In an article entitled “Men only want one thing” in Comment magazine, men are referred to as being like “timber.”  “Will they be shaped into good, sturdy beams and joists that will shelter, support, and protect?  Or will they shape themselves in their own wild ways, producing knotty. weak, and crooked lengths that don’t do anyone any good?”  May we be “good timber.” The author, Nathan Beacom, suggests “there’s something about America today that doesn’t jibe with the male psyche.”  The author believes monasticism offers keen psychological insights into the psychic and moral wounds of men.  

Beacom offers a spectrum of manhood.  One the one end is “the tough man.”  “For many men this tough guy leaves festering wounds of inadequacy and insecurity that can lead to all kinds of pathological behaviors.”  On the other end of the spectrum is “the sophisticated ally.”  “The ally tends to talk down his own sex in an effort to set him apart from the negative strands of masculinity.” Then there is the “full man,” having the moral ideal of a man expressed in gentleness and goodness.  “Failing this, strength, size, speed, aggression, and active sexual desire remain – but untutored and undisciplined.”

The author favors a “gentle man,” who is an integrated man, “both iron and disciplined on the one hand and gentle and patient on the other…….[which ] finds a harmonic resonance with the Christian monastic tradition.”  The Rule of Saint Benedict, “contains sharp and enduring psychological insights into the process of taking the raw material of masculinity and shaping it into good manhood.”  The Rule identifies “three key developmental strands that are lacking in our culture today: fatherhood, brotherhood, and discipline.”

First is fatherhood.  “Manhood is passed in only one real way: from man to man.”  The rule sees the self-willed man who sets his own law based on his desires.  “This is the shepherdless man, the hedonistic man, the destructive man.”  “Cultivating good young men requires that we support structures that prioritize male-to-male mentorship.”

Secondly, along with the fatherhood of the monastery is its “brotherhood.”  “By intentionally living among brothers with a common vision, men set a higher standard toward which they could encourage each other and against which they could measure themselves.”

Finally, there is the life of abstinence, of asceticism, of discipline. The monks know “asceticism (spiritual discipline)…..is not a simple refusal of good things.  Rather, it is a way of disciplining the soul and a chief weapon in the battle against the self.” 

Beacom goes on to offer a simple formula for the duties of manhood: “protect, provide, and establish.” “We need,” the author suggests, “the moral equivalent of monasticism.”  What does this mean?  “We need to be intentional about cultivating male spaces for brotherhood and mentorship in the path of virtuous living.” 

The author closes with these words.  “Our men must be gentle, and they must also be men.  The idea of a gentle man embodies a fullness of vision that embraces all that is positive in men, including their unique ways of displaying gentleness, tenderness, and charity. We cannot have one without the other……..the tradition of the monastery embody some of what is best in the combination of manhood and gentleness for all men.” 

The early monastic movement was an attempt to flee from the world in order to save it.  The monks made a significant contribution in preserving western  culture.  Could the monastic model be modified so as to rescue men from our present dying culture, in order to help men to be “good timber” in our day?  Could it be that men banding together, might find a model among the monks?