I always wondered how the monastic community started ? I mean it is obvious that in the NT
believers were sent out as part of the great commission…I see Jesus and the original apostles pulling away to be refreshed but they were always back at it…I see the church gathering together for ministry/encouragement but they went into the community…I just don’t see the church being told to gather in isolated communities apart from being forced via persecution…Paul gave a choice/option for staying celibate but didn’t tell them to gather in
isolated groups…We are in this world but not part of it…Thanks…God bless…
Hi there. Monasticism covers a lot of ground. I don’t think you really want to be critical of the whole thing; it sounds like you’re more critical of cenobitic monasticism in particular. And even then, it’s probably a certain kind of cenobitic monasticism.
There is a movement that’s borrowed the term New Monasticism among Protestants. This link
christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/september/16.38.html?start=1 can do a lot to help you get familiar with it. It’s not just a one-page thing, though. There are 8 pages to work through there. A lot of the people getting involved in this movement come from a source that you might not expect- megachurches, of all places. Apparently, there’s a guy at Willow Creek who’s been particularly influential in this area. In terms that are more applicable to Catholic monks, I think these would be the Protestant equivalents of early Catholic Sarabaites…or maybe they’re more like friars than monks, strictly speaking. Monasticism may be a little bit of a misnomer.
Either way, Sarabaites (along with Gyrovagues) came to be known as ways of monasticism that were unacceptable in the West. If you take a look at the Rule of St. Benedict, the first part outlines it quite well. He designates the Cenobites and the Anchorites as the acceptable ways (though the Cenobitic way is portrayed as superior), while the Serabaites and Gyrovagues are relegated to a lesser status. These words, at various times, have been used pejoratively with reference to degenerate monks.
There’s more to monasticism than the Rule of St. Benedict, though (although it’s not a bad place to go if you want to start understanding Cenobitic monasticism in the Western church). A good place to start in the East is with the Rule of St. Basil. Predictably, Eastern monasticism doesn’t have the hierarchical organization of a Western religious order. I’m not entirely sure if a group of people in an Eastern monastery would be properly described as a “religious order.” The Rule of St. Basil isn’t a constitution like the Rule of St. Benedict is- it’s a collection of questions and responses pertaining to the ascetic life. It’s more of a broad framework that unites a variety of monastic groups. After St. Benedict, you’ll probably want to look at Theodore the Studite for more on the development of Eastern monasticism.
Another group to look at in the West is the Augustinian order. I don’t think they’re technically monastic, but they are a Mendicant order of friars, nuns, congregations, lay fraternities, and so forth. I don’t think they would count as Cenobitic, but they also manage to avoid falling into a pejorative sort of category, too…perhaps because they aren’t monks? Look into it a bit; I’m still trying to figure out a lot of this myself.
If you’re going to be critical of something, though, you should probably be more specific than “monasticism” in general. The Rule of St. Benedict is probably your best place to start getting more specific. His criticism of at least one class of monk in Chapter 1 was unfounded yet still of great influence in the West, Chapter 5 describes a kind of leadership that is problematic, and chapter 33 as well. Chapters 39-41 include rules about what you can eat and when, and 43-46 tells you how you’re punished for minor infractions having to do with those rules. Chapter 53 speaks of an inordinate level of control over the actions of guests, and the following chapter lays out an inappropriate level of control that the abbot has over the actions of other monks.
Many of the themes central to this Rule are worthy of praise- obedience to God, in all things may God be glorified, etc. Others are worthy of criticism, though. For example, these monks should “through patience share in the passion of Christ that they may deserve also to share in His Kingdom” (passionibus Christi per patientiam participemur, ut et regno eius mereamur esse consortes). From Prol. 50. As if anyone can actually deserve that. As if “By grace I can become deserving” is something to live by or something that even makes sense…but now I’m getting away from the OP. Look at some sources like what Benedict or Basil or Augustine put together, look up words you don’t know, get familiar with the history of monasticism and the nature of its development throughout history and throughout the world. You won’t be turned off by the whole thing, although there will be some things that you can’t really get behind. But it’s ok; you don’t have to.
