Economies of Merit

Featured

In many monastic and religious traditions, ethical and spiritual “merit” gets traded like a commodity.1

Nuns and monks agree to live a certain way, abiding by a certain kind of behavior (which their society has deemed the most virtuous or ethical), and in exchange they don’t have to earn their own money to stay alive, but can focus on loftier or more personally pressing matters. What the monastics bring to the bartering table is merit—a substance, not much more abstract than money, that your good deeds earn you and which earns you future spiritual favor (a trip to heaven, a better rebirth, decreased negative karma, etc.). How a monk or nun lives effectively earns them points, which, for their purposes, will be directly or indirectly useful in attaining whatever it is they are seeking. When monastics follow the rules and earn a surplus of merit, which they agree to share with each other, with laypeople (alive and dead), and other beings, they earn their worldly keep.

This merit benefits the surrounding society in a number of ways. Directly, lay folk ask the merit-rich monks, nuns and priests to pray for them and for their (living or dead) relatives, and to perform rites and ceremonies for them. Indirectly, the knowledge that the monks you give alms to exist as exemplars of (your definition of) purity and holiness, encapsulated in special buildings more beautiful than any, is a gift.

On a broader level, monasteries themselves agree to uphold and enforce merit-earning behavior, and are given land, buildings, and special rights. Monasteries are merit-engines.

So which came first in monastic traditions around the world: morality, merit, or money?

Continue reading

  1. For example, the 15th and 16th century papacy’s practice of selling spiritual indulgences: “the Church drew from the the treasury of merits accumulated by the good works of the saints, and in return the recipient made a contribution to the Church. A voluntary and popular arrangement, the practice allowed the Church to raise money for financing crusades and building cathedrals and hospitals. At first applied only to penalties imposed by the Church in this life, by Luther’s time indulgences were being granted to remit penalties imposed by God in the afterlife, including immediate release from purgatory. With indulgences effecting even the remission of sins, the sacrament of penance itself was seemingly compromised.” (Richard Tarnas, in Passion of the Western Mind)

Monastic Separateness & Engagement (part 3): Monasticism in Society

Featured

[This series of posts, "The Elements of Monasticism" asks the question, what exactly is monasticism? "Separateness & Engagement" will unfold in a series of 4 posts (links: 1234).]

A gem from Father Louis (aka Thomas Merton), in case you missed it a few weeks ago:

The monastery is neither a museum nor an asylum. The monk remains in the world from which the monk has fled, and the monk remains a potent, though hidden, force in that world. Beyond all the works which may accidentally attach themselves to the vocation, the monk acts on the world simply by being a monk. The presence of contemplatives is, to the world, what the presence of yeast is to dough … if the monk stands, in some sense, above the divisions of human society, that does not mean the monk has no place in the history of nations. The monk has always been, and always will be, by the vocation, sympathetic to any social and cultural movement that favors the growth of the human spirit.

From historical context to historical context, tradition to tradition, monastery to monastery, abbess to abbess, monk to monk, the truth is more complex than the assumptions in part 2 suggest. While Ariana Huffington’s casual critique (see part 1) of the idios kosmos of the monastery might more precisely be leveled at hermits (but seriously, can’t we just leave them alone?), one has to wonder:

What is the role of monasticism in society?

A correspondent of Thomas Merton’s, Discalced Carmelite hermit William McNamara (founder of the first Roman Catholic hermitic community in the United States), has written a fantastic piece on the “Prophetic Role of Monasticism“:

The monk is not a special kind of person; everyone is a special kind of monk, because the central and deepest human impulse is monastic. Monos means one, and the wayfaring human person finds oneness only by tracking Christ through deserts and dark nights into Glory. Nevertheless, a culture needs a sacred center, and the monastery provides an entry to that center, from which society derives essential clues to the mystery of its destiny.

Even if we’re not tracking Christ, per se, how can a secular monasticism serve as an entryway to the sacred center of an increasingly technological, interfaith society? Or can it?

When we talk about the value of a monastery to the society it’s a part of, there are a few different (though not mutually exclusive) possible perspectives:

Quietism: Monasteries have no direct value to society. The point of a monastery is to be disengaged from society. If society benefits from this (e.g. in seeing itself reflected somehow in the monastery), that is great for society, but it’s not the point.

Dying way of life: Whatever role they may have once played, monasteries have lost their relevance to the technological, developed, secular world. Nice while they lasted.

Asylums: Monasteries are homes for monks, mystics and other insane people [Sorry Father Louis].  See also “Mystic Storage.”

Survival of the Fittingest: Whatever monasteries may once have been, they are evolving, just as business has evolved, government has evolved, and the social sector has evolved. They fill a unique niche in society (e.g. the responsibly governed spiritual community niche), AND they are themselves a unique niche for certain people in society (they are home to certain people that would otherwise find it difficult to find a truly fitting place, and without which there would be many people deemed socially inept, deviant, useless)… a subtly distinct view from saying “monasteries are asylums”.

Activism: Monasteries are a part of a society. On one level, the monastics residing within are often called upon, out of uncommon stillness, to extraordinary activism. On a deeper level, monasteries reflect the values and conscience of a society. McNamara writes:

…There is an intimate relationship between real, live monasticism and the socio-political world. Seen in historical context, the vows of obedience and poverty originally represented ways of transcending and criticizing a conventional loyalty to status quo power arrangements and the reification of people in servitude to an unjust economic system. In the past the monastic vows exemplified a quality of relationship and communal equity undreamt of by either, the oppressed victims or their masters.

Politics is, after all, the science of the possible. Monasticism should be a real alternative, and thus make an enormous contribution to the future direction of political and economic organization.

…We take vows to overcome the slavery of modern utilitarianism. Most of us are enslaved: we are workers instead of men and women. Monastic life ought to be the most dangerous, the most difficult and the most wonderful, exciting adventure in the world. What’s wrong with monastic life today? In great monastic orders there is no creative subversion, no counterculture. Monastic orders are, for the most part, locked into serving the petrified conventions and institutions of contemporary society that cause the disease and frustration that are sickening so many people and rendering them impotent. We cannot survive on banality; we need firsthand experience of primordial truth.

…[M]onkishness is an indispensable and ineluctable dimension of every human being.

Economic Actors: Monasteries are real economic actors in a real marketplace. They produce, consume, demand, and supply. They have a rational self interest, and serve the rational (and trans-rational) self interest of their inhabitants.

Antechamber to another life: “The power base of monasticism is other-worldliness,” says McNamara. Monasteries offer us a glimpse of another world (whether you interpret that to mean something recognizably spiritual, or merely a life where you’re more whole, compassionate, aware, wise, awake, communal, human, alive etc.), and the rites of passage to get there.

Intentional Communities: Whatever role monasteries may once have played, they are now just one of a handful of types of intentional community, which we might divide into communities of interest, communities of practice, and communities of place such as communes, ecovillages, student cooperatives, land co-ops, cohousing groups, ashrams, kibbutzes, and farming collectives, co-working facilities. As such, they train humans to live together in harmony,

Retreat Centers for Contemplative Creatives: The growing class of “Contemplative Creatives” needs a place to escape to, even for a week or two.

Universities of Practice/Museums: It is important that there be institutions devoted to spiritual/contemplative practice alone—what we might call “universities of practice”.  It is important that there be a repository of culture, texts, and debate outside of academia.  [Sorry again, Father Louis]

Time Capsules: Whatever relevance monasteries have to the technological, developed, secular world, we should keep them around in case civilization collapses. They may help us through a coming dark age, the way they helped us through the last dark ages.

Subtlism: Regardless of whether monastics are actively engaged in society, a monastery serves a valuable function in society merely by existing. It is important that somewhere in the world, there are humans devoted entirely to the attainment of stillness, awakening, peace, etc. and that their efforts ripple out to the rest of society: directly, in that we in society can draw inspiration and peace just from knowing that there are people out there doing this, and indirectly, through the indeterminate and subtle impacts they might make.

Fourth Sector Organizations: Monasteries in some ways gave birth to the growing fourth sector:

[From the website]: Over the past few decades, the boundaries between the public (government), private (business), and social (non-profit) sectors have been blurring as many pioneering organizations have been blending social and environmental aims with business approaches.

There are many expressions of this trend, including corporate social responsibility, microfinance, venture philanthropy, sustainable businesses, social enterprise, privatization, community development and others. As this activity matures, it is becoming formalized as a ‘Fourth Sector’ of the economy. To better understand the emergence of the Fourth Sector, it is helpful to study recent shifts in organizational behavior across the three traditional sectors.

Businesses are dedicating more resources to delivering social and environmental benefits. Cause-based marketing, the triple bottom line, and corporate social responsibility are a few of the buzzwords that have come into usage in recent years as part of this trend. Meanwhile, public and social sector organizations are attempting to operate in a more businesslike method.

Quadruple-Bottom-Line Corporations: People, planet, profit… & spirit? From society’s perspective, monasteries are corporations that responsibly maximize financial capital, human capital, natural capital, and spiritual capital.


Chapter 7 Augustine’s Rule, on Governance & Obedience

Starting on October 2nd, I’ll be doing a Jesuit retreat on the Rule of Augustine (which I’ve written about here: “Up to our necks in Augustine”).

Each day, I’ll read 1 of the 8 chapters of the Rule of Augustine.

Today’s reading is from Chapter VII on “Governance and Obedience” from the Rule of Augustine1, one of the “mother rules” of western monasticism. 2 With this set of rules, Augustine aimed to “to found a community of love oriented towards contemplation.” 3

As usual, read as much of the text as you want, slowly and meditatively, observing your own reactions with a broad, open awareness. I offer some commentary and resources in the footnotes for when you want to come back for more context or a deeper understanding.

Augustine’s Rule, Chapter VII Continue reading

  1. Full text here
  2. From “A History of Monastic Spirituality” by Luc Brésard of the abbey of Citeaux.
  3. More from “A History of Monastic Spirituality”

Chapter 1 of Augustine’s Rule

[Part of the Daily Lectio series, named after the Benedictine tradition of lectio divina, "divine reading." For instructions and background on the series, click here. Subscribe to Daily Lectio. Send comments or suggested readings to nathan@artmonastery.org]

Starting on October 2nd, I’ll be doing a Jesuit retreat on the Rule of Augustine (which I’ve written about here: “Up to our necks in Augustine”).

Each day, I’ll read 1 of the 8 chapters of the Rule of Augustine:

Chapter I

Purpose and Basis of Common Life Continue reading

Up to our necks in Augustine

On Saturday the Art Monastery, a community of artists from a wide range of spiritual traditions working to apply the tools of monasticism to art-making instead of religion, will embark on a 7-day silent retreat in the Jesuit tradition, in which the primary form of activity (and inactivity) will be to read the Rule of St. Augustine, a 1,500 year old document—only about 7 pages long—written by someone who is arguably the 3rd most influential figure in Christianity (after Jesus and Paul).

Are we masochists?!

For a while, it’s been evident that monasticism is still something very other for us artmonks. Sure, we inhabit a monastery, we’ve done meditation retreats, we’ve chanted compline every night for months, and we’ve shared meals and chores and periods of silence and selective abnegation. Yet still, the monastic experience as it has existed for thousands of years remains a strangely scary and romantic, exotic creature. And yet, if we aim to concoct our own Art Monastic rule and vows, we had better know viscerally what it is we’re dealing with.

The unique combination of Jesuit exercises—at their core a form of meditative, reflective reading that unfolds into a visualization practice—and the Rule of Augustine will give us a chance to live, if only for brief moments, according to this 1,500 year-old monastic structure. Having done so, we can choose to incorporate some of the rules into our own set, or toss the whole lot out.

Why Augustine? For one thing, his rule is shorter than the others. He gets to the point. His rule is much less specific than Benedict’s.

Additionally, Augustine was hugely influential on Western monasticism as a whole in all the right ways:

[Benedict's] sources such as John Cassian and The Master emphasize the vertical [hierarchical], whereas Benedict includes that horizontal perspective, a perspective he learned from the monastic writings of, you may be surprised to hear, Augustine—whom we always think of harshly and whom we blame for so many of the problems of modern Western Christians, not realizing that in his monastic teaching, Augustine chose a very different side of himself, and that some of Benedict’s best soundbites about pastoral sensitivity and love for one another, in fact, are stolen from Augustine. (source)

To give you a better sense of the rather daunting task we’ve set ourselves:

We’ll have as our only companion an average of 1 page of Augustine—and nothing but 1 page of Augustine—each day for seven days. Seven days, alone, with the Christian’s Christian, the ideologue’s ideologue, the dogmatist’s dogmatist. 1 Seven days, alone, with the Christian Nagarjuna 2. To me, that prospect is both frightening and fascinating.

That’s one day listening to Augustine the prude saying things like, “Although your eyes may chance to rest upon some woman or other, you must not fix your gaze upon any woman,” and another day listening to Augustine the authoritarian saying things like, “Books are to be requested at a fixed hour each day, and anyone coming outside that hour is not to receive them,” and another day listening to Augustine the zealot saying things like “Chant only what is prescribed for chant; moreover, let nothing be chanted unless it is so prescribed,” and still another day listening to Augustine the fanatic saying things like “Subdue the flesh, so far as your health permits, by fasting and abstinence from food and drink,” etc.

Continue reading

  1. One of our priest friends, who has just written his doctoral thesis on Augustine, says that Augustine never wrote a coherent, systematic theory of theology. He was usually responding, in his writing, very pragmatically to the world around him (even to atheists). The more I learn about Augustine, the more it seems like what he wrote was taken out of context in support of dogma by medieval scholars, and later served up as a comprehensive ideology by the later church.
  2. Immediate, unscholarly parallels between the Christian philosopher born in North Africa in 354 CE, and the madhyamaka philosopher born in southern India around 150 CE: similar thoughts on the nature of time; similar thoughts on the limits of conceptual knowledge; separated in time by only a hundred or so years; similar impact on their respective growing religious movements(?)

theFWD submission #4

[intended partially as a provocation, partially completely seriously, for the Future We Deserve collaborative book project]

3rd-Party Certification of Spiritual Agents, Teachers & Centers

The goal of certification is to protect both spiritual practitioners (agents), teachers, and centers.

Monastic tradition, by adhering to openly published rules and vows and being accountable to a central governance body of some kind, essentially offers the same kind of protection. A secular monastic tradition can go even further in this direction, but the governance body need only be a non-profit certifying organization, with no other authority.

The principals of the certifying organization will be such that it’s highest goals are to protect practitioners, teachers and centers by focusing on 1) education, 2) transparency and 3) accountability, without saying anything about what consititutes a “right path” (except, of course, by implying that what practitioners need to be protected from—unconsensual physical & sexual abuse—are a “wrong path” and that more subjective abuses—emotional and verbal—should only be entered into with eyes wide open.)

The certification of spiritual agents and spiritual teachers/center are essentially interconnected (if one is not present, the other is less effective).

Certified spiritual agents

For the agent, certification here depends on 1) broad knowledge of spiritual traditions and 2) acknowledging the problematic or dangerous aspects of some types of spiritual pursuit. Spiritual agents take responsibility for their own spiritual journey. They thus understand the risks associated with the path, and have studied the history of spirituality broadly, the characteristics of various spiritual communities and teachers and styles of teaching, and are assumed capable of making informed decisions when choosing a spiritual teacher or community. They seek out certified spiritual teachers and centers.

Certified spiritual teachers / spiritual centers

Spiritual teachers are certified by submitting to a certain level of 1) transparency and 2) accountability. No legal teaching method is forbidden for certification, but it must be transparently stated. The teacher or center is accountable to act in accordance with their transparently statements, or risk losing certification. Certified spiritual teachers / centers may or may not state that they only accept certified spiritual agents. They may be required to state which model(s) of spiritual progress and which view(s) of enlightenment/awakening/realization they hold, if any.

Examples:

“This center accepts only students who are 1) certified spiritual agents and 2) have spent more than a cumulative 1 month in silent meditation.”

“This teacher will act according to a set of guidelines as follows: no verbal, physical, or emotional abuse. Trained psychological counselors are standing by to assist you should you encounter a tricky spot.”

“This teacher employs crazy wisdom, which may take the form of verbal and physical abuse. By becoming a student you understand the risk, and you’re on your own.”

“This center employs the guru-model. Its view is that the spiritual path is best treated with an outside intervention. By coming here you are asking the center to do whatever it takes (within the law) to help you reach your goal.”

“This monastery requires a vow of 1) obedience to the abbot/abbess, 2) commitment to staying at the monastery and 3) daily conversion of your life. You enter a 1 year trial period and 3 years as a novitiate before becoming an avowed monk.” 1

Notes:

  1. Notice that this is basically what monastic traditions do, by following openly published monastic rules

“Re-monking”: What can secular monastics learn from Christian “New Monasticism”?

In “Re-Monking the Church: new monasticism“, Dr. Chris Armstrong (author of the book Patron Saints for Postmoderns) asks:

Can Western monasticism’s “father,” Benedict, still give us an antidote to cultural compromise?

His question is inspired by the words of historian Mark Noll:

“For over a millennium, in the centuries between the reign of Constantine and the Protestant Reformation, almost everything in the church that approached the highest, noblest, and truest ideals of the gospel was done either by those who had chosen the monastic way or by those who had been inspired in their Christian life by the monks.”

The cultural compromise Armstrong is talking about (I assume he’s referring to Christians not approaching “the highest, noblest, and truest ideals of the gospel” in their day to day lives) is also relevant to the interfaith and secular world. For many folks—Christian and decidedly non-Christian—who find inspiration in the life of Jesus, the “highest, noblest, and truest ideals of the gospel” are tough things like unconditional love, non-violence, compassion, forgiveness, and self-knowledge.

Can Benedict give non-Christians an antidote too? Can we “re-monk” what’s never been “monked” before?

Continue reading

Getting the questions right

Examples of the secular world learning from the world’s ancient contemplative and spiritual traditions abound.  Neuroscientists, psychologists, doctors, cognitive scientists and cosmologists are learning from inner technologies of meditation and contemplative practice.

But what of the outer, visible, measurable technologies of those traditions? How are we learning from those technologies that fit into what is broadly called monasticism? And how are we impacting them? This blog asks the question:

What can the secular world learn from monasticism?

and

What can the secular world do for monastic traditions?

Some interfaith and secular groups are already learning from monasticism.  For example, I live in an ex-Franciscan convent in Labro, Italy with a community of artists called the Art Monastery, where we live together as “artmonks”.  We are growing our own monastic order: the International Otherhood of Artmonks.

Why can’t anyone build or be part of an “otherhood”? Any community or movement—whether seculary, interfaith, or of a single spiritual tradition—can choose to benefit from the wide array of monastic technologies that humanity has produced in the past 3000+ years.

This blog is about:

  • secular monasticism,
  • and high-tech monasticism,
  • and art monasticism,
  • and religious monasticism,
  • and interfaith monasticism,
  • and scientific monasticism
  • and integral monasticism
  • and more…

This is for:

  • Artmonks and other Creative contemplatives
  • “Re-monks” (part of the Christian “new monasticism” movement)
  • Co-ops, cohousing and other intentional communities (member of intentional communities around the world)
  • Benedictine, Augustine, Franciscan monks
  • Neuroscientists, cognitive scientists, information scientists
  • Doctors and medical professionals
  • Secular buddhists
  • Regular folks who want to add a little order to their lives
  • Sufi fakirs
  • Theravadan monks, Tibetan buddhist monks, Zen monks
  • Advaita Vedantan monks, etc.

Have an idea for an otherhood you want to start?

Monasticize your community’s future. Add a little order to your life. Grow your own Otherhood.

About the author

Nathan Rosquist is a writer and composer living as an artmonk at the Art Monastery in Labro, Italy.  He has a MBA in Sustainable Community Economic Development from Bainbridge Graduate Intitute.