We are looking at the Ascendancy of the Risk Mitigating State. Men do not wish to face the future with the formidible challenges to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness without something bigger than themselves assuring them that the risks of moving into the future as mortal creatures, subject to death and pain, are mitigated, are dissipated.
The classical Christian call is, on the other hand to trust in God for that which the future holds, not that trust in God argues against preparation by industry, but that our security, as it were, is something we look to from God. Only God, in this view, is 'big' enough to mitigate all risks inherent in the future.
This view has been enculturated in the past in the United States, so much so that we have been accustomed to putting "In God we Trust" on our coins. A habit, unfortunately, that we found necessary, when erosion in Trust in God was evident.
In times when our cultural trust was not primarily in the State, we often mitigated risks of the future through insurance programs. We invested money earned in the present to mitigate risks inherent in the future.
On the other hand Christians are called to live and to love their neighbor in the present; to love their neighbors as themselves, and to give to the neighbor who has no coat, the second one we may possess. The call to love is therefore in the present, and it is an obligation laid on our present resources for the neediness of our brother, or our neighbor.
How does the desire to mitigate the risk of the future square with the call to love our neighbor in the present, especially as both compete for scarce resources available to us now?
Some have argued, be frugal as you can, give all you can, and save all you can. This does not give us a precise formula and does not help us solve the question of what to do- do I buy more life insurance or health insurance, or do I give the child who has not eaten for three days a glass of milk?
I believe that if we would be perfect we would trust God in the totality for our futures, and deny ourselves, and give to serve our neighbor. I think we find that pattern in the lives of the Saints. I have never heard a story of a great saint who , when called to walk deeply with Christ, felt that call was to acquisitiveness and risk mitigation. I think of the parables- the risk- mitigating wealthy agriculturalist in the parables, sought to mitigate the risks of the future by building larger barns and filling them, and sought to live in the present by sumptuous dining and the pursuit of satiety. St. John Chrysostom and other Fathers preached rather insistently that any excess we have produced belongs to our brother who has nothing.
While the call to perfection is something that none of us can bear in ourselves, and the Lord in His mercy and condescension allows us to live at a lower standard, if we would be perfect, the call comes, 'sell all that you have, give to the poor and , come, follow me."
Back to the parable of the wealthy agriculturalist. We learn something profound about the damning effects of the pursuit of a life that seeks supremely, risk mitigation and satiety in the present. These were his supreme pursuits and it led to the loss of his life. While we might not lose our lives physically, it seems to me that this parable teaches that we risk the loss of all that is human about our life, for it is love, essentially, that makes us human, and distinguishes us from the animals, with whom we share mortality, but from whom we are distinguished because we have within ourselves a principle higher than survival of the fittest- we have the transcendence of nature by love, so that we participate in the Divine.
This bodes ill for the current mania and passion that we in this country have that Government mitigate all risk for us- our health, our pocket books, our education, our old age, the education of our children, and the fried chicken on our plates. The essence of government is compulsion, and trust placed in government to mitigate all risk and to give us satiety will also steal from us that which makes us human, that is to say, love, and the possibility of transcending our animal selves and the mere survival of the fittest, and becoming Divine. Another way of saying this, is that unless Divine Love, the worship of it, the practice of it, the enculturation of it and even its realization in the fabrication of the body politic, is our highest value, that those things that we have made highest values, those idols, if you will, become demonic, and rob us of the very things that make our lives worth living.
Back to the parable of the wealthy agriculturalist- his idols were risk mitigation of the future, and satiety in the present. What alternative does our Christ offer us. The human and humane and divine all converge and call us to deny selves and take up cross and follow Christ, who is Divine Love incarnate. To deny self is to deny the pursuit of risk mitigation and satiety, for the supreme value of love. Taking up cross is the historical footprint that appears when we deny self and follow Christ; it is a cross that is existential, psychological, and social; the cross is the price that we pay that we may obtain the Pearl of Great Price to live in the Present in the Love of God, and to be divinized thereby, transcending mere satiety and risk mitigation- transcending mere survival of the fittest.
Lord, have mercy.
No comments:
Post a Comment