In the last number of years, there are a variety of different protestant communities and churches that have come together in ways that resemble and glean from the Benedictine way. This movement has come to be known as the “New Monasticism”. Throughout the United States and the United Kingdom a variety of different monastic-style communities and churches have come to embrace central elements of the monastic, and particularly the Benedictine vision. While these groups are clearly not monastic in the proper sense (i.e. they are free to be married, generally have private possessions, and often live in their own houses), there is a clear resonance between the spirituality of the Rule of Benedict in the life and practice of these communities.

Central to this movement (in varying ways) is the three-fold Benedictine vow of conversatio, obedientia, and stabilitas. There is a clear commitment to live under a more rigorous rule of life and practice than is the case in most protestant churches. In New Monastic communities, at the very least, all members commit to living within the same general area, often with different members living together in common households, depending on the cultural and social location of the community in question. This commitment to reorder one’s life around the common life of the community corresponds to the Benedictine vow of conversatio. Obedience is likewise a central element among New Monastic communities. While these communities are not ordered under an abbot as Benedictine monasteries were, the emphasis is on submission and deference to one another in the making of decisions resonates with the monastic practice of obedientia rather than autonomy. Finally, New Monastic communities practice a form of the Benedictine vow of stabilitas. There is always some measure of permanent commitment to the community of which one is a part. While this is not practiced in the same sort of way as is done in Benedictine monasteries, the concept of covenant is central to the New Monastic understanding of how God calls us to be faithful to one another, forsaking the transience and career-driven mobility of our culture.

While the New Monasticism is certainly not the only appropriation that could be made of Benedictine spirituality, it is perhaps the most pronounced one to take root in Protestantism in recent years. And it is a movement to be welcomed in the church. In an age of hypermobility, fragmentation, and widespread social alienation, stable cells of the body of Christ which embody his presence intentionally in local contexts are more necessary than ever to the mission of the church. Alasdair MacIntyre, in his landmark study, After Virtue chronicled what he termed “the failure of the enlightenment project”. The forces of modernity and enlightenment, he argued, have led to fragmentation, and potential social and economic chaos. In light of this, however, he calls not for some sort of Marxist revolution or a violent overthrow of the status quo, but rather for “the construction of new forms of community within which the moral life could be sustained so that both morality and civility might survive the coming ages of barbarism and darkness.” It is precisely this vision which animates the contemporary appropriation of Saint Benedict on the part of the New Monasticism. In much the same way that the Benedictine tradition preserved the forms of Christian morality and culture that were necessary to Christian life through the barbarism of the dark ages, such communities as the New Monasticism may fulfill a similar function today as our increasingly globalized world grows more and more violent, dominative, and unstable. As MacIntyre says,

What matters at this stage is the construction of local forms of community within which civility and the intellectual and moral life can be sustained through the new dark ages which are already upon us. And if the tradition of the virtues was able to survive the horrors of the last dark ages, we are not entirely without grounds for hope. This time however the barbarians are not waiting beyond the frontiers; they have already been governing us for quite some time. And it is our lack of consciousness of this that constitutes part of our predicament. We are waiting not for a Godot, but for another – doubtless very different – St. Benedict.

It is to this task of constructing local forms of community that the communities of the New Monasticism have applied themselves. And their agenda is not simply to preserve intellectual and moral life – though they may be instrumental in that – but to embody the fullness of Christ’s vision for the church in the world. This is the lesson they have taken from Saint Benedict. MacIntyre was surely correct at the time of his writing that we were waiting for a new Saint Benedict, or better, for new Benedictines. Perhaps, just such new Benedictines have come among us, and for that we should be thankful, for them, for Saint Benedict who lead the way, and for the Spirit of God who brings out of his storehouse treasures new and old.

While the spirituality of the Rule of Benedict is multifaceted, there are two basic principles of Benedictine spirituality that have been identified by the followers of Saint Benedict. The first is that the divine presence is everywhere. This is emphasized throughout the Rule of Benedict, both in that God sees all things, and that because of the presence of God, the posture of the brothers is to always be one of obedience and awe. For Benedict, the presence of God is all encompassing and expansive. The whole of human life is laid open before God, and it is in light of that reality of the divine presence that the constant calls of the Rule to abstain from laziness are to be understood (cf. Rom. 13:11-13).

The second principle is that Christ is encountered in others. “To love Christ above all else” (RB 4.21) is the ultimate goal of Benedictine spirituality. This goal is sought out through submission to the abbot and to one another as unto Christ (RB 2), and through hospitality to the stranger in whom Christ himself is welcomed (RB 53). While there are clearly authoritarian elements in Benedict’s account of the relationship between the abbot and the brothers in the monastery (cf. RB 63, 68), it should be remembered that Benedict’s understanding of the presence of Christ being mediated through other persons (rather than solely through the Eucharist, the priesthood, etc.) is distinctive in its historical context. Moreover, Benedict is clear that the abbot is accorded honor on the basis of the love of Christ, not because of the abbot’s own “assumption of dignity” (RB 63).

Another central element, or rather the overarching context of Benedictine spirituality is the monastic profession: the vows into which a brother or sister would enter in coming into the community. The Benedictine vow was a three-fold commitment to conversatio (conversion, or the submission to the shape of monastic life), obedientia (obedience, chiefly to the abbot), and stabilitas (the commitment to stay among the community for the rest of one’s life). These vows were entered into as a way of establishing the context necessary for proper growth in holiness, contemplation, and worship of God. Central to the Benedictine life was the total sharing of all things in common, renouncing possessions and self-determination entirely, seeking instead to learn obedience, humility, and service.

The Benedictine vision of rejecting private ownership – which Benedict firmly brands as a vice (see RB 33) – was central to Benedictine spirituality as well. While the Benedictines were not a mendicant order such as the Franciscans who gave up possessions altogether, the Benedictine vision called for the complete rejection of private ownership and the holding of all possessions in common. This form of life in common, rejecting autonomy and private possessions continues to present the church with a prophetic witness that needs to be heard, especially in our culture of commoditization. Fortunately, in the last few years there has been an increased appreciation for this witness within the protestant church.

The Rule of Benedict is saturated throughout with biblical quotations and allusions. Like many of the theological and spiritual writings of the premodern era (and distinctly unlike many of those in the modern era), Benedict does not so much cite proof texts of Scripture in support of his assertions as he simply speaks through scripture. Most often, Benedict is found citing the Gospels, the Psalms, and the Proverbs. Much of the rationale for the Rule lay in seeking after the cultivation of central biblical virtues, chiefly humility and obedience, both of which are major themes in the Psalms and wisdom literature. In the Rule of Benedict, humble obedience is the primary virtue (RB 7) of the Christian life and the primary way of struggling against sin was through the cultivation of humility. While for Augustine, the primary struggle in the Christian life was between the love of God and the libido dominandi, for Benedict the primary challenge was the struggle between the divine call to the “labor of obedience” and the human rebellion which is the “laziness of disobedience” (RB Prologue). For Benedict, according to the Bible, obedience is the master virtue to which human beings are called before God. It is the struggle to live in obedience which characterizes the Christian life. 

The wisdom literature and the prayers of the Psalms were the central resource that Benedict drew on in seeking after these biblical virtues. Central to the entire Benedictine way of life was constant immersion in the Scriptures, especially the Psalms. According the Rule, the entire Psalter was to be chanted every week by the brothers (RB 18). Benedict viewed this is a minimal endeavor, as the early monastic fathers had sung the entire Psalter daily. At the core of Benedictine spirituality was constant immersion in, and contemplation of the Holy Scriptures.

Modern readers will be quick to balk at some of the harsh uses of certain scriptures by Benedict, especially in regard to the form of discipline undertaken in the monastery (see RB 27, 28). While of course there is good reason to question flogging in response to disobedience as a viable Christian practice in our contemporary context, it behooves us to remember the historical context in which the Rule was written. In contrast to many of the rules that were promulgated in the same time period, the Rule of Benedict was widely considered to be extremely moderate and practical in its demands and strictness. Its ascetic practices were extremely moderate by comparison to the kinds of self-flagellation practiced in a wide variety of contemporary monastic settings. Likewise, as the Rule of Benedict states rightly, the forms of discipline exercised on rebellious brothers were not considered by Benedict to be the most effective or serious measures to be called upon. In the face of the failure of excommunication to restore a wayward brother, Benedict called on the abbot and the brothers to turn to “greater things”, which are chiefly “prayers…so that the Lord may cure the sick brother, for He can do all things” (RB 28).

In sum, while Benedict does not provide a biblical defense of the idea of monasticism and monastic living, such a defense is not something that one would realistically expect him to have ever thought of providing. The monastic movement during his time was a way, and perhaps the primary way in which Christians sought to return to the vision of discipleship articulated in the Bible in a way that remained within the church but still protested against the corruption and self-exaltation of the ecclesial hierarchy. The most charitable and equitable way of reading the monastic movement and its biblical roots requires attention to this context and the realization that these communities were exclusively centered on striving after ways to be faithful to God in the midst of an unstable world and a corrupt church. As such, Benedictine spirituality has much to teach the church today, especially in view of some striking similarities between the breakdown of culture in the dark ages and the fragmentation of life in late capitalist postmodern culture. In light of this, it seems prudent for the church today to be open to considering the insights of Benedictine spirituality.

While the Rule of Benedict itself does not name its author, all historical sources identify the author as Benedict of Nursia (ca. 480–543). The main sources we have about the life of Benedict are the Dialogues of Gregory the Great, the first monk to become pope, and a great admirer of Benedict. The Rule has its roots in the previous rules that had circulated in the centuries prior (rules from Augustine, Basil, Cassian, and The Rule of the Master). Throughout this period in Europe, and in Italian monasticism in particular there was a common practice of borrowing and modifying of monastic rules by the various orders and communities of monks that would come together. The movement was largely decentralized and dynamic, having little supervision or control being exercised over it by the papal and magisterial hierarchy of the church.

What makes the Rule of Benedict unique involves its setting in its sixth century Italian context. It is likely that the Rule was written just after, or during the Justinian re-conquest of Italy against the Frankish and the Gothic invaders (in the 540’s or 550’s). During this time, there was a great amount of dislocation and upheaval, which led to the presence of a great many undisciplined wandering monks who had not been well trained, and whom Benedict viewed as a blight upon the church and the monasteries. These are the Sarabites and the gyratory monks which Benedict hates so much for their indulgence and undisciplined form of life (RB 1). In the face of massive social dislocation and transience, both in terms of regional politics and monastic dispersion, the aim of Benedict was to create a stable community focused on contemplation, the opus dei (the chanting of the Psalter), hospitality, and study. It was this vision of intentional, stable community which would define the shape of Benedictine spirituality and establish itself as a major enclave of culture and education throughout the dark ages.

The following series of posts is based on my exploration of the Rule of Saint Benedict.  Being part of a church which falls under the rubric of the “New Monasticism“, naturally an exploration of the key literature of the monastic movements is important to me.  Regardless of ecclesial location, however I think all Christians have much to learn from the monastic traditions.  Over the next four days I will be posting a four part series on the Rule of Benedict and its contemporary reception among protestants, which is a very new and ing many ways mystifying ecclesial occurance.

The Rule of Benedict, while perhaps not widely read, especially among protestants is one of the most interesting and influential books in the history of the western Christian tradition. Amongst all the monastic orders which developed throughout the middle ages, the order of Saint Benedict stood out as a distinctive presence throughout Europe which contributed greatly to the preservation of culture, literacy, the Bible, and theological scholarship. As protestants we are predisposed to view the monastic movements with suspicion, not least because of Martin Luther’s rejection of monastic vows as a viable Christian practice. This has led to an ongoing skepticism among protestants as to the legitimacy of vows. However, in spite of this historic aversion to monasticism, there is a growing interest in the history and implications of the monastic movements among protestants today. Indeed, in view of the continually expanding fragmentation of western culture in our late capitalist era, there is more than ever a perceived need for intentional, monastic-style communities to carry on the task of the preservation of culture, community, and Christian theology and practice. More shall be said about this later, however for the present purposes, the very fact of such a resurgence of interest in monasticism gives us good reason to explore the historic roots of monasticism in greater depth. And the Rule of Benedict is, perhaps one of the most central resources for such an exploration.

The series of posts will proceed as follows:

• §1: Historial Background of the Rule
• §2: Biblical Sources and Trajectories in the Rule
• §3: Distincitves and Contributions of the Beneditine Tradition
• §4: Contemporary Protestant Approriations of the Benedictine Tradition