The Misunderstanding of Monasticism

Why we should put more effort into monasticism.

Aug 11, 2024

This was originally written as a paper for an English class which required limited subjects and only pulling sources from the school library; as such be aware that this is not my full stance, and that I was limited with what I could say.

It’s mid-July and a hot summer day. As you look for some place to shelter and kill time while on your lunch break you hear perhaps the most enchanting sound you’ve ever heard in your life. Led on by the beautiful music and your need for refuge you find yourself in large arched doorway to a small stone building. Overwhelmed by enchanting music, tasteful architecture and foreign perfumes you press onwards. Immediately your environment shifts to a church environment, however, to your left instead of an altar there is a side door where the homeless and needy are being served their lunch, in front of you stands a group of some twenty men in robes singing some of the most beautiful music you’ve ever heard at an altar. And between you and them lie many pews, mostly unoccupied yet still full of people leisurely enjoying the music, singing along, praying, reading and doing tasks in silence. Naturally one finds themselves questioning just what this place and experience is, and why it’s so peaceful and enchanting. The nature of it seems to be relieving the daily life, it is something foreign and from another place, where the problems do not exist. This, is your average Monastery.

Nowadays, monasteries in cities are few and far between, as monasteries in general have been on the decline. Though the lack of monasteries does not speak to a lack of effectiveness or a lack of mystery. In fact the reality of the situation is just the opposite, Monasteries have been so mysterious they’ve nearly been forgotten completely. Because of this forgetfulness society has seemingly forgotten one of the greatest tools it has to the issues it faces today.

Throughout history churches have been one of the most major stabilizing factors in times of trouble and solve for many of the issues the government currently fails at, especially regarding social issues. There are many protests to the idea of reintroducing the monastic system, but the most common ones all lie in seemingly common-sense objections. The objections most frequently raised being the unhealthiness of monasticism, the ineffectiveness of monasticism, the financial impossibilities, existing institutions and radicalism. My intent here is to go point by point through each objection and disprove them using both historical sources and research. Though this paper is mainly focused on the Protestant and Roman Catholic Christian traditions in the west the arguments and research do also refer to other religions that come to a similar conclusion. The conclusion being that monasticism is a bulwark of a healthy society not just for individuals but because of the monastic method’s communal focus for the society as a whole.

Within the Protestant context monasticism and monasteries have declined massively, though this initially begins with the Reformation some Protestant traditions maintained the tradition of monasticism well into the 20^th century. However, in recent years the amount of Protestant and even traditional Catholic monasteries has declined. It is my firm belief that the decline of monasteries is a terrible result of secularization that must be reversed because monasteries and monasticism are key to having a healthy society; they keep society functioning through times of struggle, they provide education, do charity work and are a place of healing. A reintroduction and popularization of monastic systems into society would greatly benefit western societies as a whole and help assuage the many personal, social and political issues that countries and their populaces experience in the 21^st century. A few modern attempts to bring back modified forms of monasticism like “new” monasticism have been successful at doing just this in places like Rutba house in North Carolina. These attempts to reintroduce both traditional and new monastic systems into modern societies have shown that a renewed emphasis on community, charity and religion not only greatly benefit the monks on a personal level but also produce regional and societal changes. This type of community-based outreach method is necessary to address various societal, economic, personal and political issues that are taking center stage in the 21^st century through a biblical and religious lens and for this reason Protestant church bodies should focus on reintroducing and reemphasizing monastic living.

One of the more popular secular ideas out there today is that monasticism and asceticism are harmful to monks and that the practice fosters mental illnesses. This would seemingly be the logical conclusion, after all, isolating yourself in minimalistic rooms with rules about diet, social contact, and just about everything you can imagine from how to wash to how to walk, must do some sort of psychological damage. Common sense would compare this alien lifestyle to living in some sort of constrained prison. And that’s understandable given the total foreign nature of such methods of living. This idea is so popular today that it even has made its way into Protestantism. Evangelicals today believe monasticism is wrong due to the way it restricts and limits people, and uses alleged psychological abuse as a control mechanism.

However, this wasn’t always the Protestant belief nor was it how society viewed monasticism. Both the Church and society historically understood the monastic way of life to be of great benefit to the individual because it helped them delve into their psyche, and also created a connection divine that is nearly impossible to damage. Many of the discoveries of monks are the basis for modern psychology, and modern psychology today has developed so much from its more primitive roots that it has proven the classical wisdom and monastic philosophy, and psychology correct using the scientific method. A recent study by Chan et al. has shown that the unique connection with God that is present in monasticism provides a powerful psychological mechanism that allows the monastic to cope with virtually any trial especially isolation “In particular, in the face of painful social disconnection, these omnipresent beliefs may especially benefit those who may not have other sources of purpose to turn to or other coping resources to seek out. Accordingly, the present findings add to a burgeoning body of work showing that, at least for those who are religious, religious beliefs can realistically act as a stabilizing force that provides predictability and purpose—especially when these things are lacking in one’s life”. From the understanding of a secular psychologist, God works as a psychological mechanism which functions as a strong union or bond with a friend or family member, the study continues with “Like relationships with other people, divine others may be able to provide support in negative situations, through individuals’ believing that an omnipresent higher power who values them unconditionally can provide them with emotional strength or help them resolve the situation (Pollner, 1989). Conversing with, consulting, and seeking reassurance from a higher power are common activities for religious individuals, and those who are highly religious may feel particularly emotionally close and valued by a higher being, akin to feeling close and valued by a loved one (Pollner, 1989; Zika & Chamberlain, 1992). Similarly, people who are highly religious are more likely to base their self‐worth on God’s love, In sum, people are more likely to derive purpose because they feel that God is their partner, one who values and needs them. In turn, when individuals feel socially disconnected, those who are highly religious should be able to more heavily emphasize their relationships with divine others and de‐emphasize their relationships with other people (Laurin et al., 2014), shifting where they derive purpose in life.” The existence of a “divine other” operates psychologically as though there is a real person present everywhere, other studies have shown that this existence of a “divine other” functions as a higher member of a familial unit and as such creates a strong familial bond, that lacks any sense of loss, disappointment, abuse or abandonment due to the omnipresent nature of the “divine other”. In such a way, the reality of God’s omnipresence brings one into a closer bond with God through isolation.

In modern times people have also forgotten that monasteries are communal organizations, where large groups of people live together, and participate in routine tasks in the community, although mandatory observances and alone time are required, the monks are still interacting with other people in fact community was one of the foundational justifications of monasticism. Because of this, cloistered monks are never truly isolated except when practicing their meditations and observing rules. The supposedly common sense idea that seclusion is harmful is a total misconception, the methodology of communal religious isolation have proven to be extremely beneficial to the individuals.

Within Christianity most monastic practices take from the Desert Fathers, who were early Christian monks, hermits, stylites, and anchorites, though perhaps different in outwards appearance of practice, all of them were practicing asceticism in the Egyptian desert, hence the name. Almost all orthodox Christian mysticism is a development of ideas that initially came about in the Desert Fathers, and most modern psychology can trace the origins of it’s roots back to these monks in the Christian tradition. One of the earliest of the Desert Fathers Evagrius Ponticus used his newly developed form of scriptural meditation in solitude as a means to redefine the self and move from lower more base passions to more virtuous actions and desires. A study done by Gargiulo and Santiago for the journal of Pastoral Psychology breaks Evagrius’ method down thus “When attention is focused on nonexistent things, the individual moves away from the process that leads to true self-knowledge. But instead, by directing his attention to the face of Christ, the monk would improve, according to Evagrius, not only the quantity and quality of information he has about himself but, above all, would also break automatic or habitual thoughts that deepen his ignorance of himself. The rhythmic recitation of the psalmody and the confutation are practices that are ordered to resignify, through new experiences, the monk’s self-assessment. They allow him to recognize himself in a new and right experience of emotions. The words or lógoi on which the monk concentrates disarticulate the logic of his passions and the false reasonings that are concomitant with that logic (Evagrius, 1990e, p. 91). Evagrius (1958 p. 55) indicates that virtue is the true face of the soul. In effect, the soul in a state of virtue reflects the image of Christ. Virtue gives the soul its proper profile, that of being the image of Christ.^Footnote7 In the words of the psalter, the monk sees himself, but he sees himself from the perspective of possible virtue (Evagrius, 2007, 126). That word gives him back a reconstructed image of himself that the sick soul recognizes as its own and, at the same time, as possible. The word of the gnostic(not in the religious sense but in the etymological sense of “seeker”) gives a representations of a transformed self, that is, of the soul with a restored face. The psalmody gradually engenders a new logos(once again not theologically but in the standard greek) of the self.” the particular practice advocated by Evagrius who is foundational to Christian Mysticism; in a secular sense is a form of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy(CBT), and the repetitive meditative, sonic and physical method of repeating the psalmody functions as a sort of pseudo-EMDR(Eye Movement Desensitization Reprocessing) Graiver’s study of various Christian meditation methods and conversion experiences, explains how this mental process works and is almost a 1 for 1 predecessor to CBT and EMDR methods of processing and growth, “Whereas beginners were advised to repel thoughts from consciousness as soon as they appear, the more advanced, who have already acquired some degree of control over their mental processes, were instructed to allow thoughts to linger in the mind, to entertain them, and to observe them from a distance as if they belong to someone else. Evagrius advises, for example, that the monk should observe his thoughts (τηρείτω τοὺς λογισμούς) and “note their intensification and diminution, and their interconnectedness, and their timing…, and which comes after another, and which does not follow after which.” John Cassian, who transferred these ideas to the Latin West in the fifth century, advises: “We should […] with a wise discretion (discretione) examine all the thoughts that emerge in our heart, first tracing their origins and causes and their authors. Through detached self-observation, the monk learned to recognize the deeper patterns of his mental processes and thereby weaken their influence. As Evagrius explains, observation of one’s mental content “neutralizes” the thoughts: “As you scrutinize these things, the thought will be dissolved (φεύξεται) in this observation (θεωρία) and thus destroyed.” Strategies of detached self-observation thus gradually taught monastic converts to distance themselves from certain thoughts and feelings, rather than being identified with them. With time and systematic practice, these thoughts were gradually stripped of their personal importance and salience, and hence, they no longer stimulated the emotions or distracted the mind. In this way, monastic practitioners were able to uproot and reorient deeply ingrained habits of thinking and reacting, in the service of contemplation.” The modern research into neuroplasticity has shown us that, this method of meditative technique is incredibly beneficial to rewiring one’s brain, creating new habits and a healthier ego and self, which is why it is specifically taught in CBT and EMDR therapies, and is popular not just in private practices but also in Intensive Outpatient(IOP) and rehabilitation programs, because those suffering with mental illness, post-traumatic stress, addiction, or immoral/criminal proclivities are more likely to be deeply effected this methodology than others.

Christian methods of solitude and meditation aren’t the only methods of religious asceticism though. There are many other religions in the world, too many to name, but in this instance, I will reference D. MacPhillamy’s study on Zen Buddhist seminarians, in which he compares them to Christian seminarians, finding that on the MMPI(Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory) scale Christian seminarians and Zen seminarians score the same on average with Zen seminarians having more outliers some of which are significant “The data of Table 1 reveal a general improvement in psychological adjustment over the course of 5 years of intensive monastic Zen training. Examination of the mean values for each MMPI clinical scale reveals that all of them changed in the direction of increased personal adjustment. While the results of this study clearly fail to support the proposition that Zen Buddhist monasticism is detrimental to mental health, before we may conclude that they support the alternate hypothesis that such training is beneficial.”

The best part about all of this methodology in the monastic system that this sort of therapy is free and paid for by simply living in the monastery or participating in monastic practices. This free access to mental health care that is necessarily evangelistic by nature single handedly presents a means by which certain parts of the mental health crisis can be confronted. Not only is the monastic lifestyle truly healthy, but the old monastic methodology of common, open and available monasteries addresses these issues for the public. If monasteries were emphasized and reintroduced today, they would add another free and available resource where non-religious and religious(in the ecclesiastical sense) alike can receive spiritual guidance in life and in regards to their mental health through the Gospel, and where those who sign up to become monks will grow rather than recess and rot.

A common argument I receive from secular people when I mention the monastic system goes something like, “okay well sure some isolation is healthy and maybe the monks are onto something with their methodology but the strict rules and disciplinary methods of monasticism make monks more likely to lash out rather than contribute anything positive to their health.” And this argument does seem to make sense upon first hearing it, after all bad monks and their actions fill the public zeitgeist. However, upon further research we find that bad discipline, bad actions and bad monks are all consequences of the individual monks themselves or bad monastic rules.

Researcher Michael Vargas makes it clear that on a personal level he agrees with the hypothetical statement above, yet ends his research into 14^th century Dominican monasteries in Aragon with a concession on this very point. Vargas’ study of the data from Aragonian monasteries shows that from the period of 1315 to 1533 corrupt monks were not corrupt because of lack of discipline but rather because within the monastic system at the time there existed exemptions in the form of the discursus which was an exemption granted by higher ranking members of an order that permitted the individual monk to ignore certain rules(specifically an issue that was prevalent with Dominicans). By looking into the data collected from manuscripts and records by Vargas we see that the most major increase in corrupt monks and monks breaking the rules was not because the system wasn’t working but was instead because a new prelate, Nicholas Rossel, began enforcing the rules and instituted a new system of tracking rule breaking causing satitistical bias “Rossel observed, "Laws are useless unless observed," and so he made it his work to formulate his province's administrative law more clearly and to enforce it more vigorously. A measure of this strictness can be seen in the changes in the records of annual chapter admonitions. Both the number of admonitory items and the word count of each item in the annual chapter acts of the province of Aragon increased markedly during the tenure of Sescala and increased to their maximum during Rosselli tenure. Annual admonitory items averaging approximately 600 words in the first decade of the fourteenth century climbed to a high of 4,200 words by the mid-1350s. Even the friars recognized the trend, so that Rossell had to make it clear that his prolixity was not accidental.” As Vargas puts it, there was a major crack down on disciplinary infractions that made it seem like suddenly the monks were corrupt when in reality the data was because new enforcement tactics, rules and regulations were put in place creating a sort of survivorship bias “The order's first decades discursus denoted the travel undertaken by the friars as part of their work as public preachers; it defined those activities at the very heart of the Dominican mission. Later, however, discursus became a derogatory term associated with the propensity of some friars to gamble, visit the baths, and cavort with women. The devolution of the concept of discursus can be seen in over forty admonitions issued by Aragonese provincial chapters through the fourteenth century, with Rossell issuing more than his predecessors and successors. Perhaps it was necessary to set circatores to the task of locking doors and windows at night and checking individual cells to prevent friars from knocking holes in the walls to create their own private points of egress; nevertheless, the attack on discursus is one signal of what even some friar historians have deemed an unhealthy departure from Dominican foundations” These attempts temporarily worked as a band-aid on the issue because the issue was systemic and had to do with a lack of discipline from the start of the Domincan order rather than discipline corrupting individuals. “attempts to improve discipline by strengthening command and control encountered the resistance of long-standing custom… In 1363 Jaume Domenech and his diffinitores ordered all priors in the province's convents to draw up lists of the privileges conceded to all of the friars in their houses. In 1365, presumably after receiving and studying the lists, Domenech revoked and annulled "all privileges and graces," excepting those issued to teaching masters, inquisitors, and lectors engaged in leading courses. In 1368 the master general, Elias Raymond, directed a letter to all provincial and conventual priors across the order taking a similar action, that is, ordering a complete nullification of existing privileges and an overhaul of the system by which prelates privileged and dispensed. As one might expect, these prohibitions did not end the issuing of new privileges, nor did they prevent friars from claiming, on the basis of real and counterfeit papers, that they possessed privileges granted by higher external authorities. The greatest weapon of friars against their leaders was contumacy. By refusing to yield to dictates that did not accord with their view of custom or, worse, their quotidian desires, the friars conserved their protective cliques and defended their old habits. As a remedy, local priors excommunicated more of their men, and in response the excommunicated took their cases to provincials and masters general and their chapters, who responded in turn by insisting that local priors refrain from the liberal and fraudulent use of excommunication. These events condemned the whole system of corrective mechanisms to an operational purgatory.” This issue continued up until the 1530s at which point during the counter-reformation the Catholic church completely reorganized the Dominican institution from the ground up, getting rid of the discursus and other privileges entirely which caused a massive decrease in disciplinary issues.

In conclusion, the stereotype of monastic discipline being a failure actually comes from a cultural myth originating in the middle ages that claimed all monks were corrupt either due to too much discipline causing them to need to “blow off steam” or because they were manipulative, evil people. This myth arose primarily because the relatively newer monastic systems tended to lack discipline in general, though in their attempts to instill discipline they started to record disciplinary actions causing it to seem as though there was an explosion of monastic failure in the middle ages when in reality monasteries were one of the more helpful and robust institutions, though we will get to that later.

In modern secular societies there’s clearly a problem with funding a reintroduction of monastic institutions. The American idea of a separated church and state has spread globally and most would find it an abomination to use state funds to fund religious efforts. Not to mention, there is seemingly no reason to fund monastic institutions because preexisting institutions already present solutions to these problems. Before I go on to give examples of just how monasticism does fulfill a wide range of civic duties better than the modern secular counterparts, I must first counter the objection to funding. The separation of church and state is a good idea. However, the objection that funding for monastic endeavors cannot be achieved is based upon the assumption that the state should fund new monastic projects, that is not my argument. Instead, I believe that the effort should be put upon church bodies, not just because it is their duty but because they are financially capable, and because monasteries are self-sufficient. Three of the non-Roman Catholic sects most likely open to funding monastic projects are the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS), Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS) and the Episcopal Church.

The WELS reports in their 2024 annual report that they run, fund and are associated with 1,243 parishes, 280 elementary schools, 356 early childhood schools, 30 high schools, 1 regular college, and 4 seminaries. The large list of institutions ran by WELS shows that the WELS is not only responsible but capable of organizing and maintaining monastic institutions as well. The means by which the monastic project within WELS could be afforded is through their notable Financial Stabilization Fund which according to the 2022 Winter Synodical Council Meeting quarterly receives ~$25 million on average which is additional to the $25 million received in yearly offerings that are added to the fund. All of the money in the Financial stabilization fund is unallocated money for whatever the church desires to spend money on. The some $125 million is more than enough to start a few monasteries, because monasteries once they own their own land are mostly self-sufficient.

The LCMS on the other hand has 6,046 parishes, 1,600 early childhood centers and preschools, 800 elementary schools, 130 high schools, 3 international schools, 2 seminaries and 9 regular colleges, it also operates 2 radio stations and a publishing company. (Educating Our Children - The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod AND About The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod - The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod) In comparison to the WELS the LCMS is far larger and far more capable of running institutions and large organizations, they’ve de facto got their own school system that runs alongside their many congregations, the LCMS is functionally its own society within society. However, the LCMS does not have the incredible financial standing that WELS has. The Budget Summary for the 2023-24 Fiscal Year reports that the unrestricted budget for new ministry programs such as a potential new monastic project is $6,950,357, which is barely enough to start 2 medium sized monasteries assuming that the project starts from complete scratch, at first the idea of a monastic project within the LCMS seems unachievable until one realizes their total unrestricted budget is $36,917,313 which is more than capable of accommodating for a few monasteries with money left over.

Compare the financials of the LCMS and WELS with that of another popular protestant church that already finances a few monasteries; while also having a different polity, The Episcopal Church. The Episcopal Church’s polity is very similar to that of the Roman Catholic church, congregations under priests, who are themselves under bishops, who themselves are under a head bishop. The congregations in the episcopal polity are not independent like those in the two aforementioned Lutheran churches.

The Episcopal Church has no official listing for how many parishes or schools it is responsible for, though it is common knowledge that The Episcopal Church has over 7,000 parishes. The Episcopal Church’s 2021-2022 Audited Financial Statements report that they have an extra $10,795,000 in revenue that can be reallocated wherever they like. Though ten million dollars might seem like a small amount for starting monasteries The Episcopal Church has proven through their current monasteries that it is more than enough. They usually purchase small lots of land or small buildings and scale up as the monastery becomes self-sufficient which is the best model and method for running a monastery.

Historically, Monasteries were created on donated land and were self-sufficient, and usually capable of financially providing for themselves within just a few short years. In fact, during the middle ages monasteries were so successful in producing wealth that monasteries became a secondary banking system, and though monasteries should not become banks, the methods they used to achieve such levels of success are still viable today. The incredible simplicity of monastic models of growth contributed to their excellence and the incredible rate of economic growth was a major cause of the English or Anglican reformation due to the land monopoly monasteries had. It was historically common for monasteries to functionally abuse land donations and land grant systems to trade around cheap or worthless pieces of land until they could afford land which was fertile and capable of farming. Once they had this land they would rent out the land around it and recruit Conversi, also known as lay brethren(lay brethren weren’t just for land work and have to do with monastic rules of slowly joining an order) out of the locals and those in the region. Anyone who visited the monastery and was not a monk could or would become one of these lay brethren and would work the land both owned and rented out by the monastery, as well as provide goods. All monks were paid for their work in this system though it was common for more pious monks to forfeit their pay. This specific arrangement where monasteries accommodate their practices to a local market and attempt to take it over makes a region or community dependent upon a monastery and gives the monastery financial independence. This methodology is very easy to replicate in modern markets where skilled labor is highly valued and land is expensive.

Ever since the dawn of the monastic system in Christianity monks have used the majority of daylight hours to work and provide goods for a community or region. The goods most monasteries specialized in producing were usually textile or agricultural, but monks also made things like scientific tools and books, not to mention that monasteries have a unique monopoly within the most important trade of all; religion. Of course there are many different religions, churches, and monasteries but monasteries alone provide a devoted community that’s aimed at a particular religious end, and they can provide the means to that end-goal, or the end itself to those who desire it. The means to this end are usually unique religious experiences and practices that are themselves only found in the monastic setting and context. Within Christianity two contrary examples exist, one exploitative the other often sought after for it’s mystery: that of indulgences and mystical experiences. The practice of indulgences still continues within the Roman Catholic Church today, though in an altered form and is the practice of paying for someone (or yourself) to spend less time in purgatory. The practice of indulgences is leveraging the office of the keys and the authority of the church over salvation in order to get someone to more or less pay their way to heaven. Whilst there is much controversy around indulgences-and rightfully so-the latter example of mystical experiences are almost entirely monopolized to high liturgies and monastic meditative practices. Churches of every denomination do not commonly teach any of the mystical ideas or methods to lay people and the primary developers and keepers of such knowledge are monks, partially because these things are dangerous to those who are not spending all their time trying to follow God as closely as possible within orthodoxy. As a lay person the easiest way to familiarize oneself with mystical theology and learn new disciplines and habits, without spending one’s whole life in trial and error is to join a monastery for a temporary stay. This would actually be a tremendous benefit to all churches today who struggle with getting people to engage with the church tradition and teaching on a deep level. Within traditional Protestantism and Roman Catholicism certain monks were also the only persons aside from priests/pastors(though they would still be an ordained priest and pastor, just serving a “religious” role) who could give the eucharist, hear confession and evangelize, for this reason many monks had the title and rank of Confessor. In this way, monks have a monopoly on these important parts of Christian religion, if there was no weekday mass, one could go to the monks or a confessor to receive communion. If one missed confession they could go to a confessor. Often, confessors had an incredibly personal relationship with their community, not just because they were one on one privately involved with individuals unlike a pastor/priest but because their role as the only permitted form of evangelism would cause them to go to the most down-trodden poorest parts of cities to spiritually treat the people, with confession and communion, whilst also addressing the social issues and concerns, they were the voice of the people in their communities.

But what makes churches responsible for social issues and mental health? Why should our churches put most of their extra funding into monastic living? Don’t we already have an existing system of mental health clinics?

The problem with this line of thinking is that because of the secularization of modern societies churches have backed away from their full historic duties when previously churches would’ve been responsible as an alternative for things like education, and social services. Monasteries throughout time have been far more robust institutions that are capable of centralizing and taking care of a wide variety of issues, without spending large amounts of money, and have been proven to be more stable throughout times of instability.

A major reason for a renewed emphasis on the monastic system is that the education given in monasteries is free as is the monastic life in general. For example, The Episcopal Church pays for whatever life expenses the monks have including debt during their time as conversi or lay brothers before they become full monks at which point the monks are members of the society and receive benefits. When it comes to education all monasteries typically operate under a similar system where the education is free and continued higher education is expected of those who become full members. Throughout history monasteries have been the center of education for all of those who are not in the noble or wealthy class and were unable to afford the prices of tutoring and college, this can directly be applied today where many young people struggle pay off their college loans and spend outrageous numbers for useless degrees that might get them a job after a few years. The reliance on the grant and financial aid system would disappear overnight if the students who have trouble affording college could take the same classes for free at a monastic institution.

The ease of access to education in this monastic system significantly benefits local communities and was one of the main factors that caused higher literacy rates both in the East and the West. A major example of a monastery centered education system being effective comes from Laos where monasteries were so effective at teaching that when colonial powers arrived, instead of instituting a new school system the colonial education system revolved around the native monasteries, which they continued to build to strengthen the monastic education system. Ladwig goes more in depth on just how exactly this occurred explaining; “Phimmasone (1973, p. 126) describes the Buddhist monastery as in Laos as "the centre of religious, professional, social and moral education.... Here the pupils receive their first rudimentary training in education. They learn reading and writing, arts and the sciences with the help of technical treaties of the traditional system of education". Like in Tambiah's case, writing was taught in Lao, but more often in various local manuscript-writing systems (aksontham), today only rarely used by monks. The subjects taught in the monastery were in our modern sense not only religious, but as Kourilsky (2006, p. 31) mentions, "multidisciplinary". Colonial education officials clearly saw monasteries at the centre of the Lao education system and the early colonial regime tried to expand upon that system. A few years after the establishment of the French protectorate in 1893, the colonial administration begans to encourage the establishment of primary schools in temples in 1907. (8) The creation of Ecole normales des bonzes in 1909 in Vientiane (and subsequently in Luang Prabang, Pakse, and Savannakhet) was also undertaken in order to strengthen the underdeveloped colonial school system (Kourilsky 2006, p. 32). Chagnon and Rumpf (1982, p. 164) even suggest that the French colonial government did not institute a large-scale educational system until 1939 when a plan for a network of primary and secondary schools was decided upon, but was soon neglected because of the major disruptions caused by the onset of World War II. Pathammavong's (1955, p. 92) statistics show that primary and secondary schooling numbers started to rise sharply only after 1947. Even with the independence of Laos after World War II, most teachers were in fact Buddhist monks. Despite some efforts by the state to build a new school system, the consequence was that "resources for adult education remained solely the province of temple-based educational systems, and much of the activity in the rural government schools duplicated that of traditional temple schools"” The Laotian temple school system clearly shows an example of not just the robustness of the monastic system but also the affordability; the fact that the schools were supported by the colonial powers and became the main source of education during WWII, a time of financial hardship and instability, gives one an idea of just how effective these systems are when used.

Meanwhile in the West, the monastic education system was the main means of higher education for the poor. Throughout the middle ages we see that in times of trouble and plague, receiving a monastic education was a common choice because not only did it provide for safety and security but it also provided economically. For example, during the 1^st outbreak of the Plague the Aragonian Dominicans from Vargas’ earlier study, lost significant amounts of members due to the disease, yet within 3 years were able to restore themselves to pre-plague numbers and within 5 years were growing faster than they had before. This was mostly due to the fact that during the 1^st outbreak of the plague, the Aragonians opened more grammar schools and began to take in more grammar school students. This increase in schools is indicative of a large number of uneducated people joining the order and advancing up the scholastic system that medieval Christian monasticism provided. It's of note that grammar schools were considered the lowest level of schooling and were open to everyone, the grammar school is very much akin to a modern high school and an associate’s degree whilst logic schools were more like an undergraduate degree with even higher specializations included. This means that the opening of more grammar schools was because more common people wanted to be educated. The separation of grammar schools from logic schools existed so that higher scoring students could be marked out for higher level classes in the logic schools. The continued education in the western monastic system, especially the logic schools would introduce the student into the philosophical systems that are used in theology. It’s also important to note that all philosophy(and one could say literature, science, as well as politics) in the West are results of developments from this monastic system, the Christian monastic education system of the middle ages is so important that it’s effects are inescapable today both in radical secular thought and in extreme religious thought, which are both philosophical systems that try to avoid many of the historical paradigms and ideas. Because of the all around sustainability of monasteries, monasteries have also been excellent at responding to issues that secular society fails to address by providing for stability as well as dominant non-governmental communal identity. In recent years researchers have begun to acknowledge this change of worldview and how impactful monasteries have been in the development of all institutions especially that of the nation state to get to where modern society is today. As Emilia Jamrozak states in her research; “The greatest impact in the development of the historiography of northern European monasticism has been the development of a national history framework that not only pushed aside the Ordensgeschichte model, but also placed the history of individual monasteries and networks within the dominant structure of the development of political structure, linear development of the state, power, and control narratives. The nation-state history was also closely connected with a confessional perspective—in the context of the regions under discussion in this volume—it was a dominant Protestant current until the mid-twentieth century.” Or in other words, looking back on history using the concept of nations states we see that monasteries though inside the power structures were their own alternative source of power, and we have lost this view through the domination of the nation states that monasticism built and the secularization of those very nation states and their societies with the development of nation states as the primary actors rather than the communities or people. An example of this parallel power structure that provides goods and services for the community can be found in Russian monasticism during WWI. During WWI, Eastern Orthodox (EO) monastics put significant effort into caring for the soldiers, not just while they were at the front but through the revolution and after the war(s). The fact that EO monastics served their communities in such a way is important because WWI soldiers and veterans were neglected in Russian society due to the politics at the time. According to Scott Kenworthy The Russian EO church produced incredibly large amounts of clothes; approximately 20,000 items per monastery, opened 207 infirmaries and hospitals, started an unknown amount of rehabilitation programs, opened 11 orphanages and created an open door policy for refugees. According to Scott, the charitable actions increased the number of pilgrimages and church attendance during the war years because they kept the church on good terms with the people while providing for their needs which were significant at the time. For example, the minor convent of Kozel’scinnkij attracted 40,000 pilgrims meanwhile, the major convent of Trinity Sergius fed over 250,000 pilgrims, which number excludes those that were wealthy enough to feed themselves and/or others. As we can see the monastic system not only provides security in times of great upheaval and desperation but it also greatly provides for it’s community and presents itself as a means of security and safety to all those around, it’s charity abounds and when taken into account, all these aspects of monasticism make it an excellent candidate for becoming an anchor in modern society that people will flock to because monastic communities simply provide most things that people need and are looking for: community, mental health, education, sustainability, financial support and healthy living.

All of this begs the question though, what keeps this system from being used for evil? As I just gave an example of monks in Russia being unbiased and helpful during WWI what would happen if they weren’t and instead promoted radical ideas? Another major contention society presents today is a distaste for anything religious as immediately revolutionary and fanatical. I mean it does make a little sense, after all, most monks are religious fanatics and common sense does seem to dictate that gathering a group of fanatics together would only lend itself to a revolution, especially of the political sort. We can see examples of monastic radicalism in things like the Saffron revolution which is when Buddhist monks organized protests and revolts against the military junta in Myanmar. So what would happen if these monks organized violence?

The concerns about radicalism are good concerns and even valid ones at that, it would be wrong of me to pretend that radicals do not become monks and do not sway other monks, examples of which include different forms of Muslim Brotherhoods, revolutionary Buddhists, and Christian groups like the Dulcinians, even the American soldier who self-immolated before the Israeli embassy recently (2/25/2024) was a member of a monastic community. However, this radicalism is not the rule when it comes to monasticism and is the exception to it. Focusing on recent history, monastic movements have been explicitly anti-radical and anti-war, more often than not, monastic movements have been the victims of radicals, examples include Christian monks and monasteries during the French and Spanish revolutions.

A major example of modern monastic movements specifically being anti-war and anti-radical is New-Monasticism. New-Monasticism is a relatively new Christian movement that takes the concepts of the social gospel and applies them to monasticism in an attempt to return Christianity to more primitive roots and make it more evangelical(though in the modern American sense). The social gospel movement was a movement during the 19^th and 20^th centuries amongst mostly protestant Christians to make community outreach and social issues a core part of Christian teaching and dogma, it was the social gospel movement that brought the idea of providing clothing donations, running shelters and food pantries into every church rather than a thing for the largest churches or monasteries. Because of the social gospel movement aforementioned activities and other charitable ideas started to be viewed as a core part of Christian teaching; the social gospel movement was the main driver of major social changes within the country like the temperance movement, and the civil rights movement.

Since New Monasticism is a hybridization of the social gospel movement with historic monasticism and early Christian beliefs it has developed a few distinguishable core tenets; provide charity, live and seek out the downtrodden and aid them, and to mend political and racial relations. One of the core values taught by New-Monasticism is called Downwards Mobility, a concept where the monastic gives up everything in order to significantly impact those in harder circumstances than themselves so that the monastic might lift them up. The most notable and universally observed doctrine of New Monastic movements is that of The Empire. The Empire is the concept that the world is an Empire which must be resisted. This understanding of the world as an empire subverts the expected radicalism and instead reframes it as a struggle against not just immorality on an individual level or as a moral concept but immorality as it exists systemically spread across all aspects of society, because core to New Monastic understanding is the idea that situations dictate lifestyle. Humans are born sinful and in a sinful world they naturally are overcome by sin; the New monastic views this entire structure as The Empire and much like early Christianity sees goodness as being crushed by this Empire. Since humanity is seemingly born under the rule of this Empire the new monastic’s duty is to aid the coming Kingdom of God and bring humanity from under the rule of The Empire to the rule of the Kingdom of God which is present. The movement aligns itself with the popular and historic Christian doctrine of Amillennialism which teaches that the Kingdom of God is here and now spiritually, though yet coming physically, and as such all men have access to it. Rather, unlike the newer and revolutionary ideas of Post-Millennialism(the concept that men must bring about the kingdom of God) which was a core cause of the civil war for the Northern side(Charles Finney, and the proto-evangelicals promoted the idea that we would bring about the Kingdom of God by eradicating slavery by force if necessary) this bringing of the Kingdom of God in New Monasticism is not because of the actions being done but because God offers salvation and a better life to all men and as such the offer is preexisting and there for all to receive, it just must be brought to them. With the historical and popular view of Amillennialism being the most popular amongst new monastics, they view this Kingdom of God as the gospel and teachings of Christ manifesting in daily life within the sinful Empire.

The definition given to the movement by key figures of the movement at an ecumenical meeting at the Rutba House, a famous new monastic community, defines new monasticism as following several core tenets:

·         “’Relocation to the “abandoned places of Empire” [at the margins of society, usually in depressed, urban areas]
·         Sharing economic resources with fellow community members and the needy among us
·         Hospitality to the stranger
·         Lament for racial divisions within the church and our communities
·         Humble submission to Christ’s body, the Church
·         Intentional formation in the way of Christ and the rule of the community along the lines of the old novitiate
·         Nurturing common life among members of an intentional community
·         Support for celibate singles alongside monogamous married couples and their children
·         Geographical proximity to community members who share a common rule of life
·         Care for the plot of God’s earth given to us along with support of our local economies
·         Peacemaking in the midst of violence and conflict resolution within communities along the lines of Matthew 18
·         Commitment to a disciplined, contemplative life”
-Monasticism—then and now

As mentioned earlier, the New Monastic movement views itself as fighting an empire, not by physically fighting but by care and love through the Gospel, which is the traditional Christian view of Christian and monastic life. St. Anthony the founder of monasticism is said to have started his monastic lifestyle after hearing God say “if thou wilt be perfect, go sell all that thou hast, and give it to the poor, and come, follow me and thou shalt have treasure in heaven.” This concept of resistance through love and care is core to Christian teaching not just from the New Testament but also historically. Early Christians were well acquainted with the concept of The Empire because Christianity was birthed under the shadow of the pagan Roman Empire and in many ways developed traditions as a reaction and resistance to the Roman Empire. Under the Roman Empire the idea of martyrdom was the highest form of resistance, emphasizing the non-violent compassionate outpouring of love that Christ had towards the world. This romanticization of martyrdom comes from the Martyrs of the New Testament; Stephen, John the Baptist, James of Zebedee, Antipas, and Paul, the early church also recording the important martyrdoms of Simon Peter (St. Peter), James the brother of Jesus, the Apostles and Evangelists, as well as the likes of Polycarp, Justin (Martyr), Perpetua and Felicity amongst many, many others. The common theme of all these martyrdoms was a refusal to bow to worldly empires and sin, due to love of God and love of one’s neighbor. All of these figures and other major figures that I have not mentioned, continued doing works of charity throughout the persecutions; expounding and spreading the gospel, speaking the truth at all times and caring for all those around them, they passively surrendered all, giving everything-including their lives, in a pursuit of divinely changing the world around them. This can be easily seen and exemplified in St. Lawrence the treasurer and Archdeacon of Rome’s martyrdom. In 258 AD after killing the Pope, Emperor Valerian ordered the Archdeacon to gather and turn over all the wealth of the church in 3 days time. Lawrence quickly gave all the property of the church away to the poor and needy. On the appointed day Lawrence attended his summons to the emperor’s palace and gathering together all the poor, the crippled and sick, the widows and wounded, the slaves and non-citizens, went to present himself. Upon opening the door to the palace court Lawrence announced himself saying “Behold, these are the true treasure of the Church! The Church is truly rich, far richer than the emperor!”, he was executed on the same day. From these examples we can see that it is Christian tradition to resist the world empire by specifically following Christ’s example.

Chew Sing studied the history of monastic systems economically and found that the development of monastic systems throughout time was a response to the natural human methods of philosophy, politics and power by presenting an alternative divinely inspired system that was aimed at undermining the evil tendencies of other systems. “These[Monastic] movements were not proponents of growth, consumption excesses and centralization for they were reactions to these tendencies that seem to underline human societies for the last 5,000 years of human history that reached certain crisis points during Dark Ages. Instead, their emphases were on localism and self-sufficiency which entail operating with a different set of operating parameters. Instead of kingdom or empire, the community was promoted. This notion of community was extended further as monasticism and bioregionalism developed to encompass a wider notion of community as a consequence of historical changes. In the case of monasticism, it extended beyond the monastery to include the local villages and towns that were in the vicinity of the monastic order when manors and lands were donated to the monastery as the movement became further integrated into the political and economic order.” This historic practice of the Christian monastic tradition is exactly what makes monasticism so strong and self-sufficient and is what New Monasticism is aimed at returning to because it is clear that over the centuries monasticism has fallen from it’s original roots. Dr. Schnieder a Professor of religious studies, also understands and defines New Monasticism as being anti-world in the sense that it is against natural human reason and desires as well as politics and powers, she summarizes New Monasticism as: “new monastics maintain the evangelical belief that individuals need to experience deep transformation, or conversion, if there is to ever be lasting social change. However, new monastics radicalize this belief in that they understand conversion to result in a total lifestyle change, which results not just in individual but communal transformation. New monastics assert that their distinctive way of life is about modeling an alternate economic, social, political and religious system—the Kingdom of God—which can never be reduced to a particular form of government. A lifestyle rooted in simplicity, service, and downward mobility is envisioned as a form of resistance to an oppressive state as well as “the evil that makes capitalism the cause of ever increasing suffering for the poor” (McKenna 2005, p. 22). Circumventing corrupt, impersonal institutions, new monastics insist on direct, personal engagement with issues of poverty and marginalization. At the same time, moving beyond a narrow evangelical focus on evangelism and personal piety, new monastics insist that the Kingdom of God must be reflected through social and communal structures that prioritize the poor. For these reasons, they see themselves as engaged in prophetic critique of social evils.” As we see, instead of presenting another form of political radicalism New-Monasticism, Christianity and traditional Christian monasticism take a step back from the usual concepts of political systems and takes an apolitical transcendental approach to navigating the issues that are so prevalent today while presenting them within a similar linguistic framework and paradigm which effectively deradicalizes the actions of those who are used to the popular and violent radicalism of today.

It is also extremely important to point out that historically, monks are more likely to be oppressed than to be reactionary or revolutionary, and monastic responses to oppression or suppression are usually calm yet resistant. An example from Liesse Lehtsalu is that of the nuns of the Napoleonic Cisalpine. At the turn of the 19^th century under the revolutionary Napoleonic government 3 suppression edicts were given by the regional cisalpine government to liquidate the monasteries and dissolve the orders for financial gain. Though this occurred, the women were still permitted to organize unofficial groups and occupy certain buildings to fulfill civic duties, not only because they petitioned authorities advocating for permission but also because society was dependent upon the free and inexpensive availability of their services. In an example from a letter to the government and ecclesiastical authorities it is revealed that there was continuance of educational and hospital congregations and services as well as the re-opening of institutions that were perceived to do the public good. Lehtsalu makes note of the potential harm to public good regarding how the government realized that the convents were the only institution caring for women at the time, stating “The suppression threatened the public good because it would have deprived Bologna of ‘the considerable benefit of having a provisional place where to place the unmarried girls facing some danger’, as well as of a place for those married women who needed shelter from the ‘inconveniences that can arise between a husband and a wife and that can be resolved using the means of such a retreat’. The private interests of the tertiaries were threatened because ‘if the tertiaries were incapable of supporting themselves when living together in a community, they would face even greater financial hardship when living apart’. The vicar general thus considered S. Elisabetta socially useful: it sheltered both secular women in danger but also the tertiaries themselves.” And in accordance with the monastic and Christian tradition the nuns of the cisalpine region did not revolt or attempt to stir up the people but instead continued their duties in new ways, advocating a return of the system by exemplifying the benefits monasticism provides and the goodness of its observants. The researcher directly states this, “On one hand, therefore, monastic institutions faced suppression. On the other, however, officials expected the women religious to behave in ways compatible with long-established cultural norms. Such interplay between continuities and discontinuities is also evident in petitions penned by women religious, as already evidenced by Suor Elena Terzi's petition above. Also the tertiaries of S. Antonio ended their appeal with a promise of intercessory prayer: ‘these poor Mothers do not stop, and never will stop, in their orations to God to pray for the prosperity of your Highness’.” The nuns and monks of the era who were previously suppressed-some even being massacred-continued in their religious and civil duties even though the institutions were dissolved, continuously serving their communities and even their enemies, only praying for and wishing the best for them. Once again, we see a continuation of all of the Christian traditions I’ve discussed so far, from self-sacrifice to self-sufficiency, to communal relations, to charity coming together in one system to perfect themselves and the society around them in transcendental relationships.

The key to each step has been the transcendental relationship that monasticism provides. The worldview and perspectives that monasticism teaches are unique in that it creates a system that cannot be categorized with other systems and is focused on entirely different aspects of reality and daily life than every other system and institution in existence. In regard to social issues it is this divinization of daily life and society that contributes the most strongly to psychological rehabilitation of the monks, though it effects more than just the monks, but also the surrounding society. The earlier quoted study by Chan notes this relationship with God is the key psychological strengthener that enables people in these systems to function as they do. “For example, individuals who are rejected and report turning to God show less aggressive tendencies (Aydin et al., 2010). Additionally, individuals who emphasize their religious beliefs after losing a spouse show lessened grief (Brown, Nesse, House, & Utz, 2004). More generally, people who lack social support but report a strong relationship with God report lower levels of loneliness (Kirkpatrick et al., 1999). However, no research has shown the downstream effects of this substitution on purpose in life. Given that several findings indicate that religious beliefs supply a greater sense of purpose in life (Chamberlain & Zika, 1992; Frazier, 2005; Park, 2005), there is good reason to expect that if religious beliefs are used for substitutive social connection, then they would buffer the loss of purpose that occurs from feelings of social disconnection” Rather than the monastic seclusion presenting a route to radicalization it presents the exact opposite. Instead, we find monks practicing radical forms of love and turning rebellion from a method of violence and politics to a practice of carefully meditated actions that benefit others with the goal of divinizing the society around it.

As I have proven throughout this paper, Monasticism is uniquely suited to address a slew of modern societal issues such as homelessness, political radicalization, education, financial costs of social programs, mental health, isolation, and just about every other major issue that exists in today’s societies. All of this is still to say nothing of the personal benefits gained by individuals in monasticism such as psychological and religious developments. It is clear that society has totally neglected and forgotten one of it’s most crucial anchor points. As we currently experience a societal shift and decay that puts all countries globally on a precipice it is time that Christians are reminded of our past with the solutions it contains and are brought together once more in charity and love. Monasticism is the single best method by which the majority of modern problems can be solved without stirring up controversy or governmental issues. A reintroduction and popularization of monastic systems into society would greatly benefit the world at large and help assuage the many personal, social and political issues that countries and their populaces experience in the 21^st century. These attempts to reintroduce both traditional and new monastic systems into modern societies have shown that a renewed emphasis on community, charity and religion not only greatly benefit the monks on a personal level but also produce regional and societal changes. It is for this reason that both Protestant and Roman Catholic church bodies should re-emphasize monastic living. Clearly, monasticism takes out the most birds with a single stone solving a massive variety of problems like mental health, education and political issues. The reason a reintroduction of monasticism is so important in today’s societies is because societies are extremely divided amongst themselves, and governments are doing an extremely poor job of addressing the day to day issues that people experience. Monasteries on the other hand, directly address the exact issues governments are currently failing at, providing a daily source of relief for those in extreme situations. A source of relief that makes it possible for poor and downtrodden individuals to have a safe place where they are provided for, and a place where mental health and self-growth can be emphasized. For us as Christians, monasticism becomes the home for sinners that the church is to be. Meanwhile, on an institutional level, monasteries are cornerstones that keep societies from collapsing, the communal model being key to keeping people unison. Even when societies do collapse and fall apart monasteries present another non-governmental organization that takes the place of the government social programs in the local community. With the current wide range of issues going on in American society and the destabilization monasticism presents a tantalizing solution to keep American communities from obliteration or from tearing each other apart.

⳨

Gottesfreund

Discussion about this post