walter russell mead peter berger lilia shevtsova adam garfinkle andrew a. michta
Feed
Features
Reviews
Podcast
You have read 1 out of 3 free articles this month. A quality publication is not cheap to produce.
Subscribe today and support The American Interest—only $2.99/month!
Already a subscriber? Log in to make this banner go away.
Published on: April 17, 2013
Dominican Friars and Lutheran Wives

On April 4, 2013 the New York Times carried a story about a group of Dominican friars in Ireland.  Contrary to the development in other Catholic monastic orders, these Dominicans had decided to continue wearing the traditional habit of white tunic and black cloaks (because of which Dominicans have been known as Black Friars). The […]

lascasas

On April 4, 2013 the New York Times carried a story about a group of Dominican friars in Ireland.  Contrary to the development in other Catholic monastic orders, these Dominicans had decided to continue wearing the traditional habit of white tunic and black cloaks (because of which Dominicans have been known as Black Friars). The point of the story is that this order has been unusually successful in recruiting new members, despite the overall steep decline of religious vocations in Ireland (in that quite typical of Europe, but particularly sharp in that country because of the recent crop of pedophile cases and the scandalous revelations about Catholic charitable institutions in the not too distant past). According to the Times story, the Dominicans have also been relatively successful in attracting recruits in other countries, including the US.

What caught my attention was the lifestyle of these Dominicans. This goes back to the earliest times of the order, but is particularly relevant in the current situation of the churches in Europe and other strongly secular environments. Unlike other monks, Dominican friars live, not in monasteries, but in communal residences, then go to work (mostly teaching and preaching) in the outside world. I was particularly struck by a quote from a recently ordained Dominican: “My hat goes off to diocesan priests, but I don’t know how they do it without community life. Today, you need the support of your brothers”.

The Dominican Order of Preachers was founded by a Spanish priest, Dominic de Guzman, and officially recognized in 1216. Like the other so-called mendicant order, that of the Franciscans, the Dominicans were to be more mobile and flexible than the monks confined in monasteries. Unlike the Franciscans, the main purpose of the Dominicans was to combat heresy and to teach correct doctrine. Their history is rather a mixed bag. They played a very unsavory role in the brutal suppression of the Albigensian heresy in what is now the south of France. Worse, they were put in charge of the Holy Office, better known as the Inquisition, in which capacity they tortured suspected heretics and, if found guilty, handed them over to the state authorities to be burnt at the stake (so as not to sully the Church by acts of cruelty which, somebody seemed to remember, were in some tension with the teachings of Jesus). The notorious Grand Inquisitor Torquemada was a Dominican. But the order also has much brighter dimensions to its history. It has a brilliant intellectual tradition (with Thomas Aquinas as its high point), as well as a mystical one (Meister Eckhart, Catherine of Siena). Bartolome de Las Casas, who defended the rights of the Indios of the Americas against the oppression by their Spanish conquerors, was a Dominican; so was Yves Congar, one of the major figures in the theological movement leading up to the Second Vatican Council. It is important to emphasize that this brighter side of the Dominican heritage is operative today, though there is continuity with the early mission of teaching and preaching the supposed truth of the Catholic faith.

Much of the current debate concerning clerical celibacy in the Catholic Church has focused on its sexual aspects—the difficulty of maintaining the celibate ideal in a strongly sexualized culture, the sexual frustration that must go with celibacy, and the possibility (not proven) that the latter may foster a homosexual inclination (which, for a number of those so inclined, may or may not lead to pedophilia). I don’t want to speculate here on any of these aspects. But I think that there is a very simple human aspect, quite removed from any sexual issue, which ought to be in the center of this debate—the loneliness of being a Christian minister in social environments in which this vocation is implausible. As is a frequent habit of mine, this thought led me to an issue far removed from the topic of the Times story: the decline of the Protestant parsonage.

If one gives credence to the monastic vocation at all, it is arguable that the Eastern Orthodox Church has solved the matter of celibacy in a much more practical way than Rome: The monastic life is separate from that of ordinary priests. Such priests are expected or actually required to be married. Bishops must be monks. In an Orthodox perspective, the entire Roman Church is one big monastery, from the Pope on down!  [If I may voice a hunch here: Given the theological fact that the Eucharist is at the heart of Catholic piety and that only priests can celebrate it, and given the empirical fact that the shortage of priests is reaching crisis proportions,  Rome will be pushed in an Eastern direction.]

But there is a more proximate comparison—with married Protestant clergy. The solution there has been simple and drastic: The overwhelming majority of Protestant ministers have solved the problem of loneliness by getting married. [In this as in many other matters, Luther led the way: When a group of nuns joined his movement, he felt obligated to find husbands for them. Nobody wanted one of them, Katherine Bora, who had the reputation of being opinionated and headstrong. He ended up marrying her himself. By all accounts, the marriage was a happy one.]

A couple of years ago I heard a very interesting lecture by a historian about the cultural role of the German Protestant parsonage (das evangelische Pfarrhaus) and its recent decline. (The same historian very recently helped to organize an exhibition on this topic in a Berlin museum.) For several centuries this had been a central institution in German cultural life. An amazing number of scholars, artists and statesmen started out as children growing up in this milieu. The main point of the lecture was that this institution no longer exists. There are probably a number of reasons for this, but the most salient one is that few women today are prepared to play the traditional role of the minister’s wife (as Frau Pastor)—having no outside career of her own, being her husband’s helpmeet (a sort of unpaid curate), and his special deputy in matters involving women and children in the congregation. Add to this the strong possibility that she does not fully share her husband’s faith. This of course does not mean that such marriages cannot be happy. They are certainly capable of making the minister less lonely. But they make the traditional function of the Protestant parsonage quite obsolete.

At the lecture one participant asked whether one could imagine a new institution that could perform a similar function. At the time nobody seemed to have an idea. One idea occurred to me afterward. It may be relevant beyond the particular situation of German Protestantism.

Imagine a group of pastors and their families sharing a large residence. Today the pastors will be both men and women, as will the non-pastoral spouses. Such a residence could easily be structured so as to safeguard the privacy of each family and yet provide space for community activities—including cultural activities attended by outsiders. If the church authorities paid for this residence, it would surely be cheaper than maintaining, say, four or five separate parsonages. There would always be someone available to do babysitting. And who knows, there might be enough synergy in such a place to be bring about new cultural vitality, in addition to making ministry loss stressful and more effective.

German Protestantism after World War II created imaginative new institutions, foremost among them the so-called Protestant Academies, a unique type of think-tanks dealing with morally relevant issues of public policy. The above idea would thus be one of a succession of institutional innovations. But this one reminds me of an event very far removed from Europe and, as far as I know, with no religious associations—the institution of the “joint family” in India. This was very traditional—a group of brothers residing in one big house with their several families. In recent times it was looked upon as an old-fashioned arrangement, to be discarded by university-educated middle-class people, who wanted to be modern and to live exclusively with their nuclear families. As professional women in this class increasingly worked outside the home, child care became an increasing problem, aggravated by the difficulty of finding reliable domestic servants. Suddenly the old “joint family” seemed like a solution to the problem, and it underwent a modest revival. Sometimes necessity is the mother of imaginative social innovations.

show comments
  • Wayne Lusvardi

    In his above post, Dr. Berger continues a discussion he began in 1964 with his article “Marriage and the Construction of Reality” (Diogenes, Vol. 46). The social world is dialectical or dialogical. And the more primary or intimate the social institution — such as marriage — the more dependent on it for world maintenance. Thus, the erosion of the “Protestant parsonage” as a social institution by, say, wives of ministers
    working in the commercial or government sectors weakens this plausibility structure.

    Berger points out the weakening of religious plausibility in marriages that are partly or entirely outside the cognitive support of religious institutions. This empirical observation has vast implications for
    the church growth movement (if not also for marriage counseling “therapy”).

    One of the more recent salvage operations of Protestant Christianity is called the “Emerging Church Movement.” Two of the most influential proponents of
    this movement, Episcopal seminarian Eddie Gibbs and “theologian-in-residence” Tony Jones both have been based at Fuller Seminary in Pasadena, California,
    where I reside. So I have had opportunity to observe this movement first hand. Fuller is a former bastion of Evangelical Protestant Christianity.

    The main think piece of Gibbs is his book “Emerging
    Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures” (2005). Oversimplifying Gibbs, he advocates moving churches out of religious architecture buildings and into shopping malls, pubs,
    and coffee houses to allay the decline of religious plausibility. But if the world is dialectic as Berger points out, this strategy is likely to fail or end up with the church co-opted by the pluralized cognitive structures of the secular world.

    Tony Jones’ book “The Church is Flat: The Relational
    Ecclesiology of the Emerging Church Movement” seeks institutional salvation through a “relational ecclesiology” centered in the theology of German
    theologian Jurgen Moltmann. Jones borrows his title from New York Times journalist Tom Friedman’s book “The World is Flat,” a rather ersatz “flat earth” sociological approach at understanding the complexities of modernization (i.e., globalization) without addressing counter-modernization and cognitive de-modernizing ideologies and
    movements. To Jones, the Protestant Church can be
    salvaged by traditional rituals and political and social justice engagement formed around a nebulous “relationship ecclesiology.” Jones’ “relational” church apparently wouldn’t look much different than today’s liberal mainstream church, which has bought
    into the “high modernity” and totalitarian “nanny state” government paradigm entirely.

    Berger’s intriguing observations about “joint family
    structures” and “collective ministerial parsonages” perhaps sponsored by several denominations or as adjunct communities of seminaries, perhaps offers a
    more sociologically viable alternative. But, of course, this presumes that Protestant ministers marry “correctly” in the first place!

  • Wayne Lusvardi

    Perhaps I should have added in my earlier comment that the Emerging Church Movement espoused by Tony Jones is also based on the sociology of French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu.

    Borrowing from Bourdieu, Jones notes that the Emerging Church Movement is comprised of mostly “white, better educated, and wealthier” churchgoers who have “the upper hand in the struggle for cultural capital” (in short: Berger’s New Knowledge Class but who comes from former Evangelical backgrounds).

    Jones’ concern is that the Emerging Church Movement members will continue to embrace a “lifestyle of consumerism.” As such, Jones doesn’t seem to recognize that affiliation with the Emerging Church is a “consumer” choice in a religious marketplace.

    As Dr. Berger has observed: take away “choice” (aka consumerism) and the pluralism of religions and world views that come with modernity would be reversed, including the “choice” of joining the Emerging Church Movement.

    Following Jurgen Moltmann, Jones believes what makes the Christian church exception is “its responsibility to the poor, not because God grants the church special sacredness.” So to Jones, the Emerging Church would end up just another institution of social work. How the Christian church could perpetuate itself as an indistinguishable agency of social work is dubious.

  • HenryRacebrook

    Don’t the Hutterites already do this? That is, they already live in the equivalent of a “monastery of families”.

  • http://www.facebook.com/nathan.kendrick1 Nathan Kendrick

    Would these communities be something like “The New Monastics”?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Monasticism

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2014 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service