Those that have no property in the world must not, in the monastery, look for those things that, outside, they were unable to have. But let them have what their frailty requires, even when they were so poor that they could not provide even the necessities of life.
Last time we explored the nature of property, possessions and our relationship with them. The Rule of St Augustine does not immediately require a vow to poverty (the complete disowning of property and possessions) but rather a vow of sharing. The acquisition of wealth is not completely shunned but rather the utility of wealth is of greater import. In the previous verse those who had wealth when entering the monastery were to hand over the ownership of property and possessions to the whole community. This is biblical. The community of Acts, which St Augustine looked to as a model, sold property and gave the income to the community but also shared all they had, not just wealth but the use of wealth too. In the current verse we see the mirror of this: those that come into the community with nothing also are to learn a different way of being.
As I said, last time, I would rightly consider myself middle-class and come from a relatively wealthy family. I grew up in the poorer end of a wealthy town (Royal Tunbridge Wells). When I first moved out I lived in the rich end of a poor part of London (Archway). Later, Sarah and I moved into the poorer end of a rich part of London (Twickenham) and then in curacy we lived in the rich part of a poor area in York. I tell you this because it gives you an indication that I seem to end up in places where rich and poor live literally side by side. In my current context you can have a family with an expensive car and delightful interior design choices living next door to a family who struggle to pay for any furniture. This wealth divide is a microcosm of our world today.
In his commentary on the Rule of St. Augustine, Tarsicius J. Van Bavel OSA notes,
The social problem caused by the immense gulf between the many poor and the few rich is one of the most prevalent themes in Augustine’s sermons. This affluence of the few was the cancer of the society of his time.
Van Bavel, The Rule of St. Augustine, p.54
It is important to place the Augustinian Rule in its global context because it is similar to our own. St. Augustine was writing at the collapse of the Roman Empire as this global super power began to crumble along with all its institutions. With his came a great deal of social unrest across the world. We remind ourselves of what we said previously about times of scarcity and the division of resources. To offer a way of life within this context that sought to bring rich and poor together should be seen as a bold and hopeful act. The community at the Abbey of St. Victor, of which Hugh was one of the first and, arguably, the greatest pioneer of the way of life, along with hundreds of others at the time, rediscovered the Rule at a time of great reform and renewal in Europe.
The purpose of this exploration of the Rule of St. Augustine is for me to begin to articulate my own sense of how this short depiction of a community focussed on being of ‘one heart and mind in God’ could offer the world a much needed alternative way of life, starting with the Church. So far we’ve touched on inequality (see Chapter 1.iv) and possessions (see Chapter 1.v) and in both these cases we’ve discovered that the outward lives only reflect the inward lives and it is there that the work must be done. There is, however, in Hugh’s ‘On the Formation of Novices’, a strong emphasis on ensuring the outward life reflects the inner life. It is both true that “what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this is what defiles. For out of the heart come evil intentions, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander” (Mt 17:18-19) and also, “you will know them by their fruits.” (Mt 7:20). How we act says much about what we think and believe.
This relationship between inner and outer lives is significant when looking here, in this current section of the Rule of St. Augustine, at possessions because the guidelines are about the external issues of who gets what but they also touch upon the internal requirements of the heart and mind. Those that enter the community with nothing are going to benefit from the system of sharing whilst their, previously wealthier, brothers or sisters are going to be disadvantaged. St. Augustine, however, gives to both a challenge: for the rich, to relinquish the power of ownership and for the poor, to relinquish the desire for such earthly pleasures.
So here I come to my main reflection that immediately stand out for me relating to the Church and how we might ‘monasticize the clergy’ and ‘monasticize the world’: how we deal with perceived privilege.
I acknowledge my many privileges. I understand that I am in a certain position due indirectly to my biological reality, as well as my cultural inheritance. I do not believe I can change those things (that is a different socio-philosophical debate which I won’t get into now!) What then do I do with my reality? What do I do as a white person when my black brothers and sisters suffer unduly? What do I do as a male when my sisters are disproportionately fearful of walking alone? What do I do as a middle class person when when my neighbours, both figuratively and literally, are struggling?
My wealth I can use to assist my poorer neighbours but I must be careful that I do not do so from a position of power, as though I give to them rather than rightly share with them. It begins not by me just giving them my stuff, wealth, etc. but rather seeing them as interdependent persons and establishing an economic of mutuality. When I reassess what is valuable, I am more likely to share that with others. This looks like establishing relationship with them on a personal level and listening to their story and their struggles and seeking to walk with them into the reality of God’s Kingdom. It is also requires them to be able to listen to my story and my struggles and seeking to walk with me in to the reality of God’s Kingdom. In the Kingdom of God we both will be transformed and we will both be challenged to change and convert. This verse in the Rule is directly applicable, however, to warn the net recipient of earthly wealth to not fall into the trap that their wealthier brothers and sisters are being taken out of.
The warning given in this verse, to not look to gain that which you previously lacked by the rehabilitation of one’s wealthier brothers and sisters, sounds like the wealthy again do not face up to the pain and struggle they caused by hoarding the resources. Reparations must be paid! St. Augustine, however, has already established that the whole community, whether rich or poor, must change the value system. This re-valuation is enforced by external doctrine and explicit concord in order to change the heart and mind but it must not just be the external but also be of internal desire and understanding. I can imagine it is easy to demand that justice means getting what you deserve; both positively and negatively. What if our understanding of justice is not right?
It is easy to equate justice with the reparation and to desire to see those who have punished unduly to be punished themselves. There is a deep seated desire to see them ‘experience the pain and heartache they caused others.’ This is a natural response. We believe that it will lead us to feel better about it but it never does. The reason forgiveness is so hard to do is because we get a kick out of winning and of being in power. For those who have been robbed of power and agency the only way they see they can achieve satisfaction is by taking it away from those who have. In times of scarcity this is what happens. What this actually means is that the oppressed seek to use the same means as the oppressors to take what they rightfully feel is theirs. ‘To take back control’ is a powerful statement because we all know that is what we truly want. The problem is it isn’t.
What the Rule of St. Augustine offers us is a way of life that explicitly mitigates against the perpetuation of a broken system. I often state that the familiar saying, ‘one must fight fire with fire’ is absurd; it just creates more fire. Alternatives, however, sound to the oppressed and the poor not enough to satisfy their understandable and historical hurt and pain. Forgiveness only sounds worthwhile to the perpetrators and not the victims. That is, unless, we reassess our values and change the rules of the game. What if, for example, my privilege is not seen as privilege? What if we re-define the status I am in and say that the benefits I have received due to my biology are not benefits, are not things to be lauded and desired? What if we say wealth and possessions are not the highest goal? What if the power wielded by those in authority is not what is good for us?
Briefly, I want to say something about the Black Lives Matter protests taking place across the world in response to the devastating and ongoing issues of race within the U.S.A. This particular issue is not just about race and to suggest that it is is to ignore the cause and therefore avoid the solution. It is about the wider, underlying issue, at the very heart of the American ideal (and perhaps the wider Western system): individualised capitalism. Within the very founding documents of the U.S.A. there is an explicit value of individual rights. These rights of ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ are put front and centre. Their shared way of life is based on a principle that they are owed unalienable rights. Everyone deserves equal; equal prosperity, equal power, equal privilege. We return, again, to equal outcomes vs. equal opportunity and the confusion between the two. Black Live Matters is important because it could be about the equality of respect under God, unfortunately, at this point in the history of the American Empire, it so often becomes about economics and power.
The current system perpetuates a zero sum game where one’s benefits equates to others’ losses. At this time of perceived scarcity, or at least where the narrative is one of scarcity, the ownership of the limited resources becomes the source of value. When the value system suggests that you are owed life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and they are all based on the ownership of resources and power you begin to fight for those rights particularly if they are God-given. In this social narrative it is easy to adopt the neo-Marxist worldview that interprets reality as an eternal struggle between the haves and the have nots. The power games that are being enacted at the moment rely upon the division of the world into oppressed and oppressors.
Focusing on identity, for short term political gain, is a zero sum game. Identity is the last refuge of political mediocrity. Parties, which are bankrupt in ideology and short on demonstrated success, are the ones most likely to use “traditional identity” as a means to gain political support.
Sanjeev Ahluwalia, “Avoid zero-sum political games”, The Times of India, February 11, 2014, found on https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/opinion-india/avoid-zero-sum-political-games/
What if this narrative is wrong? What if the world is not like that? What if the world is full of people who are all hurting and are in need of love and respect? Why is there so much blame, cynicism, guilt and shame being thrown around? Why is everyone claiming oppression upon themselves and others? Why is there so much protest and demand to be heard and why is it that everyone thinks that those other people are to blame for the problems we face? What if we all just pause, for a moment, breathe, and admit we all want unity? That is, of course, if we do want unity, which I don’t think we all do… How we avoid a zero sum politics is a challenge and is the work of us all to discover the solution. We cannot do this whilst still playing a zero sum game; it requires, therefore, agents who choose to play by different rules and I would suggest that a community that lives out a different set of values would be good brokers of conversation within the public square.
The idea of community ought never to lead us to equate people with one another, and to leave it at that. Uniformity reduces people to ciphers and effectively means the destruction of personality. Love, on the other hand, respects what is characteristic of each person with his different needs and gifts, his own irreplaceable temperament and character.
Van Bavel, The Rule of St. Augustine, p.53
In this current climate, my privilege often means only unresolvable guilt and shame for being who I am biologically. That is because my position, status, possessions, etc., all that divides me from others, those with less, becomes my identity and I am seen as only having these things because others do not. The Rule of St. Augustine encourages, like the Bible, to review that understanding. What if my possession of material objects of perceived value and indeed of socio-political power was not seen as mine, individually but ours, collectively? What if more value was given to being in greater relationship with others and contributions to the wider social functionality.
To return to Black Lives Matters, no change will come about when we all just demand equality within the current political game because it is zero sum and so the ‘opponents’ whoever the protestors have united against as their common enemy are forced to compete and enact the combative politics which will see only violence perpetuated. The change will only come when the rules of the game are changed and that will involve, as St. Augustine lived out, Hugh of St. Victor encouraged, we begin to live under a different Rule. A Rule where the explicit value is to be of one heart and mind in God. To seek the benefit of the community above one’s own individual pursuit of happiness. To believe that my value is received when it is given to the wider community and no way else. That I should seek to receive what is needed but not at the expense of a brother’s or sister’s needs. My frailty is the responsibility of the whole community just as theirs is mine. So if a brother or sister suffers, I suffer, and when a brother or sister is privileged, I am privileged.
It is of no use, I do not think, for me to perpetuate the zero sum game. It is not useful for me to force others to hand over power by making them feel guilty or shamed because they will merely hold tighter to what is clearly the most valuable thing in our society. Change comes when we follow in the footsteps of Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela and, ultimately, Jesus Christ himself, who lived a different narrative and chose to seek first the Kingdom of God where all are invited, rich and poor, strong and weak, male and female, to work together to see that sharing resources and power is not zero sum and that there’s plenty to go around. This will, of course mean that the rich and powerful will need to give up ownership (and they will need gentle but persistent love to do that) but it also requires those that lack to not fall foul of the self same temptation.
This all requires a new social narrative to be told, one where the pursuit of happiness is given a communal focus and happiness is properly understood. That happiness cannot be rooted in individual earthly desires, be they possessions or power. Taking St. Augustine’s own definition,
For what do we call enjoyment but having at hand the objects of love? And no one can be happy who does not enjoy what is man’s chief good, nor is there any one who enjoys this who is not happy. We must then have at hand our chief good, if we think of living happily…Such, then, being the chief good, it must be something which cannot be lost against the will. For no one can feel confident regarding a good which he knows can be taken from him, although he wishes to keep and cherish it. But if a man feels no confidence regarding the good which he enjoys, how can he be happy while in such fear of losing it?
St Augustine, Of the Morals of the Catholic Church, 3.iv-v.
Augustine goes on to say that our chief good is not earthly, for that can diminish and be taken from us, for it is limited and finite. Our chief good is to be in relation to God for He is infinite and and eternal.
For the sweetness proceeding from God has in itself a certain wonderful and limitless abundance; so that these words have been spoken concerning it: “Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man, what things God hath prepared for them that love him” (1 Cor. 2:9) Whence again it is written: “I shall be satisfied when thy glory shall appear.” (Ps. 16:15) This kind of satiety must be our happiness.
Hugh of St. Victor, Explanation, p.15