housed in their own accommodations, but single individuals would be housed together or with the monks or nuns. There would be communally scheduled leisure time and activities available for all who can participate; education would preferably be left to each family to decide, but if the community could, it should run its own school. When the community is missing a professional, such as a GP or plumber, it would be beneficial to train one of its community members to fill that need. This individual, when not working for the community, could work for others, generating further income for the community. The community would regularly participate in missionary work in the surrounding area, seeking not only to convert people to the faith but also to welcome Christians to their community, celebrating all new arrivals with pomp and ceremony and a celebratory tone.
This is a sketch. Obviously, much needs to be fleshed out, but given that the Christian community is in general retreat across the West, we need to rethink how we do things. I believe that the consolidation of God’s people is one step we could take to address many of our systemic problems. Doing so around monastic communities, which often have the land and many of the resources already in place, is a way forward, as well as quite possibly reviving this dying Christian tradition that has given so much to the birth of Western civilization.
