"He couldn’t stand math. 'I was supposed to fulfill his desire and to be a successful capitalist,' he snorted. He was a 'hotheaded' teenager attracted to the religious fervor of the 1970s — like the Jesus movement, a youthful West Coast evangelicalism — and its intersections with social-justice movements. The way that the Shakers put their commitment to faith, pacifism and equality at the center of everything they did appealed to him. He soon began visiting Sabbathday Lake, the only active Shaker community accepting new members, after high school.... The self-abnegation required of this level of communal Christianity necessitated some internal rearranging.... Subordinating your own dreams, preferences and even personality to the interests of the group and the pursuit of Christlike virtue. Over and over, for the rest of your life. Brother Arnold nearly quit in his first year over an argument with an older sister who wrongly accused him of some minor, long-forgotten transgression. 'I’m just 21, living with people in their 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s. You can’t talk back to them. I had no redress, so I just had to take it. Helpless.' He smiled. 'I didn’t really think that that was right.' He appealed to Brother Ted, who told him that it didn’t matter if Arnold was right; he needed to get ahold of his wounded ego. Brother Arnold fumed while he worked, debating whether to leave. Eventually, he calmed down. Brother Ted was right. 'If you’re here, you’re supposed to be here as a vessel of love,' he told me. 'You’re not supposed to be here to be yourself. You’re supposed to be here to be better than yourself.'"
From "There Are Only Two Shakers Left. They’ve Still Got Utopia in Their Sights. Their numbers have dwindled, but the remaining members are imagining what comes next" (free-access link).
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
३० टिप्पण्या:
I think "rattle" and "roll" come next.
Very interesting and thanks for the free-link. I studied a fair bit of early American and colonial religious movements, but not the Shakers, so this was helpful. Though I wish the article gave me a little more on their religious distinctions. It seems basically like a Protestant monastic movement, but that's never mentioned how both Catholics and Orthodox have much, much older movements that are basically doing the same things of committed their lives to a communal faith and letting go those things that can interrupt such a commitment. There was a time in my life, in my late 20s, I was seriously wrestling with an idea of a kind of Evangelical monasticism, but then I met my now wife. I had a evening where I did wonder whether developing our relationship was a kind of 'giving up" for me in my faith, that's how taken I was by a lot of monastic writing over the centuries (especially the desert fathers), but sorted through that as realizing while a good, it wasn't the path God had for me. Though I respect those who walk that path.
I was struck by the comments too. We live in such an oversexualized and so rabidly consumeristic society that so many not only can't imagine given up sex or other stuff, they actually think its defying the gods. Which is exactly the kind of prophetic role Shakers can and should fulfil.
But why do so many Catholic monastic movements continue while the Shakers don't? Probably just pure numbers to draw from, there's a lot more Catholics out there. Though it also does seem to be a kind of reaction to poverty or other social pressures. Brother Arnold in the article sure seemed to have a better path in his rebelling against his father than so many others of his generation. True peace, not declared peace. That's a gift bigger than so many can imagine.
I so appreciate the wideness of your interests, Althouse. Again and again over the years, you've sparked little trails of interests that lead me to really interesting vistas. This is a case where I'm going to dig more into Shaker history and life, bringing my own questions, but sparked by this article. Thanks for what you're doing and what you've done over the years. It's often been a balm in a parched age.
O, Paddy. I cannot imagine it to bigger than my joy as a pater familias.
Looks like Shaker celibacy is comin' home to roost. Religious fanaticism never ceases to amaze.
It helps that Catholics traditionally don’t permit birth control.
Michael Pye's "The Edge of the World" has a chapter devoted to 'beguinages', in the Low Countries in the 13th C and later, which were essentially communities of Catholic religious women--not cloistered nuns-- outside the official hierarchy.
The word and concept were new to me, and I've read a lot of European history.
Oh, I love the way my life has gone. This is truly a wonderful path, and my two kids are amazing (as is my wife). But there is a depth in that monastic path, and it had a deep draw, but I don't think it really is about joy in our normal way of using that word. It's a deep fulfilment in the midst of struggle and commitment to a profound cause and a life of prayer. There's a draw, but it's a very different kind of draw with very different goals and even a different kind of self involved. But that's the nature of letting go for any significant cause or goal.
It's not that I regret not pursuing that, it's that I understand it and saw the wealth to be found there when the world only talks about the wealth of romance and wealth. With that latter I know so many people who spent their souls and embraced nonstop frenzy, and they weren't happy.
It's just a different way, that life of Shakers and monastics. A way our era and culture can't really comprehend.
But that was my earlier point. Shakers aren't the only religious movement to promote celibacy, not even close. but they seem to be the only ones who get hit with the comin home to roost label.
Maybe because Catholicism is very big tent and so has many movement within it, rather than Prots who want every movement to be their own isolated thing.
And calling celibacy religious fanaticism is like calling MAGA far-right extremism. It's not extreme if there are huge numbers of people choosing it. Celibacy is a commitment within significant people in Christianity, for a part of life or for a lifetime, and across many religions too. It's a very human choice to make, one that understands the need for discipline in key ways for the particularly devoted.
He was a 'hotheaded' teenager attracted to the religious fervor of the 1970s — like the Jesus movement, a youthful West Coast evangelicalism — and its intersections with social-justice movements.
It's cringe-inducing to witness writers attempt to retrofit modern leftwing buzzwords like "intersection" and "social justice" into 1970s America. Younger readers will, of course, will never know it's a retrofit.
I hope Brother Arnold is satisfied with his decision.
Are there any movers among the shakers?
Celibacy among the flock is very uncommon- celibacy in the priesthood less so.
So... who among us read the farthest thinking this was about Arnold Schwarzennegar? #AskingForAFriend
Ann Lee went through four painful births and then saw the lovemaking of Adam and Eve as Fall from Paradise, and founded the Shakers, who forbid lovemaking. Their population fell even faster than modern populations.
There is a Shaker village in Western Kentucky: now a museum. It gives a lot of insight and history of the Shakers, those that lived there.
As a side note, there are still groups of people that use horse and carts as well as plow fields with teams of horses.
>And calling celibacy religious fanaticism is like calling MAGA far-right extremism. <
I was referring to the Shakers' religious fanaticism, which includes the celibacy, not to "celibacy" in general. And, no, Shakers are not like MAGA at all, neither in the extremes of their fervor nor in their numbers.
>It's not extreme if there are huge numbers of people choosing it.<
That is patently, historically false. But since you are attempting to redefine the word, let's play anyway.
From the article: "Out of the tens of thousands of Shakers who have lived out their faith in the last quarter-millennium, these two remain."
Tens of thousands is hardly huge numbers compared to 10 billion people who have existed in the world in the last 250 years. And in discussion of extremes it is the relative numbers that are at issue, isn't it. Large numbers in the middle, small numbers at the extreme. And in that, Shakers, with their far beyond the norm lifestyle, represent a pittance - yes, an extreme pittance.
But now that we've finished with diverting to the "extreme" tangent, let's get back to the word I actually used - "fanaticism." You seem to want to make that word pejorative, which it is not, necessarily, and not in my use of it. Fanatics are not all jihadists cutting off heads. These Shakers have the best of intentions, it is clear. I applaud them for that. And yes, that applies indeed to other monastic celibates, IMO; they are also "nice" fanatics. But the simple fact that there are others of that ilk living in such an abnormal way is no argument against what I've said about Shakers.
And, it is not a "very" human choice - because it is so distant from the norms of human existence. It is simply a strange choice made by some relatively paltry number of humans. I sense that you are angling toward a religious argument which was not my intent, nor my interest. So I will just leave it to disagreement at this point.
Only two shakers left. Take that with a grain of salt...
All those round-heeled librul wymyn aborting their kids are doing the same thing.....destroying their own progeny, and taking themselves out of the gene pool. Margaret Sanger looks down and smiles-----at least at the darkies.
Hey, if the Shakers want to continue they can recruit the like-minded such as Rich, Howard, Dinky, Freder etc. though in their case it isn't so much a matter of faith.
I'm not redefining the word celibacy. It has existed across human history in various ways in major religions. It's a significant group of people even if not a majority of them. But it's certainly something that's not unique to the dying Shaker movement. And my reference to MAGA was not to the similarities of the movements but to the similarities of how each are dismissed as been fanatics or extremists. It's really missing the core of each movement to dismiss them that way.
I'm angling toward a religious argument because it's a very longstanding religious expression, formally by some movements (or priests/monastics ) or among those who are celibate outside of marriage, often for religious reasons.
And you, in your short comment, connected their celibacy choice with being religious fanatics. I'm not a mind reader. I just read what is written.
I think you just wrote a little haha aside about celibacy and didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition about it.
It's indeed very human choice. Just not a dominating one.
Coincidentally this same issue was covered last night in episode 2 of season 4 of The Chosen airing on the CW. It is a really well-acted dramatization of the gospels. Specifically, this conflict arose when Peter (renamed from Simon earlier in the episode) listed seven reasons why he could not forgive Matthew's transgressions, eliciting the famous "seventy times seven" quote from Jesus, which in the way of this series he then says, "and you know I don't mean that literally, Peter. I'm talking about infinite forgiveness." The same gift extended to us via Jesus.
This is the only current series I have any interest in seeing because it is so well written and acted. And I have an old friend who plays Rabbi Josiah (who makes his first appearance of season 4 next week).
A secular segue to a bounty of bennies, perhaps, by the seashore.
I should clarify I was reacting to this passage from Althouse's post: "He appealed to Brother Ted, who told him that it didn’t matter if Arnold was right; he needed to get ahold of his wounded ego. Brother Arnold fumed while he worked, debating whether to leave. Eventually, he calmed down. Brother Ted was right. 'If you’re here, you’re supposed to be here as a vessel of love,' he told me. 'You’re not supposed to be here to be yourself. You’re supposed to be here to be better than yourself.'"
Not celibacy - you were redefining "extreme" with the specious "huge numbers of people" irrelevancy.
Contrast with the very much still-expanding Amish. The Amish sacrifice a great deal, by ordinary standards, but not family life, which is central.
Capitalism is fucking awesome!
Salt-N-Pepa (Ooh Baby Baby) approve this comment. Shake it Real Good!
OK--Ya got me.
Difference between Shakers and monastic orders in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Communities- and even Episcopalians. The monastic orders are a part of the greater church, with a role within that church. They recruit primarily from church members, though they at times attract others. And many of the orders don't recruit at all- seekers find them and join.
The Shakers were a movement all unto themselves. And unlike the monastic orders- were a mixed community of both sexes. They had and have no role within the greater church of any denomination or Christianity in general. Pointedly- their existence in pointless in the greater scheme of things.
I'm not familiar enough with Buddhist or other non-Christian monastic movements to comment on their role in the greater religion they belong to. Or even if there are other non-Christian monastics besides the Buddhist ones. They're the only ones I've heard of.
What is the true meaning of celibacy?
the state of being unmarried
celibacy, the state of being unmarried and, therefore, sexually abstinent, usually in association with the role of a religious official or devotee. In its narrow sense, the term is applied only to those for whom the unmarried state is the result of a sacred vow, act of renunciation, or religious conviction.
Now do
chaste
not having had sex, or only having a sexual relationship with the person you are married to.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा