The Benedict Option


Ron Dreher’s phrase The Benedict Option comes from the Aladstair MacIntyre’s book After Virtue in which he argues that the common moral civilization has definitively collapsed. MacIntyre compares this situation to that of the Roman Empire dissolving into the Dark Ages: the former civilization is going or gone and for the foreseeable future things are only going to get worse.

In that moment of history Benedict of Nursia started his monastery. By cutting ties with the disappearing Roman world, Benedict actually preserved the best of it, and laid the foundations of the Medieval Civilization that would flourish centuries after his death.

MacIntyre argues we need a “new Benedict”, not so much a man as a movement that creates a space where humane values can flourish in spite of the encroaching darkness of barbarism.

What are the forms of this barbarism?

First, I think, is blindness to transcendent values. A surprising number of people nowadays are blind and deaf to anything spiritual, so they they interpret those values in the crassest, most suspicious way. Concepts like natural law, virtue for its own sake, objective beauty, sin and repentance, inalienable rights, piety or patriotism, are simply lost on some people. All they can manage are idiosyncratic values based on utilitarian calculations which end up changing based on the fads. (Yet they insist on those shifting values with Pharisaical passion!)

Second is the overlegaliszation of society. It seems that everything, even private matters, must be governed by law, with layers of police and bureaucrats. It is a great opportunity for bullies to criminalize every behavior of which they disapprove, and for crooks to make a living.

Third is the dissolution of family life. For most of America’s poor, the government, not the father, fills the role of provider and protector. Men support themselves not by working, but by living with a woman with children (not his own) who are on the government dole. Rich people still get married, but they tend to have few children. The ease of divorce ensures that many of those children are scarred for life. Add to that a constant push to treat the sexes as interchangeable, which leads to emotional exhaustion and cynicism among both men and women.

While the separation of sex, marriage and reproduction has brought a handful of benefits to wealthy white people, it has also brought a swarming host of social pathologies and personal anxieties for everybody else.

The collapse of education in all but a few technical fields might be a fourth area. An economy that pushes people away from skilled labor and towards unskilled or clerical work might be a fifth.

Are these forms of barbarism fatal to our society? Is there really no hope for the contemporary social arrangement and the only thing left to do is check out, salvage what was best, and say good bye to the rest? Personally I don’t know. I have a sentimental, patriotic bent, so I’d rather think not.

Others disagree.

Some conservative Christians of an intellectual bent, like Dreher, have been talking about the forms of the “new Benedict” movement: what will it look look, what will it accomplish. In an increasingly crude, pagan, and superficial world, how are Christians to live?

Dreher himself gives examples of Catholic families who chose to live near rural monasteries, letting them plug into the patterns of the old Benedictine experience. America’s Amish community is an example of a group of people explicitly rejecting large swaths of contemporary culture because it does not suit their desire to live in simplicity. The same might be said of some groups of Orthodox Jews.

I might also propose the homeschooling movement as an example of a conscious effort by people to create a parallel culture where a more natural human flourishing is allowed than in the rather artificial and culturally impoverished one of American public schools.  Homeschoolers that I’ve known generally form large networks of families that let them share resources, plan big events and make new friends.

But there is with all of these options the temptation to ghettoize: the Amish and Orthodox Jews are notorious for shunning ex-members. Most homeschoolers I’ve known are charming, but some are isolated and weird.

Any group of people that sets itself apart from the mainstream runs the risk of arrogance, self-reference, group-think, and sometimes a cult-mentality forming around a strong leader.

And any ghetto can be destroyed from the outside. The rights of homeschoolers to educate their children without state interference has been affirmed many times in many courts over the last 30 years, but that does not stop state-level teacher’s unions from launching legal efforts against parents who threaten to break their monopoly by pulling kids out of crappy public schools. The Orthodox Jews and Amish are small groups, and so their dissent can be tolerated. But what if the numbers of such people starts to grow?

If one of the signs of the new barbarians is ever growing government and a predilection for bullying, how can a Christian Benedict Option built around formal non-participation hope to survive?




  1. Much excellent food for thought here.

    One question that comes to mind – why is that some who form intentional communities apart from the mainstream – the “new Benedict” option – (your example is homeschoolers) become alienated and “weird”?

    I think it may have to do with the reason they distance themselves from the mainstream in the first place. If they do it to keep themselves pure from “those people over there,” it seem to me they will more easily fall prey to a self-righteous fortress mentality. If, on the other hand, they have a positive vision for themselves and their families – i.e. one not defined by being “better” than others – then they have a chance to thrive and have a positive influence even on those who do not share their views.

    I can’t help but think of the founders of Trivium School in Massachusetts in this regard. I marvel at how they were able to keep from becoming bitter and isolated in their endeavors. I think it had a lot to do with the fact that they had never compared themselves to others, did not complain that they were not getting the support they were entitled to, refused to dwell on the sacrifices they were making, and were not particularly interested in making a name for themselves. Instead, they were very aware of how much more they could do and how much better they could do it, and strove to live up to this. In short, they were remarkably humble people. (I can see this clearly despite the fact they were my own parents )

    As a result they have a left what I believe is a healthy community of those who are of like mind, yet have managed to avoid the pitfalls you mention that have sometimes plagued such communities.

    1. Sam,
      I agree, humility is a big part of avoiding a fortress mentality. For one thing it helps people come out, accept the splinters in their brother’s eye, lets them mingle in bigger tents rather than always be whittling down the number of the elect.
      One thing that strikes me about John and Louise, looking back, is that they dd what they did at a time when the fortress mentality was growing among American Catholics, so many people felt isolated in their faith that it was easy to get sucked into Fatima hysteria or be taken in by wolves in sheep’s clothing like Maciel or Corapi. And yet you run into “Trivium people” and they are (generally) so normal. There is not that sense of keeping tribal purity, but just wanting to live the faith.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: