Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm going to see if a discussion rather than a debate can be done here.
I used to want to be a monk. I still find monasticism fascinating. In most forms a group of people, usually all of one gender, live together as celibates in a collective enterprise. Monasticism is sometimes seen as a form of small-c communism, but other studies see it more as "collective capitalism." They may engage in for-profit commerce, but it's done as a collective rather than in a corporation structure. Maybe that makes it sound like a worker's cooperative, but possibly there are some similarities.
Forms of monasticism can be seen in Buddhism, Taoism, Jainism, and Christianity. Protestantism usually rejects monasticism, but not always. There is the Taize Community and the Shakers were essentially like a monastic group that happened to be an entire religion. Still monasticism is essentially unknown in Rabbinic Judaism and Islam. Sufi orders have elements like monasticism, but also some clear differences. Confucianism, although not inherently a religion, traditionally rejects monasticism as it highly values producing children.
So what do you think of monasticism from a cultural, historical, or psychological perspective? Are you a critic? For example do you feel that all celibacy is ultimately unhealthy? Do you reject it on the basis it devalues the individual? Are you ambivalent, seeing some positive and negative things in it? Does your opinion vary depending on the order or religion doing it? For example one who likes Zen Buddhist monasticism, but not Catholic monasticism or one who likes Capuchins but not Benedictines. Do you see monasticism as being more good than bad in the world? Do you romanticize it?
As I said "discuss not debate" my point is I hope this does not become a bunch of "I'm right about monasticism and you're wrong" or "Let me persuade you that monasticism is un-Biblical and immoral" or "All religion is a crock and so monasticism is a crock" type posts.
A couple things I have noted after studying several monastic societies is that they do not last very long. Celibacy has a backlash in that it does not propagate. There is also a negative side in that it does not attract very many new followers to keep the movement going.
I question the validity of living separate from the rest of the world.
We have seen enclaves of "separatists" in history, and none of them have been very successful. I mean, even if the commune has been successful, the rest of the world has insisted on intrusion, usually with dire results.
We are currently amused by the largest monastic community on the Earth today: North Korea. Of course, there are differences. Even if the rest of the world left North Korea alone, it violates one principle of monasticism: it keeps "bugging" the rest of the world for attention.
I have a personal concern regarding monasticism, and it can be labeled as a religious or even a humanist concern. I do not feel that human beings are supposed to be isolate from one another.
Even if we take such philosophies as "No man is an island," I feel that there is a loss of such richness of humanity when people isolate themselves from others. We can look at the various gangs that control sections of major cities as an example. #1, while they try to be monastic in regards to being communities of themselves, they intrude upon other territories and are, in return, intruded upon themselves. #2, even the most isolated gang has been unable to complete be self-dependent.
I wonder if the greatest experiment so far in monasticism is the Amish communities. A large number of them have been self-sustaining. However, there are many who are dependent on the "English" around them. So, I question as to whether true monasticism is possible because there is this symbiotic need within the human psyche that has to reach out to others, even outside the community.
We have seen disastrous attempts at monasticism: the Jonestown movement and the Davidians. The leadership of both brought these organizations down to disastrous results. Some might blame them on religious corruption, but I would go further: I place the blame on the human psyche, where absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I forget the author of that science fiction novel that was turned into a short-lived TV series. A space ship carring remnants of mankind is headed for the center of a star. One individual galvanizes a small following to try and save the star ship, but in trying to alert the different communities riding and living within the space ship, they encounter monastic societies that have denigrated into the basic religious and social systems that prevent cooperation. I feel that the writers that bastardized the original author's intent were bent on showing the worst of human socialization, using different forms of monasticism as perhaps a greater evil that will eventually destroy the human race utterly.
I Corinthians 7:12 certainly encourageous celibacy as a first choice for men;
boy how things had changed, from be fruitful and multiply to celibacy as a first choice. wow.
Religious separatism can at times become a problem. I think one of the most significant features I read of cults is them separating members from their family and transferring them to an isolated location. Tertullian once expressed hostility about separating from the world for religious reasons as he believed the Christian duty is clearly to be in the world helping others.
Although I think monastics vary in the level of separation they practice. The Benedictines I know travel, visit family, etc. Some nuns seem highly mobile and socially active.
I admit though I find separation, to the point of hermitism, vaguely appealing as I'm kind of detached at times.
One of the things I've noticed in my studies is that anything taken to extreme is unhealthy and will probably not last very long. Monasticism as a lifestyle is essentially the extreme of what Jesus said to do in Matt 6. Take yourself away and pray privately. These "moments" of your day or week spent in meditation/prayer are healthy......they allow for introspection, they allow for "soul searching" they allow for one to develop a relationship with the creator. Living in that manner as a lifestyle, though, is not what is needed. We are hardwired to be social animals, and while some groups isolate themselves from the rest of the world it causes neuroses and psychoses to develop in individuals. Even Siddhartha had to have social contact to achieve his level of awareness.
It is interesting that you bring up Corinthians 7:12.
Taken by itself, and using the delimited philosophy as a "command of God," it has been used by religionists as the "right" way of living for men.
An aside: if celebacy is only for men, I wonder what the corollary is for women.
If we get into the spirit of the times when Paul allegedly wrote such advice, we begin to understand just how much Greek thought invaded and transformed the Christ's philosophy.
Paul, being both a Pharissee and a Hellenist, subscribed to the philosophy that sexual relations diluted the purity of the soul and the body. He, like so many others, felt that the Christ was returning very soon, like, within his lifetime.
It is also apropo to note that Paul reverses himself later when he realized that the Christ was not coming as soon as he and others thought. If people did not start producing children, there would be no successors to propagate the "Good News."
It is also interesting that the early church leaders did not promote celibacy.
A quick review of the Internet shows that the Council of Elvira (306) started the celibacy decree for bishops, presbyters, deacons, and others with a ministry. In 325, the Council of Nicaea decided that the same would not be able to live with a female in the same dwelling, except for a mother, sister, aunt, or any other female "beyond all suspicion." A Council of Carthage (between 387 and 400) apparently started sealing the "fate" of these church workers. We can cite the Directa Decretal of Pope Siricius (10 Feb 385):
"We have indeed discovered that many priests and deacons of Christ brought children into the world, either through union with their wives or through shameful intercourse. And they used as an excuse the fact that in the Old Testament—as we can read—priests and ministers were permitted to beget children. Whatever the case may be, if one of these disciples of the passions and tutors of vices thinks that the Lord—in the law of Moses—gives an indistinct license to those in sacred Orders so that they may satisfy their passions, let him tell me now: why does [the Lord] warn those who had the custody of the most holy things in the following way: "You must make yourselves holy, for I am Yahweh your God" (Lev 20:7). Likewise, why were the priests ordered, during the year of their tour of duty, to live in the temple, away from their homes? Quite obviously so that they would not be able to have carnal knowledge of any woman, even their wives, and, thus, having a conscience radiating integrity, they could offer to God offerings worthy of his acceptance. Those men, once they had fulfilled their time of service, were permitted to have marital intercourse for the sole purpose of ensuring their descent, because no one except [the members] of the tribe of Levi could be admitted to the divine ministry."
Church leaders continued to debate the issue, falling on the side of celibacy until 1123, when the First Lateran Council adopted Canon 3 and 21, which spelled out that "We" absolutely forbid sexual relations, cohabitation, and marriage.
The Reformation abolished the practice of celibacy, denouncing it as in opposition to the advice in 1 Tim 3:2-4 and 1 Cor 9:5, as well as Heb 13:4, whereby a man should marry and be the husband of one wife, and marriage should be honored by all. The reformers blamed the impetus on banning sexual relations not on any Biblical or traditional basis but on the widespread sexual misconduct among the clergy.
It is interesting that you bring up Corinthians 7:12.
Taken by itself, and using the delimited philosophy as a "command of God," it has been used by religionists as the "right" way of living for men.
An aside: if celebacy is only for men, I wonder what the corollary is for women.
If we get into the spirit of the times when Paul allegedly wrote such advice, we begin to understand just how much Greek thought invaded and transformed the Christ's philosophy.
Paul, being both a Pharissee and a Hellenist, subscribed to the philosophy that sexual relations diluted the purity of the soul and the body. He, like so many others, felt that the Christ was returning very soon, like, within his lifetime.
It is also apropo to note that Paul reverses himself later when he realized that the Christ was not coming as soon as he and others thought. If people did not start producing children, there would be no successors to propagate the "Good News."
It is also interesting that the early church leaders did not promote celibacy.
A quick review of the Internet shows that the Council of Elvira (306) started the celibacy decree for bishops, presbyters, deacons, and others with a ministry. In 325, the Council of Nicaea decided that the same would not be able to live with a female in the same dwelling, except for a mother, sister, aunt, or any other female "beyond all suspicion." A Council of Carthage (between 387 and 400) apparently started sealing the "fate" of these church workers. We can cite the Directa Decretal of Pope Siricius (10 Feb 385):
"We have indeed discovered that many priests and deacons of Christ brought children into the world, either through union with their wives or through shameful intercourse. And they used as an excuse the fact that in the Old Testament—as we can read—priests and ministers were permitted to beget children. Whatever the case may be, if one of these disciples of the passions and tutors of vices thinks that the Lord—in the law of Moses—gives an indistinct license to those in sacred Orders so that they may satisfy their passions, let him tell me now: why does [the Lord] warn those who had the custody of the most holy things in the following way: "You must make yourselves holy, for I am Yahweh your God" (Lev 20:7). Likewise, why were the priests ordered, during the year of their tour of duty, to live in the temple, away from their homes? Quite obviously so that they would not be able to have carnal knowledge of any woman, even their wives, and, thus, having a conscience radiating integrity, they could offer to God offerings worthy of his acceptance. Those men, once they had fulfilled their time of service, were permitted to have marital intercourse for the sole purpose of ensuring their descent, because no one except [the members] of the tribe of Levi could be admitted to the divine ministry."
Church leaders continued to debate the issue, falling on the side of celibacy until 1123, when the First Lateran Council adopted Canon 3 and 21, which spelled out that "We" absolutely forbid sexual relations, cohabitation, and marriage.
The Reformation abolished the practice of celibacy, denouncing it as in opposition to the advice in 1 Tim 3:2-4 and 1 Cor 9:5, as well as Heb 13:4, whereby a man should marry and be the husband of one wife, and marriage should be honored by all. The reformers blamed the impetus on banning sexual relations not on any Biblical or traditional basis but on the widespread sexual misconduct among the clergy.
very rich post.
you'd think sometimes the keys were handed over to Paul instead of Peter.
When I was a believer, I was a very devout believer and I would have done anything I thought God wanted me to do. I was Mormon, and Mormons don't have monasteries. But, had I been Catholic, or whatnot, I could have easily been the type of person to become a Jesuit.
I saw a documentary on monasteries a year or so ago. Young people were trying out that lifestyle to see if they wanted to commit to it. Very interesting.
As it is, I am now an atheist, and am very thankful to have a wife and kids. When I think of all the devotion I gave and sacrifices I made to a god that does not exist, it seems like such a waste. There was no all-seeing eye that noticed or appreciated my devotion. I was bowing before an imaginary friend. There will be no reward for all that I did for god. All the scriptures I read and studied and memorized - all for nought. All my faith and repentance and strivings to be a better disciple - what a waste! The only thing that wasn't pointless was the people I helped (but that was only a small part of all I did because I believed). Countless hours at church learning about what amounts to a complex fiction. I suppose there were some universal truths about the human condition, but they were not what current believers consider the universal truths.
I'm in favor of monasticism, if more christians would practice this old system of belief, there would be fewer left roaming around, knocking on doors, handing out tracts, preaching on doorsteps or proclaiming that I need to repent my sinful ways. Peaceful contemplation,....... I would like to see more christians practicing this method of belief.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
