In this article, Krawiec analyzes four monastic texts to argue that an attitude of โprofamilialismโ existed alongside the familiar view of antifamilialism. These ideologies are based on the link between spiritual and โfleshlyโ families in late antique Christianity. While Krawiec recognizes that ascetics largely rejected biological family bonds, she is interested in how spiritual communities โ especially monasteries โ negotiated biological families within their institutional contexts.
Krawiec begins by offering a background on the evolution of Roman notions of family in late antique Christianity. First, she notes that there is a significant amount of continuity; even โChristianโ values like โrequiring sexual fidelity from husbandsโ have Roman antecedents (284). Yet asceticism also contributed to change in family discourse, as Elizabeth Clark detailed in โAntifamilial Tendencies in Ancient Christianity.โ As Krawiec sees it, the core of this shift is the divide between โfleshly families and spiritual communitiesโ (285). Ascetics did not argue against the family per se, but they did emphasize the spiritual family over the biological; late antique Christianity was less โantifamilialโ than it was โantiflesh.โ In Krawiecโs words, ascetic Christianity absorbed โall that was valuable and transcendent about the familyโ and left the fleshly family โto wallow in its valueless corporealityโ (285).
In this article, Krawiec nuances this thesis by examining the roles of biological families in the institutional context of monasticism. Krawiec argues that the inclusion of biological family members within the spiritual family of Christianity created rich, binding, eternal ties that were praised by even the most antifamilial ascetics. The first text Krawiec uses to illustrate this is Augustineโs letter to Laetus. Krawiec acknowledges that the letter appears to be a typical example of ascetic antifamiliasm. Like many ascetics, Augustine presents the biological family as a hurdle that must be overcome โin order to follow the higher devotion to Godโ (289). Yet Krawiecโs analysis demonstrates that Augustine fundamentally redefines rather than rejects the family. For instance, Augustine acknowledges that Laetus still has a duty to provide financially for his biological family. This shows that although Laetusโ loyalty is owed to his spiritual family, not all his biological relations can be rejected. More significant is how Augustine discusses Jesusโ relationship with his mother. In Krawiecโs reading, Augustine believes that Jesus can claim Mary as his mother not because she happened to give birth to him but because โshe fits his definition of spiritual family relationshipsโ (291). Mary does Godโs will by not following the example of Eve but rather following God. This is why Jesus can claim Mary as his mother. On the other hand, Laetus must reject his mother. But the reason for this renunciation is not because of their biological relationship, but because Laetusโ mother chose Eve as her role model. A mother that follows the correct spiritual path can reaffirm her biological ties and create a spiritual family relationship; a mother that goes astray must be renounced.
Krawiec next turns to Augustineโs letter to Ecdicia. His advice to her is quite different from Augustineโs advice to Laetus. In fact, Augustine deems Ecdiciaโs asceticism a sin because it led her husband into sin. Krawiec ascribes these different approaches to asceticism to the difference in familial obligations between a son and his mother and a wife and her husband. Each of these bonds is due to the model of Mary, even though the responsibilities entailed vary greatly. Augustine admonishes Ecdicia to follow Maryโs example in remaining submissive to her husband (Joseph) despite โno longer mixing in carnal intercourse [carnali consortio]โ (293, quoting Augustine ep. 262.1). When Ecdicia adopts a principle of sexual abstinence โ asceticism โ she fails in her โspecific role as a wifeโ (293). Augustine sees intercourse as a debt that spouses owe each other, even when one party chooses celibacy. This debt continues to have power, even within asceticism. As with Laetus, choosing to be an ascetic does not give one license to neglect financial obligations to family members โ even when these financial obligations include oneโs body.
As these letters indicate, ascetic vows and biological families could coexist โ but only as long as โfamily members placed their spiritual relationship above their biological oneโ (295). Krawiec notes that Philip Rousseau found this same โtransformation of familial bonds in the context of Egyptian communal monasticismโ (295). Another prominent example of the coexistence of spiritual and fleshly bonds is the relationship between Gregory of Nyssa and his sister Macrina. Gregoryโs theology โcelebrates the materiality of the logos, the Word made fleshโ (297, quoting Derek Krueger). Therefore, when Gregory writes a hagiography of Macrina he understands and prioritizes biological relationships. These include both Gregoryโs own relationship to his sister and Macrinaโs โnoble exchangeโ (298, in Gregoryโs words) with her mother. This fellowship (ฮบฮฟฮนฮฝฯฮฝฮฏฮฑฮฝ) is not opposed to spiritual devotion; rather, it transcends โnatureโ (ฯฯฯฮนฯ) to support the worship of God. In all of Macrinaโs relationships, the spiritual and the fleshly โwork in tandem rather than oppositionโ (301).
Finally, Krawiec turns to the Egyptian monastic leader Shenoute. The sermon she analyzes is directed to both monks and laity, each with their own complex familial relationships. Krawiec argues that Shenouteโs โfamily discourseโ is โremarkably consistentโ (303). In both contexts, this discourse includes advocating โthe correct use of corporal punishmentโ as part of โstrong leadershipโ and the โproper definitionโ of different roles (304). Only by making these principles cornerstones of the family and of the monastic community will โtrue Christian sanctityโ be achieved. If the Christian ideals are followed as Shenoute stipulates them, โthe biological family can be as sacred as the monastic life itself, connecting all Christians rather than separating themโ (305). What happens through Shenouteโs antifamilialism is not the abandonment of biological family but a discursive transformation that allows for the exploration and reconciliation of tensions within Christianity.
Throughout this article, Krawiec convincingly demonstrates that a profamilial attitude played a central role in ascetic familial discourse. Rather than abandoning the biological family, antifamilalism argues that the fleshly must be harmonized with the spiritual to โcreate a vision of a united Christian familyโ (306). In her conclusion, Krawiec gestures towards the power of this discourse. She argues that the integration of the fleshly family and the spiritual โfamilyโ creates a โmyth of the asceticโs ability to attain near perfection by living out the injunction of Luke 14.26โ[1] (306). Within this myth, the biological family is not erased. Instead, the fleshly familyโs โbrief appearance helps to facilitate the working of the illusionโ (306, quoting James Goehring). This is a powerful conclusion (although all too briefly treated) that relates the sources Krawiec treats at length to a convincing โmaster narrativeโ of antifamilialism.
[1] KJV: If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. NTG: ฮตแผด ฯฮนฯ แผฯฯฮตฯฮฑฮน ฯฯฯฯ ฮผฮต ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮฟแฝ ฮผฮนฯฮตแฟ ฯแฝธฮฝ ฯฮฑฯฮญฯฮฑ แผฮฑฯ ฯฮฟแฟฆ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯแฝดฮฝ ฮผฮทฯฮญฯฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯแฝดฮฝ ฮณฯ ฮฝฮฑแฟฮบฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯแฝฐ ฯฮญฮบฮฝฮฑ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯฮฟแฝบฯ แผฮดฮตฮปฯฮฟแฝบฯ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯแฝฐฯ แผฮดฮตฮปฯแฝฐฯ แผฯฮน ฯฮต ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯแฝดฮฝ ฯฯ ฯแฝดฮฝ แผฮฑฯ ฯฮฟแฟฆ, ฮฟแฝ ฮดฯฮฝฮฑฯฮฑฮน ฮตแผถฮฝฮฑฮฏ ฮผฮฟฯ ฮผฮฑฮธฮทฯฮฎฯ.