Rod Dreher, a Christian writer, has recently garnered attention for his proposal for how Christians should respond to the transformation of religious and sexual mores that has swept the West in the past fifty years.  Now that Christians find themselves as the distinct minority in an overwhelming secular society, what should they do?  

A Christianity Today excerpt from his book, The Benedict Option, summarizes his view: Christians should form tight, geographically-concentrated and mutually-supportive communities, which bypass traditional distinctions (like race or denomination) and remain self-consciously open to newcomers.  Dreher does not advocate total withdrawal from society, but he was nonetheless inspired by the example of St. Benedict, whose teachings prompted the retreat of ancient Christians from a crumbling Christo-Roman world overrun by pagan barbarians, to monastic communities devoted to the faith.  

The responses to Dreher's perspective have varied; two prominent examples are columns by New York Times' writers David Brooks and Ross Douthat.  Brooks' column, published on March 14, 2017, suggests that Dreher's view partakes in "religious purism" of the sort exemplified by the Spanish Inquisition and Islamic terrorism.  Brooks prefers "ironism" – a religious attitude which accepts the limitations and compromises of this world.  He thinks Christians should turn to something he calls Orthodox Pluralism: embracing "some orthodoxy that will overthrow the superficial obsessions of the self and put one’s life in contact with a transcendent ideal," while rejecting the "ideal [that] can be easily translated into a pure, homogenized path."  Brooks fears that Dreher's perspective "can’t tolerate difference because it can’t humbly accept the mystery of truth."  

Brooks uses opaque language that facilitates a kind of complacent, bourgeois mysticism, and it allows him to dance around the key question underlying his proposal – namely, how does one decide which orthodoxies to keep and which to reject?  Specifically, why does Brooks believe Christian sexual ethics are not among the orthodoxies which help us "overthrow the superficial obsessions of the self"?  No personal interest is more likely to become a superficial focus on the self than sexual desire – but Brooks doesn't explain why he accommodates current sexual prejudices rather than resisting them.  This renders his comments moot, since you have to answer that question before deciding how to proceed in our current cultural moment.  

In other words, Dreher's audience is not people who are unsure whether to compromise their sexual ethics; he's speaking to committed evangelicals who refuse to accommodate but don't know what to do.  The Benedict Option is Dreher's answer to that question, and it presumes the conclusion that Christian sexual ethics shouldn't be compromised.  If Brooks disagrees on that... well then, of course he will have little to say about the Benedict Option itself.  

What is very strange is that Brooks plainly acknowledges that he and Dreher have different views of sexual ethics.  Why acknowledge the difference only to ignore it, when it's the key issue?  Can Brooks really think he has offered any meaningful comment on the Benedict Option, at least to those who take it seriously?  It seems his article was intended for an audience that already endorses his particular compromises, and hence was never tempted by the Benedict Option to begin with.  

On the other hand, Douthat's column, published a day later on March 15, 2017, is significantly more interesting.  Douthat sketches our current cultural moment by noting that while some evangelical Christians were outspoken against Donald Trump's candidacy and election, others have been cautiously optimistic, wondering if Trump's administration will (wittingly or unwittingly) provide an opportunity for Christians to return from their secular exile.  This internecine conflict over the Trump presidency nicely captures the schizophrenic combination of worldly despair and Christian hope that characterizes many evangelicals today.  

Against this backdrop Douthat turns to the Benedict Option, arguing that while Dreher sees it as a response to the collapse of Western Christendom, in fact it is worthy advice regardless whether or not we share Dreher's pessimism.  Douthat claims that at root, the Benedict Option simply asks Christians to be more intentional and holistic in the application of their faith to their lives.  This does not require that we all adopt an ascetic or monastic life, but that we "ratchet up" the expression of our faith in our daily lives.  And, in his typically even-handed manner, Douthat notes that this advice applies as much to liberal Christians as it does to conservative ones.   Faith communities of any stripe will find politicians to be untrustworthy, society to be fickle, and the things of this world to be always passing away.  We must develop firm foundations at home to survive and thrive.  

It is hard to disagree with Douthat's perspective – perhaps because it isn't really saying very much.  Christians already well know that the first injunction of the Christian life is to hold fast to the Gospel through, for example, cultivation of a rich prayer life, discipleship in the Word and fellowship with the brethren.  We cannot hope to renew the world, if we are not first renewed in our own hearts.  

Ultimately it seems that Douthat has side-stepped the controversial isolationist features of the Benedict Option, in favor of religious advice that is unremarkably basic.  Still, it is good to be reminded of foundational principles – even if Douthat short-changes us of his opinions on the Benedict Option.  

If you wish to discuss this post with me, I'd welcome receiving an email from you.  Please email me at language.on.holiday@gmail.com.