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!
I spent many years serving bivocationally; essentially 'learning and helping others learn, in community'. I served as an elder who spent a lot of time learning together with other adults; and I spent a lot of time as a faculty member learning with other adults, in medical centers (serving in clinical departments, though there was more 'furnace engineer AND technician' interactions with other furnace engineers and the technical staff who ensured the furnace was running well and the house was warm).
I read Jacques Ellul in the 70's, during college... I say that, because at the age of 71, it's striking to see the cycle returning today, on many issues in our world. Issues that were major in the seventies, are back in full force and almost identical language, today; the slogans are even identical now as then...
You gain some helpful perspective when you've seen the debates run their course over decades, and come back into full force, unresolved....in a context where the polarization and division across our world is even more difficult and divided than it was then (if that's possible).
The questions are good ones, and clearly valid ones to pose and mull over carefully and with purpose.
But the questions being directly asked, aren't 'enough'.
The furnace is going full blast; but the house isn't staying warm (or vice versa-the HVAC system is running at full force in the summer-but the temperature outside is reaching levels we've never experienced, and it can't keep up).
There are some 'systemic' issues not yet in focus, that need to be attended-and you clearly are saying this--as I listen to what you write... the paradigm you are using is helpful.
There's a need to expand the categories-there are furnace engineers as well as furnace technicians; I shift to another paradigm to explain this a little better. let's consider an automobile; the engineer versus the mechanic. The engineer designed the car, based on understanding of the engineering specs; but do NOT go to the engineer who designed it if you want it fixed-the engineer will engineer a fix-create something new (and untested) based on what the engineer is best at--novel engineering design. the problem that has come because parts are worn, or something broke-a mechanic who works intimately with worn and broken cars of the same design, and knows other automobiles that have different engineering to accomplish the same purpose-is the one who knows the system well enough to repair it and keep it running, optimally.
Expanding the framework to 3 categories isn't quite right, though; there's value in thinking conceptually about the categories-but expanding them, they don't quite match reality now..
And that's because I think we're meant to have a larger framework and a 'continuum' based on discipleship; that involves 'replication' that isn't very well done today.
I know and have seen 'discipleship' work to some effectiveness, in the equipping of 'physycians of the body' but not so well in the equipping of 'physicians of the soul'.
As was brought into clear focus in the debate preceding the passage of the Affordable Care Act, there's been a real deficit in equipping everyday americans and the physicians who serve in the role of the 'shepherd-elder' in the church (along side the deacon-who is focussed on actually caring for people's practical needs, modelling 'loving your neighbor' where the rubber meets the road in day to day life, in the context given in Ephesians 4, the health care system in America spends LITTLE TIME focussed on 'well care'; being now in Medicare, it's nice that ONE annual appointment with my physician is ensured to be paid for, under the 'well care' provisions. But one annual meeting isn't even a beginning of 'well care'. It needs to start early in life, guiding young people into developing healthy habits that teach them good nutrition and the benefit of regular exercises-which cover a spectrum.
I think we need to do what you are directly doing-but realize-we need to 'step back further' and rethink what you are rethinking, in the direction of your thinking, but go FURTHER.
Asking the questions you pose, is good. The questions do lead in a good direction. But I think they need to go further and broader.
The furnace design may not be adequate for the task of keeping the house at the right temperature and humidity, and maybe the house design needs to be looked at; and the windows--do they operate well, are they leaking air, in our out; is the house staged right so that as the seasons change, the sun warms through windows in the cool seasons, but doesn't let the warmth in, in the summer seasons more an issue of positioning of the windows and location of the eaves, perhaps-other factors need to be considered-as come in from another diretion-is there an impact of living in an ever increasingly 'technological' society-and how does changing technology of daily life, impact social connections and 'community').
In the field of 'caring for our bodies', those charged with caring for souls, could benefit by seeing things that do work-and seeing where the problems are, as well; as there are clear parallels between caring for the body and caring for the soul, and often, we are meant to learn from the physical, to guide us in dealing with the spiritual.
I know the system i spent most of my time in , quite well; it's strengths, and its glaring deficiencies (and some of those were impressed on me in God's Good providence-in ways I could not overlook them :). I served in positions of service, in both the academic medical community-medical schools aren't isolated but central within a place where people come for healing by the physicians who are both being trained, and training the next generation of physicians.
We need more full 'embedding' of theologians in our churches; we need the kind of 'unity of mind and purpose' as Paul commands in Phil 2, in our churches, as exist in an academic medical center. Everyone who comes to work in an academic medical center, KNOWS that the mission is truly a 'life and death' one; but that isn't true in our churches-that deal with matters of eternal life....hmmm...
We need an integration of purpose and a recognition that a diversity of gifts and talents are required to meet the spiritual needs of the Body of Christ. No physician who cares for the body, can deal with the major problems, without the help of a full health care team; the most talented physicians-require MULTIPLE talented and highly trained specialists, to deal with the most difficult health care problems. And the breadth of abilities and of needs-spans from someone skilled in use of fine motor skills, to someone who ensures the hospital bed sheets are sterile and won't infect a person recovering from surgery...
Every person in a hospital complex plays a role that matters.. and works in 'community' to help people heal, physically.
We have a crying need for healing for people suffering with intense spiritual wounds that are complexed with deep neurophysiological wounds that 'impact our bodies'; the body truly does 'keep the score'. Trauma of all kinds, impacts us and always has a spiritual aspect.
And those who are trained theologians, are the specialists meant to be guiding this healing process, as well, which requires more than just the specialist; but a whole team who can minister to the whole impact-on the spirit, the soul, the mind, and the body.
I spent decades engaged as a researcher in medicine, serving as a research title series faculty member in two university medical schools; both of them state funded. Abuse is a widespread problem in our world; and I encountered it at multiple levels and in some cases, to a serious degree. Addressing abuse formally, ended my career... and brought an intense impact that will not likely heal in this life (but perspective brings wisdom as we walk through life for decades... the time remaining for me is relatively short and I've lived my full seventy years; so I'm 'content' with what remains for me...and it will not be much longer, should God keep me here another decade or two, before i'm 'home' with Him...there is an up side to growing older...
There's a lot of 'deconstruction' going on, today, in not just the church, but the culture we live in. We need a faith community that walks in love and lives out the Good News that Jesus has come, and that 'loves one another' and reaches out with the love of God, in tangible ways, to the hurting world we live in. And theologians play a vital role in 'reshaping our fundamental thinking'. But we also need the full breadth of gifts and talents the the Spirit of God distributes to individuals, as He wills, and we need the life given us, in our Union with Jesus, and the strength that comes from the 'communion of the saints'.
As far as the 'rules of life' goes; I read with interest, Rod Dreher's book, 'The Benedict Option', maybe five years ago or so. Found it gives an interesting perspective on the topic in focus in your post...
You requested people to engage fully, in your request to 'please argue'. I hope this meets your request; but i'm not disagreeing at all, rather, I'm seeking to 'think deeply together'. Hope this meets your request.. I find your thinking very helpful as I struggle to understand what God has set my focus on in life.
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)
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!
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?
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/
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!
I spent many years serving bivocationally; essentially 'learning and helping others learn, in community'. I served as an elder who spent a lot of time learning together with other adults; and I spent a lot of time as a faculty member learning with other adults, in medical centers (serving in clinical departments, though there was more 'furnace engineer AND technician' interactions with other furnace engineers and the technical staff who ensured the furnace was running well and the house was warm).
I read Jacques Ellul in the 70's, during college... I say that, because at the age of 71, it's striking to see the cycle returning today, on many issues in our world. Issues that were major in the seventies, are back in full force and almost identical language, today; the slogans are even identical now as then...
You gain some helpful perspective when you've seen the debates run their course over decades, and come back into full force, unresolved....in a context where the polarization and division across our world is even more difficult and divided than it was then (if that's possible).
The questions are good ones, and clearly valid ones to pose and mull over carefully and with purpose.
But the questions being directly asked, aren't 'enough'.
The furnace is going full blast; but the house isn't staying warm (or vice versa-the HVAC system is running at full force in the summer-but the temperature outside is reaching levels we've never experienced, and it can't keep up).
There are some 'systemic' issues not yet in focus, that need to be attended-and you clearly are saying this--as I listen to what you write... the paradigm you are using is helpful.
There's a need to expand the categories-there are furnace engineers as well as furnace technicians; I shift to another paradigm to explain this a little better. let's consider an automobile; the engineer versus the mechanic. The engineer designed the car, based on understanding of the engineering specs; but do NOT go to the engineer who designed it if you want it fixed-the engineer will engineer a fix-create something new (and untested) based on what the engineer is best at--novel engineering design. the problem that has come because parts are worn, or something broke-a mechanic who works intimately with worn and broken cars of the same design, and knows other automobiles that have different engineering to accomplish the same purpose-is the one who knows the system well enough to repair it and keep it running, optimally.
Expanding the framework to 3 categories isn't quite right, though; there's value in thinking conceptually about the categories-but expanding them, they don't quite match reality now..
And that's because I think we're meant to have a larger framework and a 'continuum' based on discipleship; that involves 'replication' that isn't very well done today.
I know and have seen 'discipleship' work to some effectiveness, in the equipping of 'physycians of the body' but not so well in the equipping of 'physicians of the soul'.
As was brought into clear focus in the debate preceding the passage of the Affordable Care Act, there's been a real deficit in equipping everyday americans and the physicians who serve in the role of the 'shepherd-elder' in the church (along side the deacon-who is focussed on actually caring for people's practical needs, modelling 'loving your neighbor' where the rubber meets the road in day to day life, in the context given in Ephesians 4, the health care system in America spends LITTLE TIME focussed on 'well care'; being now in Medicare, it's nice that ONE annual appointment with my physician is ensured to be paid for, under the 'well care' provisions. But one annual meeting isn't even a beginning of 'well care'. It needs to start early in life, guiding young people into developing healthy habits that teach them good nutrition and the benefit of regular exercises-which cover a spectrum.
I think we need to do what you are directly doing-but realize-we need to 'step back further' and rethink what you are rethinking, in the direction of your thinking, but go FURTHER.
Asking the questions you pose, is good. The questions do lead in a good direction. But I think they need to go further and broader.
The furnace design may not be adequate for the task of keeping the house at the right temperature and humidity, and maybe the house design needs to be looked at; and the windows--do they operate well, are they leaking air, in our out; is the house staged right so that as the seasons change, the sun warms through windows in the cool seasons, but doesn't let the warmth in, in the summer seasons more an issue of positioning of the windows and location of the eaves, perhaps-other factors need to be considered-as come in from another diretion-is there an impact of living in an ever increasingly 'technological' society-and how does changing technology of daily life, impact social connections and 'community').
In the field of 'caring for our bodies', those charged with caring for souls, could benefit by seeing things that do work-and seeing where the problems are, as well; as there are clear parallels between caring for the body and caring for the soul, and often, we are meant to learn from the physical, to guide us in dealing with the spiritual.
I know the system i spent most of my time in , quite well; it's strengths, and its glaring deficiencies (and some of those were impressed on me in God's Good providence-in ways I could not overlook them :). I served in positions of service, in both the academic medical community-medical schools aren't isolated but central within a place where people come for healing by the physicians who are both being trained, and training the next generation of physicians.
We need more full 'embedding' of theologians in our churches; we need the kind of 'unity of mind and purpose' as Paul commands in Phil 2, in our churches, as exist in an academic medical center. Everyone who comes to work in an academic medical center, KNOWS that the mission is truly a 'life and death' one; but that isn't true in our churches-that deal with matters of eternal life....hmmm...
We need an integration of purpose and a recognition that a diversity of gifts and talents are required to meet the spiritual needs of the Body of Christ. No physician who cares for the body, can deal with the major problems, without the help of a full health care team; the most talented physicians-require MULTIPLE talented and highly trained specialists, to deal with the most difficult health care problems. And the breadth of abilities and of needs-spans from someone skilled in use of fine motor skills, to someone who ensures the hospital bed sheets are sterile and won't infect a person recovering from surgery...
Every person in a hospital complex plays a role that matters.. and works in 'community' to help people heal, physically.
We have a crying need for healing for people suffering with intense spiritual wounds that are complexed with deep neurophysiological wounds that 'impact our bodies'; the body truly does 'keep the score'. Trauma of all kinds, impacts us and always has a spiritual aspect.
And those who are trained theologians, are the specialists meant to be guiding this healing process, as well, which requires more than just the specialist; but a whole team who can minister to the whole impact-on the spirit, the soul, the mind, and the body.
I spent decades engaged as a researcher in medicine, serving as a research title series faculty member in two university medical schools; both of them state funded. Abuse is a widespread problem in our world; and I encountered it at multiple levels and in some cases, to a serious degree. Addressing abuse formally, ended my career... and brought an intense impact that will not likely heal in this life (but perspective brings wisdom as we walk through life for decades... the time remaining for me is relatively short and I've lived my full seventy years; so I'm 'content' with what remains for me...and it will not be much longer, should God keep me here another decade or two, before i'm 'home' with Him...there is an up side to growing older...
There's a lot of 'deconstruction' going on, today, in not just the church, but the culture we live in. We need a faith community that walks in love and lives out the Good News that Jesus has come, and that 'loves one another' and reaches out with the love of God, in tangible ways, to the hurting world we live in. And theologians play a vital role in 'reshaping our fundamental thinking'. But we also need the full breadth of gifts and talents the the Spirit of God distributes to individuals, as He wills, and we need the life given us, in our Union with Jesus, and the strength that comes from the 'communion of the saints'.
As far as the 'rules of life' goes; I read with interest, Rod Dreher's book, 'The Benedict Option', maybe five years ago or so. Found it gives an interesting perspective on the topic in focus in your post...
You requested people to engage fully, in your request to 'please argue'. I hope this meets your request; but i'm not disagreeing at all, rather, I'm seeking to 'think deeply together'. Hope this meets your request.. I find your thinking very helpful as I struggle to understand what God has set my focus on in life.
What a gift of a comment!
Seriously. An excellent essay in itself.
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)
Oh, very eager to read and possibly argue...
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!
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?
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/