The Story of Monasticism

Retrieving an Ancient Tradition for Contemporary Spirituality

Peters, Greg

• Publisher: Baker Academic
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781441227218
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Religion

Some evangelicals perceive monasticism as a relic from the past, a retreat from the world, or a shirking of the call to the Great Commission. At the same time, contemporary evangelical spirituality desires historical Christian manifestations of the faith. In this accessibly written book Greg Peters, an expert in monastic studies who is a Benedictine oblate and spiritual director, offers a historical survey of monasticism from its origins to current manifestations. Peters recovers the riches of the monastic tradition for contemporary spiritual formation and devotional practice, explaining why the monastic impulse is a valid and necessary manifestation of the Christian faith for today's church.

1

---

The Origins of Christian Monasticism

---

What came first, the chicken or the egg? So goes one of the most well-known proverbial questions. Monasticism has an equivalent question: What came first, monastics or the institution of monasticism? Answering this question is not easy, and it might actually be unanswerable. Thus this chapter will explore the origins of Christian monasticism, seeking to answer the following questions: What were the motivations for such a practice? What were the earliest manifestations of Christian monasticism? What was the Christian monastic pattern drawing on religiously, and what were its influences? Why did it start when it did? Though these questions do not always have clean-cut answers, this chapter will strive to answer them inasmuch as they are in fact answerable. There is not enough space in one volume to address all the monastic movements and tendencies that existed in earliest Christianity (or in any Christian era for that matter), but this chapter will highlight some of the most pertinent and influential movements while also investigating one of the more obscure movements that appears to have biblical precedent.

Pre-monastic Impulses

To begin, the pre-monastic impulses of the Qumran community and syneisaktism will be examined to show that a kind of “monastic” impulse was present in those movements that most influenced Christianity as well as in the earliest manifestations of Christianity itself.

The Qumran community of Essenes was a Jewish ascetical group of the Second Temple period (515 BCE–70 CE) whose life was rooted in the teachings of the Hebrew Bible. They spent their days praying, working, and copying manuscripts. At night they held liturgical gatherings similar to synagogue Sabbath worship, with the exception that the Essenes had a common meal at which they shared bread and wine. The Essenes were divided into two well-defined groups. One group, like that at Qumran, lived in strict community, following a rule. The other group was made up of families who also lived in the wilderness in spiritual communion with the others. In order to adhere to the teachings of their scriptures, they lived a communal way of life, practicing “celibacy (at least for a major segment of the movement), a materially simple life free of private possessions, temperance in food and drink, avoidance of oil, simplicity of dress, reserve in speech, desert separatism (for those at Qumran), [and] strict rules of ritual purity and of Sabbath observance.”[1] Philo of Alexandria (d. ca. 40), the great Hellenized Jewish writer, referred to them as the athletes or practitioners of virtue, and they have often been viewed as a precursor and model for early Christian monasticism (though this is not without debate). Within the community were a group called the yaḥad, that segment of the sect that was governed by the Community Rule. It is this group in particular that has often been labeled “monastic” and seen as a precursor to Christian monasticism.[2] Some scholars have gone so far as to argue that John the Baptist was an Essene.[3] However, others have rejected this connection between the Qumran community and early Christian monasticism, arguing that the ascetical yaḥad are a “voluntary association” of the kind that dotted the ancient Mediterranean landscape and are not precursors to Christian monasticism.[4] If this is the case, as Matthias Klinghardt has argued, then there is no evidence of cenobitic monasticism until the rise of Christian cenobitism in the fourth century. However, this does not mean that there was no monasticism earlier than the fourth century but only that monasticism in community (i.e., cenobitism) arose in the fourth century. This seems to support the extant Christian literary witness that will be discussed in chapter 2. Also, even if the yaḥad were not the immediate forebears of cenobitic monasticism, it seems obvious that the Essenes must have influenced early Christian monasticism.[5]

A form of monastic life that was in existence as early as the first century CE and known to the apostle Paul is syneisaktism. Syneisaktism (spiritual marriage) is a term for the practice of “female Christian ascetics who lived together with men, although both parties had taken the vow of continency, and were animated with the earnest desire to keep it.”[6] In the Greek-speaking church the participants of this practice were termed syneisaktoi, agapētai, or agapētoi (beloved), and in the Latin-speaking church the participants were known as agapetae or virgines subintroductae (virgins secretly introduced).[7] In most scholarly English writings, the practice is referred to by its Greek name syneisaktism or “spiritual marriage,” and the participants are referred to by the Latinized Greek term of agapetae. The earliest nonbiblical reference to the practice is from the first century, and there are numerous references to the practice from the second century on. Both orthodox and heterodox ecclesiastical authors, as well as secular emperors,[8] were familiar with the practice, which had spread to most church provinces in ancient Christianity by the fourth century.[9] Although references to the practice are scarce in comparison to other ancient ascetic phenomena, it is certain that celibate men and women lived together in chaste relationships for mutual support and encouragement. The praxis of asceticism was embraced by both Christian men and women,[10] but “the fervor with which large numbers of early Christian women pursued lives of asceticism and renunciation is a curious fact in the history of women in late antiquity.”[11] It has been suggested that the renunciation of marriage and family life presented women with the opportunity to move outside the restraints of both society and family, extending to them a degree of self-determination that was unavailable to them in marriage.[12] This arrangement was necessary since they were unable to obtain such support and encouragement outside marriage in the prevailing Roman culture.

In Roman society, marriage was a private act that did not require the sanction of a public or religious authority.[13] A marriage that was contracted according to the civil laws of the time was recognized by the Christian church. The undertaking of this private act was primarily for legal purposes since ultimate proof of a marriage often rested on the intention of the parties involved and not on the vows performed.[14] Within this custom of marriage women found themselves in a difficult situation. Since they were often married at a very young age, they were unable to avoid the demands of married life that included the pains of childbirth, nursing, and, at times, the death of their infant children.[15] Besides these burdens there was also the double standard for men and women concerning adultery. It was accepted that men would have intercourse with women other than their wives.[16] However, married women were not permitted similar indulgences. As Peter Brown writes, “Despite harsh laws punishing married women for adultery, infidelity by their husbands incurred no legal punishment and very little moral disapprobation.”[17] Therefore, the adoption of a celibate life allowed women the opportunity to free themselves from this double standard. With the renunciation of marriage they were able to move outside the restraints of the social and sexual expectations associated with it. It was within this milieu that syneisaktism developed and flourished.

Scholars have argued that the origin of syneisaktism can be found in the famous passage on virginity in 1 Corinthians 7:25–38, in particular, verses 36–38: “If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry—it is no sin. But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well. So then he who marries his betrothed does well, and he who refrains from marriage will do even better.” Hans Achelis suggests that the situation here involves two persons of the opposite sex living in a difficult situation. Though they initially agreed to live together in a celibate marriage, they are tempted beyond their limits of control. The question is then raised, “Can such a virgin, vowed to virginity in a spiritual marriage, be free to marry?” Paul concludes that the virgin can marry if necessary, and in this she would not be sinning. This understanding of the text holds that Paul was familiar with syneisaktism and, because he does not condemn it, grants his approval.[18]

Historically, there have been at least four ways to interpret 1 Corinthians 7:36–38: (1) Paul is writing about a young man and his fiancée; (2) Paul is writing about a father and his virgin daughter; (3) Paul is discussing a levirate marriage (in which a man marries his brother’s widow); or (4) Paul is describing spiritual marriage.[19] Though there is not space to discuss these four views here,[20] the view that is the most ancient and that is frequently accepted by modern commentators is that Paul is describing spiritual marriage. Antiquity and consensus, of course, are not the only criteria for deciding whether a view is correct or incorrect, but for the purposes of this book the antiquity of this particular view allows us to see that it supports an early form of monastic life. The spiritual marriage view was first set forth in the modern era by Carl von Weizsäcker,[21] expanded by Eduard Grafe,[22] and exhaustively set forth by Achelis. Though many commentators reject the spiritual marriage view primarily because the earliest known noncanonical reference to the practice is from the second century CE,[23] Weizsäcker holds that 1 Corinthians 7 is the first reference to the practice. Simply put, he contends that because the practice existed only in Corinth, there would be no other references to the practice at this time. Achelis goes so far as to conclude that the apostle Paul was the one who developed the practice of syneisaktism.[24] Twentieth- and twenty-first-century commentaries continue to conclude that the spiritual marriage view is the best interpretive option. The opinion of many modern interpreters is that (1) syneisaktism existed in the Corinthian church; (2) Paul was aware of the practice and allowed it to continue, and therefore, Paul fully supported syneisaktism; and (3) the earliest reference to syneisaktism is not the second century but possibly circa 50 CE or earlier, depending on the dating of 1 Corinthians. I believe that the practice was not only known and developed by Paul but that it was known to other early Christian authors such as Philo, the author of The Shepherd of Hermas (second century), and Ephrem the Syrian (d. 373).[25] In particular is the comment of Ephrem in his commentary on the epistles of Paul. He writes that if “there is someone who perhaps has a virgin, and he remains for a certain time, as long as she be in her vow, and he realizes in himself, ‘I am not suitable,’ he should not feel ashamed about time that has already passed. However, one who is steadfast in his conviction, and has fallen into danger of lust and has chosen in his heart to keep his virgin, does good. So the one who gives up his virgin does good, and the one who does not give her up and is continent does good.”[26] Ephrem believes that a man who gives up his virgin is good, but just as good is one who does not give her up and remains celibate. From this we can conclude that Ephrem supports the practice of spiritual marriage. Thus, with the possible exception of 1 Corinthians itself, this is the earliest reference explicitly supporting syneisaktism, and we are able to see that from the first century of the Christian era there were monastics. They might not have adopted the more common lifestyles that we now associate with monasticism, but this does not make them any less monastic based on the definition given in the introduction. Of particular note is Ephrem’s reference to vows: “as long as she be in her vow.” This suggests that the practice of syneisaktism was more organized than expected. That women were taking vows to live this kind of lifestyle is suggestive of the institutionalization of the practice and its early establishment.

What is evident from this brief analysis of both the Qumran community and syneisaktism is that there was, certainly, a kind of “monastic” impulse in these movements that influenced the early development of Christianity. Christianity received an inheritance where asceticism and monasticism were established practices, thereby giving shape to early Christian practices along similar lines. It should be kept in mind that the institution of monasticism is not unique to Christianity and even predates Christianity by nearly a millennium. For example, as far back as the sixth or seventh century BCE there were holy men called “wanderers” who practiced extreme fasting, wandered around naked so as to be exposed to the elements, submerged themselves in freezing rivers during the winter, meditated in the hot summer sun while surrounded by fires, went years without speaking, and adopted contorted bodily postures when seated. The Buddha himself rejected many of these extreme forms of asceticism, developing a middle way between normal social practices and the extraordinary ascetical life. This form of Buddhist life resulted in the formation of monastic communities. The rule for these communities was based on the four cardinal practices of Buddhist asceticism: (1) sexual continence, (2) nonviolence, (3) poverty, and (4) no pretension to spiritual attainment. These monks took only one meal a day, dressed in death shrouds, changed their names, abolished all ties with family and class affiliation, and had their speech and bodily deportment strictly controlled.[27] Though these Buddhist monasteries, as far as we know, did not exercise direct influence o...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Contents
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction: The Monastic Impulse
• Part I Antony to Benedict
• Part II Benedict to Bernard
• Part III Bernard to Luther
• Part IV Luther to Merton
• Epilogue: Monasticism Today and Tomorrow
• Bibliography
• Index
• Notes
• Back Cover