The Benedict Option

Status
Not open for further replies.
I wonder if the Eastern Orthodox author of this book ever makes the connection between the corruption that supposedly neccesitated monasticism and the abhorrent theology that is still espoused by his church. Just a thought.
 
Don't dismiss this out of hand. Thoughtful, Reformed theologians and Pastors have seen the value in Dreher's project. Obviously we're going to disagree (at times sharply) on certain points but his basic analysis and call to action is sound. I've been reading Dreher carefully on these subjects for several years now and found much of value.
 
Don't dismiss this out of hand. Thoughtful, Reformed theologians and Pastors have seen the value in Dreher's project. Obviously we're going to disagree (at times sharply) on certain points but his basic analysis and call to action is sound. I've been reading Dreher carefully on these subjects for several years now and found much of value.

I don't disagree that his analysis may indeed by insightful, but I don't hold out much hope that someone whose biblical worldview does not entail creation, fall, redemption, and restoration will be able to arrive at the right answers to the questions he presents.
 
I wonder if the Eastern Orthodox author of this book ever makes the connection between the corruption that supposedly neccesitated monasticism and the abhorrent theology that is still espoused by his church. Just a thought.

Most of the EO reviews of the book point out the irony in Dreher's writing to mostly Catholics and Protestants.
 
worldview does not entail creation, fall, redemption, and restoration will be able to arrive at the right answers to the questions he presents

No one has been more critical of EO than I have, but the above isn't entirely accurate. They might interpret aspects differently, but that is not the same as "not entailing..."

Creation: EO usually gets accused of being too creational.
Fall: They reject what they understand original sin to be (and I think they are wrong there), but they hold to a fall.
Redemption: They are wrong to limit most models of redemption to 2 Peter 1:4, but surely the believe in redemption. Granted, we have issues with their synergism. Irenaeus on recapitulation is a good start.
Restoration: Are we implying that they don't believe the cosmos will be restored? Surely not. Merely a perusal of Ephraim the Syrian or John Meyendorff will convince otherwise.
 
No one has been more critical of EO than I have, but the above isn't entirely accurate. They might interpret aspects differently, but that is not the same as "not entailing..."

Creation: EO usually gets accused of being too creational.
Fall: They reject what they understand original sin to be (and I think they are wrong there), but they hold to a fall.
Redemption: They are wrong to limit most models of redemption to 2 Peter 1:4, but surely the believe in redemption. Granted, we have issues with their synergism. Irenaeus on recapitulation is a good start.
Restoration: Are we implying that they don't believe the cosmos will be restored? Surely not. Merely a perusal of Ephraim the Syrian or John Meyendorff will convince otherwise.

I realize there is considerable overlap, but my point is the the EO have a different view on both the current state of man and the ultimate trajectory of man, and this difference cannot help but inform the way we interpret the problem of man and the ultimate solution.
 
What about the article itself? He's saying something like Christian practices lead to Christian virtue. Not even sure what he means by that... Putting off the old man? Living by the Spirit?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
He's saying something like Christian practices lead to Christian virtue.

His ideal is of natural virtue created by a religious cultural moulding. They would have us go to the graveyard to admire the decorations on the tombs, and to ignore that they house dead men's bones. The sanctification of the Spirit is altogether different.
 
I haven't read the article the OP linked, but I did purchase Rod Dreher's book recently.

I've enjoyed his articles on The American Conservative here and there and look forward to reading the book next week while on vacation for my kids' spring break.
 
The Ben Op is a pretty good read that makes excellent Biblical sense. Frankly,it's just a call for the Church to be the Church as we sojourn on this Earth.
 
Another thing to watch out for: Dreher is very aware of the dangers his model is open to. He (rightly) called out Doug Wilson's CREC community for being a cult and covering up sex abuse scandals. It's not really clear how the Ben Op can avoid that tendency.
 
I found this critique of the Benedict Option to be valid. There are already many groups of Christians undergoing suffering and marginalization for Christ in the modern world. It would be a shame to ignore what they have learned as the broader American church begins it's descent into the same situation.

https://www.raanetwork.org/10847-2/
 

I don't understand why Christians are worried about being marginalised. Even when societies were full of professing Christians there were people of genuine and sincere Christian convictions who were neglected or treated with contempt. It looks to me as if people have taken on the characteristics of their godless societies when they seek to blame others for their situation. What happened to enduring hardness as good soldiers of Jesus Christ? If the situation does not come up to one's mind then one's mind must come down to the situation. It is the crook in the lot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top