This topic came up accidentally in another thread but it seems interesting to me so I'm giving it a shot as its own thread. It's mostly a Protestant vs Catholic/Orthodox kind of thing, so possibly not of much interest to non-Christians, but we'll see :P

By asceticism I mean (in general) the active efforts made by Christians that are intended to bring one closer to union with God and cultivate Christian virtues like humility, love, patience, kindness, gentleness, and self-control.

Monastic traditions began as very concentrated efforts towards that goal, primarily centered around fleeing worldly pursuits in favor of "prayer without ceasing", pursued with the sort of focus implied by the parable of the hidden treasure or the pearl of great price.

Luther, Calvin, and the reformers rejected monastic traditions (and by extrapolation ascetic practices more generally?) primarily because they interpreted these practices within the context of "justification by faith", that is: in the context of salvation and it being beyond the possibility of being earned by works. They considered monastics to be trying to earn salvation, and called for the abolition of monasteries, for the return of monks and nuns to secular life, and for the complete renunciation of monastic worship as "blasphemous" and "wasted effort." (more here).

So the topic is: Are Luther and Calvin right? I'm going to argue no but not quite yet :P

---

here's how this started:

I've been thinking about the active vs passive and the more I consider these, the more I believe both are present.

As for Luther rejecting these, I'm still not sure if this decision was only because he saw it replacing the doctrine of salvation by faith. Would his view have been different if one contended that salvation was not the issue, but only purification for it's own sake?

I don't see a problem with one seeking "purification" in whatever context, as far as Christianity goes, I believe both active and passive "methods" are biblical, but the active part seems to be a willingness, and does not necessarily need to be a methodical attempt at purification, hence the natural progression.

I haven't read much of either Luther or Calvin and Google was only modestly useful, at least so far, and I am not confident about arguing hypotheticals for the reformers. One argument might be they were more specifically objecting to the specific form of catholic monasticism in the middle ages, but the Heidelblog article I linked makes a reasonable argument that they didn't limit their objections only to those specific institutions.

More generally, from what I've read the objections include

- Seeing monasticism as an attempt at salvation by works
- Rejecting monastic vows as an attempt to replace baptism
- Seeing monastic or hermetic life as causing a schism in the community

See for example The Lutheran Augsberg confession:

or from Calvin:

My arguments I think are split into two categories

1) The objections ignore the very rich tradition of Christian experience testifying to the value of ascetic practice, as well as a great deal of at least implicit scriptural support for human effort in spirituality.

2) The specific objection about faith and works misconstrues the objective of the majority of Christian monastic practice, failures of 16th century Catholicism notwithstanding. I think it also absolutizes the juridical notion of justification to the exclusion of all else in Christian life and in so doing misunderstands a lot of Christian practice.

Re: Scriptural evidence: think of all the exhortations found in the Gospels and in the Pauline epistles which inspired monastic tradition in the first place

and while in Colossians Paul wrote:

in the very next chapter he wrote

A passive attitude is not really implied by any of these.

Having read a fair amount of ascetic writing (both ancient and modern), the two most prominent features in ancient monastic practice (and in modern orthodox monasticism) are the pursuit of constant prayer and remembrance of God, and the need for the heart to be purified from the kinds of passions which Paul exhorts the Colossians to put to death within themselves. There are also found many acknowledgements of our inability to either pray or to conquer passions without grace, which is why for the desert monastics valued humility and non-judgement of others above all the virtues.

It's also true that in something like the "Sayings of the Desert Fathers and Mothers" they don't speak of salvation using the same categories of justification that the reformers do. They have a view that involves less of a dichotomy between faith and works. But its impossible to read these writings and think that people believed they were earning salvation

I don't want to distract too much from your main discussion (which--good luck with, we've almost never been successful with intra-religious debates here), but at some point I would like to hear a more complete defense of asceticism from you.

In hindsight, the reform church may have been right in their analysis, because the catholic church did stray from the doctrine of salvation by faith, but I still think there is no need to throw away the baby with the bathwater, the concept of monasticism in general is not all bad.

Well written, and I agree with these points.

I agree that there is an active element described in the scriptures, but there is also the idea that we are unable to attain these things ourselves, that the refiner refines so long as you're willing, that he prunes the branches so that they bear more fruit. I do think there is harmony in the passive and active process of purification, I don't believe it's a dichotomy.

any particular points you think need special attention? It seems like a defense of asceticism intended for a Christian audience would be different in a few ways from a defense aimed at atheists.

I've been under the impression that asceticism has been related to practices in which the acolyte denies the physical body, more like a release such as might be known as "nirvana". In this release from the physical body which consists of total denial of sight, sound, taste, touch,etc. the student enters into another realm, that of the supersensible in which a man is transformed , much like or exactly like the rising of Lazarus, the transformation of Paul on the road to Damascus, or the transformation of the young man of Nain.

Asceticism has many variations which might be fasting to self flagellation or other similar practices. The one that stands before my eye is the meditative practices such as the Buddha in position, an Indian meditant or western meditation practices.

It helps to have an understanding that the human being consists of body, soul and spirit. Something has to release from the body,no?

In the ancient mystery centers, Essenes and Therapeutiae come to mind, the Christian monasteries appear to be a continuation of the activity, at root, is the attaining of the "Kingdom of God". Of course ,with the loss of the spiritual comprehension of man, through the churches it has morphed into ascetic practices appropriate to the time which includes sexual abstinence, rejection of worldly goods, and whatever else the spirit of denial would manifest within the enclaves of the monastery.

OP referenced Luther's statements of "closing the monasteries" but the author actually gave a more double sided presentation in which Luther was not totally against the same. Can't speak for Luther but I can accept the reference that Luther saw the Monastic life as taking one away from the Christ duch as, as referenced, taking so many vows and believing that what they were soing was more important than baptism. In essence , as Luther found fault with the Roman Papacy due to corruption, it appears he took issue with the monastic life in the same manner.

The only thing I know of Calvin is the doctrine of predestination which can lead to a denial of the monasteries as they become moot for either you are one of the elect or you are not. Even Luther mentions this in that to debate who is the elect, even if you believe in predestination, is foolishness for we have the "Blood of Christ" for without the it all for nothing and so he(Luther) somehow spoke to Grace and stated that he would not speak to God's thoughts in this manner. In this Lutheran and Calvinistic doctrines of predestination are not the same.

Somewhere in that the tension of "justification through faith" or "works" can be related to the two men and their approach to predestination. Of course, the above relates to one life as the religious during their ages were not prepared to comprehend the concepts of reincarnation and karma which is important for our times..

I wouldn't call the effort to grow in those virtues asceticism. They are virtues which all Christians should pursue at all times by all methods.

Galatians 5:

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.

The monasteries began as one method of achieving those goals. I think you can find NT verses that support "fleeing worldly pursuits" but there are also verses that warn that such actions are not in themselves effective for growth in the Spirit. All growth comes through learning obedience - how one learns it may differ across a large range of activities. Paul said he had learned the secret of both being filled and suffering want - that secret isn't to renounce the world, but to renounce love of the world. I don't think monasticism is itself either wrong or right - it's just one life style that can be Christian or non-Christian.

One of the great works of Christianity: Imitation of Christ by Thomas a Kempis. This was written to his brethren in a monastery, thus offering advice for the cloistered but it has had a profound effect on many men from all walks of life.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/kempis/imitation.i.html

I realize that the word asceticism tends to connote particularly severe or austere practices, but in Eastern Orthodoxy the word ascesis is used to refer to almost any form of spiritual self-discipline or training, according to the definition of the word. That may seem to trivialize the conversation a bit (at least at one end of the spectrum), but my experience has been that the Orthodox tend to emphasize these things with non-monastic church members more than western Protestants and Catholics. So for example the normal liturgical calendar for the OCA includes a large number of fast days, and it is not only intended for monastics. On the other hand, speaking to the idea of nuance between grace and works, they say:

and what seems to happen is that each member more or less adopts whatever part of the rule (or none at all) they think makes sense for them at the time.

I agree with this.

One reason I decided to use the word asceticism instead of monasticism in the thread title was that the protestant emphasis on the dichotomy between grace and works seems to have colored the perception of the value of this kind of self-discipline and effort beyond rejecting more austere forms or monastic communities. I thought that was reflected particularly in N_R's remarks about a passive approach and the "natural consequences" of becoming Christian.

I also think it's clear from both your comments and his that there's not some deep theoretical chasm between our respective positions if we're discussing things like rules of fasting generally, but there's a difference in value and emphasis in the respective cultures.

And what I would add is that I have found a lot of value in reading the spiritual works of monastics who did embrace more austere forms of asceticism, even though I myself am much closer to being a hedonist than an ascetic in my own practice. Who better to learn about prayer from than someone who has spent 30 years trying to learn to pray without ceasing? Or who better to learn about the value of humility from than someone who has dedicated an entire life to obedience? Considering human psychology and especially the power of habits and training in every field, it makes sense to me that there is value to be found in such a dedicated life.

The evidence of this is visible in that, in my opinion, the richest and most profound examples of a Christian faith and way of life are found in monasticism. I don't believe this means that all Christians should become monks, nor does it make all monastic practices good or all monks holy. But I think it's a reason to hold monasticism in high regard and be inspired by its best examples. I fear that in rejecting monastic vows and viewing grace as being opposed to human effort (perhaps mistaking justification and sanctification, to use protestant categories), the western churches have cut themselves off from one of the deepest veins of Christian spirituality.

I believe that some people, in an effort to renounce the love of the world, will renounce the world. Means to and end type of thinking, where they realize they are not where they should be, and find it easier to take the route of materialistic celibacy, than to try to change perspectives with everything still in place.

Well said, Well Named.

The idea of grace or being chosen is so harmful to an individual's development when it comes at the expense of human effort.

I think we are in basic agreement. I just wanted to clarify terms for anyone reading this thread. And you're right that there is a serious problem in viewing grace as opposed to effort. Some have said, maybe Wright, that works are necessary for salvation but works don't save. Paul said that severe treatment of the body does no good against the desires of the flesh, but he also said he constantly disciplines himself. We are told to flee temptation, yet all things are lawful. I think the idea is that we should strive for an attitude where we can take it or leave it because our focus isn't on this life, but on following Christ and growing in grace.

As for the monks, for 1000 years they were practically the sole source of true evangelism - it was the monks that followed the soldiers into Europe and began the real work of converting pagans who had become nominally Christian but were no more Christian than they were under Thor. The monastic orders did many works of good, including works of charity and education. So though they took vows that would seem harsh to us they were in the world, though not of the world.

Jesus said if your eye offends you, pluck it out. I'm sure this was meant as a figure of speech, but the idea is to avoid temptation. For some that may include an austere life style. But it's important to remember it is a means, not an end.

This is interesting:

I believe that relates to his proclamation Simul justus et peccator

So it was a point of distinction from catholicism.

Yes, from what I understand Luther’s conversion began in 1515 with his tower experience. Luther was a professor at Wittenberg Germany, preparing to lecture on Paul’s epistle to the Romans. In Romans 1:17, “For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed—a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: ‘The righteous will live by faith.’” Luther observed that the word used in Latin for “righteous” meant, to make righteous; however, the word used in the Greek meant, to declare as righteous, or to regard as righteous, or to count as righteous. Luther reasoned that since the Greek came before the Latin, the Greek was more accurate. He believed that the righteousness referred to here, is not the sinner’s own righteousness, but God’s righteousness that He gives freely by his grace.

Yep. What do you think about Luther's view of monasticism?

I agree with Luther. No human effort can contribute to our salvation; it is a gift of God. Man cannot achieve purity in isolation or by taking vows. Although fasting and other ascetic practices may be useful, they neither justify nor offer salvation. Concerning monasteries, as I understand it, Luther’s original goal was to reform. The Augsburg Confession refers to monasteries “In Augustine’s time” and “Aforetime” in the 1537 Smalcald Articles, (cited in the Heidelblog) Luther states that monastic vows “must be absolutely abolished.” However, Luther also said that chapters and cloisters should be returned to their original use. I believe this at least implies that Luther and Lutherans did not have a problem with monasteries as they existed in the fifth century. Their objections were to sixteenth century practices “contrary to the Canons.”

I was reading the statement of faith of a random Lutheran church, and they wrote:

After meditating day and night, finally the breakthrough came when Luther gave heed to the words at the end of (Romans) 1:17, "He who through faith is righteous shall live." Then he realized that the verse was not talking about the active righteousness that God demands, but the passive righteousness that He freely gives to those who believe the Gospel.

Thought it was interesting they make the distinction of active and passive here, when referring to righteousness.

I think Catholics and Orthodox mostly grant this now, when expressed using the protestant frame as to what "justification" and "salvation" mean. In so agreeing I think they grant that Luther was making valid points against Catholic practice in the 16th century, to be clear.

I've read more of the desert fathers (3rd and 4th century) than the most famous 5th century monastics (Benedict and Basil the Great) so perhaps there was a shift, but I think the desert fathers are far more austere, hermetic, and arguably as easy to read as being works-oriented than medieval monasticism. I'm not sure the distinction makes sense. For example Evagrius of Ponticus (late 4th century) is supposed to have said "take away temptations, and no one will be saved", alluding to the idea of ascetic discipline against the passions. Of course I would argue that what he means by "saved" is not really the same thing as Luther, but still.

If you'd said isolation is not necessary to achieve purity I'd agree, but I think "cannot" is too strong. I also think "isolation" isn't maybe the right word to convey what I think is a central theme of mysticism in monastic practice. They would talk about silence, or stillness. Which don't necessarily require physical isolation, and doesn't even necessarily mean not talking at all. Not all monks are hermits. But it is a discipline and an experience that is taken to be very important in spiritual maturation (not necessarily "salvation" in the protestant sense!) in these traditions, and in the ability to really "see" or know God: Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. Which shouldn't be reduced to being "saved" or not.

Well, they certainly made the story sound more dramatic than I did.

You’re right, I did not word my thinking correctly. I was not thinking of hermits; I was thinking of Luther’s experiences at the monastery at Erfurt. The monks there were isolated from the rest of the world. Luther was a very diligent monk, devoting himself to fasting, flagellations, prayer, and confessions. Despite all his efforts at purification, he could not attain the perfection that he felt God required. What I actually meant was that man cannot achieve perfection through purification efforts.
As to the desert fathers, Benedict and Basil the Great, and Evagrius of Ponticus, I know nothing about them so I cannot respond other than to say it is possible Luther made some erroneous assumptions believing all monastic experience was similar to his own. And to me that quote from Evagrius of Ponticus sounds a bit like something a Buddhist monk might say.