Review: The Benedict Option

It took me a long time to get around to reading Rod Dreher’s The Benedict Option, and once I had read it, a long time to circle back to reviewing it. That it is no longer a new book is no hindrance, since it has the benefit of having thoroughly seeped into the consciousness of whatever audience has connected with it.

As somebody who has written a bit on patristic spirituality—read my co-authored book on the Desert Fathers here—I was interested from the start and probably predisposed to enjoying The Benedict Option. Ultimately, I can say that Dreher and I are both Christians, and this has to count for something. Given the way our respective politics differ so fundamentally, it seems like a fairly low-context identifier.

Dreher took on this project because he saw American political conservatism as inadequate to the task of combating cultural decline. The watershed event for the author is the Obergefell decision (2015). It marked the end of conservative Christian holdouts. It is the Christian Alamo.

Of course, there is no point in the Benedict Option at which the author validates politically progressive Christians as Christians. He is happy to make common cause among Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox—but voting Democratic is a bridge too far.

And just what is the ‘option’? Since Christians have lost the culture war, they can no longer represent the main stream of society; Christians should instead create sustainable communities of mutual support and like-minded worship. These Christian outposts include community gardens and family board game nights. (We run the risk of failing the test of falsifiability here: how does this vision differ, in potentia, from the practices of liberal citizens or potentially community-minded non-Christians?).

Aside from the homophobia litmus tests, it is a perfectly charming vision. I just spent most of the book being confused as to why the little Christian polis Dreher imagines could not cohere to a more progressive political vision. Dreher never really explains this; he just takes it as a given. Dreher’s theology is not ‘missional’ or ‘emergent’ or ‘third way.’ He never abandons the bedrock of conservatism; TBO is just conservatism +.

Dreher operates with the most conventional of Constantinian assumptions. More is more. Power is a good end in itself. Christians are either dominating culture or else ‘losing.’ This is irritating but mostly expected. What is truly galling is that the author cannot recognize that it is, again, largely progressive Christians who are applying and emphasizing the kinds of focal practices and communal life he seems to champion (see Diana Butler-Bass).

There is a special place in Rod Dreher’s heart for religious liberty. Hear, hear. I love me some first amendment rights, too. The difference is that our venerable author, like much of the American right, feels he is constantly under attack. He seems to enjoy things like the Heritage Foundation, the Wisconsin Family Council, Alliance Defending Freedom, and the Family Research Council. Any permutation of the words family, freedom, and heritage are a safe bet.

But I, again, differ substantively here. I think these kinds of organizations are basically wrongheaded. People like Dreher operate in dominionist or at least reformed mode where they want to establish the civil power and bona fides of the Church before we can be faithful Christians. This is clunky and dumb. Just focus on being faithful. I know I sound like a hip youth pastor exhorting you to be the Church, but it’s pretty true in this case. Other than Paul’s appeal to the emperor, we do not really see the apostles seeking legal redress for the worldly weakness of the Church. We are slaughtered like lambs every day.

I could be wrong of course. If your discipleship mainly consists in your small business rejecting LGBTQ customers, then I guess you need some legal recourse. If you are simply pursuing holiness, love, peace, compassion, and self-control, against things like these there is no law.

I agree with Dreher that Christians too complacently accept consumerism. But this is hardly radical. Conservatives will hardly get pilloried for saying so, especially if they sprinkle contempt for ‘wokeness’ and ‘cancel culture’ in their denunciation as well. As much as Dreher wants to say something visionary and snatch some theological baton from (socialist Christian) Alasdair McIntyre, his theopolitical vision fails to rise above the conventional signifiers of conservatism.

This is all fine. Rod Dreher doesn’t care about my opinions. I find it sad how little his Christianity adds to his politics. It just fits hand in glove with the GOP and, presumably, MAGA nation. Depressing. Talk about cutural captivity.

I think we both believe in the resurrection of Jesus, and it will all get sorted eventually.

In parting, I have to note that Dreher was raised Methodist, then settled into Roman Catholicism, and was shaken out of his Roman Catholicism by the sex abuse scandals of 2000-2002. Now he is Eastern Orthodox. Now, one might scold him for being a gyrovague. Instead, I am waiting patiently for Dreher to find the ‘perfect’ church.

Then I’m going across the street.