pat loughery

In the Introduction to their translation of the Rule of St. Benedict published as “The Rule of St Benedict” (Anthony C Meisel and M L Del Mastro), the authors describe the single-minded pursuit of union with God that a monk displays.

Since his primary goal was union with God, the material results of his work were less important to the monk than the growth in virtue that accompanied them. Undistracted by desire for visible success and fear of failure, the monk was able to concentrate all his energies upon the task at hand. He was freed from the enticements and the terrors of the world and its values and from the tyranny of his own passions by his desire for God. Refusing to be the slave of the material universe, he became its master. As a result, he moved in serenity. A leisure of spirit marked all he did with the sign of freedom and peace.

Perhaps that’s the monastic ideal rather than the monastic reality, but the goal is a good one.

The authors continue, closer to our own reality.

For the man of the twentieth century, such serenity and freedom would be treasure indeed. Harried by the things of his world, he is pressured by conflicting demands on his time, strength and patience. He is frightened by the anarchy that boils beneath the social, political and economic surfaces he strives to keep whole and in place. He feels himself to be victim, not master, of the forces of a hostle universe. Unable to control these energies, to shape them to his will, to use them to replant and cultivate the garden for which he longs, he is buffeted by them. He is swept from the security of a firm place in an ordered universe to the chill dark of an isolated, meaningless existence. He has somehow been cut off from his sources and is not sure how or even if he can return to them.

For such a man what has monasticism to offer? The certainties of the mok are not his heritage. Can the monk’s serenity and freedom be then available to him by the monk’s means? Is the monk’s quest for God, so direct in approach, single-minded in execution, available to him under any circumstances? Perhaps.

They continue, arguing that an adaptation of the Rule of Benedict is a way forward for those of us in the twenty(first) century who pursue union with God.

In preparation for my next (and final) course in my D. Min program (after which is the dissertation journey), I’m re-reading Benedict’s Rule. It is remarkably flexible, practical, humane. Written in the 6th century for a newly developing communal approach to monasticism, Benedict’s Way has been foundational for a broad variety of spiritual communities throughout the 1500 years since.

Is the monk’s quest for God available to those of us who live in contemporary, Internet-paced society?G

God, I hope so.