On Social Justice: St. Basil the Great (Popular Patristics), trans. C. Paul Schroeder, St Vladimirs Seminary Pr (2009).
Another passage exemplifies how little humans have changed. From polytheistic heathen, to Basil, to political activists of today, people find significance in our natural environment:
See, now, how the multitude of our sin has altered the course of the year and changed the character of the seasons, producing these unusual temperatures… What then is the cause of this disorder, this confusion? What brought about this change in the nature of the seasons? (76)
We innately feel a part of our natural world and we know that the choices we make have an impact on the surrounding creation. The parallel to modern debate is obvious but let there be no mistake, conservative Christians see a connection just as much as policy-obsessed liberals. Several years ago Christian commentators and "prophecy experts" were saying that the US gets a tornado every time our government disagrees with an Israeli policy or action. (Why God never sends tornadoes and meteors down on the head of that nut in Iran, they never explained). See here.
In our brief cultural life, American Christians have aligned themselves so dearly with one side of a carnal and temporal political system. Even environmental events are interpreted in such a way as to merely support a predetermined political stance. They have not recognized the true nature of these natural signs. Indeed, this brings to mind Romans 8:22; For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
For both sides of this false dichotomy of politics, (someone else’s) lifestyle and (someone else’s) politics have environmental consequences. And the solution? Also political.
In contrast, St. Basil teaches that both the consequences and the solution are entirely spiritual. He says:
This is why the fields are arid: because love has dried up.
Acts of conscience and mercy are a part of the natural order in the Kingdom of God. Hristo Mishkov was a successful New York stock broker who left his career to become a monk. In an interview he echoed St. Basil when he called the financial collapse a necessary correction because banks and investment firms "had grown greedy." He said "Many people... in the world do not realise that they have not earned the food they eat, that they take without giving." (article here)
It is on your account that this catastrophe was decreed, because you have but do not give, because you neglected the hungry, because you pay no heed to the plight of the miserable, because you showed no mercy to those who prostrate themselves before you. Evil things come upon the people for the sake of a few; for one person is depravity that people are punished. (p79)
In the modern context, the media sources that most Christians rely on for information don't address social inequality except to blame things on a list of non-Republican groups (Oklahoma made such a list official). A more realistic approach would be to see themselves (ourselves) as contributing members of a dysfunctional American national family. After all, Basil's homilies weren't directed towards policy makers in Constantinople; he was talking specifically to Christians, those standing in his congregation.
Would American Christians be willing to change their ideas of wealth creation in order to conform to the moral standards of the ancient church? In some Christian circles it would be anathema to say that environmental "signs" are a result of the misuse of wealth. Modern Christians may do well to reevaluate this in light of Basil’s words.
Another passage exemplifies how little humans have changed. From polytheistic heathen, to Basil, to political activists of today, people find significance in our natural environment:
See, now, how the multitude of our sin has altered the course of the year and changed the character of the seasons, producing these unusual temperatures… What then is the cause of this disorder, this confusion? What brought about this change in the nature of the seasons? (76)
We innately feel a part of our natural world and we know that the choices we make have an impact on the surrounding creation. The parallel to modern debate is obvious but let there be no mistake, conservative Christians see a connection just as much as policy-obsessed liberals. Several years ago Christian commentators and "prophecy experts" were saying that the US gets a tornado every time our government disagrees with an Israeli policy or action. (Why God never sends tornadoes and meteors down on the head of that nut in Iran, they never explained). See here.
In our brief cultural life, American Christians have aligned themselves so dearly with one side of a carnal and temporal political system. Even environmental events are interpreted in such a way as to merely support a predetermined political stance. They have not recognized the true nature of these natural signs. Indeed, this brings to mind Romans 8:22; For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
For both sides of this false dichotomy of politics, (someone else’s) lifestyle and (someone else’s) politics have environmental consequences. And the solution? Also political.In contrast, St. Basil teaches that both the consequences and the solution are entirely spiritual. He says:
This is why the fields are arid: because love has dried up.
Acts of conscience and mercy are a part of the natural order in the Kingdom of God. Hristo Mishkov was a successful New York stock broker who left his career to become a monk. In an interview he echoed St. Basil when he called the financial collapse a necessary correction because banks and investment firms "had grown greedy." He said "Many people... in the world do not realise that they have not earned the food they eat, that they take without giving." (article here)
It is on your account that this catastrophe was decreed, because you have but do not give, because you neglected the hungry, because you pay no heed to the plight of the miserable, because you showed no mercy to those who prostrate themselves before you. Evil things come upon the people for the sake of a few; for one person is depravity that people are punished. (p79)
In the modern context, the media sources that most Christians rely on for information don't address social inequality except to blame things on a list of non-Republican groups (Oklahoma made such a list official). A more realistic approach would be to see themselves (ourselves) as contributing members of a dysfunctional American national family. After all, Basil's homilies weren't directed towards policy makers in Constantinople; he was talking specifically to Christians, those standing in his congregation.
Would American Christians be willing to change their ideas of wealth creation in order to conform to the moral standards of the ancient church? In some Christian circles it would be anathema to say that environmental "signs" are a result of the misuse of wealth. Modern Christians may do well to reevaluate this in light of Basil’s words.
6 comments:
Great post, man! This needs more attention!
Thanks, Aaron. The book generated a lot of thoughts. What you see here is only a small part of what might be a longish book review.
I'm planning to review it as well, so it will be fun to compare notes. I think I mentioned that I have some criticisms of the introduction...
you know, i think it will be fun. We'll be looking at it from two very different points of view.
This is an issue which has been on my mind for a couple of years now, particularly since my work is so heavily focused on trade and economic regulation. I probably should read the book. However, by chance, are the texts featured in the SVS book contained in the Nicene Fathers series? I am sure the new translation is easier to deal with, but I'm not sure when I'll be able to get my hands on a copy of it.
One problem which lurks is that wealth creation--modern wealth creation--is responsible for the fact that far more people today throughout the world enjoy a radically better standard of living than someone in a comparable social position 50, 100, 1,000, etc. years ago. If you get a chance, read the opening chapter of Wasserstein's Barbarism & Civilization to see how--pardon the Hobbes channeling--"nasty, brutish, and shorts" most people's lives were in Europe. I'm not saying that earthly happiness ought to be the goal of a human life, but taking a stand against globalized capitalism or even domestic capitalism (though the two now go hand-in-hand) means sacrificing many benefits which have had made qualitative and quantitative improvements to most people's lives. This is the reality I wrestle with, particularly when I want to start shooting my critical mouth off. I'm curious as to your thoughts.
Hello Gabriel.
Thank you for stopping by and reading. I'm not sure if these texts by Basil are in the SVS book contained in the Nicene Fathers series. Thanks for the Wasserstein recommendation. I'll see if I can pick up a copy.
On the face of it, it would seem there is a conflict between addressing social justice in our immediate environment and the long-term progress of our free market system. I am hesitant to go that far since it would create a false conflict between Saint Basil and capitalism.
First, I believe the overall the benefits of our world's economic system outweigh the negatives. For example women in Bangladesh- the lowest rung that of their social hierarchy- have been given far greater opportunity with the advent of cell phones and access to online micro lending programs. This is far better in my opinion than the grinding poverty that most of human history has known.
But the economic progress that we all know and live in did not develop without sacrifices on the part of some people- and I mean very immoral and unjust sacrifices such as human trafficking, slavery in sweat shops, evictions for the sake of "urban improvement", raising taxes for "economic development" that merely increase the value of private downtown property, etc. If everyone in our culture acted with conscience and integrity these kinds of things would not happen yet we would be without some of the comforts that we have now, and our standard of living might be several decades behind. People with a conscience would be very comfortable with slowing down "progress" for the sake of a stronger social ethic.
I think everyone can agree that some aspects of our improved standard of living may be no more than indulgences and excess. But how do we determine what "indulgence" and "excess" really mean when our viewpoint is the least objective? We are surrounded by the trees and cannot see the forest, and therefore we may not be the best judges of where the line of "excess" is crossed. And that is why knowing the mind of the Saints and the Fathers (and Mothers) is so important.
As I reflect on the scope of Christian teaching, from the Gospels, to Basil's strong admonitions here, and even to some of the more recent Church Fathers, I cannot recall ever seeing anything that says that it is wrong for someone to be poor. It is perfectly acceptable in the Kingdom of God for there to be poor people (some ministries may disagree). The obligation is not to "fight poverty" but rather to give of yourself in order to alleviate someone else's suffering; an ascetic practice on your own part for the material benefit of someone less fortunate. After all, your hard-earned wealth and prosperity was given at God's pleasure. "That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." -Matthew 5:45
I know from firsthand experience being poor does not necessarily mean suffering. You simply cannot buy as much. Contrary to the Protestant teaching that enshrined Max Weber, poverty is not an indication of sin or low morals; nor does increased personal wealth indicate a greater degree of holiness or closeness to God.
Post a Comment