Do you feel upset when you drop a plate or pot and it smashes into tiny pieces on the ground? Do you feel anxious when a strong wind is blowing, and you can hear the tiles on your roof coming loose? Do you feel worried about the crops in your field when it rains so hard that the ground is flooded? Do you feel frightened at night when you hear a door click or squeak, wondering if robbers have come to steal your goods? To feel those things is quite normal. Yet the challenge of our faith is that we become so indifferent to material possessions that nothing of this kind can concern us. Of course, while we remain on this earth, we mus thave plates on which to serve our food, roofs above our heads to keep us dry, crops growing in the fields to feed us, and some basic pieces of furniture in our homes. But if we work hard day by day to the best of our abilities, we can be sure that God will provide what we need. And if something is broken, lost, or stolen, God will decide if and when to replace it.
-St. John Chrysostom
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Sunday, November 28, 2010
When we live according to the moral principles of our faith, those around us may respond in three possible ways. First, they may be so impressed by the example of our goodness, and so envious of the joy which it brings, that they want to join us and become like us. That is the response which we most earnestly desire. Second, they may be indifferent to us, because they are so bound up with their own selfish cares and concerns; although their eyes may perceive our way of life, their hearts are blind, so we are unable to stir them. Third, they may react against us, feeling threatened by our example and even angry with us; thus they will cling even more firmly to their material possessions and selfish ambitions, and slander us at every opportunity. Naturally, we dread this third type of reaction, because we want to live in peace with our neighbors, regardless of their personal beliefs and values. But if no one reacts to us in this way, we must wonder whether we are truly fulfilling the commandments of Christ.
-St. John Chrysostom
-St. John Chrysostom
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Some people see the houses in which they live as their kingdom; and although in their minds they know that death will one day force them to leave, in their hearts they feel they will stay forever. They take pride in the size of their houses and the fine materials with which they are built. They take pleasure in decorating their houses with bright colors, and in obtaining the best and most solid furniture to fill the rooms. They imagine that they can find peace and security by owning a house whose walls and roof will last for many generations. We, by contrast, know that we are only temporary guests on earth. We recognize that the houses in which we live serve only as hostels on the road to eternal life. We do not seek peace or security from the material walls around us or the roof above our heads. Rather, we want to surround ourselves with a wall of divine grace; and we look upward to heaven as our roof. And the furniture of our lives shoulod be good works, performed in a spirit of love.
-St. John Chrysostom
-St. John Chrysostom
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Pandora's Box
Pope Benedict XVI has always been a strong leader - he does not compromise Catholic beliefs or values for modern trends. In many ways, his positions are more conservative than even his predecessor's, Pope John Paul II. So why did he open a pandora's box this week? Benedict's comments on the use of condoms this week has confused pretty much everyone in the world - Catholics and non-Catholics alike. In fact, it is only a small minority of Catholics, those perhaps most "popish" to begin with, that actually understand what he meant. Like me. I am educated in faith and morals, and after reading story after story in the news, I feel confident that I understand what he was trying to say. But I disagree, in part, with what he said, and in whole with the fact that he said it. I might even go so far to call the comments irresponsible because of the confusion it causes in Catholics, non-Catholics, and pretty much everyone else.
I said "popish" Catholics would understand what the pope meant. What I mean by that are practicing Catholics who are well versed in their faith. They know the rules, they know the teachings. They can read the comment and the comments on the comment and say, "Okay, that's just a clarification of something that was already in place." For instance, a good practicing Catholic who, for a medical reason such as the having HIV, felt a need to use condoms within a married relationship to prevent spreading it to his wife would most likely go to his priest and discuss the matter. The priest would then most likely tell him that, for this case, the use of condoms was justified. And even after the pope's recent comments, most good practicing Catholics would still want to consult a priest about these things.
But the danger for Catholics who are non-practicing or have little knowledge of the church is a misunderstanding of what the church teaches about sex and contraceptives. While the pope positively reaffirmed the church's stance on contraceptives, his comments may be confusing in the effect that it appears he is justifying certain types of relationships. For instance, how can using condoms be justified for male prostitutes when prostitution itself is a sin? For people who call themselves Catholics but don't have a knowledge of church teaching, they may see the pope's comments as an open door policy. Those already practicing sex outside of marriage may see this as the "go-ahead and by the way, please use protection" announcement they were waiting for. In America at least we have a society that hears what it wants to hear, picks up on sound bites, and doesn't bother to research the issues. Even though the Vatican followed up on the pope's comments by saying it still affirms sexual relationships ONLY in marriage, the damage may have already been done.
In addition, the comments are unclear to non-Catholics. The news media, by nature, twists stories and adds bias - it's almost unavoidable. But the fact is, they have already pounced on this story and are spreading it around as though the Catholic church's entire position has changed. In comments posted on news pages I have read cynics complaining that the "infallible" pope was changing his story. While this is juse not the case, it is a very real and serious consequence of the pope's announcement, especially in a world so ready to judge the Catholic church and Christians in general.
The truth is, papal infallibility goes only so far as the pope declares it ex cathedra. This means the pope would have to say that his statement is infallible, and the statement would be much more formal than simply a comment to a reporter. Ex cathedra statements are very rare - most popes only ever issue one and many issue none. When they are issued, they become infallible doctrine in the same sense that the Apostle Peter may have issued a statement on morals. And the church believes these statements to be infallible because we do not think God would have left us with no way to interpret scriptures in light of changing times. All other guidance by the pope is just that - guidance. It guides the church, and Catholics should seriously consider his statements. But it does not mean it has been issued infallibly, nor that it cannot be changed at a later date. The pope's statements this week were most certainly not made ex cathedra, which means he could be just as prone to misjudgment as you or me, which is exactly the reason I take issue with him stating it.
Although, as I said before, his comments do not actually change any of the prior teachings of the church, people jump to conclusions and say that the church is changing its course and therefore they must have been wrong before and are wrong in other matters. That is a dangerous lie to spread.
Finally, I think that the pope's statements dangerously add to the mythical idea of "safe sex." While not condoning sex outside of marriage, the pope has said that "safe sex" is morally responsible. However, the previous stance of, "No condoms at all" was a much safer stance to take when considering the spread of deadly diseases. So many people fall into a trap of believing that just by using condoms they can avoid STD's. The church's position has been like that of a caring parent, warning children that condoms can fail and have dire consequences when they do. Indeed, between 3% (with perfect use) and 17% (with typical use) of condoms fail. The proliferation of this usage in our society is not making the world SAFER from STD's but perpetuating them at a remarkable pace. 3% is about 1 in 33 - how many people would use 33 condoms in a given year, let alone a lifetime? And 17% is close to 1 in 5! Recent studies show that about 1 in 5 homosexual men in America have HIV and other studies say that about 1 in 5 adults of both genders have an STD of some sort. It does not seem a coincidence that the failure rate of condoms is almost exactly equal to the instance of STD's! The idea that not allowing for condom use is somehow dangerous is backwards! Rather than accept 3 - 17% of the population catching deadly diseases, is it not more humane to promote abstinence and fidelity so that 100% of the population can be disease free? Instead, the ready availability of condoms has given people the mindset that they can have "safe" sex, which leads to more sex, which spreads the disease faster and farther.
Consider this final thought. For Catholics engaged in premarital sex, the church's doctrine on contraceptives and condoms is probably the farthest thing from their mind. For if they are going to sin in this sense, why would they strictly adhere to rules that can be seen as adversarial to their health? For this reason alone the pope's comments should not have been necessary. It is like saying, "If you drive drunk, go ahead and wear a seatbelt." Telling someone to do something that "may" protect them, even when they are doing something incredibly dangerous in and of itself, is not going to solve the bigger problem. No, I think the pope opened pandora's box, and I just hope that he finds a way to close it again before too much damage is done.
I said "popish" Catholics would understand what the pope meant. What I mean by that are practicing Catholics who are well versed in their faith. They know the rules, they know the teachings. They can read the comment and the comments on the comment and say, "Okay, that's just a clarification of something that was already in place." For instance, a good practicing Catholic who, for a medical reason such as the having HIV, felt a need to use condoms within a married relationship to prevent spreading it to his wife would most likely go to his priest and discuss the matter. The priest would then most likely tell him that, for this case, the use of condoms was justified. And even after the pope's recent comments, most good practicing Catholics would still want to consult a priest about these things.
But the danger for Catholics who are non-practicing or have little knowledge of the church is a misunderstanding of what the church teaches about sex and contraceptives. While the pope positively reaffirmed the church's stance on contraceptives, his comments may be confusing in the effect that it appears he is justifying certain types of relationships. For instance, how can using condoms be justified for male prostitutes when prostitution itself is a sin? For people who call themselves Catholics but don't have a knowledge of church teaching, they may see the pope's comments as an open door policy. Those already practicing sex outside of marriage may see this as the "go-ahead and by the way, please use protection" announcement they were waiting for. In America at least we have a society that hears what it wants to hear, picks up on sound bites, and doesn't bother to research the issues. Even though the Vatican followed up on the pope's comments by saying it still affirms sexual relationships ONLY in marriage, the damage may have already been done.
In addition, the comments are unclear to non-Catholics. The news media, by nature, twists stories and adds bias - it's almost unavoidable. But the fact is, they have already pounced on this story and are spreading it around as though the Catholic church's entire position has changed. In comments posted on news pages I have read cynics complaining that the "infallible" pope was changing his story. While this is juse not the case, it is a very real and serious consequence of the pope's announcement, especially in a world so ready to judge the Catholic church and Christians in general.
The truth is, papal infallibility goes only so far as the pope declares it ex cathedra. This means the pope would have to say that his statement is infallible, and the statement would be much more formal than simply a comment to a reporter. Ex cathedra statements are very rare - most popes only ever issue one and many issue none. When they are issued, they become infallible doctrine in the same sense that the Apostle Peter may have issued a statement on morals. And the church believes these statements to be infallible because we do not think God would have left us with no way to interpret scriptures in light of changing times. All other guidance by the pope is just that - guidance. It guides the church, and Catholics should seriously consider his statements. But it does not mean it has been issued infallibly, nor that it cannot be changed at a later date. The pope's statements this week were most certainly not made ex cathedra, which means he could be just as prone to misjudgment as you or me, which is exactly the reason I take issue with him stating it.
Although, as I said before, his comments do not actually change any of the prior teachings of the church, people jump to conclusions and say that the church is changing its course and therefore they must have been wrong before and are wrong in other matters. That is a dangerous lie to spread.
Finally, I think that the pope's statements dangerously add to the mythical idea of "safe sex." While not condoning sex outside of marriage, the pope has said that "safe sex" is morally responsible. However, the previous stance of, "No condoms at all" was a much safer stance to take when considering the spread of deadly diseases. So many people fall into a trap of believing that just by using condoms they can avoid STD's. The church's position has been like that of a caring parent, warning children that condoms can fail and have dire consequences when they do. Indeed, between 3% (with perfect use) and 17% (with typical use) of condoms fail. The proliferation of this usage in our society is not making the world SAFER from STD's but perpetuating them at a remarkable pace. 3% is about 1 in 33 - how many people would use 33 condoms in a given year, let alone a lifetime? And 17% is close to 1 in 5! Recent studies show that about 1 in 5 homosexual men in America have HIV and other studies say that about 1 in 5 adults of both genders have an STD of some sort. It does not seem a coincidence that the failure rate of condoms is almost exactly equal to the instance of STD's! The idea that not allowing for condom use is somehow dangerous is backwards! Rather than accept 3 - 17% of the population catching deadly diseases, is it not more humane to promote abstinence and fidelity so that 100% of the population can be disease free? Instead, the ready availability of condoms has given people the mindset that they can have "safe" sex, which leads to more sex, which spreads the disease faster and farther.
Consider this final thought. For Catholics engaged in premarital sex, the church's doctrine on contraceptives and condoms is probably the farthest thing from their mind. For if they are going to sin in this sense, why would they strictly adhere to rules that can be seen as adversarial to their health? For this reason alone the pope's comments should not have been necessary. It is like saying, "If you drive drunk, go ahead and wear a seatbelt." Telling someone to do something that "may" protect them, even when they are doing something incredibly dangerous in and of itself, is not going to solve the bigger problem. No, I think the pope opened pandora's box, and I just hope that he finds a way to close it again before too much damage is done.
Friday, November 19, 2010
Hypocrisy
We who are disciples of Christ claim that our purpose on earth is to lay up treasures in heaven. But our actions often belie our words. Many Christians build for themselves fine houses, lay out splendid gardens, construct bathhouses, and buy fields. It is small wonder, then, that many pagans refuse to believe what we say. "If their eyes are set on mansions in heaven," they ask, "why are they building mansions on earth? If they put their words into practice, they would give away their riches and live in simple huts." So these pagans conclude that we do not sincerely believe in the religion we profess; and as a rsult they refuse to take this religion seriously. You may say that the words of Christ on these matters are too hard for you to follow; and that while your spirit is willing, your flesh is weak. My answer is that the judgment of the pagans about you is more accurate than your judgment of yourself. When the pagans accuse us of hypocrisy, many of us should plead guilty.
-St. John Chrysostom
-St. John Chrysostom
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Imagine a carpenter with the crudest of tools. It takes him many days to make a simple table; and its quality is so low that the price he obtains for it is poor. He has a choice: either he can spend all the money he earns on food and drink, or he can set some money aside, even if it means going hungry, in order to buy better tools. If he does the latter, then he will soon be making good tables much more quickly, and so his earnings will quickly rise. This choice is analogous to a spiritual choice that each of us must make. Either we can spend for our own pleasure all the wealth we possess or we can set aside part of our wealth to give to others. If we do the latter, then we may sacrifice a few immediate, earthly pleasures; but the joy we earn for ourselves in heaven far, far surpasses the pleasure we have lost on earth. Every act of charity on earth is an investment in heaven.
-St. John Chrysostom.
Wow, so I have to think about this one a while - that is why I am posting these one at a time anyways. It really speaks to what I have been mulling over tonight, a topic that comes up often. That is, how do we reconcile the way we spend our time or money to heavenly expectations? If I don't watch THAT TV show I am missing out on entertainment and potential bonding with the folks at work. But if I am avoiding something immoral, or am doing something helpful with my time, it is worth it, right? I don't think we have to live a miserable life - that is not what I am saying. But sometimes living a life of a Christian is not as fun as the life others live. How "un-fun" are we willing to go if it means doing the right thing? The thing we know is right? And also, what is the depth to which God calls us on these right things? Is watching a bad TV show really immoral if we are not behaving as the characters on the show? Or does it corrupt our minds? What is hot and cold and lukewarm? How do we know when we've reached them?
-St. John Chrysostom.
Wow, so I have to think about this one a while - that is why I am posting these one at a time anyways. It really speaks to what I have been mulling over tonight, a topic that comes up often. That is, how do we reconcile the way we spend our time or money to heavenly expectations? If I don't watch THAT TV show I am missing out on entertainment and potential bonding with the folks at work. But if I am avoiding something immoral, or am doing something helpful with my time, it is worth it, right? I don't think we have to live a miserable life - that is not what I am saying. But sometimes living a life of a Christian is not as fun as the life others live. How "un-fun" are we willing to go if it means doing the right thing? The thing we know is right? And also, what is the depth to which God calls us on these right things? Is watching a bad TV show really immoral if we are not behaving as the characters on the show? Or does it corrupt our minds? What is hot and cold and lukewarm? How do we know when we've reached them?
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Loaning at Interest
When a family falls into poverty, it may be compelled to borrow money in order to survive. But if the lender charges interest on the loan, then that family will fall deeper into the pit: not only will they have to repay the loan but also the interest that accumulates on it. The lender may pretend, even to himself, that he is acting kindly; but in fact behind the guise of charity he is acting with extreme malice. He is trading on the calamities of others; he is drawing a profit from their distress; he is demanding a material reward for an act of charity, and so turning charity into robbery. He seems to be beckoning the poor family into a safe harbor, but in truth he is taking their ship onto the rocks. The lender may ask: "Why should I lend to others money that is useful to me, and demand no reward for it?" My answer is that you shall receive a reward: in return for the gold you lend on earth, you shall receive gold in heaven at a far greater rate of interest than you could ever imagine.
-St. John Chrysostom
In today's banking system, loaning money at interest and investing for interest are common practices and not unethical in most cases. Most money experts agree that taking out a loan on a house is necessary, and that taking out a loan on at least a first car is usually also necessary.
But there are systems that do take advantage of the needy. Payday loan companies appear to offer a quick fix, while really charging exorbitant interest. They take advantage of someone's need to have money fast. They may argue that the high interest is charged to offset the risk, but that is no excuse. Those driven to such places are in the most dire of straits, usually, and they need good financial advice and help, not gimmicks.
Now, on the other side of the aisle are those who borrow. As St. John says, sometimes it is necessary. But think carefully before entering into debt for something! Here is the example from a book I recently read that made it plain to me:
Say you make $30,000 a year, but you find you can't live on it, that you must live on $32,000. So you borrow the $2,000. Now the next year you will (especially in this raise-less economy) also make $30,000. But you will now have to pay back the $2,000. AND you will still have to cover the living expenses you tried to live on last year. So your quality of life just went from spending $32,000 a year to spending $28,000 a year, and that doesn't even begin to calculate the interest! You see the squeeze? If you are going to live on $28,000 a year, it is better to start off that way and save the $2,000 for yourself.
-St. John Chrysostom
In today's banking system, loaning money at interest and investing for interest are common practices and not unethical in most cases. Most money experts agree that taking out a loan on a house is necessary, and that taking out a loan on at least a first car is usually also necessary.
But there are systems that do take advantage of the needy. Payday loan companies appear to offer a quick fix, while really charging exorbitant interest. They take advantage of someone's need to have money fast. They may argue that the high interest is charged to offset the risk, but that is no excuse. Those driven to such places are in the most dire of straits, usually, and they need good financial advice and help, not gimmicks.
Now, on the other side of the aisle are those who borrow. As St. John says, sometimes it is necessary. But think carefully before entering into debt for something! Here is the example from a book I recently read that made it plain to me:
Say you make $30,000 a year, but you find you can't live on it, that you must live on $32,000. So you borrow the $2,000. Now the next year you will (especially in this raise-less economy) also make $30,000. But you will now have to pay back the $2,000. AND you will still have to cover the living expenses you tried to live on last year. So your quality of life just went from spending $32,000 a year to spending $28,000 a year, and that doesn't even begin to calculate the interest! You see the squeeze? If you are going to live on $28,000 a year, it is better to start off that way and save the $2,000 for yourself.
The Art of Being Poor
The sins of the rich, such as greed and selfishness, are obvious for all to see. The sins of the poor are less conspicuous, yet equally corrosive of the soul. Some poor people are tempted to envy the rich; indeed this is a form of vicarious greed, because the poor person wanting great wealth is in spirit no different from the rich person amassing great wealth. Many poor people are gripped by fear: their hearts are caught in a chain of anxiety, worrying whether they will have food on their plates tomorrow or clothes on their backs. Some poor people are constantly formulating in their minds devious plans to cheat the rich to obtain their wealth; this is no different in spirit from the rich making plans to exploit the poor by paying low wages. The art of being poor is to trust in God for everything, to demand nothing - and to be grateful for all that is given.
-St. John Chrysostom
So it is with our society these days - class envy is alive and strong, and it drives people to extremes. We are asked to be content with what we have.
-St. John Chrysostom
So it is with our society these days - class envy is alive and strong, and it drives people to extremes. We are asked to be content with what we have.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Share what you have, lest you lose what you have. Spend what you possess on the needs of others in order to keep what you possess. Do not cling to what you own, lest it be taken away from you. Do not hoard your treasures, lest they rot and become worthless. Entrust all your wealth to God, because then it is protected against all who want to steal or destroy. Do you understand what these injunctions mean? Or do they sound like nonsense to you? To the person without faith, they mean nothing. But to the person with faith, they make perfect sense. Faith tells us that God alone can supply the material things on which we depend. He gives some people more than they need, not that they can enjoy great luxury, but to make them stewards of his bounty on behalf of orphans, th esick, and the crippled. If they are bad stewards, keeping this bounty to themselves, they will become poor in spirit, and their hearts will fill with misery. If they are good stewards, they will become rich in spirit, their hearts filling with joy.
-St. John Chrysostom
To those whom much is given, much is expected. It is harder to be rich, by far, and so many rich people fail at the test they are given. But those who succeed are charitable and worth of emulation by us all, even those who are "middle class," for are we not rich by the rest of the world's standards? But those who hoard their wealth only want more and more and more and are never satisfied.
-St. John Chrysostom
To those whom much is given, much is expected. It is harder to be rich, by far, and so many rich people fail at the test they are given. But those who succeed are charitable and worth of emulation by us all, even those who are "middle class," for are we not rich by the rest of the world's standards? But those who hoard their wealth only want more and more and more and are never satisfied.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Love and Marriage
"In a family the husband needs the wife to prepare his food; to make, mend, and wash his clothes; to fetch water; and to keep the rooms and furniture in the house clean. The wife needs the husband to till the soil, to build and reapir the house, and to earn money ot buy the goods they need. God has put into a mans' heart the capacity to love his wife, and into a omwna's hear the capacity to love her husband. But their mutual dependence makes them love each other out of necessity also. At times love within the heart may not be sufficient to maintain the bond of marriage. But love which comes form material necessity will give that bond the strength it needs to endure times of difficulty. The same is true for society as a whole. God has put into every person's heart the capacity to love his neighbors. But that love is immeasurably strengthened by their dependence on one another's skills."
-St. John Chrysostom
At first glance, this quote may appear old fashioned - fit for the 4th century, in which it was written. But it still holds today. St. John speaks of specifics for a wife's role, but he essentially describes work - hard work. In today's society many women work outside the home, which means they work doubly hard when they get home.
But whether a marriage involves one person working outside the home or two, it is still a teamwork situation. Both wife and husband work for the betterment of the whole.
These days many people find themselves in a twisted version of what St. John is talking about. They play house first, moving in together before they get married. Then, as he mentions, they find themselves unable to break up, both dependent on each other for finances. But without the lifetime commitment, eventually they do part.
In addition, there are married couples who experience the times when "love within the heart may not be sufficient" to hold on. But as women assert their financial independence, they march out of the homes when things get rough, using day care to help raise the children.
The truth is marriage is hard, and there are times when it may seem "easier" to quit. Sometimes people pull through because they believe that marriage lasts forever. Or they need each other financially. Or they are too ashamed to admit defeat. Whatever the reason, they pull through those hard times to better times on the other side, and that's how it is supposed to be.
Because marriage isn't supposed to be all lovey-dovey and romance, but it IS supposed to last forever.
-St. John Chrysostom
At first glance, this quote may appear old fashioned - fit for the 4th century, in which it was written. But it still holds today. St. John speaks of specifics for a wife's role, but he essentially describes work - hard work. In today's society many women work outside the home, which means they work doubly hard when they get home.
But whether a marriage involves one person working outside the home or two, it is still a teamwork situation. Both wife and husband work for the betterment of the whole.
These days many people find themselves in a twisted version of what St. John is talking about. They play house first, moving in together before they get married. Then, as he mentions, they find themselves unable to break up, both dependent on each other for finances. But without the lifetime commitment, eventually they do part.
In addition, there are married couples who experience the times when "love within the heart may not be sufficient" to hold on. But as women assert their financial independence, they march out of the homes when things get rough, using day care to help raise the children.
The truth is marriage is hard, and there are times when it may seem "easier" to quit. Sometimes people pull through because they believe that marriage lasts forever. Or they need each other financially. Or they are too ashamed to admit defeat. Whatever the reason, they pull through those hard times to better times on the other side, and that's how it is supposed to be.
Because marriage isn't supposed to be all lovey-dovey and romance, but it IS supposed to last forever.
Wages
"Commerce in itself is not bad; indeed it is an intrinsic part of God's order. What matters is how we conduct our commerce. The reason why commerce is necessary is that God created human beings with different ambitions and skills. One person is a good carpenter, another a good preacher; one person can make crops grow in the poorest soil, another can heal the most terrible diseases. Thus each person specializes in the work for which God has ordained him; and by selling his skills, or the goods he produces, he can obtain from others the goods that he needs. The problems arise because some people can obtain a far higher price for their work than others, or because some people employ others and do not pay a fair wage. The result is that some become rich and others poor. But in God's eyes one skill is not superior to another; every form of honest labor is equal. So inequalities in what people receive for their labor undermine the divine order."
- St. John Chrysostom
- St. John Chrysostom
"Remember how we have all been created. All human beings have a common ancestor. Thus all human flesh has the same substance; there is no difference between the flesh of the nobility and that of peasants. When we commit an act of charity, in which we use our excess wealth to help someone with too little, we are acknowledging our unity with others. After all, the rich and the poor have the same flesh, the hunger of the poor should ccause pain to the rich; and the pain can only be soothed through assuaging that hunger . Sadkly, rich people often speak about charity, expressing their good intentions, but their deeds do not match their words. Good intentions give some cause for hope: they mean that the rich recognize their unity with the poor. Our challenge is to persuade the rich to turn words into actions. Preachers must try to do this; and so also must everyone who has an opportunity to speak to the rich."
- St. John Chrysostom
- St. John Chrysostom
We do not need to buy air, water, fire, sunshine, and things of this kind. God has given enough of all these blessings for everyone to enjoy them freely. The sun shines equally on the rich and the poor, and they both breathe the same air. Why is it, then, that these necessary things, which sustain life, are created by God for common use, while money is not common? The reason is twofold: to safeguard life and to open the path to virtue. On the one hand, if the necessities of life were not common, the rich, with their usual greediness, would take them away from the poor. In fact, since they keep all money for themselves, they would certainly do the same with these necessities. On the other hand, if money were common and available to all, there would be no opportunity for generosity on the part of the rich and gratitude on the part of the poor.
- St. John Chrysostom
- St. John Chrysostom
A Message from St. John Chrysostom
A few months ago I decided to read through the "Doctors of the Church," a group of people who were considered to have made a significant theological contribution to Christianity throughout the ages. One of the books I have read was by St. John Chrysostom, a man who lived in the early days of the church and wrote about equity. I enjoyed his work because it was challenging yet doctrinally sound. I would call it a summary of Christian economics.
The book I had broke his sermons into short page-long pieces, and since St. John's works are now considered "public domain" I wanted to reproduce what he said here - it will help me to keep in mind his advice as well as to share some good wisdom with those who otherwise might not seek it.
"The rich usually imagine that, if they do not physically rob the poor, they are committing no sin. But the sin of the rich consists in not sharing their wealth with the poor. In fact, the rich person who keeps all his wealth for himself is commiting a form of robbery. The reason is that in truth all wealth comes from God, and so belongs to everyone equally. The proof of this is all around us. Look at the succulent fruits which the trees and bushes produce. Look at the fertile soil which yields each year such an abundant harvest. Look at the sweet grapes on the vines, which give us wine to drink. The rich may claim that they own many fields in which fruits and grain grow, but it is God who causes seeds to sprout and mature. The duty of the rich is to share the harvest of their fields with all who work in them and with all in need."
The book I had broke his sermons into short page-long pieces, and since St. John's works are now considered "public domain" I wanted to reproduce what he said here - it will help me to keep in mind his advice as well as to share some good wisdom with those who otherwise might not seek it.
"The rich usually imagine that, if they do not physically rob the poor, they are committing no sin. But the sin of the rich consists in not sharing their wealth with the poor. In fact, the rich person who keeps all his wealth for himself is commiting a form of robbery. The reason is that in truth all wealth comes from God, and so belongs to everyone equally. The proof of this is all around us. Look at the succulent fruits which the trees and bushes produce. Look at the fertile soil which yields each year such an abundant harvest. Look at the sweet grapes on the vines, which give us wine to drink. The rich may claim that they own many fields in which fruits and grain grow, but it is God who causes seeds to sprout and mature. The duty of the rich is to share the harvest of their fields with all who work in them and with all in need."
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Answered Un-Prayers
So here's a question I have been considering. I am a huge believer in the power of prayer - that all prayers are answered, even if the answer is "No." I believe that it is very reasonable that God may want to give us the things we ask for, so long as they are in His best interest and ours. I have no trouble that God CAN answer even the hardest prayer and that he is WILLING to answer prayers for even relatively small things. I don't like to pray for silly things, but I think God can use answers to silly prayers to bolster faith in others.
But here's my question - does God answer prayers we don't ask? I have found this phenomenon appearing with almost regularity in my life. A problem comes up that I either believe is to small to pray about, or that I just neglect to pray over. And yet, the problem resolves itself with miraculous speed. Now, if I didn't have a strong faith, I would call this luck, and I don't really have a problem calling it luck now. But I still wonder if it may be more than that. Is it wrong to think that maybe God is trying to get my attention? To say, "Sarah, you didn't bring this to me, but look what I can do if you would!" A little reminder to bring everything to Him.
Now, whether we believe that God does reach down and solve insignificant problems in our lives or not, there is no reason why we can't be grateful to Him. We are supposed to thank God for all our blessings, and so these answered un-prayers (as opposed to unanswered prayers) are most certainly a cause for thanks! As the Christmas song says, we should go to sleep "counting blessings instead of sheep." And maybe that is the lesson I need to learn today.
But here's my question - does God answer prayers we don't ask? I have found this phenomenon appearing with almost regularity in my life. A problem comes up that I either believe is to small to pray about, or that I just neglect to pray over. And yet, the problem resolves itself with miraculous speed. Now, if I didn't have a strong faith, I would call this luck, and I don't really have a problem calling it luck now. But I still wonder if it may be more than that. Is it wrong to think that maybe God is trying to get my attention? To say, "Sarah, you didn't bring this to me, but look what I can do if you would!" A little reminder to bring everything to Him.
Now, whether we believe that God does reach down and solve insignificant problems in our lives or not, there is no reason why we can't be grateful to Him. We are supposed to thank God for all our blessings, and so these answered un-prayers (as opposed to unanswered prayers) are most certainly a cause for thanks! As the Christmas song says, we should go to sleep "counting blessings instead of sheep." And maybe that is the lesson I need to learn today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)