Talk:The Benedict Option

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 4 January 2021 by reviewer Worldbruce (talk · contribs).

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Brooks, David (March 14, 2017). "The Benedict Option". The New York Times. p. A23.
"Fight or Flight; Traditional Conservatism". The Economist. Vol. 422, no. 9033. London. March 25, 2017. p. 81. ISSN 0013-0613.
Wehner, Peter (April 3, 2017). "Salt and Leaven". National Review. Vol. 69, no. 6. New York. pp. 40–41. ISSN 0028-0038.
Baumann, Paul (April 14, 2017). "Detachment Plan". Commonweal. Vol. 144, no. 7. pp. 27–29.
Gilger, Patrick (April 17, 2017). "Navigating the Benedict Option". America. Vol. 216, no. 8. New York. pp. 18–23. ISSN 0002-7049.
Reno, R. R. (May 2017). "Benedict Option". First Things. No. 273. New York: Institute on Religion and Public Life. pp. 63–70. ISSN 1047-5141.
Mitchell, Brian Patrick (May–June 2017). "Benedict Option I: Dreher's Plaintive Call". The American Conservative. Vol. 16, no. 3. Washington. pp. 44–46. ISSN 1540-966X.
Anderson, Bradley W. (July–August 2017). "Choosing the Good Portion: The Benedict Option". Touchstone. Vol. 30, no. 4. Chicago: Fellowship of St. James. pp. 40–45. ISSN 0897-327X.
Reno, R. R. (Fall 2017). "Opting Out". Modern Age. 59 (4): 59-63. ISSN 0026-7457.
Hahn, Michael Leonard (December 2017). "Review of The Benedict Option: A Strategy for Christians in a Post-Christian Nation, by Rod Dreher". Theological Studies. 78 (4): 1027–1028. doi:10.1177/0040563917732214y. ISSN 2169-1304.
Pell, George (September 2018). "The Future of the Church in a Post-Christian Age". Quadrant. Vol. 62, no. 9. pp. 12–16. ISSN 0033-5002.
Butterworth, Susan (Fall 2018). "The Benedict Option: Living the Faith in Community". Anglican Theological Review. 100 (4): 803–807. ISSN 0003-3286.
Clark, James (April 2019). "The Evangelical Sensibility of the Benedict Option". Evangelical Quarterly. 90 (2): 99–108. ISSN 0014-3367.
Hoopes, Tom (April 2019). "Two Takes on Catholic Living: Reading Rod Dreher and Bishop Robert Barron Together". Catholic Digest. Vol. 83, no. 5. pp. 34–39.

Neutrality[edit]

As written, the Themes section, which makes up the entire body of the article, presents the work from the perspective of its author and/or proponents. Particularly in the absence of a well-sourced Reception section, this comes off as promoting the book's views. The sources that are already cited for the lead should be a good resource for expanding the article and addressing this issue. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is more content in the article talking about McIntyre and his critique than the book itself. All Wikipedia articles on books include summaries of their content and themes—this is not non-neutral. 2A02:8084:611D:D880:8038:BB11:2E45:2F0 (talk) 07:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pope Francis' Response[edit]

There was a bit of press coverage on Pope Francis' critique of the book. That should probably be included here in a "Reception" section. VeraqueVeritas (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A negative reaction from this pope is in effect a promotion of the book. 73.24.15.130 (talk) 02:02, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]