Here's one comment that summed up many of your responses:
I don't believe God would bless any decision to place yourself in a long-term situation of literally doing no earthly good or good for His kingdom. It's a selfish act and utterly useless for His kingdom.
Is that really common perception of a monk? It's true that there have been a few groups who disappeared into their monasteries never to be seen again, but most ascetics were known for their community work and their interaction with the local church and city authorities. It was the monastics (monks and nuns) who copied the Bible and other important works (both Christian and secular) so that we didn't lose them, ran nearly every school in the middle ages, and worked with the sick and needy. For example, when no one else would tend to the leper population, the Lazarite order was begun under which monks moved in with leper groups to take care of them - even though it meant probably catching the disease themselves. That is truly a noble life.

Of course, there were exceptions. The Carthusians (for some reason) locked themselves in cells and only left once a week. They normally had some other people employed in the monastery who would go out and do normal things, but those few in the cells never left. It's the most strict form of monasticism I can think of in the Christian tradition, and rarely did being a monk or a nun actually mean to live a life of pure isolation.
So, go easy on the monks. When done correctly, the monastic life was enriching for the individual and for the community and local church, as well. It would be very interesting to see how monastics would affect our culture, today.
11 comments:
I agree. As long as the focus is on serving the community, the rest is fine. Not really different than any of our callings, is it? Other than some of us are "being fruitful" and other's are taking up Paul's advice and serving in chastity.
That deleted post was me not realizing my wife was still logged in. :-)
At any rate, I was trying to say that it was a great post. I appreciated the correction, but also the graciousness in which it was done.
God bless you for the enlightment. I must confess that i have been guilty of the same assumption.
Except monasteries are traditionally a Catholic, not a Christian object -- Catholics accept vows, rituals, sacraments, etc. as part of their faith. Christians do not.
HungryMan, I think you're confused. The early church had monastics long before anyone came up with sacraments or anything else you listed as being "Catholics." The most influential early believers after the apostles tried to lead monastic lives and wrote some of the most important Christian documents that we all use. (I'm thinking of people like Augustine, Jerome, or Basil.) There's nothing unChristian about dedicating one's life to leaving the ways of the world and pursing a passion for Christ.
I'll accept the correction as to my earlier assumption that most monks lead a fairly isolated life. Now my question is why we would use the title of a monk when it is not currently associated with Protestant Christianity. Nobody would argue that it is wrong to wholly dedicate every aspect of life to God's service, but I know numerous people who have done just that without taking the title of a monk or living in a "monastery" with others that have. Is there any virtue in taking that added step? I agree with defending the wholly dedicated lifestyle, but I don't know yet whether I agree that monasteries are the vehicle to use.
@Rod: "Nobody would argue that it is wrong to wholly dedicate every aspect of life to God's service."
I would.
@Adam
Hey, Adam, I've been following your blog for about two months now, and I am really enjoying it. You've got a way with words and an very balanced way of looking at things that I, for one, definitely appreciate.
I do feel the need to interject here on some misconceptions about Mother Teresa, though. She is arguably one of the biggest PR campaigns the catholic church has put out in the last 20 years...but she's not much else. From what I've gathered of her life, she worshiped poverty more than any deity. She failed to actually help people except to encourage them to suffer more for her faith, while she lived in comfort and traveled far and wide receive the accolades of the gullible. This comment is only related to this blog post in that I think she's a poor example of what a monastic lifestyle ought to be. She's famous, sure...but her services are nothing worthy remembering or revering.
HungryMan just drew a disjunction between "Catholic and Christian." Then he said that Catholics believe in sacraments and rituals, while "Christians do not."
This nonsense refutes itself. If true Christians are limited to those who don't accept sacraments, then there were no Christians at all for more than a thousand years. And, even though I'm an ordained Baptist pastor, I guess I'm not a Christian either! Who knew??
Ryan obviously knows nothing about the history of the alcohol he consumes in order to make that kind of statement, from beers to champagne, whiskey to gin.
Sure they did some insignificant crap, like build hospitals, save Jews during the holocaust, made scientific innovations like the modern clock and genetics, but that all pales to their contributions to alcohol.
Also, the other implication of the two-tiered system, is that while engaging in religious activities doesn't make one a "holier" person, I haven't witnessed an overabundance of faithfulness amongst secularized Protestant lay persons either, in fact many Christians engage 8-hours a day in jobs downright incompatible with a Christian lifestyle.
Post a Comment