The Head and the Heart, Part 2

In my previous post, I discussed the importance of having our head and heart working together if we want to live well. If they are not yoked, our ability to make good judgements and act upon them becomes difficult. Either, we fail to see clearly what is true and good (no head), or we lack the power to choose what is true and good (no heart). The latter is my problem when I cross paths with a bag of Doritos. 

This tension is not new. Benedict recognized it centuries ago and warned his followers about the need for vigilance against their own wickedness and capacity for self-deception (RB 7:14, 18). People can be their own worst enemy, and Benedict’s answer for this problem is found in community living. So, Benedict wanted his monks to commit to stability within a community. This remains the defining feature of the Benedictine way of life today. 

The community is the anchor for the monk. It stabilizes him, creating the security necessary for honesty with himself and vulnerability with others. This security is essential when doing the difficult work of interior examination of mind and heart. Benedict even goes so far as to call the monastic community a “workshop.” It is the place where the physical and spiritual work of monks is done. 

This ancient wisdom can be adapted to life outside the monastery. We can create our own “workshops” in which we can work on our heads and hearts. For centuries, the university has been one such workshop. 

Every year families send millions of students to college, hoping they will become better people, capable of living with their head and heart attached. In the US, many college students are athletes, but I’m afraid college athletes are being trained to be gyrovagues: the type of monk Benedict says is a disgrace because they spend their lives drifting from one monastery to the next. “Always on the move, they never settle down and are slaves to their own wills and gross appetites” (1:11). They lack the stability that comes from a commitment to a community. They don’t have a workshop. 

College athletics today requires very little in terms of commitment to a community. We no longer say the athlete “committed” to the athletic program. Instead, they “sign” their name to a contract that is mostly about what the individual athletes want, when they want it, and how they want it. If they don’t get what they want, they can move on to another university community that will again require no commitment to the community. This lack of stability does not help these students develop their minds and hearts.

In my next post, I’ll use the Rule to shed some more light on the current situation in college athletics. Though the current situation is challenging, I refuse to lose hope. I think the ancient wisdom of the Rule has something to offer us today.