If the measure of a good book is its capacity to generate discussion, then Rod Dreher’s The Benedict Option: A Strategy for Christians in a Post-Christian Nation is already a success. Even before the book’s official release date, people were fortifying their positions in response to a central question. Was the Benedict Option about building bunkers or building bridges? To some it seemed like Deher’s response to a changing and increasingly secular culture was for Christians to retreat from public life and only take care of themselves. Others saw his proposal as a way to fortify Christians for life in a rapidly changing culture.
The Benedict Option
Like many others, I initially thought Dreher’s Benedict Option simply encouraged a modern form of quietism. As has been the case with others in the past, I anticipated he would advise Christians to leave the world to itself and make sure their faith communities survived amid the carnage. But give Dreher more credit than that. He is not recommending a complete withdrawal from the public life of the nation. Instead he wants to see Christians return to the practices that sustained the early church. He points to the Rule of St. Benedict, a set of disciplines composed by a monk in the 6th century, as his model. St. Benedict structured monastic life around simple yet powerful habits that included prayer, fasting, and simplicity. The Benedict Option presents the opportunity for Christians to preserve the faith by engaging in ancient counter-cultural habits.
Central to the Benedict Option is Dreher’s assessment of contemporary society. He claims that the nation is in a downward spiral towards becoming not only non-Christian, but aggressively anti-Christian. I think some of his assessment is accurate. Christians should certainly pay attention to what’s happening with sexual ethics. Marriage, gender, and sexuality have become the barometers of bigotry. At some point in the near future, it is likely that all Christians will have to declare their beliefs on these issues, and those who hold to traditional views will likely face censure in various forms. Christian businesses, non-profits, and educational institutions are already experiencing the effects of the modern sexual revolution.
But as I read the book a theme became apparent. The Benedict Option leaves out the black church.
A Glaring Gap
In offering the Benedict Option, Dreher almost completely overlooks the wisdom of Christians, especially people of color, who have always endured marginalization. The absence of the influence or perspective of people of African descent is particularly noticeable. The Benedict Option takes a running leap over the black church and lands on another continent in another millennium. Dreher goes back 1,500 years to find the Rule of St. Benedict when he could have gazed back over the past 400 years and looked across the street to the black church for guidance.
According to a recent post on social media, apparently Dreher didn’t feel he had the “moral authority” to talk about the black church. That’s probably true, but it’s not difficult to gain information about the black church. He could have asked black Christians for input during the editorial process. He could have spent time reading the dozens of books about the black church America. Or he could have even had a co-author write it with him. Instead, he just leaves out the black church.
Ecclesiastical Arrogance
The solution to the Dreher’s Benedict Option isn’t to simply add a chapter on the black church. The problem goes much deeper than not mentioning minorities. The real reason Benedict Option leaves out the black church is that white Christians treat Christians of color like second-class citizens in the kingdom of God. It is a hard but necessary realization that you can’t overlook the black church without, in some sense, looking down on it.
The reality for many white believers is that Christians of color may provide inspiring stories of resistance and are certainly nice to have on display in the congregation, but they are not a true source of wisdom for the white church. To some white Christians, the faith traditions of racial minorities may offer great aesthetics like preaching or musical style, but they don’t have the legitimacy to lead the way into the future. The constant refusal to learn from the black church can only be termed ecclesiastical arrogance.
The ecclesiastical arrogance of the white church toward the black church isn’t new. It’s been on display ever since Africans were deposited in North America as chattel. The arrogance comes through when white pastors would only allow black pastors to preach to black congregations. It emerges when African slaves built beautiful churches and then were only allowed to sit in the balcony. These days it comes across more subtly. You can see it when white leaders repeatedly dismiss the concerns of minorities as “pulling the race card.” It comes from only reading theology written by Europeans and never accessing authors from other racial and ethnic backgrounds. It pops up in conferences headlined only by white men. It appears when white Christians spurn black religious leaders because of their theology but gloss over the theology of slaveholders and segregationists. Ecclesiastical arrogance shows up when an author proposes a path forward for the entire church but leaves Christians of color out of his considerations.
The Only Option for Black Christians
In its uncritical embrace of white normativity, the Benedict Option misses the opportunity to glean from the wisdom of marginalized people, especially African Americans. Absent from Dreher’s analysis is how Christian community might be formed in the midst of a culture wherein Christians never had power. This was, and in some senses continues to be, the reality for people of African descent in the United States. For centuries black people couldn’t build their own institutions—not schools, not banks, not businesses—the only option they had was the church.
The church in the African American community became a powerful symbol of perseverence amidst persecution. The black church represents the triumph of faith over fear. The black church dramatizes Christ’s words, “blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake.” That is why physical church buildings so often became the targets of arson and bombings. By focusing on the church, racists tried to destroy the most important survival mechanism in the black community, and they used tactics much more existentially threatening than the possibility of losing tax-exempt status. But hate has not destroyed the black church. The black church is still here because the black church is part of the universal church that Christ is building and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.
The Benedict Option fails to ask how black believers have survived racial, economic, and social marginalization with their faith intact. Does the Benedict Option consider the supernatural grace given to the family members of the Emanuel Nine to forgive the man who murdered their beloved ones at a Bible study? Does Dreher draw upon the hard-won wisdom of black Christians who were driven out of white churches because of racism but didn’t abandon the faith and instead built their own churches and denominations? After reading the Benedict Option, does one come away with a clearer idea of how to integrate calls to personal holiness with calls for justice in the public sphere? African Americans didn’t have the option to withdraw from public life because their existence depended on securing their basic civil rights. So Christians today can learn from the black church how to fight for personal holiness as well as public justice.
An Option…For Some
Give Dreher credit for capturing a moment. He has rightly discerned the anxiety of many white Chrisitans who see changing laws and attitudes in a culture that used to reward them for professing their faith. In the middle of this uncertainty, he presents his thesis as a possible solution. But the Benedict Option not a solution that is good for all since it leaves out so many.
As white Christians debate the relative merits of the Benedict Option, many black Christians and other minority groups observe with confusion and wonder. How could our brothers and sisters in the faith so consistently ignore how God has sustained us? How could they fail to follow our lead as people who have never experienced cultural ascendancy? Why would they take the Bendict Option when they have left so many others unexplored? Maybe the problem isn’t just overlooking the black church but under-valuing it.
Why would Rod Dreher research the experiences of black churches for his book?
His book is about our post-christian culture attacking Christians and how they can survive.
The experience of the black church was that of oppression not because they were Christian, but because they were black.
Dreher’s book is about religious oppression, not racial oppression.
On the other hand, The Benedictines WERE called the “black monks.”…
(Just a little levity in response to a silly thesis.)
A few points come to mind after reading this:
1)Why the continued insistence on separating black and white when it comes to the church? I kind of thought Paul settled that issue in 1 Cor. 12:13, Gal. 3:28, and Col. 3:11.
2) “The real reason Benedict Option leaves out the black church is that white Christians treat Christians of color like second-class citizens in the kingdom of God.” Statements like this do not help at all. Are there some white Christians guilty of treating their black brothers and sisters as second-class citizens? Absolutely. This kind of broad-brush piety only adds to the problem.
3) What defines the “black church”? Creflo Dollar? Jeremiah Wright? And what about the “white church”? Benny Hinn? Kenneth Copeland? If we’re going to insist on labels, let’s be a little more descriptive.
Jemar, I regularly listen to your podcast, and thank you for your work there and on this website.
I don’t know if the Benedict Option is racist or not. I haven’t read his book, but often read his blog. If anything, Mr. Dreher is using the Benedict Option to try to start a conversation about Christians about how to respond to a culture that appears in many ways to have become tired of tolerating Christians, and shows signs of becoming aggressively anti-Christian. If anything, Mr. Dreher looks back many centuries and across cultures to see how one group of Christians responded.
Perhaps instead of implying that the Benedict Option is racist, perhaps you could make a more positive post: “How the Benedict Option Could be / Would be(!) Improved by Learning from the Experiences of the Black Church” or some such. Join the conversation and contribute to it.
Did the author post this on the Reformed African American Network site because he’s an African American? Yes? I thought so.
.
1 Corinthians 9:22-23
22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
23 And this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.
Peace,
Mezzula5
Brother,
That is not a proper application of this passage.
Grace.
Granted, this article is not an attempt to ‘preach the gospel’. But the corollary here is the overriding principle of considering one’s audience when making a presentation. That much, I believe, can be appropriately extrapolated from the verse I posted in 1 Corinthians. Let me add that I am certainly not a bible scholar. So I would probably lose in a ‘battle of the scriptures’.
Peace,
Mezzula5
Is this serious?
“But as I read the book a theme became apparent. The Benedict Option leaves out the black church.”
Seriously? A theologian or historian cannot go to a period in history and draw from it? What?!
Maybe he is racist. Call him out on it, if so. But prove it, please.
“In offering the Benedict Option, Dreher almost completely overlooks the wisdom of Christians, especially people of color, who have always endured marginalization.”
OK, maybe he’s sexist, too. Didn’t he “jump over” the feminists of the 20th Century church?
Dreher also “jumped over” the Dutch, German, French, Flemish, Spanish, English, Italian, and all other Reformation churches, too.
We know he’s Eastern Orthodox, and therefore theologically suspect to begin with.
Hopefully, Mr Tisby can teach us “how black believers have survived racial, economic, and social marginalization with their faith intact,” and thereby enrich ALL churches of whatever color.
THAT is a helpful way forward. But this hit piece misses the mark.
These are silly and hyperbolic: “uncritical embrace of white normativity,”
“The ecclesiastical arrogance of the white church toward the black church,”
and, “The real reason Benedict Option leaves out the black church is that white Christians treat Christians of color like second-class citizens in the kingdom of God.”
WOW. Now Tisby reads Dreher’s heart!
Dreher’s problem is theological & spiritual before it’s cultural & racial.
Sir, please accept a response.
I strongly agree with Tisby’s critique, the main reason being that I see how it applies to me.
I have absolutely accepted white normativity in the church (check out my bookshelves for proof – they are utterly mono-ethnic) and as a result of my own ecclesiastical arrogance I have HUGE blind spots when it comes to the manifold riches of the glory of God that He has made known through the Black Church. It’s not so much that I have treated my black brethren as 2nd-class citizens as that I’ve failed to even acknowledge their existence, let alone their quality.
It is desperately sad that Dreher appears to have similar blind spots to me, not because that makes him some kind of racist, but because in dealing with the cultural marginalization of the Faith in the 21st century, his knowledge and instincts took him to 6th century Italy and Orthodox Judaism, rather than the brothers and sisters on the next block who have been negotiating the same issues, in the same American culture, for the last two centuries. They would have been the PERFECT case-study for a book like his to build on.
I am only just beginning to see how much we (in the non-black Church) need to receive from our black brothers and sisters – their amazing resilience, faith, and theological resources, and especially their friendship and mentorship. That is what I hear (loud and clear) in Tisby’s piece.
I hope this is helpful to you.
Because you have perceived that you have neglected the black church’s experience in your own life, and because Jemar Tisby believes that others have neglected the same, it does not follow that Rod Dreher knowingly or unknowingly neglected it in his book. What he did was take an historical example and developed his ideas for the contemporary church around it. You should deal with what he wrote, not what he didn’t write. He could not write everything nor could he include everyone’s experience.
You would not want your writing or motives judged in this way. When writing, there are always limitations of time, length, focus, etc. Dreher gleaned some wisdom from a particular historical example and expounded on it. No more and no less can be inferred about it unless Dreher himself admits to it (e.g. that he knowingly or unknowingly neglected the example of the black church).
Hey Robert,
Judging from your comments, I can see that you’re really quite uncomfortable with Jemar Tisby’s critique of Dreher, likely because it seems to be making an unfair accusation, against which there appears to be no good retort. That is an unsettling feeling, and I get it. However, to back up David’s point, Dreher’s book is directed towards ALL theologically conservative Christians, and this includes the black church. As such, it seems incredibly odd that Dreher does not speak to the black church’s experience in the book, even if he speaks to the experience of an entirely different religion. Dreher makes a point of drawing in a broad base of voices (Catholic, Reformed, Fundamentalist, Evangelical) across denominational lines to support his argument. Tisby’s point stands: it is odd that, despite being directed towards all of America’s orthodox Christians, there is little to no mention of Christians of color.
Now, Dreher is no racist. In fact, in a talk on the Benedict Option he gave at Q Ideas about 2 years ago, he specifically talks about the white church’s blindness to the need for racial reconciliation as an analogous scenario to our current apparent blindness towards the situation in America today. Tisby’s point, however, and the point of RAAN’s work, is that LITTLE TO NONE of this exclusion of the black church is a conscious choice. The point of the oft-maligned CRT is that patterns of excluding black voices is an unconscious reflex of majority culture, which our #justgospel would say is a product of the same sin that Jesus has died for.
Look, I know you didn’t come here to be lectured by some dang idiot in the comments section, but my point is that Tisby’s critique is not a screeching liberal witch-hunt; he is simply commenting on a roadblock to the achievement of the Benedict Option, which has as its end goal a church unified across lines of class and ethnicity. If we want to pursue the BO, we need racial reconciliation first.
If you would like to talk to me more about this, feel free to shoot me an email.
Oh shoot, you can’t click on my name. My email address is [email protected]. No spam, please.
This is a societal attitude that led to the creation of the black church:
“We don’t want them jungle bunnies nowhere near us !”
Sadly, vestiges of this attitude remain to this very day. I am hopeful that through Christ we can and will improve.
.
“But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.” (Matthew 19:26)
Peace,
Mezzula5
Wow, Mezzula5. That is just wonderful.
So far this week, because of my interaction with RAAN material, I have heard two of the most vile phrases I have ever heard in my life. First, “penis microphones.” Now, “jungle bunnies.”
I can’t say that I am impressed with this level of discourse from professing Christians.
I am no prude, but Christians can and should have honest discussions about these matters without exposing the filth that fills our hearts. Hardly edifying to anyone.
Ephesians 4:29-30
Some people seem to wonder why there is a Christian group known as the ‘black church’. The so-called black church was founded as a result of blacks being shunned by the majority ecclesiastic society. I gave an example of the type of attitude to illustrate that point. By the way ‘jungle bunnies’ is a sanitized way of expressiog the actual terms used.
Peace,
Mezzula5
Here’s a minority with some really great wisdom: Ravi Zacharias, “When you throw mud at someone else, you not only get your hands dirty, but you lose ground.”
Jemar, what if you have more power today than James Baldwin did in 1955? Should Rod only comment on the pre-Civil Rights era church or include those African-American Christians today who have more leverage than W. E. B. Du Bois or Booker T. Washington ever did?
This is absurd. Must an author consider the plight of every people group in order to put forth his ideas? Why didn’t he consider the history of oppression of Japanese American Christians? Jewish American Christians? XYZ-American Christians? Why? Because he is proposing an option for CHRISTIANS! If you are black and you are a Christian, in the body of Christ there is no more distinction. THAT is what #justgospel is all about. Not the Marxist, CRT burdens that you are heaping on the backs of non-black brothers and sisters. #justgospel, as YOUR confession states, is a receiving and resting in Christ alone for salvation. Not adding your socio-political agenda to what Christ has done. That is a perversion of the gospel which is worthy of the same rebuke that Paul gave to Peter and the Galatian Christians.
If you would stop making race the lens through which you see the world and start thinking, speaking, and acting biblically and in a manner worthy of the gospel, you would see fewer faults in what others say and write. Instead, you would interact charitably with what the author ACTUALLY wrote without implying that he was somehow being racist by neglecting to address your specific concerns. You are free to disagree, but please disagree with what he wrote and not what he didn’t.
I’m glad I’m not the only one that saw these problems.
I think you just made Mr. Tisby’s point for him.
Having not read the book yet, but having read some of Dreher’s blog and read other posts about the Benedict Option, the thought recently occurred to me, “Haven’t black churches been doing something like this for a very long time?”
It’s possible Dreher overlooked this angle because black churches in America are historically Protestant and Dreher’s background was in the Roman Catholic Church and now in the Orthodox Church. But then, he’s interacted with and written about other protestant churches that would fall under the creedal and confessional model.
However, take a look at something like the AME Church and it’s beliefs, which essentially feature what is found in the 39 articles of the Church of England. (https://www.ame-church.com/our-church/our-beliefs) That would be a source to look to, but AME also ordains women to the office of bishop and, based on Dreher’s ecclesiastical background, that may be a denomination he’d keep at arm’s length.
Bottom line, the best thing to do would simply be to ask Mr. Dreher for clarification.
Right on!!!
Perhaps the reason Dreher “ignores” the African American church is that it’s situation is not analogous to what he is expecting.
African American churches faced persecution as minority Christians from a majority who were Christians. This is like Protestants in Catholic lands, or Anabaptists in a land with a Protestant state church. Add to this the twist that the African Americans and their churches were not persecuted for being Christian, but for being part of a minority.
Dreher is envision a situation like Benedict faced, where paganism conquered Christian lands, leaving the Church scattered, weak, and outnumbered. The goal was to preserve pockets of Christianity which could re-establish Christian civilization.
If his predictions are accurate, then the result would be that the African American churches, like other churches, will be reduced in numbers and influence, but we will likely all be thrown together by persecution. Perhaps our other divisions will be greatly reduced or eliminated.
I agree. I don’t say this lightly or maliciously, but I think Jemar read BenOp through the lens of one of his passions (correcting white evangelical ignorance of black theology and church history), leading to a response that was more about that passion than it was about BenOp. Of course, BenOp is already at the point of being more a writing prompt for people to offer their favorite piece of Christian cultural criticism than an actual book, so he wouldn’t be the first to take that route.
I’ve been hoping RAAN would discuss the BenOp, and I appreciate both Jemar’s and Jake’s input here. Just commenting to stay tuned into the conversation. Thank you both for sharing your thoughts!
You have some insights to offer the conversation, I think. And I’m writing as one who hasn’t read Dreher. But your post comes across as overly critical, which seems unwarranted under the circumstances. It would be more compelling, if it were rewritten as a constructive suggestion instead of a harsh criticism. If he missed something valuable from one narrow part of church history, help him with it, don’t hit him over it. You’re causing friction for no reason.
Also, the suggestion that the thesis is not for black people because it leaves out black church history is a non-sequitur. Don’t the various traditions of the one Church have a lot to learn from each other?
The ecclesiastical arrogance is an interesting new term for me. I’m glad that you took the time to clearly describe what you meant:
.
“The ecclesiastical arrogance of the white church toward the black church isn’t new. It’s been on display ever since Africans were deposited in North America as chattel. The arrogance comes through when white pastors would only allow black pastors to preach to black congregations. It emerges when African slaves built beautiful churches and then were only allowed to sit in the balcony. These days it comes across more subtly. You can see it when white leaders repeatedly dismiss the concerns of minorities as “pulling the race card.” It comes from only reading theology written by Europeans and never accessing authors from other racial and ethnic backgrounds. It pops up in conferences headlined only by white men. It appears when white Christians spurn black religious leaders because of their theology but gloss over the theology of slaveholders and segregationists. Ecclesiastical arrogance shows up when an author proposes a path forward for the entire church but leaves Christians of color out of his considerations.”
Peace,
Mezzula5
I’ve been having similar thoughts for the past 2 years. But Jemar Tisby said it better.
http://ronedog.blogspot.com/2014/12/temperature-and-pressure.html
Jemar – Thanks for writing this. Would you mind expanding on a bit of it? My main question is that as I’m reading you it seems like you’re lumping together several different groups simultaneously in order to critique white normativity, but I’m not sure it actually works.
The people enthusiastic about the BenOp and who have written in similar veins are a pretty eclectic mix. Rod is an Eastern Orthodox Christian, which by definition puts him in fellowship with non-western Christian churches. His mission church in St. Francisville was, IIRC, Russian Orthodox? You could say that’s still “white normativity,” I suppose but I would think that white evangelicals in most situations probably have more in common with a black pentecostal church than they do a strict RO mission church? Maybe not? What do you think?
Second, other BenOp enthusiasts are people like Archbishop Chaput, who is the first ever Native American archbishop in the Roman church. I know you are specifically reviewing Rod’s book here, but Chaput has a similar book that other critics (Jamie Smith, most notably) have said are also pushing “white normativity,” and that seems like a weird critique to make of someone like Chaput who is Native and whose ecclesiastical allies in the Roman church are mostly African?
Third, there are folks like myself and Matt Loftus who are in the PCA and who have been raising questions about race and the BenOp for quite awhile. I wrote about the issue in September of 2015, for example: https://mereorthodoxy.com/race-and-the-benedict-option/
Loftus has also written on it a lot as well. So we’re both white PCA folks who are friendly to aspects of what Rod is saying. But we’re also concerned about the racial aspects of the project and want to see that point talked about at more length by non-white people. (We were both _very_ enthusiastic about Jackie Rivers’ contribution at the Plough event in NYC, for example, though Loftus was more on board with her critique than I was.) I think we’re also both pretty committed to wanting the PCA to become more diverse and to making sure that black Presbyterians are not only _attending_ PCA churches but are working in leadership positions where they can direct and shape the denomination.
All of which is to say that I’m not sure _who_ the white normativity critique is aimed at exactly? Rod’s a tricky one to ding on that given his ecclesial affiliation, although I can see why you would do it. But then when you expand the critique to people enthusiastic about the project who aren’t Rod Dreher, it seems to fall apart quickly _or_ it seems to mean something more radical that I’m not understanding if the critique is that Chaput, Loftus, etc. are also pushing white normativity.
Thanks for your time!
~Jake Meador
PS If you’ve written on this elsewhere feel free to just leave a link. I know you are busy so I don’t want to ask you to repeat something you’ve already said elsewhere.
Maybe I am in over my head here Jake, but perhaps some may see “bunkering” as the logical progression to the ultimate failure of “white Christian flight”. Perhaps it is time to take the advice of those who learned to live the Christian life with our leftovers.