In response to my review of Patrick Deneen’s Why Liberalism Failed, reader Sawbuck
suggested I read Rod Dreher’s The
Benedict Option. So I did.
On the plus side, Mr. Dreher’s book is the more well
written of the two, and he’s for the most part intellectually honest about
history, including the negative aspects of Christianity after Constantine when
the church was recognized as Rome’s official religion and the persecuted became
the persecutors. He also, unlike Dr. Deneen, does not rely on dog whistles. The
thing he most emphatically does not approve of is anything that allows LGBT
people any rights, unless they abide by rules he believes will allow them to
sneak into heaven (but they’ll probably have to be discreet there, too).
Believe me, we’ll go into this later. He’s almost as opposed to public schools
as he is to LGBT rights.
The Benedict Option is named after a young man who,
near the turn of the sixth century left his hometown for Rome and, seeing the
vice there, moved first to a nearby forest and then to a cave for three years,
after which he founded twelve monasteries.
Rod Dreher sees parallels to Rome in today’s society.
For his brand of Christians (small “o” orthodox Christians) he sees removing
themselves from society as a viable means of preserving orthodox Christianity
and possibly making it attractive to those turned off by other brands of
Christianity.
He doesn’t advocate moving to a forest or a cave, but
he does advocate that the orthodox form churches and then communities in and
around those churches. He recommends living within walking distance of the
church and forming tightknit self-policing communities. (He tells how one
couple was excommunicated for getting a divorce after being married more than
forty years—I guess marriage is, indeed a life sentence in orthodoxy). The
orthodox should secede culturally from the mainstream, turn off the television,
put the smartphone away, read books, play games, make music, feast with your
(presumably orthodox) neighbors, start a church (or a group within your
church), open a classical Christian school, plant a garden, participate in a
local farmer’s (sic) market, etc.
He criticizes consumerism and materialism, and he
won’t get any argument from me there. He believes things have been going
downhill since the fourteenth century, which would make me wonder how the
Benedict Option could possibly stop a movement that is more than six hundred
years old.
He discusses how until the sexual revolution every
culture had its “thou shalt nots” that were needed to restrain individual
passions and direct them to socially beneficial ends. I suspect that as DNA
analysis and genealogy research become more widespread, people are going to
discover just how much of a myth that statement is. My own genealogy research
revealed a tremendous amount of hanky panky in my family, and the results I got
from 23 and Me had a bit of a surprise as well. In the days before television
there just wasn’t much going on in small towns, and the towns were small, so
our ancestors didn’t have to walk too far to find privacy. To paraphrase one of
my German lessons, in theory everyone was chaste, but in practice… .
Even though Mr. Dreher moved around in his career
(before returning to his hometown after his sister’s death), he is not in favor
of mobility. Unlike so many religious conservatives, he’s no fan of Donald
Trump, describing him as “not a solution to the problem of America’s cultural
decline, but a symptom of it.”
He claims a “corrosive anti-Christian philosophy” has
taken over American public life. I don’t buy this. I live across the street
from a mainline Protestant church. I have never seen anything that would
indicate anyone wishes that church or its worshippers anything but the best. As
I’ve discussed in a previous post, I became a lapsed Unitarian because in part
that church was implicitly (if not explicitly) anti-Christian, even though many
Unitarian churches in other parts of the country remain Christian. Perhaps
there is the odd person here and there who objects to being wished a “Merry
Christmas,” but I dare say they are few and far between. Besides, Christmas has
become so commercialized that its raison
d’etre seems almost to be an afterthought.
He has positive views (in my opinion) of work. Don’t
let it become your life. He suggests rediscovering the trades, which I think is
an excellent idea. We’ll always need plumbers, carpenters, etc., whereas a lot
of white collar work can be and is being farmed out to the cheapest bidders overseas.
He advises that the orthodox prepare to be poorer and more marginalized. I
think he’ll find the former a tough sell, and I find the latter a symptom of
paranoia. Mr. Dreher lives in Louisiana, for heaven’s sake. How anti-Christian
is Louisiana, anyway?
OK. Now we’re going to get to what seems to have set
Mr. Dreher off. The Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage in 2015. As
I said, there are no dog whistles here. It’s more like a fire alarm.
As I’ve said before, gay marriage was not a frivolous
“Oooooh, we want to have a wedding” issue. The issue was financial. Over the
years our government gave benefits to married couples that were not available
to people who were not married while restricting who could marry. These include
Social Security Survivor benefits, favorable treatment of inherited assets, a
lower tax table, etc. At one time it was estimated there were 1,100 benefits
available to those who were married that were not available to those who were
not. In short, gay people were being required to subsidize married people. I
would think any objective person would be able to see this is unfair, and the
Supreme Court eventually decided it did, indeed violate that pesky Fourteenth
Amendment.
My solution would have been to eliminate all benefits
married couples had that unmarried people did not. Had this been the solution
the government followed, there would never have been a need for gay marriage
(and I suspect the number of heterosexual marriages would have gone into a
precipitous decline as well). The current system is an improvement, but single
people of all persuasions are still left out of the loop.
As for the “religious liberty” laws and forcing
people to provide services that violate their religions, I agree with Mr.
Dreher up to a point. As long as it does not involve employment or housing, I
believe anyone should be able to refuse business. If someone does not want to
bake you a cake, do your floral arrangement, cater your wedding, take your
photographs, etc., for heavens sake, find someone who appreciates your
business. Do you really want someone who hates you for who you are anywhere
near your wedding or especially anywhere near your food? On the other hand, it's only fair that gays have the right to spread the word and advocate that such businesses be boycotted. Caveat venditor, in other words.
Mr. Dreher says the church must own up to its past
mistreatment of gays, but his solution for gays is a bit of a conundrum. First
of all, in spite of the Supreme Court’s decision, in Mr. Dreher’s world, gay
Christians cannot get married. “Gay Christians, like all unmarried Christians,
are called to a life of chastity. This is a heavy cross to bear, but one that
cannot in obedience be refused.” I would like to see his biblical reference for
that rule, and I’d certainly be interested if he can find any examples of Jesus
saying such a thing. I’ve listened to many of Bart Ehrman’s Great Courses and
read some of his work. The Bible was put together in the first century, and
much of it may or may not be authentic. But if you’re a gay person and willing
to live by Mr. Dreher’s rules, he says there is a Spiritual Friendship movement
for those caught in this celibacy quandary.
My solution would be if you’re in an organization
that won’t accept you as you are, find another organization. After all, isn’t
that what Mr. Dreher is recommending for himself and his fellow believers?
©
2018 Larry Roth
No comments:
Post a Comment