Lots of thoughts, and I hope to write more at length on this. Briefly: the purpose of a rule, according to Benedict at least, was to “safeguard love” and “amend fault.” I think this is the most reliable impulse of a rule (not self-improvement, not even faithful use of time). It aims at mortifying sin and obeying the great commandments. And Benedict’s rule certainly isn’t the earliest. We have the Didache as an example of the regular habits that early Christians leaned as part of the way of Jesus.
Benedict’s rule arose out of a cultural context of decadence and compromise. I think the parallels to our time make some sense of our return to the practice. Also, culturally we’re living in a time where attention is being bought and sold, where “drift” is assured without active resistance. A rule, which is to say “pre-commitments to what you’ll make regular in your life as a follower of Jesus” seems all the more important in this attention economy.
Communal rules are the ideal - but communal time-keeping, especially post-pandemic, is disappearing. We live asynchronously, and this makes communal rules (as practiced in the monasteries) more difficult. Any rule that doesn’t prioritize life lived in community is not a Christian rule.
That’s a start! Thanks for joining this important conversation, Kirsten!
Thanks for this, Kirsten. You know I'm a fan of your writing, and this piece is no exception. But since you invited argument in the comments, I'll introduce one small point for you to consider.
You reference the recent pieces about this topic that have been circulating online but then admit you have not read them. I like a lot of your writing because it has nothing to do with the buzz online, instead focusing on things like Lindbeck or Lord of the Rings. But once you shift your attention to matters that are currently being discussed in the Christian mind algorithm (e.g., topics trending in CT, MereO, and the blogs of Alan Jacobs and Brad East), don't you think it might be worth reading those pieces before jumping into the conversation? Don't you worry that you might be suggesting some of the same fixes that the previous repairman just tried on our furnace?
I admit that this has to do more with the form of online writing than the content of this particular piece. I actually largely agree with what you say here. But your initial confession that you are online enough to know that this is trending but not bothered enough to read the other pieces raises questions for me about how you understand the purpose of online writing, its dialogical nature, etc.
Anyway, far be it from me to suggest that you might need a "rule" for your online writing—but, if I was making such a suggestion, would that be the worst thing?
I'll answer this because I myself hedged on whether to include that throwaway line.
I'm not sure if other writers do this, but often I avoid reading pieces that address topics of my own interest. Occasionally I'll throw my hat into the ring, but often my writing here aims to organize my own thoughts on a matter. I find that if I read too many treatments of a question or controversy, my thought can feel derivative. Writing for me is about getting inside my own mind, not primarily about engaging in a discussion with others. There are of course occasions where this is not the case. But sometimes I write to know what *I* think. I like substack because I don't have an editor. Writing here sounds like me, and like how I think, rough edges and all. Because I trained as an academic, I have all sorts of self-consciousness about the genealogy of ideas and appropriate tone. I really value having a place to just think for myself. It just happens that it's a public place. ;-)
Thanks for the reply, Kirsten. I share the worry of derivative thinking! A bad habit of mine. And when I do edit academics as they try to write a little more broadly, I often end up removing a lot of genealogical footnotes, as it were. So I understand your reasoning here, and I’m grateful to get to keep reading as you figure out what you think about rules and God and everything else :)
Ian's rebuttal piece at Mere O was actually quite clarifying for me. If you do decide to read it, I'd be curious to hear your thoughts.
Perhaps this is a bigger discussion about spiritual disciplines more broadly? Those have always been around, not just in the technological age, no? Could we not also think of it like tending a garden, not just a programmed machine? With structure but also room for grace to work? Ian's piece does a good job navigating this balance, when it come to the commands of Christ to take action against sin.
I understand your fear of such things being practiced completely outside a wider church community. I've also experienced church environments where SO much emphasis was given on "correct theology" in the on-paper sense, and not so much what that means outside of Sunday. People burn out on "correct theology", heady ways of approaching the Christian life. So I understand the appeal to the spiritual formation genre, from various times and traditions. What would a theology repairman say if someone came to you with that kind of issue? (I promise none of this has sass, I'm not much of an arguer anyways. Real wonderings here. haha)
Long time reader, first time commenter here. I really hope you'll write more about this. Have come to really appreciate your thinking/writing, and this piece intersects with a lot of my recent questions.
I have been attracted to the rule of life as a way of ordering life towards love of God & neighbor. If Annie Dillard's quip is right, and how we spend our days is how we spend our lives, a rule of life can help increase our awareness that we already have habits (good, bad, ugly), our habits form us, that we should try to choose them with some intentionality, etc.
I have also seen how the rule of life can tend towards the individualistic/bespoke (while I was there, all GCTS students had to write a personal one), can be ordered towards self-actualization & optimization, can function as law in a Lutheran sense. Perhaps most eye-raising to me, some rule of life talk ignores what most Christians know by experience: transformation through the adoption of better habits is just not actually happening for most folks.
I think a lot of people who are attracted to the rule of life grew up with what Simeon Zahl has called the "Christian Information theory of change": think the right thoughts about God, and transformation into Christlikeness will follow. They're (/we're) looking for a "theory of change" that is truer to experience. I think that's a good thing! And yet: I have friends for whom the idea of the rule of life is sexy, but when asked, will admit they rarely ever pray. And that is when I worry that rule of life is having a moment not because we're after love of God and neighbor, but control.
There's probably an interesting essay to be written (by someone smarter than me) drawing an analogy between the rule of life and arranged marriage. Along the lines of: we no longer have the kinds of communities capable of sustaining arranged marriages, the kinds of communities we do have would not be well served by retrieving arranged marriage, etc.
Anyway, as I said above, I'm really appreciative of your writing, and hope you'll return to/expand on this topic.
The impossibility of the modern world and its fragmented nature sure do make it hard to do anything communally (let alone follow a rule), so how else do we try and battle against the chaos inside us?
I am not ashamed to say I have no idea what's going on and refuse to bite. Though I've read much of Ellul and have spent time with Benny's Regula. Full disclosure -- I was born on St. Benedict of Nursia's feast day, my third son's name is Benedict, and I have a giant Benedictine Medal on my truck. Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done!
Thanks for addressing this very current topic in the context of our church work and service. Like William V Everson, I am in my early 70s. I am amazed to see the resurgence of the Spiritual Formation movement in the Millennial and GenZ congregation my wife and I have been part of for the last five years. John Mark Comer (and Dallas Willard, etc.) are regularly quoted, and their books are passed around. They are trying to figure out and apply the Rule of Faith. I remember when Richard Foster’s book hit the evangelical church scene, and we were trying to figure out what was going on and how life with God as followers of Jesus might be different from simply attending Sunday services, daily devotions, and trying (more or less) not to sin like we used to.
I have been working with these young adults to lay the foundations of understanding and practice by refocusing their thinking not on the Middle Ages but on the first century, that is, on the original disciples of Jesus. The premise given to them is that as disciples of Jesus in the 21st century, we can expect to have the same relationship with Him that they did. Yes, He was with them in His physical body, but He is with us in His indwelling spirit. Therefore, in all ways that matter, we assume we can relate to Him and experience life with Him just as they did. This means (or so we suggest) we can do with Jesus everything essential that the first disciples did: they worshipped Him, they heard His voice, they learned from Him, and they ministered with Him.
As part of our work, I have written a book titled “Intentional Disciples of Jesus” that we use in small groups. The book’s chapters are divided into three sections: Seeing the Jesus we follow, Following the Jesus we see, and Ministry with the Jesus we follow. When exploring how they can think about following Jesus, I have attempted to frame the spiritual disciplines, spiritual formation, and tactics like the rule of life as historic ways our elders in the faith have used to help them work out in their context the same goals we are trying to achieve in ours.
In chapter 10 I wrote:
“Daily Engagement with God
In this chapter, we will suggest five biblical practices to integrate into your daily life routines. These are skills every believer can master. The five daily practices are Intimacy with God, Repentance, Prayer, Word, and Works.
What the 5 Daily Practices are not
First, let us be clear that the five daily practices are not a way to earn God’s goodwill or favor. Whatever benefit they have in your life they add nothing to God’s love for you or to His commitment to bless you and care for you as a member of His family. But these daily practices will make the difference between having mere head knowledge about God and becoming someone who knows Him well and who lives as an image-bearer.
Since the early years of the church, Jesus’ disciples have utilized different methods and tactics that today are referred to as spiritual disciplines. Since the 1970s, there has been a rediscovery and resurgence of interest and practice of these ancient spiritual disciplines.
The five daily practices are not a replacement for any of the individual spiritual disciplines that you may or may not be currently practicing. Rather, think of the five daily practices as the reasons why you might adopt a particular spiritual discipline. You can think of the spiritual disciplines as tactics or methods you can adopt to practice intimacy with God, repentance, prayer, the word, and works every day.”
I feel the most significant challenge we face now is helping these young people keep their attention on their relationship with Jesus while reaching for help from ancient practices of former generations. Dallas Willard voiced warnings about how these good things can go off track. https://www.christianitytoday.com/2022/08/dallas-willard-fears-spiritual-formation-movement/
I was in a context just pre-Covid where they wanted catechized parishoners to do or think about a personal "rule of life". I felt like I never really understood what that actually meant, intuitively it felt to me like prompting someone to come up with something akin to a "north star" or "rules for life" that they set for themselves, but that didn't feel like it was what they meant (and ministry people who do rules of life would probably be wary of that as too close to expressive individualism or something). I only read the BenOp years later and I sort of have the sense that asking (non-monastic, "normie" laypeople) individuals to do a rule of life together is somewhat silly and incoherent, unless the people are really immersed in that underlying theological framework (which apparently is heavily drawing from Dallas Willard?) and understand the extra jargon. But even then, it still feels to me like there was some kind of agency problem there, or something like the "principal-agent problem" but not exactly, where the church is placing burdens on individuals for a function that arguably should be served by the church doing the means of grace, and almost expecting individuals embedded within a relatively individualistic and pluralist society who are in varying backgrounds and life stages to organically coalesce into some small group that is proto-monastic based on a pretty abstract idea. That seems almost ridiculous to me and not a great strategy for church, and compounded with my experience of Covid hitting shortly after this was brought up in my context, an event which totally disrupted and dislodged human relations (any relations that were inter-domicile), and the church I was attending remained closed from in-person gathering for a relatively long period after Covid.
If there is reticence to doing rules of life from laypeople I'm not sure that is due to the pervasiveness of expressive individualism as much as the incoherence of the position for many people; at a certain point it probably makes more sense to either have one's participation in the life of the church [services] be their "rule", in a church that is healthy and holistically practicing worship, or to just do house church.
I'm not sure if this is exactly the same issue as the "program" based modes that you critique in this post. (I'm probably just opposed to the entire framework at this juncture). I think I agree with a minor point made by Jake Meador in his recent post on Calvinist Baptists and Comer that a "historically grounded solution" is found in confessional Protestantism's "defined liturgical tradition guiding public worship", though I think this has to be centered with the church itself [i.e. instantiated church service and community], not simply the texts of the BCP/PCA directory or the 'concept' of a liturgy.
This places the onus on the church itself, not on individuals or groups of individuals imbibing some abstraction that is simply unnatural to our modern lives without a directly mediating institution and thick relationships (which many people simply do not have in our society right now).
Maybe I'm completely misunderstanding the "rule of life" approach, but I'm not sure how many "normie" laypeople (but still serious and seeking to know Jesus) understand it either.
Lots of thoughts, and I hope to write more at length on this. Briefly: the purpose of a rule, according to Benedict at least, was to “safeguard love” and “amend fault.” I think this is the most reliable impulse of a rule (not self-improvement, not even faithful use of time). It aims at mortifying sin and obeying the great commandments. And Benedict’s rule certainly isn’t the earliest. We have the Didache as an example of the regular habits that early Christians leaned as part of the way of Jesus.
Benedict’s rule arose out of a cultural context of decadence and compromise. I think the parallels to our time make some sense of our return to the practice. Also, culturally we’re living in a time where attention is being bought and sold, where “drift” is assured without active resistance. A rule, which is to say “pre-commitments to what you’ll make regular in your life as a follower of Jesus” seems all the more important in this attention economy.
Communal rules are the ideal - but communal time-keeping, especially post-pandemic, is disappearing. We live asynchronously, and this makes communal rules (as practiced in the monasteries) more difficult. Any rule that doesn’t prioritize life lived in community is not a Christian rule.
That’s a start! Thanks for joining this important conversation, Kirsten!
Thanks for this, Kirsten. You know I'm a fan of your writing, and this piece is no exception. But since you invited argument in the comments, I'll introduce one small point for you to consider.
You reference the recent pieces about this topic that have been circulating online but then admit you have not read them. I like a lot of your writing because it has nothing to do with the buzz online, instead focusing on things like Lindbeck or Lord of the Rings. But once you shift your attention to matters that are currently being discussed in the Christian mind algorithm (e.g., topics trending in CT, MereO, and the blogs of Alan Jacobs and Brad East), don't you think it might be worth reading those pieces before jumping into the conversation? Don't you worry that you might be suggesting some of the same fixes that the previous repairman just tried on our furnace?
I admit that this has to do more with the form of online writing than the content of this particular piece. I actually largely agree with what you say here. But your initial confession that you are online enough to know that this is trending but not bothered enough to read the other pieces raises questions for me about how you understand the purpose of online writing, its dialogical nature, etc.
Anyway, far be it from me to suggest that you might need a "rule" for your online writing—but, if I was making such a suggestion, would that be the worst thing?
I'll answer this because I myself hedged on whether to include that throwaway line.
I'm not sure if other writers do this, but often I avoid reading pieces that address topics of my own interest. Occasionally I'll throw my hat into the ring, but often my writing here aims to organize my own thoughts on a matter. I find that if I read too many treatments of a question or controversy, my thought can feel derivative. Writing for me is about getting inside my own mind, not primarily about engaging in a discussion with others. There are of course occasions where this is not the case. But sometimes I write to know what *I* think. I like substack because I don't have an editor. Writing here sounds like me, and like how I think, rough edges and all. Because I trained as an academic, I have all sorts of self-consciousness about the genealogy of ideas and appropriate tone. I really value having a place to just think for myself. It just happens that it's a public place. ;-)
Thanks for the reply, Kirsten. I share the worry of derivative thinking! A bad habit of mine. And when I do edit academics as they try to write a little more broadly, I often end up removing a lot of genealogical footnotes, as it were. So I understand your reasoning here, and I’m grateful to get to keep reading as you figure out what you think about rules and God and everything else :)
Ian's rebuttal piece at Mere O was actually quite clarifying for me. If you do decide to read it, I'd be curious to hear your thoughts.
Perhaps this is a bigger discussion about spiritual disciplines more broadly? Those have always been around, not just in the technological age, no? Could we not also think of it like tending a garden, not just a programmed machine? With structure but also room for grace to work? Ian's piece does a good job navigating this balance, when it come to the commands of Christ to take action against sin.
I understand your fear of such things being practiced completely outside a wider church community. I've also experienced church environments where SO much emphasis was given on "correct theology" in the on-paper sense, and not so much what that means outside of Sunday. People burn out on "correct theology", heady ways of approaching the Christian life. So I understand the appeal to the spiritual formation genre, from various times and traditions. What would a theology repairman say if someone came to you with that kind of issue? (I promise none of this has sass, I'm not much of an arguer anyways. Real wonderings here. haha)
Long time reader, first time commenter here. I really hope you'll write more about this. Have come to really appreciate your thinking/writing, and this piece intersects with a lot of my recent questions.
I have been attracted to the rule of life as a way of ordering life towards love of God & neighbor. If Annie Dillard's quip is right, and how we spend our days is how we spend our lives, a rule of life can help increase our awareness that we already have habits (good, bad, ugly), our habits form us, that we should try to choose them with some intentionality, etc.
I have also seen how the rule of life can tend towards the individualistic/bespoke (while I was there, all GCTS students had to write a personal one), can be ordered towards self-actualization & optimization, can function as law in a Lutheran sense. Perhaps most eye-raising to me, some rule of life talk ignores what most Christians know by experience: transformation through the adoption of better habits is just not actually happening for most folks.
I think a lot of people who are attracted to the rule of life grew up with what Simeon Zahl has called the "Christian Information theory of change": think the right thoughts about God, and transformation into Christlikeness will follow. They're (/we're) looking for a "theory of change" that is truer to experience. I think that's a good thing! And yet: I have friends for whom the idea of the rule of life is sexy, but when asked, will admit they rarely ever pray. And that is when I worry that rule of life is having a moment not because we're after love of God and neighbor, but control.
There's probably an interesting essay to be written (by someone smarter than me) drawing an analogy between the rule of life and arranged marriage. Along the lines of: we no longer have the kinds of communities capable of sustaining arranged marriages, the kinds of communities we do have would not be well served by retrieving arranged marriage, etc.
Anyway, as I said above, I'm really appreciative of your writing, and hope you'll return to/expand on this topic.
The impossibility of the modern world and its fragmented nature sure do make it hard to do anything communally (let alone follow a rule), so how else do we try and battle against the chaos inside us?
Oh, very eager to read and possibly argue...
Oh. The note about not being able to program people was an absolute balm to my ADHD soul that has both resisted and craved a rule of life.
I am not ashamed to say I have no idea what's going on and refuse to bite. Though I've read much of Ellul and have spent time with Benny's Regula. Full disclosure -- I was born on St. Benedict of Nursia's feast day, my third son's name is Benedict, and I have a giant Benedictine Medal on my truck. Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done!
Do you mean Tsh Oxenreider, not Tish Harrison Warren? To be fair, similar names. lol (Probably it's both)
*John Mark Comer*
Sorry that dropped out will edit later today! Thanks for the correction.
Yes yes YES.
Thanks for addressing this very current topic in the context of our church work and service. Like William V Everson, I am in my early 70s. I am amazed to see the resurgence of the Spiritual Formation movement in the Millennial and GenZ congregation my wife and I have been part of for the last five years. John Mark Comer (and Dallas Willard, etc.) are regularly quoted, and their books are passed around. They are trying to figure out and apply the Rule of Faith. I remember when Richard Foster’s book hit the evangelical church scene, and we were trying to figure out what was going on and how life with God as followers of Jesus might be different from simply attending Sunday services, daily devotions, and trying (more or less) not to sin like we used to.
I have been working with these young adults to lay the foundations of understanding and practice by refocusing their thinking not on the Middle Ages but on the first century, that is, on the original disciples of Jesus. The premise given to them is that as disciples of Jesus in the 21st century, we can expect to have the same relationship with Him that they did. Yes, He was with them in His physical body, but He is with us in His indwelling spirit. Therefore, in all ways that matter, we assume we can relate to Him and experience life with Him just as they did. This means (or so we suggest) we can do with Jesus everything essential that the first disciples did: they worshipped Him, they heard His voice, they learned from Him, and they ministered with Him.
As part of our work, I have written a book titled “Intentional Disciples of Jesus” that we use in small groups. The book’s chapters are divided into three sections: Seeing the Jesus we follow, Following the Jesus we see, and Ministry with the Jesus we follow. When exploring how they can think about following Jesus, I have attempted to frame the spiritual disciplines, spiritual formation, and tactics like the rule of life as historic ways our elders in the faith have used to help them work out in their context the same goals we are trying to achieve in ours.
In chapter 10 I wrote:
“Daily Engagement with God
In this chapter, we will suggest five biblical practices to integrate into your daily life routines. These are skills every believer can master. The five daily practices are Intimacy with God, Repentance, Prayer, Word, and Works.
What the 5 Daily Practices are not
First, let us be clear that the five daily practices are not a way to earn God’s goodwill or favor. Whatever benefit they have in your life they add nothing to God’s love for you or to His commitment to bless you and care for you as a member of His family. But these daily practices will make the difference between having mere head knowledge about God and becoming someone who knows Him well and who lives as an image-bearer.
Since the early years of the church, Jesus’ disciples have utilized different methods and tactics that today are referred to as spiritual disciplines. Since the 1970s, there has been a rediscovery and resurgence of interest and practice of these ancient spiritual disciplines.
The five daily practices are not a replacement for any of the individual spiritual disciplines that you may or may not be currently practicing. Rather, think of the five daily practices as the reasons why you might adopt a particular spiritual discipline. You can think of the spiritual disciplines as tactics or methods you can adopt to practice intimacy with God, repentance, prayer, the word, and works every day.”
I feel the most significant challenge we face now is helping these young people keep their attention on their relationship with Jesus while reaching for help from ancient practices of former generations. Dallas Willard voiced warnings about how these good things can go off track. https://www.christianitytoday.com/2022/08/dallas-willard-fears-spiritual-formation-movement/
Hi Kirsten, good post
I was in a context just pre-Covid where they wanted catechized parishoners to do or think about a personal "rule of life". I felt like I never really understood what that actually meant, intuitively it felt to me like prompting someone to come up with something akin to a "north star" or "rules for life" that they set for themselves, but that didn't feel like it was what they meant (and ministry people who do rules of life would probably be wary of that as too close to expressive individualism or something). I only read the BenOp years later and I sort of have the sense that asking (non-monastic, "normie" laypeople) individuals to do a rule of life together is somewhat silly and incoherent, unless the people are really immersed in that underlying theological framework (which apparently is heavily drawing from Dallas Willard?) and understand the extra jargon. But even then, it still feels to me like there was some kind of agency problem there, or something like the "principal-agent problem" but not exactly, where the church is placing burdens on individuals for a function that arguably should be served by the church doing the means of grace, and almost expecting individuals embedded within a relatively individualistic and pluralist society who are in varying backgrounds and life stages to organically coalesce into some small group that is proto-monastic based on a pretty abstract idea. That seems almost ridiculous to me and not a great strategy for church, and compounded with my experience of Covid hitting shortly after this was brought up in my context, an event which totally disrupted and dislodged human relations (any relations that were inter-domicile), and the church I was attending remained closed from in-person gathering for a relatively long period after Covid.
If there is reticence to doing rules of life from laypeople I'm not sure that is due to the pervasiveness of expressive individualism as much as the incoherence of the position for many people; at a certain point it probably makes more sense to either have one's participation in the life of the church [services] be their "rule", in a church that is healthy and holistically practicing worship, or to just do house church.
I'm not sure if this is exactly the same issue as the "program" based modes that you critique in this post. (I'm probably just opposed to the entire framework at this juncture). I think I agree with a minor point made by Jake Meador in his recent post on Calvinist Baptists and Comer that a "historically grounded solution" is found in confessional Protestantism's "defined liturgical tradition guiding public worship", though I think this has to be centered with the church itself [i.e. instantiated church service and community], not simply the texts of the BCP/PCA directory or the 'concept' of a liturgy.
This places the onus on the church itself, not on individuals or groups of individuals imbibing some abstraction that is simply unnatural to our modern lives without a directly mediating institution and thick relationships (which many people simply do not have in our society right now).
Maybe I'm completely misunderstanding the "rule of life" approach, but I'm not sure how many "normie" laypeople (but still serious and seeking to know Jesus) understand it either.
Wes, you are a gift of a reader.
What a gift of a comment!
Seriously. An excellent essay in itself.