A year or so ago, I heard people bandying about the phrase “The Benedict Option,” but I had no idea what it was. When out of curiosity I looked into it a bit, I was pretty strongly opposed to it. Why would followers of Christ choose to withdraw from culture, especially at a time such as this? However, what I was opposed to was a mere caricature of Rod Dreher’s actual proposal in his newly published book.
Dreher’s primary audience is theologically and politically conservative Christians. There are already many reviews of the book available online, and good summaries of what the Benedict Option includes (here and here). I won’t rehearse all of the content of the book, nor will I argue with recent reviews, some of which are better, more accurate, and more helpful than others (e.g. The Atlantic, NYT, The Washington Post, WaPo again, and Comment).
However, it does seem to me that a disproportionate amount of attention has been given to what I take to be the lesser part of the book, namely, the call for Christians to withdraw from some aspects of culture, such as public school and the seeking of change via political power. What I came away with after reading the book was a renewed sense that the Church needs to redouble its efforts to be the Church, both individually and corporately.
The local church should be a community of individuals who love, care for, and support one another in their daily lives. And many Christians, especially in America, have for far too long ignored the classic disciplines of spiritual growth that Dreher discusses in chapter 3 (such as prayer, asceticism, stability, community, and hospitality). The focus of the book that all believers should be able to agree on includes the revitalization of our churches through a focus on the classical spiritual disciplines of the church, building community among members outside of Sunday morning, equipping our children in the faith, and valuing relationships in the home and with other believers. I would add, and I think Dreher would agree, that we must find ways to love our neighbors, all of our neighbors, as ourselves.
The heart of the book, in my estimation, is a live option for all Christians. I do have a few points of contention with Dreher, however.
Some have criticized the Benedict Option as an option only for white Christians who also have sufficient wealth to worry about such things and withdraw their children from public school, for example. I think there is something to this, insofar as some of these choices are not live options for those who are poor. How might a poor single mother in rural Appalachia homeschool her children? How would any family of any ethinicity be able to do this, if both parents need to work to make ends meet? I would hasten to add that the African-American church has a better track record of playing a countercultural role in the U.S. than many other segments of the church in this country. Those of us who enjoy the advantages that being white and wealthy bring have much to learn from our brothers and sisters about this.
Our preference as parents has always been the public schools where we live, though we considered homeschooling at one point, primarily because of the quality of education rather than the moral issues raised by Dreher. On this issue, and as a side note, it would be helpful if Christian parents stopped generalizing from their own experience. In some places, homeschooling is probably the best option, depending on the capabilities of family members and the individual needs of children. For others, public school or Christian school is best. But those who think that only one of these options is the best option for all Christian families are simply misguided. It would be better if we would all figure out what works best for our family, and let others do the same.
I do see the troubling trends that Dreher and others worry about, and which lead him to call for certain forms of withdrawal from the culture, including materialism, consumerism, and much of the entertainment industry. The church, the ekklesia, means “called out ones”. In every culture there will be realms which Christians must absolutely avoid and resist. We will not always agree on what should be avoided and what should be engaged for redemptive purposes. Some things simply are irredeemable (e.g. the pornography industry) while others can be changed for the better (e.g. the energy industry).
Even so, I think we may still be able to revive American culture in important ways. For me, this does not mean Christianizing the United States, or seeking the institution of some sort of Christendom as dominionists hope to do. I believe that the aim of the Church should be a just state, rather than a Christian state. We should also work towards creating a culture in which Christianity exists as one plausible and live option at the pluralistic table of ideas in politics, education, and the culture more broadly. This is already occurring in my own discipline, philosophy, as there has been a widely recognized renaissance in Christian philosophy over the last 50 years or so. The discipline is not “Christianized,” but there are top-notch thinkers who, through their work as professional philosophers, have shown that Christianity is a live option for thoughtful people in the 21st century. My hope is that this would continue to spread beyond the world of philosophy, counteracting the intellectually immature atheism of the New Atheists and engaging in more depth those who are intellectually sophisticated atheists.
Finally, rather than putting on the armor of culture warriors, which is a mistaken paradigm of Christian cultural, social, and political engagement, I think we should aim at finding more common ground. For example, consider the “unlikely” friendship of Barry Corey, president of Biola University, an evangelical Christian school in La Mirada, California, and Evan Low, a member of the California Assembly and Chair of the LGBT Caucus. They started out as opponents, but by engaging with one another, listening to each other, and breaking bread together, they ultimately found places where their interests overlap in the midst of their disagreements on key issues. They formed a friendship and demonstrate that there is the potential for strength in the midst of a pluralistic diversity.
There is common ground to be had, even between those who at first seem too divided to work together. Let’s meet each other on that ground in a spirit of mutual respect and concern for the common good, and go from there.