Contemporary Monasticism

This chapter surveys the unprecedented change experienced by monks and nuns following the Rule of Benedict from 1960 to the present. It describes the monastic world as it stood in 1960, how it changed as a result of the Second Vatican Council, and how it grapples with declining numbers of members, ageing communities, and new technologies, among other things. It concludes by suggesting areas that will need to be dealt with in the future if the institution of monasticism is to continue: the need for consistent and creative leadership, the strengthening of the mystical dimension of monasticism, the formulation of a new asceticism, and appropriate adaptation.

The Benedictines

This chapter examines the history of the word ‘Benedictine’ in the Middle Ages. Although it is currently employed by scholars to describe cloistered communities loyal to the tenets of the Rule of Benedict, the term ‘Benedictine’ was not used in medieval Europe. Moreover, its use in contemporary discourse threatens to obscure the rich diversity and historical development of monastic practice in the Middle Ages, because it implies that all monks read and interpreted Benedict’s rule in the same way. After providing an introduction to the Rule of Benedict and its author, the chapter examines the varieties of monastic expression in medieval Europe, and it highlights neglected areas of research in the premodern Benedictine tradition.

TEXTUAL TRIAGE AND PASTORAL CARE IN THE CAROLINGIAN AGE: THE EXAMPLE OF THE RULE OF BENEDICT

The sixth-century Rule of Benedict became a foundational text for the practice of Christian monasticism in medieval Europe, but its utility extended outside of the monastery as well. In the Carolingian period church prelates repurposed parts of this influential monastic handbook for the purpose of pastoral care. In the decades around 800 CE, excerpts from the rule appeared in several composite manuscripts made for the instruction of parish priests and by extension their lay audiences. Benedict's fourth chapter on the “Instruments of Good Works” was deemed particularly useful in the context of preaching to lay people not only because of its ecumenical message to love God and one's neighbor but also due to its formulaic and repetitive idiom. This study examines the redeployment of extracts of the Rule of Benedict for the cura animarum in Carolingian parishes with particular attention to the role of Bishop Theodulf of Orléans (ca. 760–821) in disseminating Benedict's teachings beyond the walls of the cloister.

Pitfalls in �Biblical� leadership

This article is about the pitfalls involved in writing a Christian handbook on leadership. By analysing some elements of the Rule of Benedict it is argued that it is impossible to write such a handbook without using non-Biblical sources. Moreover, there are typical pitfalls when authors attempt to develop a pure Biblical leadership theory. The first pitfall is typical of Christians representing Niebuhr�s type of �Christ against Culture�. As early as 1951, Niebuhr claimed that in the field of leadership in particular the radical exclusive Christians reintroduced rules from non-Christian cultures. Examples from the last decade support Niebuhr�s observation. The second pitfall, referred to as reconstruction, is typical of those authors who are open to secular sources but who seek to give Biblical evidence for their leadership theory. This pitfall is illustrated by analysing the process in which the secular concepts of transforming leadership and vision statements found their way into evangelical books on Christian leadership. Reconstruction typically consists of four steps: Perception (a secular model of leadership becomes popular), Acceptance (this model is examined and accepted for the context of the church) Assimilation (it is claimed that leaders in the Bible worked exactly as described in the model, books are written about Biblical leadership, exemplifying the model. The secular source becomes obsolete.) and Standardisation (this model of leadership is declared to be the Biblical norm for every Christian leader). I argue that step 3 is at least problematic and step 4 is a fatal error.