I’m postponing the “Orthodoxy and ETL” for yet another show – forgive me!
The Battle for Creation
Luke 6:31-36 (New King James Version)
And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise.
“But if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive back, what credit is that to you? For even sinners lend to sinners to receive as much back. But love your enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High. For He is kind to the unthankful and evil. Therefore be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful.
God did not come into the world to preserve what He found: He came to change it. He did not establish His Church to reinforce the status quo: He established His Church to overturn the status quo and replace it with something better. As Christians, people who have accepted Christ and His Holy Spirit into our hearts and thus become “little Christ’s”, neither should we be satisfied with preserving what we have found here. As members of His Church – parts of His body, we should be His instruments of change, working to replace the status quo with something better. Are we doing this? Do we take His transformative message seriously? Or do we stand in the way of change, preferring comfort to righteousness and [preferring] a fallen love of self to the true love we were meant to nurture and share? If we think we are doing okay, then we aren’t paying attention: the hard facts speak otherwise. We have been hearing – and even spreading! – today’s Gospel throughout the world for almost two thousand years; we have been proclaiming it here in America for hundreds of years. Most of us have been Christians our whole lives… has any of this made a difference?
You may think I am being too harsh, and there certainly is a sense in which the Gospel has affected each of our lives and especially that of our communities. We are all nice people. Each of us gives generously of our time and money to our families, our friends, and our parishes. Our love for one another is a beautiful thing, and God blesses us for it. We dig deep when the times are hard. This is what we do. This is who we are. When members of our communities suffer a loss, such as the death of a family member, we come and pray for them and their departed loved one, and generally find any way to support them that we can. There is no end to the things that we would do – and have done! – for one another in times of need. We have even learned to forgive one another; something that is even harder than offering the shirt off our backs. I see this, and (as a pastor) I find great reassurance in it.
But is this enough? If we take Christ’s message today seriously (and as Christians we must!) then we also must accept the fact that – as much good as we have done – we have left the harder work undone. Listen to what our Lord asks: What grace is there in being good to people who are good to you? What grace is there in sacrificing for something that often sacrifices for you? What grace is there in giving when that giving is done to satisfy our pride [i.e. when there is an automatic return on the investment]? What grace is there when you give to satisfy the expectations of others [ibid]? When we love those who love us, it helps us sustain our families, friendships, and communities; just as when we lend to those who will pay us back, we are supporting our economy. Neither could function without these things, without this reciprocal giving. When we love those who love us and give in expectation of some sort of return, we are supporting the status quo. We are maintaining what we have been given.
But that is not what we were called to do. These are just the baby steps, the very beginning of the marathon we were meant to run. [Remember] Our mission is transformational; our families, friendships, and especially our parishes are not the ultimate objects of the transformation: the entire [groaning] creation is. We begin with these things [i.e. our families, friendships, and parishes], but having submitted them to the logic of love, we are to move on [and apply this logic elsewhere]. These simple victories are supposed to propel us onward toward greater challenges. Our newly-cohesive, God-protected social units are to become the armies in Love’s revolution. It is wonderful that we have this charity and sacrifice among ourselves, the soldiers in this revolution; but if we stay in the barracks, it really amounts to nothing. We were given this love so that we would spread it, not so that we would hoard it amongst ourselves.
We must answer Christ’s challenge to leave the barracks. The time for taking the battle to the enemy is now. And despite the temptations to do otherwise, we must attack the forces of indifference, selfishness, hatred, and despair with the tools God has told us to use, not the ones that seem so handy and are so often used against us. We are to use not self-righteousness, but humility; not the preaching lips, but the open ear; not the pounding of fists, but the turned cheek; not bribery, but the unrequited gift; not passion, but passionlessness; not anger, but charity. We are to resist demonizing the enemy (no matter what his actions), and to see and respond to the image of God that remains (however distorted) within him. Like the Most High, we must be kind to “the unthankful and evil.”
This is what He has done for us. We thank Him for this and ask Him to strengthen us as we do the same in His name. It is God’s will that all be saved and brought into the eternal community of love. We are the agents of His will. We are the army of His victory. So take His love out into the melee’ and see how it truly conquers all.
+++
News
Religious News
The Mystical Experience: A Question of What’s Beyond. In this article, Rabbi Aran Lurie provides an introduction to mysticism. Basically, “there is a presence… that creates and animates everything… we can… connect to this presence… and through this encounter we are transformed.” You access this “deeper reality” through inner silence and meditation. Religion is supposed to help facilitate this connection, but religion is usually hijacked by the powerful and is unnecessary (nor are piety or asceticism required). While the experience of this connection has biochemical indicators, this does not negate its transcendence. We should all be mystics because it frees us from our ego, allows us to know our world more clearly, and “live at the highest level”. I like this kind of popularization, but it is dangerous because it doesn’t provide people with any sense of the temptations that come along with ignorant “meditation”. Religion doesn’t just “facilitate” mysticism, properly done, it protects the mystic and heals the damage that often accompanies “spiritual warfare”. It is as though, having rejected organized religion, society has now redefined reality in such a way that it is superfluous. Unfortunately for society, reality itself hasn’t changed: people still need the Church to practice a beneficial mysticism.
Love is Pain Relief. An experiment showed that people who are in love do not experience pain as deeply when they gaze at the image of their beloved. They also found that “distracting word tasks” did the same. So if I read my prayers in front of icons of Christ and His Mother, do I get a double benefit? I reckon the monks know what they are up to after all!
USA Today Column: Science and religion aren’t friends, by Jerry Coyne. Science helps religion by disproving its claims; religion has nothing to add to science. We have dealt with this before (there is nothing new under the sun), but I reckon it’s worth doing again, however briefly. Despite Coyne’s contention that religion is no different from a belief in leprechauns, Orthodox Christianity is more than a set of superstitions. Nor is it simply a set of factual statements that can be proven/disproven (although the economy of salvation certainly is). It is an attachment and dedication to love; it is the belief that this love transforms and perfects us; it is the belief that our ability to love is limited, but that through Christ’s Incarnation, death, and Resurrection, this limit can be transcended. This gives science meaning.
So what is Coyne’s evidence about the superiority of atheistic scientism and the incompatibility of science and religion?
-
•The existence of religious wars. While this is ironic, it proves nothing. Humans continue to destroy themselves and their relationships through their misunderstanding of love! Besides, does the author really believe that religion CAUSES the wars? More often, it is used as justification for foregone decisions. If they aren’t covered by religion, they would be covered by something else (Pagan Fascism? Atheistic Communism? Imperialist Capitalism?).
-
•Proportionally more scientists are atheists than non-scientists. And proportionally more Yankees talk funny than the rest of the nation – so what? FWIW, this is a new phenomenon. The author seems to assume that it is caused by the advance of science; but what if it is the advance of something else?
-
• The strong correlation (by country) between irreligiosity and the acceptance of evolution. What this suggests is that religious peoples tend to be conservative when it comes to accepting new theories. So what? Scientists could change this if they didn’t try to use their new theories as proof that religions are false (i.e. “stick to the data”). Let the religious people figure out what the implications of scientific advances are for their faith; doing otherwise automatically polarizes.
-
•Scientific progress is easier when it’s not yoked to religious dogma. Yes, and so is promiscuity (and selfishness).
-
There are many things the author is right about: the “fog of superstition” is troublesome. But so is spiritual blindness. And so is bitterness. At least Stephen Jay Gould was kind and fun to read. These new atheists are just plain mean (which is nothing to them, but an obvious fruit to us).
Robert Putnam and David Campbell have a new book Amazing Grace: how religion divides and unites us. This is a major and definitive work. Putnam was interviewed on PBS Newshour. Major findings he describes are that Americans are very religious, and that this religiosity has positive consequences — despite its diversity. He credits the tolerance to the “Aunt Susan” effect: everyone knows – and likes – someone that is of a different faith. So we can be dogmatic, but we’re tolerant about it (as is evidenced by our high intermarriage rate: 50%). When challenged about the rising intolerance that seems correlated with religion, he responded that the dynamic driving this is not religious polarization, but political polarization. Politics are polarized and people make religious decisions based on their politics. In an additional short, he shares the finding that religious people are more generous and civic minded. This is NOT because of theology (i.e. fear of God’s wrath), but because of their involvement in church and other religiously-based social networks. Man, I love Robert Putnam (despite the fact that he almost had me fail my general exams!).
Friendly skeptic Michael Shermer (you may have heard him on Coast to Coast) shared two interesting findings in his recent USA Today article “Making sense of the empty-nest syndrome.” First, we are social animals, made for community. This is reinforced through chemicals like dopamine and oxytocine, which “surge through the brain and body during positive social interactions (especially touch). This causes us to feel closer to one another.” Um, and loving one another actually causes us to BE closer to one another (but this is beyond the evidence for Shermer). Second, experiments show that things will get better quicker than you think they will. We consistently “overestimate how dejected we will feel and for how long” and “underestimate how quickly we will snap out of it and feel better.”
+++
Vol’ya (Freedom) Moment
Orthodoxy and Poverty
We are all called to work, and we are all called to prayer and almsgiving for the poor (just as we are all called to exhibit every virtue, regardless of “status”).
“There are two moral motives of labour: work to sustain oneself without being a burden for others and work to give to the needy.” Every able-bodied person is called to labour to fulfill these moral obligations. (BSC, VI. 4; Eph. 4:28, Mt. 5:16; James 2:17; 2 Thes. 3:10).
Being wealthy is more dangerous than being poor. Without romanticizing involuntary poverty, the Church provides far direr warnings about the great temptations of wealth.
Do not shun poverty and afflictions, these wings of buoyant prayer. (St. Nilus, The Philokalia, pp. 127-135)
In the matter of piety, poverty serves us better than wealth, and work better than idleness, especially since wealth becomes an obstacle even for those who do not devote themselves to it… For we accomplish [virtuous things] not by spending money but by making the correct choice. Almsgiving above all else requires money, but even this shines with a brighter luster when the alms are given from our poverty. The widow who paid in the two mites was poorer than any human, but she outdid them all. (St. John Chrysostom, On Wealth and Poverty).
And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. (Mt. 19:24)
Society has a special obligation toward the poor. Historically, this has been done through a combination of private and public (governmental) programs.
“Continuing on earth the service of Christ Who identified Himself with the destitute, the Church always comes out in defence of the voiceless and powerless. Therefore, she calls upon society to ensure the equitable distribution of the fruits of labour, in which the rich support the poor, the healthy the sick, the able-bodied the elderly. The spiritual welfare and survival of society are possible only if the effort to ensure life, health and minimal welfare for all citizens becomes an indisputable priority in distributing the material resources.” (BSC, VI. 6).
“In participating in government and political processes, the Orthodox laity are called to base their work on the norms of the gospel’s morality, the unity of justice and mercy (Ps. 85:10), the concern for the spiritual and material welfare of people, the love of the fatherland and the desire to transform the surrounding world according to the word of Christ.” (BSC, V. 3).
Christians are called to exercise discernment about how, when, and to what extent to use the government to fulfill moral objectives: “most decisions adopted and political actions taken tend to benefit only a part of society, while restricting or infringing upon the interests and wishes of others. Many such decisions and actions are stained with sin or connivance with sin. Precisely for this reason the Orthodox politician or statesman is required to be very sensitive spiritually and morally.” (ibid)
Both poverty and wealth bring temptations. These must be met through the traditional Christian disciplines of asceticism, prayer, and almsgiving. In addition to their shared obligations, the rich have a special obligation to support the poor; the poor have a special obligation to pray for the rich. Our society does not have the tools to find sanctification in either state, poverty or wealth, because it has turned away from godliness.
Sources:
- Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church (BSC). Section VI. Labour and Its Fruits.
- St. John Chrysostom. On Wealth and Poverty. SVS Press. [homilies on the Parable of Lazarus]
- John. D. Jones “St. John Chrysostom and the Problem of Wealth” at www.incommunion.org.
- Rev. Dr. Emmanuel Clapsis “Wealth and Poverty in Christian Tradition” at orthodoxnotes.com
- Gleanings from Orthodox Christian Authors and the Holy Fathers: poverty at www.orthodox.net.
This was prepared for presentation to the Rhode Island Council of Churches “Faith and Order” Commission on Poverty. For an earlier presentation to the same group go here.
