Meditation for the Fourth of July
Balthasar’s Heart of the World has some rather unique, and disturbing, examples of how we have, in history, reacted to God – after the Christ event. He states what we often leave silent. What we do is try to put God in his place, to feel secure he is there, trapped, and outside of the ordinary, daily sphere of life. God is seen as an intruder, and even the words of the Word are used by us to shut him out:
“His kingdom is not of this world. For this reason he has no business in our worldly affairs. Let him have his cathedrals and he’ll let us have our banks, our shops, our politics, our schools, the works of our culture, our country. Let him have his game preserve, the ‘national park’ of his churches. We pledge neither to fell timber nor to hunt there. Our roads will be built to curve around this protective zone, and within this area he will be allowed to raise his strange mountain animals and his amazingly gnarled dwarf stone-pipes within reach of the glaciers.”[1]
What about us? Do we find excuse after excuse to put Christ away? Do we put him in a church, trapped, all alone in the tabernacle (or behind the iconostasis)? [2] Do we want the workers of the Church, the priests, to be kept inside their churches, all for their supposed good, but in reality, so they can’t bring Christ’s merciful judgment and requirements to our daily affairs? “The world is the world’s. It would be advisable to restrict the clergy to the realm of the Church and not grant them any rights or power whatsoever in public matters. You will thus be doing them a service, since politics has always spoiled the Church and jeopardized her influence.”[3]
But then, what good is this purity, what good is this division, if the world, taken up in its own, in its selfishness and greed, in its markets and masters, in its presidents and kings – if this world is forever affirming itself as supreme and the people, even those who should know better, follow through and bow to the state and place it the crown which only belongs to Christ? What horror has been wrought by Christians who have done just that. Can we really say we are living our lives as Christians, if we make this distinction between church and state an abyss which cannot be crossed? How can there be the reconfiguration of the world through Christ, if the world is said it is fine as it is, and there is no action required by the Church, the Body of Christ in history?
This Fourth of July – consider carefully, who is it you serve and why? For those of us living in the America, we need to ask ourselves: What way can, and should, the ways of Christ be brought into the United States and make it better? What exactly does it mean for us to do this? How did Christ interact with the world of his day? What did the Apostles think of Rome? How did they recognize its authority, even its value, while not giving in to its vices? Consider carefully, for that is where our work with the world should start.
Footnotes
[1] Hans Urs von Balthasar, Heart of the World. Trans. Erasmo S. Leiva (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1979), 122.
[2] “You can also hide him behind the iconostasis. Back there, unseen by the profane crowd, the bearded priests perform their duties, and only at a distance can one hear the echoes and chants and bells jingling,” ibid., 129. “And you, good Catholic, have named him the ‘prisoner of the tabernacle.’ There you hold him in tight custody, within the darkness of the golden chest. So there he sits, and can consider himself lucky if during the day a few old people come and pray a rosary before him,” ibid., 129-30.
[3] Ibid., 123.
Comments are closed.
“Can we really say we are living our lives as Christians, if we make this distinction between church and state an abyss which cannot be crossed?”
Henry,
For the past three decades, the Religious Right has attempted to bring religion into politics. Catholics have joined their ranks and adopted their language and strategies. This has been a disaster. Today the abyss between Church and State seems wider than ever.
Underlying this predicament has been a growing anti-intellectualism in the American Church. Church-speak of all forms has become a coarse and unpersuasive substitute for logic, reason, and experience. In the culture wars, attention has focused on controlling behavior without addressing the causes of behavior. Coercive methods have gained respect yet have had no positive impact. The national ethos today is one of anger, not civility.
It is the language of logical persuasion that alone can prevail in a secular society. Such language — and the strategies that flow from it — should be embraced. For when persuasion prevails it not only wins the day but it captures hearts and minds and the future as well.
Personally I see the Evangelical influence in the American Church as a great danger. Whether intending to or not, it leads to increasing anti-intellectualism and authoritarianism in the Catholic community. In practice, it places heavy emphasis on power and wealth in determining the future of social, economic, and political life. When that happens power will replace purpose and there will be no common bond to society. All will be lost.
I hope I am absolutely wrong.
Gerald – I hope you’re wrong, and I’m afraid you’re right. One question is, what would be an appropriate way for the Church to bring Christ to the nation?
My answer would be something along the lines of prophetic witness; the Berrigan brothers come immediately to mind. It is worth asking why the Church has not produced a “prophet” of the stature of Dr. martin Luther King Jr.
Henry – Excellent post.
Gerald
You are right, one must always ask, how should the interaction be. Obviously I think the analogy would be that of Chalcedon: there should be a unity which nonetheless preserves distinctions (instead of a monophysite interaction which removes them, or a Nestorian view which sees no real unity).
The problem with many on the “left” and “right” is that they tend to be monophysite, and merge the two, mixing the two in such a way much of the two are lost. The state becomes religious. And much of the ways of state are seen as sacred. And then elements, usually legalistic elements, of religion are used. What is needed, on the other hand, is grace, and so that nature can be perfected.
Matt
You are right, the prophetic witness (and I think the key word is witness) is one important way the sacred can inspire and help elevate/guide the secular. For it allows the distinction to be preserved and yet doesn’t ignore the need for the interaction between the two.