You may disagree because these practices arise from Catholicism and Orthodoxy, but I’ve always seen a beauty in the monastic life. The avoid the allure of fads and the “new” through simplicity. They work, they pray, they study. That’s it. Some even spend much of their time in silence because they view most chatter as just “vanity”. Perhaps you might label this as empty ritual, but to me, this is their cross: scraping off the ever-present need to do “great things” and “become important”. In such an environment, I can’t see how one would easily gain an inflated idea about oneself.

I’m sure there are the self-deceived among the monastics, but I’m not sure how many people would enter into a such a lifestyle simply because they thought they’d be “getting something out of it”. What’s to gain? There’s no money, no sexual indulgence, the menu’s limited, no flood of continual sensory stimulation or entertainment, no accolades or praise of other men because their prayers are in secret and their writings are often anonymous, and there’s nowhere to really “move up” to: monastics generally do not take positions of leadership.

Further, evangelization doesn’t have to be carried out in the same manner by everyone. Some people would insist you aren’t evangelizing if you aren’t out on a street corner every weekend with signs (I know a few like this). Do you? How are you suggesting evangelization must be done?

Look, I’m no shill for either the RCC or the OCA. Personally, there are doctrines that I just don’t buy, and there’s most definitely corruption within the ranks. However, my experience with the monastics is that, generally speaking, they are dedicated, humble and God-directed men.

In fact, the Apostle Paul referred to those “who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods” as “devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons”. Doctrines of demons is serious language.

In addition, in Col 2 he states:

“If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.”

So it doesn’t matter what they abstain from, whether that be vain talk, marriage, entertainment, etc., their abstinence is of no help in restraining their flesh and their lusts. As Jesus said, the root and fountain of all sin and evil is the human heart, not in what comes to us from the outside.

Not only that, I agree with Hannah in that they lead very selfish and self-centered lives. Great job they do at loving their neighbor, huh? And that is the second most important command in all the law.

But ultimately these things all comes down to this: must we do something to earn righteousness, or is it given to us, fully, on account of Christ’s merits? There is no in-between.

What’s the difference between the monastic who, for a time, abstains and the Baptist who, for a time, abstains? In both instances, both believe they are doing what God desires, no? Neither believe that they’re doing it for no particular reason, that it’s “useless”. All believe that their fasting will have an impact … see http://www.ccci.org/growth/growing-closer-to-god/how-to-fast/index.aspx

Fast, and “x” will happen. How is this “relying solely on God’s grace”? No, there is an expectation based on human endeavor in both cases!