A reality to which we must respond

On Matt 4:12-17

Sunday after Theophany

Christ is born! Christ is baptized! Christ is risen! Glory to Jesus Christ!

Today we are at a great convergence. It is the Sunday after Theophany, and so we are still remembering Christ’s baptism. And yet, according to one reckoning, it is also still the season of Christmas until the feast of the Encounter on February the 2^nd, forty days after his birth. Meanwhile, today would be the first day leading into the Triodion – the Sunday of Zacchaeus – were it not for certain liturgical peculiarities due to Pascha being so early this year. There is no Sunday of Zacchaeus this year, but I think it’s still worth noting that the Great Fast is already right around the corner.

Time, the order of things, chronology, chronos is muddled, it seems. Simultaneous. Converged. It is as if all salvation history is happening at once. The first forty days of Christ’s newborn life is converged today with the forty days he fasted in the desert just after his baptism by John – which is a forty days that inspires our forthcoming Great Fast in preparation for Holy Week and Pascha, our commemoration of the death and resurrection of Jesus – the point of it all, the cause of our joy, our only hope.

Today’s gospel occurs immediately after Jesus’ forty days in the wilderness after his baptism by John in the Jordan. Jesus hears of John’s arrest and withdraws to Galilee, not out of fear, but to fulfill prophecy – and to there call forth the men that would be his apostles.

It is at this time that Jesus begins to preach. “Jesus began to preach and say, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” These are the first words of his preaching and with them, he pays homage to John, his baptizer, the greatest of the prophets, his forerunner, who made straight his way. Jesus’ first kerygmatic words directly quote the preaching of John, who went before him to prepare his way.

"Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." These words are especially suitable today – on this day of convergence. What’s going on in the church calendar today reflects the timelessness of deeper reality. As does the imminence of the coming kingdom of heaven.

The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand. Jesus says this, as did John before him. But didn’t these preachers live and preach about 2000 years ago? How could the coming kingdom have been imminent then? Aren’t we still waiting for the kingdom? Don’t we pray, with every Our Father, “Thy kingdom come”?  We do, and our King is coming. But he has also already come. He is both already and not yet come. It is as if time is muddled. Simultaneous. Converged. It is as if all salvation history happens at once. God’s time is not like our time.

When John preaches that the kingdom of heaven is at hand, he preaches as one waiting for the coming king. When Jesus preaches the same thing, it is the very king who is preaching. The kingdom is indeed at hand when Jesus says that it is at hand – for he is the king and the kingdom is in his hands.

He is already come. He is in our midst whenever we gather in his name. He is now reigning in the hearts of those of us who believe.

We must not become like some of the fundamentalist prophecy enthusiasts of our era, obsessed with doomsday calculations and bible codes and what not. That, I think, is to miss the point.

In the Gospel of Luke, “the Pharisees [ask Jesus] when the kingdom of God [is] coming – [and] he answer[s] them, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say, 'Lo, here it is!' or 'There!' for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you" – or – it is “within you all” (Luke 17: 20-21).

God is to reign in our hearts. And we must make our hearts a suitable palace for our king. Origen observes that “The kingdom of heaven is not in a place but in disposition. For it is within us. John preaches the coming of that kingdom of heaven, which Christ the King will deliver up to God, even the Father” (Fragment 74). 

This is the reality to which Christ calls our attention with this – his first sermon – one sentence in length, but infinite in meaning. The kingdom of heaven is reality – not mere perception. Our perception, in fact, often misses it. We often fail to see that “The LORD is king for ever and ever; [and that] the nations shall perish from his land.” (Psalm 10:16). We often think that it is our worldly kingdoms or republics that are of primary importance and that deserve our most devoted attention.

But no, the truth is that the Lord is king and his kingship is over all the earth (cf. Psalm 22:28). In 2007, there was an effort in Poland to declare Jesus the king of Poland. Well, Jesus is king, but it is not by our fiat. He does not rule by the consent of the governed. Rather, the governed have being by the word of God, who is Christ, our king. The king of kings and lord of lords.

The kingdom of heaven is the world we are actually living in. It is the world that God so loved. It is the world we often cannot see because our vision is so clouded by sin. The kingdom of heaven is among us. It is imminent. The reign of God is in our hearts.

And this is a reality to which we must respond with repentance. If we do not repent, we cannot know the truth of God’s sovereign presence in our lives. He is present whether we know it or not. Repentance is how we come to know it. He is with us, and we must understand this and submit to him, for he is with us. Repentance – metanoia – is a turning toward the Lord and away from our consuming passions.

Away from gluttony and toward self-control.

Away from lust and toward desire for God.

Away from greed and the love of money and toward compassion for the poor.

Away from anger and toward goodwill and love for all. 

Away from dejection and toward joy.

Away from sloth and despondency and toward patience, perseverance, and thanksgiving

Away from vainglory and toward doing good in secret and contrite prayer

Away from pride and toward judging no one and regarding no one as beneath us.

These are the eight passions outlined by St. John Cassian, (whose leap day feast we incidentally get to celebrate this year on Feb. 29^th) and their opposite virtues, which St. John of Damascus describes (On Virtues and Vices). Studying these can help us make a beginning of repentance. 

The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Therefore, let us repent.

The Same-Sex Marriage Debate is about Sex

One thing everyone still seems to agree about on marriage: it is inherently sexual. Sex is not the only thing or even the most important thing, but if sex is not involved, then it isn't marriage. There is a great deal of talk about marriage as being an essentially loving relationship - "Everyone should have the right to marry the person he or she loves," say many same-sex marriage proponents - but no one is demanding the right to marry his mother or his brother, even though many people do love their parents and siblings. There are different kinds of love. One difference here is sex. There is a rampant confusion in our culture between sex and love. Sex should be loving, but it is not love itself and love is not always sexual. What gay marriage supporters mean is, “Everyone should have the right to marry the person he or she loves and wants to have sex with.” Couples who don't want to have sex with each other likely don't want to marry.

Sex is for making love, but it is also for making babies. Most human cultures have long understood the intrinsic connection of these two purposes and consequently have frequently opposed or even criminalized sexual acts that are inherently sterile, such as masturbation, the use of contraception, and homosexual acts. The cultural acceptance of all these behaviors is behind the recent growing acceptance of gay marriage. I read that when the last of the anti-sodomy laws were eradicated by the Supreme Court in 2003, Scalia predicted it would lead to the acceptance of same-sex marriage, along with a host of other ills. Really, it is just about consistency. I agree with them: if these acts are okay, then of course gay marriage should be legally recognized. Sexual ethics are the only real reason to oppose same-sex marriage. Opposing same-sex marriage while justifying other sexual immoralities within marriage is hypocritical.

U.S. sodomy laws by the year when they were repealed or struck down.

  Laws repealed or struck down before 1970.

  Laws repealed or struck down from 1970-1979.

  Laws repealed or struck down from 1980-1989.

  Laws repealed or struck down from 1990-1999.

  Laws repealed or struck down from 2000-2002.

  Laws struck down by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2003.

If homosexual acts were still illegal, as they were in every state before 1970 and in some states until just ten years ago, then the suggestion of legally recognizing gay marriage would be absurd. The debate over gay marriage is not at its heart just about love, as its supporters wish to claim. It is also necessarily about sex, and homosexual acts should not be legal. Homosexual acts, along with other inherently sterile sex acts, should be legally punished as misdemeanors, not honored with legal privileges.

Edited 7/2/2013 1:45 PM:
 I changed the title and added the following :
"Sex is not the only thing or even the most important thing, but..."
"Sexual ethics are the only real reason to oppose same-sex marriage. Opposing same-sex marriage while justifying other sexual immoralities within marriage is hypocritical."

Edited 7/6/2013 10:15 AM:
I changed "The difference is sex" to "One difference is sex."

The Role of the Church in Social Welfare

As the history of the Byzantine world makes clear, philanthropic service to society has always been an important part of the Church’s mission. Seeing Christ in the poor, members of the Church developed a philanthropic philosophy from the very beginning. In a distinct way, the Byzantine Church expressed this divine attribute, blending Greek and Christian understandings of its importance. The Byzantine Empire (which many of its citizens saw as a divinely appointed institution), as well as the Church itself, promoted and practiced philanthropy throughout its history, with varying degrees of sincerity. Both philosophical and practical examples of this abound and serve as an enduring testimony to this proper ministry of the Church throughout the ages.

Pre-Christian Greek civilization already had significantly developed notions of philanthropy expressed in numerous ways. For example, they established philanthropic institutions such as public guest-chambers, brotherhoods of hospitality, and, hospices. However, according to Demetrios Constantelos in his work Byzantine Philanthropy and Social Welfare, “their philanthropy was practiced in a limited field and was directed mostly toward the civilized Hellenes” (11).

Emporer Arcadios,
archetype of God, the Universal King

Christian ideas of universal philanthropy took the existing Hellenic understanding of this virtue and expanded it, insisting that Christians love and charitably serve the human needs of even their enemies and pagans. This latter practice greatly distressed the Emperor Julian (the pagan apostate upon whom we lovingly spit), who wrote, “It is disgraceful that… the impious Galileans support not only their own poor but ours as well” (15). Julian himself encouraged philanthropy, but Christianity, it seems, more successfully persuaded its faithful to take charitable action.

Many of the other Emperors in Constantinople gave good examples of Christian philanthropy. A common theme behind their philanthropic thought was that, as divinely appointed representatives of God on earth, they should exemplify this preeminent divine attribute. Counseling the Emperor Arcadios, Bishop Synesios of Cyrene gives an example of this type of thinking, emphasizing “that the king is the projection of the archetype, God the Universal King” and that the king must therefore make policies to benefit the people (45).

Many Byzantine clergy were also great examples of Christian philanthropy by their charitable work seeking social justice and equality. Certain of these, John Chrysostom, for example, gave generously to the poor out of their personal wealth. Chrysostom also built institutions of charity, such as hospitals and homes for the aged and infirm. Furthermore, in continuity with its early origins, the Church maintained the diaconate, which was created to serve widows and continued this work by seeing to the distribution of all kinds of welfare (Acts 6:1-4).

These few of the innumerable historical examples available partially demonstrate the Church’s consistent devotion to the service of the poor, the sick, the imprisoned, the aged, the orphans, the widows, and all the needy. Since the apostolic age, the Church has emphasized social welfare as an important aspect of its work. Since the fourth century, the Church has sought ways to cooperate with the state in providing this welfare. Seeing Christ in the least of His brethren (Mt 25:40), the Byzantine Church throughout its history served Him and should never neglect to serve Him, the only Philanthropos.

“Fear God. Honor the King.” (1 Pet. 2:17)

It has been said that the separation of Church and State is good for the Church. Worldly impotence, apparently, does wonders in keeping churchmen humble.

This is not a new idea. Lactantius (c. 304-313) wrote, “[God] would have Christians live under the power and government of others, lest they should become corrupted by the happiness of prosperity, slide into luxury, and eventually despise the commandments of God.” Ironically, Lactantius would later be appointed tutor to the son of the first Christian emperor, St. Constantine. I certainly hope that living under Christian government did not cause him to despise the commandments of God.

Everyone needs to be humble. Both churchmen and statesmen are meant to serve God. Who is going to keep the statesmen humble? Clearly, no one has been doing this for quite some time.

King Henry II, on the other hand, after he encouraged the murder of St. Thomas Becket, was made to walk barefoot through the streets of Canterbury wearing sackcloth while eighty monks flogged him with branches. He then spent the night in the martyr's crypt. The same kind of penance should be recommended to certain Presidents of the United States for their crimes against humanity. As the Church and State are separate, who is to recommend it? Together, Church and State could keep each other humble.

It has been said that the Government should listen to the people and the people should listen to the Church. Should the Government listen to the people if the people hate the Church or Her teachings? If most people favor the legalization of the murder of a certain class of people (which, debatably, they do) shouldn't the Government stand with the Church, rather than the people? The law must not be relative to the whims of the masses. Truly, the people should listen to the Church, but when have they ever done that?

In the 18th century, democracy was an idea unpopular among faithful Catholics - opposed by the Pope and those loyal to him. Clearly, this is no longer the case.

I have often heard justified complaint that Catholics in America are more concerned with worldly acceptance than with fidelity to Tradition. This is the direct and inevitable consequence of the Catholic adoption of an American culture based on democratic principles. How can bowing to the will of the majority ultimately be anything other than relativist?

Many American Christians balk at my notion that the authority and power to rule does not come from the people. This idea is shared by, of all people, Jesus Christ: "You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above," He said (John 19:11). The power to rule comes from God. You know, Divine Right and that sort of thing. “For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God” (Rom. 13:1). A government that does not acknowledge this true source of its power fails to govern well.

“My opinion is this: that in this way a kingdom may be governed in peace – when the sovereign is acquainted with the God of truth. That is, if the ruler withholds from doing wrong to his subjects out of fear of God, and he judges everything with equity…. For, if the sovereign abstains from doing wrong to those who are under his rule, and they abstain from doing wrong to him and to each other, it is evident that the whole country will dwell in peace. Many blessings, too, will be enjoyed there, because among all of them the name of God will be glorified. For what blessing is greater than for a sovereign to deliver the people that are under his rule from error, and by this good deed render himself pleasing to God”
– St. Melito (c. 170).

The Contra-vote

I do not vote. Or, anyway, I never have. My reasons are many and far from political apathy. If, however, what I propose came to fruition, I, and I suspect others, would never fail to vote.

In Catholic circles, there is much talk of "non-negotiables." Support for abortion, euthanasia, or other evils automatically excludes a candidate from receiving an authentic Catholic vote. The list of non-negotiables provided me by my (overactive?) conscience is quite a bit longer than the official and, consequently, I am excluded from voting at all in most cases.

Yet, there are grades of evil and I do wish to oppose the greater evil with greater force, but I cannot, in conscience, do this by supporting the lesser evil. We must not do evil so that good may come of it (cf. Rom. 3: 8). I seek a way to vote against, without voting for: a contra-vote - the power to negate one vote. In this way, a person of conscience can always participate in the election process without moral conflict.

Under the two-party system, many people, in effect, have been voting according to this philosophy already. The candidate they oppose the more they vote "against" by simply voting for the candidate they oppose the less. As the two-party system (blessedly) begins to erode, the power to vote "against" erodes as well. What to do if, among three candidates, there is none worthy? Simply voting for the least offensive of the three has less power than contra-voting the most offensive.

If this results in a candidate winning an election with a negative number of votes, so be it.

Theocracy

There was a Polish movement recently to proclaim Jesus Christ the King of Poland.

Jesus Christ is already the King of Poland, whether or not they acknowledge Him as such. He is also the King of Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, Japan, the United States of America, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, North and South Korea, Pakistan and, especially, He is the King of Israel. He is the King of all nations. He is the King of Kings. But in what sense and to what degree ought states to submit to His Kingship? Is Christian statecraft Christian?

When a Christian thinks or acts – whether religiously, socially, politically, or howsoever – he is beholden to imitate Christ Jesus. As regards politics then, a Christian must examine Christ's political proclamations and actions. There are few. Jesus Christ, though He is most certainly Man, is not a "political animal." Most of His few actions that can be interpreted politically are better interpreted spiritually. "Render unto Caesar," in its context, sounds more like indifference to worldly cares than good citizenship (Matt 22: 21). Many Christian politicos like to quote Jesus' point about Caesar without quoting its counterpoint: "Render unto God the things that are God's," which is the real meaning of the passage. The things of Caesar are inconsequential beside the things of God. "My kingdom is not of this world," He also says (Jn 18: 36).

Clearly, Jesus would passively pay taxes, even to a corrupt state, even without representation¹. If you take a Christian's coat, he's obliged to let you have it – just like that – not only his coat, but his shirt as well – because he isn't to have attachments to the things of this world, neither to his coat nor to his taxed income (cf. Lk 6:29). He's not supposed to care. Indifference and dispassion are to characterize a Christian's economic behavior. The Lord will provide as He does for the lilies of the field and the fowls of the air (cf. Matt 6:26-30). Do they own the rain and the sun? Is private property Christian?

In Christ's political indifferentism, there is an argument for anarchy and in His Kingship there is a better argument for monarchy. I am not convinced there is a Christian argument for democracy: Pagan in its origin, relativist in its outcome. Nonetheless, what are Christians, who find themselves in a republic where voting is popularly called a duty, to do? Vote? Vote for what?

Jesus said to Pilate, "You would have no power over Me, unless it had been given you from above" (Jn 19: 10-11). All power, even the power to kill or spare the Son of God, comes from God. Whatever powers we have been given we must use to serve and glorify God. Sin is abuse of power. The power to vote or not vote comes from God. Whether or not I vote, the officials who rise to power do so by God's consent.

Whether they are evil or less evil makes no difference – they have God's judgment to face for their crimes, not mine. I don't vote for them, I pray for them. The day that a candidate represents Christ, I'll vote. I have yet to hear of such a one as this.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
¹ If the American Revolution indeed hinged on objection to "taxation without representation," as I have been taught, it was neither a Christian revolt nor a just war. Probably it hinged on more than this. Rule by consent of the governed? Democracy? These are not Christian concepts. America is not a Christian nation. What interest ought Christians to have in America?