On the Work of Christmas

 

An interesting take, by Howard Thurman, on the proper “Work of Christmas.”

“To find the lost,
To heal the broken,
To feed the hungry,
To release the prisoner,
To rebuild the nations,
To bring peace among brothers,
To make music in the heart.”

It is not quite what Jesus says in the Bible, however.

His actual commission to the apostles was to cast out demons, heal the sick, preach the gospel, and baptize. Don’t see that here.

“Find the lost” and “Heal the broken” might cover this, but they are at best open to misinterpretation. If “find the lost” equates to casting out demons, it seems an odd way to put it. In the Bible, God finds the lost sheep; it seems presumptuous to suggest the individual Christian should or could.

Feed the hungry? It is incumbent on us to feed the hungry, true. Not just for Christians, but as a universal moral obligation. But Jesus also said “The poor you shall have always with you”; and that worship must be given priority over giving money to the poor. This is not the essence of the Christian mission as such.

“Release the prisoner”? He never says that. He says we are to visit those in prison, which is quite different. This would presuppose that laws and legal systems are illegitimate. Not in the Bible.

It is true that in Luke 4, Jesus says of himself, that he has come “to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free.” But he is by this identifying himself as “the anointed one,” the Messiah, an exceptional circumstance--not giving a commission for Christians during normal times. He is describing a general amnesty, as in Jubilee year.

“Rebuild the nations?” Jesus stresses the separation of salvation and politics: “render to Caesar what is Caesar’s.” He confounded the Jewish expectation that the Messiah would be a political figure. He did not commission his followers to re-found the nation of Judea, nor to somehow reform the Roman Empire.

“Bring peace among brothers”? This is almost a flat contradiction of what Jesus does say: “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn ‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’—a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.”

You might point to him saying, in the Beatitudes, “blessed are the peacemakers.” But the word translated as “peacemakers” is in the ancient documents most commonly applied to Roman Emperors. It seems therefore to refer to those who keep the peace in the sense of a police force or a “justice of the peace”: by mediating disputes fairly, without fear or favour, and by catching and punishing wrongdoers.

So—bring peace among brothers in that sense: by throwing one of them in prison. So much for “Releasing the prisoners.”

“To make music in the heart.” I think Jesus did command us to create art, when he told us to be salty and to shed light; as does the Book of Genesis, giving us a commission as gardeners and potters; as does the Book of Revelations, envisioning the New Jerusalem as a city made of precious gems. But why only “in the heart”? That seems to be there to negate the point. Music in the heart is not audible to others; art that is invisible is not art. Jesus commanded us instead to “let your light shine,” to let everyone see your works, to give light to everyone in the house; to be like a city on a hill.

So it is subtle. Am I nitpicking?

I think not. Friend Xerxes quotes Thurman's poem as justification for a program of left-wing "social justice" as he proper expression of Christianity.

It seems like an attempt to subvert the gospel to worldly ends.

The Archaic Smile

 

The archaic smile: a gaze blank and pitiless as the sun.

Had a discussion with the chief of catechesis for my diocese. He reported that Pope Francis is reorganizing the Catholic Charismatic Renewal to focus as one of its priorities on helping the poor. Apparently it was previously deficient in this regard, and said function is not sufficiently covered by the rest of the church and Catholic Charities. 

More broadly, he stressed Pope Francis’s belief that the key message of the church to Christians is joy.

Happy happy joy joy. Bobby McFadden stuff.

This is of a piece with the directive for those catechising children: that the sole message should be “God loves you.”

I have been brooding about this ever since. This is off the rails. We must have better from the church.

Helping the poor is of course good. This is uncontroversial, everyone agrees, and no reason to have a church, let alone a charismatic prayer group. Many secular authorities are on that case. 

“Feeding the hungry” is indeed one of the corporeal works of mercy. However, it does not seem to me to be within the charism of the Charismatic Renewal, which stresses the spiritual, not the corporeal. For them, it looks like a rod shoved in their spokes, a demand for them to turn to the material and away from the spiritual. Their proper concern is the spiritual works of mercy: comfort to the afflicted, forgiveness, prayer.

Ending poverty is not the business of the church, not possible, and not desirable. “Ending poverty” is an idolatry. “The poor will be with you always.” Are we to take pity on and send money to the Franciscans and Poor Clares, who have taken vows of poverty? “Blessed are the poor.” Being poor is, literally, a blessing. 

It is important to notice that what Jesus asks of us is not to give money or aid to “the poor” as such, but to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and shelter the homeless. The distinction is important. We do this not because they are poor, but because they need something we have far more than we do. Their survival is more important that our comfort.

We are equally obliged to visit those in prison, or in hospital or old age homes. To put sole emphasis on “the poor” smacks of Marxist materialism.

As for the key message of the church being joy—isn’t that callous, when you are also obviously aware there are people going hungry, without shelter, without clothes, sick, old, in prison? Is the essential Christian message “I’m all right, Jack!”?

Jesus said the reverse: “blessed are those who mourn.” Did he ever say “blessed are the joyful”? No, again, the reverse: “Woe to you who are laughing now, for you will mourn and weep.”

In Athens, I visited museums full of ancient sculpture, and another museum of early Christian icons. The striking difference between the two: the older pagan sculptures showed blank eyes and grins—the creepy “archaic smile.” The images of Christian saints showed faces that seemed sorrowful, eyes like dark wells that seemed grief-stricken at the world.

As one ought to be, once one realizes what should be.

The message of Christianity is not joy, but truth. Truth is harrowing. It is the mysterium termendum et fascinans. “Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.”

Turn then, most gracious advocate, thine eyes of mercy towards us, poor banished children of Eve, mourning and weeping in this valley of tears.

Pope Francis is not Christian. He has not seen the world as it is.

Early Christian icon

The Preferential Option for the Poor

 

Catholic social doctrine is, to my mind, close to being self-evidently true: solidarity, subsidiarity, human dignity, the dignity of labour. If only we could all agree on getting it done.

Except for one issue: the preferential option for the poor. Of course this is right; but how to go about it as a practical matter? How reduce inequalities of wealth in society?

We cannot simply take from the rich and give to the poor. This, as Catholic social doctrine makes clear, is unjust. Each man has a right to the products of his labour. This is what social justice actually means: to each according to his merits. That means he has a right to his property.

On the other hand, the dignity of man, and human solidarity, means we must together ensure that no one is left without means sufficient for life. We are each our brother’s keeper. In the classic case, if a man is starving, he has a right to take a loaf of bread. It is not theft, in a moral sense. We must organize society so that no one is sleeping in a tent in a Canadian winter.

But how?

Unions? Collective bargaining? Does not work. If one shop is organized to achieve higher wages, this means they must price their products higher. Customers go elsewhere, the firm goes out of business, and everyone starves. 

Organize across an entire industry, and the work simply moves abroad. 

The union movement has therefore collapsed in any industry which cannot establish a monopoly. It is limited to the building trades and government workers. 

People in the building trades and the civil service make more than the average income. 

So unions make the rich richer, by forcing the poor to pay more for certain goods and services.

A minimum wage? This has all the same problems. Jobs are eliminated in favour of self-serve and automation. As has been said, the real minimum wage is zero.

Welfare? A Universal Basic Income? Daniel Patrick Moynihan demonstrated its effects. By replacing the father in the family, it encourages family breakdown. Children do not well in a single-parent family, and the next generation is doomed to poverty and helplessness. It violates the dignity of work.

The first thing that might be done is to discourage single-parent families. End no-fault divorce.

The one thing that seems most obvious is that education should be free at all levels; as it is in some European countries. The only criterion for advancement should be merit. This is social justice; it gives everyone an equal shake. This is the same principle on which we have public libraries. It benefits not only the poor, but society as a whole: it means we get the best at each position, improving overall efficiency. If anything done by government ever were an investment, this is one.

The next thing would be monasteries—or some equivalent. A place where the poor and oppressed and those abandoned or abused by their families could be taken in, but with dignity and purpose. A place abused children could safely run away to. Sadly, the monasteries were broken up all over Europe in about the Enlightenment, not because the system did not work, but because it worked too well: the monasteries grew rich, and the civil power wanted the assets. 

For some generations, the alternative for poor kids who were abused was to run off with the circus, or to become gas jockeys somewhere. That escape was killed by child labour laws and minimum wage. Leaving what? Only drug dealing or prostitution.

There was an attempt in the Seventies and Eighties to revive something like the monastery system: the “cults.” The Hare Krishnas, the Moonies, Scientology, the Falun Gong in China. And the authorities went after them hammer and tongs wherever they appeared. Remember Waco. 

Even the Indian residential schools were too well calculated to help the Indian poor, and so have been declared anathema. Residential schools should probably instead be expanded: any child born into a single-parent family should attend a residential school. Ideally not run by government, but by some religious organization.

The reality is that much of society is constructed to keep the poor down.

Evangelizing for Social Justice in Barbados

 

Friend Xerxes laments that social justice is a hard sell to a black congregation in Barbados. He believes it is because “Evangelicals” are concerned only with individual salvation, and not with social issues.

But isn’t it odd to find a poor black congregation unreceptive?

After all, “social justice” is supposed to be largely for the benefit of blacks. It also seems probable that a black congregation in Barbados is poor; Barbadian GDP per capita is only $15,000 US. Social justice is supposed to be for the poor. 

Nor is social engagement alien to Evangelicals. The Salvation Army is evangelical. From their mission statement: "The Salvation Army, an international movement, is an evangelical part of the universal Christian church." Evangelicals give more than their fellow citizens to charity and volunteer more at food banks, soup kitchens, and the like. Perhaps next to the Salvation Army, the biggest presence in helping the poor in downtown Toronto is the Scott Mission, which is evangelical. They run a food bank, homeless shelter, children, youth, and camp ministry. George W. Bush, an evangelical, pushed hard for "faith-based initiatives," exploiting the eager participation of evangelicals in the government's own social programs.

The problem is with “social justice.” Which is manifestly something other than charity, in their understanding.  Social justice is not something done for the poor or the working class. When left-wing sources criticize movements like Trumpism, the PPC, Brexit, or France’s National Rally, as “populist,” they are acknowledging as much: the uneducated common rabble, the poor, are the enemy. If poor blacks identify themselves by class, they are likely to be hostile to the left and its “social justice.” If they identify themselves instead by race, they may be for it. This, unfortunately, gives the left an incentive to divide people by race, and this again becomes a stumbling block for sincere Christians.

Nor is there any clear connection between what is currently called “social justice” and the Christian virtue of charity. Charity is giving to others in need. Social justice is demanding that others do it instead of you. And social justice seems more to be about power and coercion. It looks like people who consider themselves better than others trying to control others’ lives, including the lives of the poor, in the process validating the power structure and fixing it in place.

Are the social elites who push the “social justice agenda” nevertheless well-intentioned?

I wonder. They call the common working people “rednecks”—a pejorative term those who work outside for a living. Hillary Clinton called the working poor “deplorables.” Obama called them “bitter clingers.” One can hear the classism, the sense of privilege, and the contempt.

William Blake on Social Justice

Blake is not always right, but in the end, I think he is the greatest philosopher that England has produced.

He does it in gnomic phrases.

He who would do good to another must do it in Minute Particulars: general Good is the plea of the scoundrel, hypocrite, and flatterer, for Art and Science cannot exist but in minutely organized Particulars.

So much for "social justice warriors."

If You Like Political Islam, How about Political Catholicism?

Toronto's Cardinal Collins.

At the election debate a night or two ago, Cardinal Collins announced the intent to form ongoing political interest groups in the archdiocese, to advocate for Catholic political causes.

This idea makes me uncomfortable.

It does have some historical justification. In mainland Europe, there have been Catholic political parties. The Church does have a defined social teaching.

However, the image it immediately evokes for me is the United Church, which seems to have abandoned religion altogether for politics.

Which is an abdication of responsibility. We already have political parties to handle such affairs. By comparison, we lack awareness of religion.

Most political issues are not moral issues; they are disagreements on how best to accomplish some shared moral aim. To inject the Church into the political discourse systematically, without reference to some specific issue, risks missing this, and so increasing political divisions that have already become too wide. As well as alienating Catholics who cannot in good faith support the Church’s particular political positions. Bishops, priests, or religious people generally have no special insights or expertise here. Their training is not in law, or economics, or practical affairs, or political science.

Some political issues are indeed moral issues, and here I would expect the Church to speak loudly: abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, conscience rights, the seal of the confessional, whether a war is unjust, human equality in its true sense, real racism and discrimination—as opposed to the current gross misappropriation of these terms to mean their opposite. In principle, concern for the poor, of course—but this illustrates the problem. All current political groups profess concern for the poor. Accusing any current political party of lacking it is therefore claiming either greater expertise in politics than the politicians or non-Catholics generally, or claiming that those who oppose you politically are evil people, both malicious and dishonest.

That is a serious charge to make without strong evidence; it is destructive to society if not true; and it is bad Christianity.

The same would apply, in bargain quantities, to the Church getting involved with “environmental” issues. Nobody is opposed to a clean environment.

And I certainly do not want the local parish agitating for such things as a new neighbourhood crosswalk. Which is an example I think the cardinal actually used. How confident are we that it is objectively more moral to spend public funds on a new crosswalk than on some other priority--say, a seniors’ centre, paying down public debt, or a soup kitchen for the poor? Are we supposing the non-
Catholics are too stupid to see this, or simply evil?

It is not always obvious that we are well-served by the priorities of the North American Church hierarchy.

Social Justice

“Social Justice” is becoming a pejorative—as in “Social Justice Warrior.”

This is disturbing, because social justice is a real thing, and a part of Catholic teaching. As Catholics, we are bound to believe in “social justice.”

It joins a long line of terms that have been hijacked by people on the left and used as euphemisms, destroying the original meaning. Other examples are “liberal,” “progressive,” “racism,” “equality” or “human rights.” They now mean about the opposite of what they originally did. The moral prestige earned by the original term and its earlier advocates has been subverted to promote something different, and incompatible.

There are, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, three elements to social justice:

1. respect for the human person; i.e., human rights. But the term “human rights” has been distorted in its turn. Anyone who supports abortion does not support social justice. The right to life is the most fundamental of human rights.

2. human equality; i.e., no discrimination on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language, or religion. But the term “equality” has been distorted in turn. No discrimination means no discrimination: no “affirmative action,” no talk of “white privilege.” And this does not mean you cannot discriminate on the grounds of actions. If someone commits a crime, it is not unjust discrimination to impose a penalty in law. Accordingly, it is perfectly proper to condemn as sin, for example, homosexual sex or a man pretending to be a woman. This is in fact equality: imposing the same rules on everyone. To do otherwise is discrimination.

3. human solidarity; i.e., the poor and weak must be cared for. This does not mean equal incomes. This means a “social safety net.” Anyone who has what is sufficient for their needs has no business demanding the property of another. That is the sin of covetousness.