No broadband?
Instead of reading pages online, open the ones you want in quick succession. Then go offline, call them up with the "History" button (Explorer] or Ctrl+H [Netscape], and read at your leisure

Notes on the Dedicated Life
Living at Right-Angles (Continued)

Obedience, the third of the three "evangelical counsels of perfection", is traditionally associated with willingness to serve where and when required. For centuries it has been regarded as synonymous with obedience to a superior. The Rule of Benedict, which has been adopted by most communities in some form, asserts that 

The high point of humility is obedience without delay ... as soon as anything has been ordered by a superior, they take it as though it were a divine command ... because obedience given to superiors is given to God ...

Why would any sane person commit himself or herself to what is essentially blind obedience? An important aspect of maturity today revolves around our capacity to be relatively autonomous. We have moved continents away from the ancient idea of a hierarchical order in which those appointed by God rule as they (and, of course, God) think best.

Unquestioning obedience, temporarily necessary in times of crisis and war (and not always even then), is bound to breed dependence and immaturity when it defines an entire lifestyle. Blind obedience is not good soil in which to grow individual motivation or creativity. On the contrary, it almost inevitably leads to shallow conformity and low energy.

The seedbed of blind obedience as a source of salvation was the ancient belief that authority is the source of truth [4]. Europe of the Middle Ages, when Christian communities were at their most vibrant, was a time of authorities. C S Lewis writes that medieval man looked to past authority for his sources. He

 ... was not a dreamer or a wanderer. He was an organiser, a codifier, a builder of systems. He wanted a 'a place for everything and everything in its right place' [6].

D Nineham reinforces this, remarking that

In order to make clear just how strong belief in (especially written) authority was, it may be worth pointing out that in the Middle Ages people believed, on the authority of Aristotle, many things about animal life which a few hundred yards' walk into the woods would have shown them to be untrue [7].

This same child-like reliance on authority has been perpetuated to this day above all in "the religious life". Only 50 years ago, for example, a bishop might (and did) instruct some Roman Catholic monks which British political party to vote for. In similar vein an Anglican sister wrote quite recently that

For a religious to have to telegraph to England from Africa before accepting an invitation out to a meal ... suggests a caricature not only of obedience but [also] of religious poverty [2].

This sort of obedience is almost inconceivable to the normal person today as central to an entire way of life.

What, then, can justify the sacrifice of these three aspects which seem to lie at the very heart of being human?

The answer lies, I think, in the idea of purpose. The sacrifice of procreation, money and free choice must, to be valid, be driven by a clear and compelling purpose.

Perhaps an example will clarify. In 1964 Jean Vanier began living with two handicapped men. Many years later the L'Arche communities he founded have spread all over the world. They are driven by a central idea - to be with those in need in such a way that all are brought to  new life. Growth is mutual. Not only are the handicapped brought gifts, but they also give them. The givers get and the getters give.

The spirit of L'Arche is not to be confused with what is broadly termed "social welfare". It is difficult enough to do such things for others in an institutional way. It is more demanding and also much more fruitful to do it with others. The L'Arche communities are often in stark contrast to similar groups whose motive is to donate care, rather than to participate in mutual enrichment.

All through the ages the most dynamic movements have been powered by purpose. A community without purpose is doomed to die.

H H Kelly talks about a simple principle

... that no life is worth living, and no life is really enjoyable, except by virtue of its purpose ... the whole progress of history seems to turn on the achievements of men who heard the call of great ideals ... [8] 

The matter may be put another way. There are those who live the dedicated life for its own sake. They appear to want to give up procreation, money and choice of lifestyle because ... well, as far as I can tell, because it is what might be termed "holy", somehow better than ordinary lifestyles. The "better" part of the equation is seldom mentioned, for to boast about what is only hinted at would invite scorn.

It isn't surprising that those who enter the religious life are often exactly those who tend to blindly accept "God's will". They slide into a state of "learned helplessness" in which nothing significant can be attempted or achieved without a parental figure presiding over the effort [9]. The tragedy is that a reversal of learned helplessness may be extremely difficult or even impossible [10].

But far more debilitating than mere immaturity is that a prevailing childish dependence allows the ascendance in community of dominant or manipulative characters. Deep down, therefore, the so-called religious life may often fail to advance individual progress towards a sense of autonomy. The personal, interpersonal and communal penalties of this failure are great.

If so-called "holy" dedication derived from a sense of superior sexuality, pseudo-poverty and childlike obedience leads to impoverishment of spirit, one should not be surprised that few vocations lead in that direction in the 21st century.

There is frequently no clear vision of why anyone should deny themselves the ordinary things of normal living. That a person will be thought "holy" is generally cold comfort.

Given all the above it's hardly surprising that the dedicated life seems to be faltering and failing. 

Moorhouse, writing in 1969, calculated that there were about a million members of religious orders worldwide. Numbers were even then falling fast while the average age of members was rising rapidly. It's a fair bet that numbers have declined significantly further since then.

Perhaps one of the most insidious errors in the dedicated life is that worship and prayer supercede purpose. Moorhouse writes that regardless of the form taken by the dedicated life,

One thing alone supports those who falter in the religious life and kindles fervour in those who live it confidently to the end of their days. That is prayer.

Even most "earthed" communities like the Little Brothers of Jesus (and the Little Sisters of Jesus) insist that prayer, meditation and worship are essential. But in their case that's fair enough - for the rest of their lives are centred on and powered by purposeful sharing in lives of poor people. Prayer is an adjunct, albeit necessary, to a focused, purposeful way of living.

Likewise, there are contemplative communities whose common purpose is to pray, worship and meditate. To choose a life of prayer as a central purpose is not necessarily misguided. At least the purpose is clear.

Perhaps an over-emphasis on prayer and worship in place of purpose has arisen partly because so many purposes which once drove the dedicated life have in the modern era been taken over by the State.

From hospitals to hospices, and blindness to the drug addiction, either the State or voluntary organisations now meet many of the needs once provided by Christians. In a sense, there is a "shortage" of purposes. But Moran and Harris point out that just because others are doing something doesn't preclude it being the focus of dedicated lives.

The decree De Accomodata Renovatione Vitae Religiosae of the Second Vatican Council in 1965 seems, with hindsight, to have been almost prescient. Conceding that prayer and exhortation alone are not enough to reinvigorate the dedicated lifestyle, the decree rules that communities with a lost purpose are to accept no more new members. 

The tragedy is that the decree's challenge has since been stifled by the heavy hand of the past. Failing purpose in dedicated communities has been met by fearful defence of empty tradition.

Vocations of those who are able and willing to give up family, security and normal lifestyle are being suffocated and truncated.

[a] The belief that the dedicated life is somehow intrinsically worthwhile in and of itself, regardless of why it's being lived out leads to frustration and disappointment in the long run. Most wish to sacrifice to good purpose, not for empty tradition.

[b] The supposition that the dedicated life is superior to ordinary life is disastrous. Many eventually perceive the falsehood, see the intrinsic goodness of ordinary life - and leave.

[c] When an established majority remains bogged down in religiosity, or clings to traditions which have changed little in a thousand years, new life is suffocated. Nothing is more destructive to vocation than being pinned down by the dead hand of tradition.

Boasts of stability ring empty once it is acknowledged that death can be defined as the cessation of change. For example, it is increasingly usual for a person to have at least two vocations in a lifetime. Today nothing seems to stand still for long - except, almost quintessentially, conservative bodies like the religious orders of the Christian Church!

If older communities find themselves out in the cold, it's not simply because what they have pioneered has been taken over by others. It's that they are too inflexible to meet new circumstances. That a community has existed for a hundred or a thousand years is no passport to authenticity.

What more is to be said about vocation to the dedicated lifestyle? What conditions help and hinder vocations to it?

First, I'm convinced that more people than we imagine remain willing to sacrifice in order to achieve great things. The essence of the dedicated lifestyle is that it's able, all things being equal, to achieve more than any other. 

What can be done in an area of great need usually depends upon the availability of resources. Those who put aside procreation, money and choice of lifestyle have, to put it simply, much more to give.

Second, it seems to me that there is no shortage of great need. From the environment to HIV/Aids, from starving children to inner-city social decay the voices of the suffering and deprived are no fewer today than they have ever been. Only those who live in the shielded womb of affluence will not see that.

Third, just because a majority of dedicated communities appear either moribund or stuck fast in servitude to the Church establishment, doesn't mean that a seeker can't find ways of living a dedicated lifestyle. Some communities are properly focused on a sacrificial purpose. If they don't present an opening, there is no good reason why even two or three should not band together. 

Fourth, a critical factor will surely be the congruence of a community's actual lifestyle with its proclaimed lifestyle. Is there an excuse for those living the dedicated life to live in comfort, consuming extra resources to do so, while even a single person suffers want? The person seeking a vocation need not be trapped unawares into the pseudo-dedicated life of so many communities.

Fifth, there seems little or no justification for preserving ancient structures and lifestyles if they no longer serve a purpose. The vast majority of long-established communities are so bound up in their traditions that they are able only feebly to serve their stated purposes. 

Sixth, the person investigating a vocation to the dedicated life must surely weigh up prospects for change in these fossilised organisations. 

Be cautioned, however, that many congregations of monks and nuns claim to to have changed without really changing. Dress has been modernised, hems raised and habits discarded. Constitutions have been rewritten, rules of life have been modified and softened. Worship has been simplified and reworked. 

But beneath these incidentals may often reside an abiding fear of re-imagining and reworking the basics of the dedicated life itself.

Be cautioned also that long-established communities more often than not don't necessarily welcome new blood - whatever they may say on the face of it. Least welcome is the independent, aware and determined spirit who is able to penetrate pretence. Whole-hearted sacrifice is often less valued than the ability to conform. Enthusiasm may be greeted with sarcasm and put-downs. Energy may easily turn into frustration. Vision may quickly become blurred.

In short, if anyone seeks to give up procreation, wealth and choice of lifestyle in order to better serve God's purposes, the barriers are considerable but the open gates many.

Above all in my experience, a vocation to the dedicated life is seldom if ever obvious or clear-cut. It's more like a treasure that has to be sought and dug for than like a large denomination banknote which lands at one's feet.
_____________________________
[5] See A Plain Guide to the Great Divide
[6] The Discarded Image, 1964
[7] The Use and Abuse of the Bible, 1976
[8] The Gospel of God, 1959
[9] Models for Management, Jay Hall, 1980
[10] The Competence Connection, Jay Hall, 1986

[Home] [Back]