Bhutan – Gross National Happiness

Bhutan is a small country tucked away in a remote part of the Himalayas.  It is a constitutional monarchy with a population of less than one million persons.  The country is mainly Buddhist with a minority of Hindus.  As an official policy they have what is called Gross National Happiness, established as official policy in 1972 by the then King Jigme Singye Wangchuck.  In 2008 Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck became the current King after his father’s abdication.  Gross National Happiness remains the national policy. 

Gross National Happiness is an attempt to measure the progress of the country and its overall health as a society.  It is a holistic attempt to come up with a measure of happiness, because the Gross Domestic Product measurement doesn’t adequately measure happiness, but only economic status of the nation (society) as a whole.  It is inadequate as the upper classes become wealthier at the expense of the lower, and while the GDP may be high overall, happiness of the lower class population suffers.

GNH is in accord with the basic principles of Buddhism, where the best societal progress comes from both economic (material) and spiritual development operating side by side. The holistic nature of the notion that the greatest good is not achieved by economic development alone leads to a more generous approach to all of society.  Buddhism reverences all forms of life so the preservation of environment, both human and physical, is seen as promoting a general happiness which cannot be achieved by exploitation of the material resources leaving the spiritual to decay.  The neglect of the spiritual leads only to greater unhappiness, which cannot be substituted for economic betterment. In some sense it is a conservative view and in others it is the ultimate liberal notion of the whole person versus mere material growth.  The holistic approach contributes to some sense of leaving things as they are, but simultaneously liberating the spirit from the demonic confines of consumerism and materialism.

As an eudemian form of Ethics and Politics, GNH leaves development to the whole rather than the basic.  While many of our well-off individuals in Western Societies seek happiness from the eastern practices of Tai Chi and Yoga, GNH has built into it a form of happiness where one seeks not some meaning other than the material, but seeks the whole well being of the individual and all of the environment. Ecology becomes important here, because without an environment wherein the spirit can find health, there is no wealth.  Wealth does not come from the exploitation of the natural, but instead from the natural development of the environment where spiritual development occurs. Who among us can say they did not get a spiritual uplift from a visit to a national park, or beautiful garden we have ourselves cultivated?  In an important sense GNH makes a garden of nature itself.

If there is any lesson to be learned from the recent collapse of the world economies and the resultant protests because the burden of recovery lies in cuts to lower class persons, the economic measure does not result in a greater happiness.  The greatest good for the greatest number cannot mean greatest wealth for the greatest number, since happiness is lost in the din of monetary gain.  The greatest happiness for the greatest number must also include not only legal persons, but all - the entire environment.  Nature, if allowed, may be able to heal herself, but if we exploit nature for the benefit of a few, we prevent her healing to occur. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXJwNSkdTH0

Friendship - φιλία

 ἔστι γὰρ ὁ φίλος ἄλλος αὐτός  Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics 1166 a31

Inquiring about a couple in my class who seem to be always together, I was told: ”I think they are just friends.?” I replied “I hardly think so, from the way they behave towards one another.”  This set me on to a philosophical debate within my head:  What does it mean to be “just friends”?  Young people obviously use this expression to indicate that the relationship between the two is not serious or will necessarily result in something serious.  But that only heightened my philosophic enquiry because I cannot understand not being “serious” about being friends or the friends one has.

There appears to be a hierarchy of friendships.  At the bottom I suppose there are those friendships we have because of our work and those who are our neighbors.  If we intend to get along with others at work or home we had better get along as friends with our neighbors and co-workers rather than be enemies.  So at this level our friends are forced upon us by our notions of civility.  Perhaps this is what is meant by the expression “just friends”.

Above that we have our acquaintances - those people who we are willing to wave at and acknowledge their presence from time to time and engage in polite conversation (chit-chat). Some might not consider this friendship at all, but I think we ought to give the benefit of the doubt here and realize this as a sort of low level of friendship.  We are pleasant to these acquaintances, but not overly pleasant; we merely, perhaps even in some cases reluctantly, engage them in conversation and other forms of polite social intercourse. I doubt that this is what is meant by the expression “just friends”.

The next level seems to be that of social associates.  These are friends we party with, have occasional dinners with, perhaps play cards with and sometimes travel with.  These are those whom we consider true friends, those we can count on to be entertained by and whom we can entertain.  This is the common level of friendship; many of us have only these kinds of friends; they are loyal so long as they find loyalty in us.  They define us in terms of our social life and what we do apart from work.  They are the friends we often vacation with, go fishing or hunting with, or even go on a cruise with.  They are not lovers in any sense - these friends - though in some way we do love them for the privilege of being with them.

The Greek word of friend is ὁ φίλος, from a Greek word φιλέω meaning to love.  Generally this type of love is contrasted with other forms of love and defined as brotherly love.  But that is not it altogether.  This kind of love is related to φιλία or friendship and Aristotle makes much of this in his Nicomachean Ethics indicating friendship as a form of love.  I venture to affirm that the higher forms of friendships are a kind of love.

True friends are those whom we rely on for help when we need it, those whom we rely on without asking for assistance and who readily render that assistance.  These are friends we can count as friends who are true and reliable; those who even if we are separated from them for years, we start again where we left off, those whom we count on as always being there for us to offer empathy and sympathy when we hurt, those who we rely on for sound advice when needed are these kind of friends.  We are not ashamed to reveal our true selves to these friends for we know that they are true and no matter what we may do they will reliably stand beside us to defend us if necessary.

Intimate friends are those whom we consider family, or the next thing to family.  We share our lives, our heritage and our children with these friends.  We share with these friends what is most precious to us.  These are the friends for whom we would give the shirt off our backs if we thought they would need it, or sincerely asked for it.  These are the friends we would lay down our lives for. These are the friends we cannot say Hasta Mañana to without the anticipation of another tomorrow.  These are the friends for which only death can separate us.  They are lovers in a sense, though that love is not erotic and not necessarily religious.  These are the friends who lift us up when we lose our spouse, parent or other intimate friend.

This past weekend we had visits from such higher friends.  One was a childhood friend of my wife and her husband, and the other a student of mine from 40+ years ago.  We talked as if we were never apart; we shared food and drink with them.  I know one is told that it is not good to have or develop friendships with students, but what other reward can one have from teaching, surely not the high salary.  It is indeed a joy to see again those whom we have taught and know that they are healthy, happy and successful.

My wife has two friends very high on the scale of friendships.  When she is gone they take to looking after me.  What is most precious to us we share together; we know their families, their loves and their heartaches.  We do all the things lower levels of friends do, but we do one thing more - we think on them as if they were another self.  We seek their advice and assistance and offer ours when necessary.  They have been friends for decades and we cannot say to them Hasta Mañana for fear there may be no tomorrow. 

Today’s Gospel - 09-25-11 - By what Authority

῾Η ἐξουσία τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἀμφισβητεῖται

23 Καὶ ἐλθόντι αὐτῷ εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν προσῆλθον αὐτῷ διδάσκοντι οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι τοῦ λαοῦ λέγοντες· ἐν ποίᾳ ἐξουσίᾳ ταῦτα ποιεῖς, καὶ τίς σοι ἔδωκε τὴν ἐξουσίαν ταύτην; 24 ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· ἐρωτήσω ὑμᾶς κἀγὼ λόγον ἕνα, ὃν ἐὰν εἴπητέ μοι, κἀγὼ ὑμῖν ἐρῶ ἐν ποίᾳ ἐξουσίᾳ ταῦτα ποιῶ. 25 τὸ βάπτισμα ᾿Ιωάννου πόθεν ἦν, ἐξ οὐρανοῦ ἢ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων; οἱ δὲ διελογίζοντο παρ᾿ ἑαυτοῖς λέγοντες· ἐὰν εἴπωμεν, ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, ἐρεῖ ἡμῖν, διατί οὖν οὐκ ἐπιστεύσατε αὐτῷ· 26 ἐὰν δὲ εἴπωμεν, ἐξ ἀνθρώπων, φοβούμεθα τὸν ὄχλον, πάντες γὰρ ἔχουσι τὸν ᾿Ιωάννην ὡς προφήτην. 27 καὶ ἀποκριθέντες τῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ εἶπον· οὐκ οἴδαμεν. ἔφη αὐτοῖς καὶ αὐτός· οὐδὲ ἐγὼ λέγω ὑμῖν ἐν ποίᾳ ἐξουσίᾳ ταῦτα ποιῶ.

῾Η παραβολὴ τῶν δύο υἱῶν

28 Τί δὲ ὑμῖν δοκεῖ; ἄνθρωπός τις εἶχε τέκνα δύο, καὶ προσελθὼν τῷ πρώτῳ εἶπε· τέκνον, ὕπαγε σήμερον ἐργάζου ἐν τῷ ἀμπελῶνί μου. 29 ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν· οὐ θέλω· ὕστερον δὲ μεταμεληθεὶς ἀπῆλθε. 30 καὶ προσελθὼν τῷ δευτέρῳ εἶπεν ὡσαύτως. ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν· ἐγώ, κύριε· καὶ οὐκ ἀπῆλθε. 31 τίς ἐκ τῶν δύο ἐποίησε τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πατρός; λέγουσιν αὐτῷ· ὁ πρῶτος. λέγει αὐτοῖς ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς·* ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι οἱ τελῶναι καὶ αἱ πόρναι προάγουσιν ὑμᾶς εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ. 32 ἦλθε γὰρ πρὸς ὑμᾶς ᾿Ιωάννης ἐν ὁδῷ δικαιοσύνης, καὶ οὐκ ἐπιστεύσατε αὐτῷ· οἱ δὲ τελῶναι καὶ αἱ πόρναι ἐπίστευσαν αὐτῷ· ὑμεῖς δὲ ἰδόντες οὐ μετεμελήθητε ὕστερον τοῦ πιστεῦσαι αὐτῷ. - Matthew 21:23-32

I leave the titles from the Orthodox Bible (http://www.apostoliki-diakonia.gr/bible/bible.asp?contents=new_testament/contents_mathaiou.asp&main=mathaiou&file=1.1.21.htm)  in this week to show that two distinct things are going on in today’s lesson.  Perhaps there are two lessons. The titles are not part of the text.

Jesus has come into Jerusalem and is teaching in the temple, when not to anyone’s surprise the religious authorities ask this important question “by what Authority do you say these things?”  We should always ask that question “by what authority”, and if we do repeatedly ask that question, we soon will realize that “authority” is not what we are looking for.  Do we in fact have to have authority in order to understand the truths of the message, which is already present in each of us?  Jesus’ answer is to compare himself to John the Baptist, but really is he not saying that the authority comes from within.  Is it not true οὐδὲ ἐροῦσιν ἰδοὺ ὧδε ἢ ἰδοὺ ἐκεῖ· ἰδοὺ γὰρ ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐντὸς ὑμῶν ἐστιν (Luke 17:21), we do not have to look here or there for it, it is within.  Some Neo-Barthians accuse me of being Gnostic with this statement, yet I think that the overall picture Barth gives of the Word of God is that it is not the text, but the Word as heard that is of consequence.  So where is that Word but within.  Since the religious authorities couldn’t answer Jesus’ question about John the Baptist whether John’s authority was from heaven or men, Jesus refused to answer the authority question. 

Of course Jesus realized that the religious leaders were trying to trap him into saying his authority came from heaven and hence accuse him of blasphemy.  But we need not put a Barthian twist to the story to realize that Jesus’ authority came from himself.  He was his own authority.  And if you follow it to a logical conclusion, so is our authority, perhaps in the Word as we hear it, perhaps act on it, but maybe just maybe it is the Word infused in us when God breathed into Adam the breath of life.  Perhaps the divine is within us and we only need to be reminded of it, and Jesus’ is doing the reminding.

Imagine our two brothers, who are asked to work in the vineyard, one is reluctant but eventually comes around to go and work, while the other says he will go and work, but doesn’t.  Jesus asks which one is doing the will of God, and the natural response is that it is the one who goes and works.  But Jesus surprises them (and us too) that the despised tax collectors and the harlots will get into the Kingdom of God before they who answered will.  It seems that repentance is of importance here, but is it?  The first repented and went to work, the latter did not, but do we compare ourselves to the former or to the latter?  That is the question now isn’t it?  Perhaps we are all asked to repent and labor in the vineyard.

But when one thinks about it, the repentance is nothing more than a change of heart (mind), a conversion (μετάνοια), if you will, and is that not an inner response by the individual?  One really needs to ask:  What is Jesus doing here?  Is he proclaiming his message, or is he doing as Socrates, reducing the theses of his disputants to an embarrassing absurdity?  I tend to think the latter.

*The Nestle-Aland text differs substantially in this, but the point is the same.

Today’s Gospel Sept.18, 2011 – Workers in the Vineyard

῞ΟΜΟΙΑ γάρ ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν ἀνθρώπῳ οἰκοδεσπότῃ, ὅστις ἐξῆλθεν ἅμα πρωΐ μισθώσασθαι ἐργάτας εἰς τὸν ἀμπελῶνα αὐτοῦ. 2 καὶ συμφωνήσας μετὰ τῶν ἐργατῶν ἐκ δηναρίου τὴν ἡμέραν ἀπέστειλεν αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸν ἀμπελῶνα αὐτοῦ. 3 καὶ ἐξελθὼν περὶ τρίτην ὥραν εἶδεν ἄλλους ἑστῶτας ἐν τῇ ἀγορᾷ ἀργούς, 4 καὶ ἐκείνοις εἶπεν· ὑπάγετε καὶ ὑμεῖς εἰς τὸν ἀμπελῶνα, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν ᾖ δίκαιον δώσω ὑμῖν. οἱ δὲ ἀπῆλθον. 5 πάλιν ἐξελθὼν περὶ ἕκτην καὶ ἐνάτην ὥραν ἐποίησεν ὡσαύτως. 6 περὶ δὲ τὴν ἑνδεκάτην ὥραν ἐξελθὼν εὗρεν ἄλλους ἑστῶτας ἀργούς, καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς· τί ὧδε ἑστήκατε ὅλην τὴν ἡμέραν ἀργοί; 7 λέγουσιν αὐτῷ· ὅτι οὐδεὶς ἡμᾶς ἐμισθώσατο. λέγει αὐτοῖς· ὑπάγετε καὶ ὑμεῖς εἰς τὸν ἀμπελῶνα, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν ᾖ δίκαιον λήψεσθε.

8 ὀψίας δὲ γενομένης λέγει ὁ κύριος τοῦ ἀμπελῶνος τῷ ἐπιτρόπῳ αὐτοῦ· κάλεσον τοὺς ἐργάτας καὶ ἀπόδος αὐτοῖς τὸν μισθόν, ἀρξάμενος ἀπὸ τῶν ἐσχάτων ἕως τῶν πρώτων. 9 καὶ ἐλθόντες οἱ περὶ τὴν ἑνδεκάτην ὥραν ἔλαβον ἀνὰ δηνάριον. 10 ἐλθόντες δὲ οἱ πρῶτοι ἐνόμισαν ὅτι πλείονα λήψονται, καὶ ἔλαβον καὶ αὐτοὶ ἀνὰ δηνάριον. 11 λαβόντες δὲ ἐγόγγυζον κατὰ τοῦ οἰκοδεσπότου 12 λέγοντες ὅτι οὗτοι οἱ ἔσχατοι μίαν ὥραν ἐποίησαν, καὶ ἴσους ἡμῖν αὐτοὺς ἐποίησας τοῖς βαστάσασι τὸ βάρος τῆς ἡμέρας καὶ τὸν καύσωνα. 13 ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν ἑνὶ αὐτῶν· ἑταῖρε, οὐκ ἀδικῶ σε· οὐχὶ δηναρίου συνεφώνησάς μοι; 14 ἆρον τὸ σὸν καὶ ὕπαγε· θέλω δὲ τούτῳ τῷ ἐσχάτῳ δοῦναι ὡς καὶ σοί· 15 ἢ οὐκ ἔξεστί μοι ποιῆσαι ὃ θέλω ἐν τοῖς ἐμοῖς, εἰ ὁ ὀφθαλμός σου πονηρός ἐστιν ὅτι ἐγὼ ἀγαθός εἰμι; 16 Οὕτως ἔσονται οἱ ἔσχατοι πρῶτοι καὶ οἱ πρῶτοι ἔσχατοι· πολλοὶ γάρ εἰσι κλητοί, ὀλίγοι δὲ ἐκλεκτοί.  - Matthew 20:1-16

I often have wondered about this passage.  What is actually being said?  I, a workman for most of my adult life, think often on the injustice of those who labor all day and are paid equal to those who hardly work.  But, we are told the manager of the vineyard (the foreman - οἰκοδεσπότῃ) made agreement with the workmen when he hired them to pay them justly (δίκαιον).  But what is just in this case, and what does that mean for the Kingdom.  I have heard many sermons on the topic, mostly concentrating on the last lines, that in the Kingdom Οὕτως ἔσονται οἱ ἔσχατοι πρῶτοι καὶ οἱ πρῶτοι ἔσχατοι· πολλοὶ γάρ εἰσι κλητοί, ὀλίγοι δὲ ἐκλεκτοί. 

I suppose it’s my Calvinist background that I have trouble with.  The doctrine of election, is often seen in a harsh manner.  Frankly I cannot see a just God choosing some for eternal bliss, and others for damnation. But I do accept that what I have and what I have been given is by God’s grace, for except for the Grace of God I would be somewhere and someone else, perhaps part of the reprobate, but I think that God is infinite love and desires the health and welfare of all.  Yet I know deeply in my reflective moments that it is true that ὀλίγοι δὲ ἐκλεκτοί.  But why should a just God choose to only choose the few?

Perhaps what is being said is that the person who exhibits saintliness and labors for the Kingdom (church) all his/her life is no better that the persons who come to the realization of the virtues of the Kingdom late in life.  Perhaps Jesus is saying that the old members of the church, who like to keep themselves busy running things in accordance with their family traditions and their desires for the church, are no better than the late comer, who is truly sincere.  The wages, one should note, are the same.  An absolute and radical egalitarianism is being asserted here. We are all equal not only in the Kingdom, but all equal in God’s eyes.  Those who are chosen may be few in number because perhaps there are only a few who “get it”.  Perhaps it makes no difference how much or long you work, but whether or not you get it, understand and come to the Kingdom with sincerity that matters.  Perhaps the skeptic and those, like me, who are never satisfied with the doctrine, but are always seeking the answer to our questions, will be among the few, and hopefully our wages will be equal to those who believed for a long time, perhaps their whole life.

I cannot believe in a capricious God, who would treat his subjects in a capricious manner, giving some rewards for less effort than others, but I suppose in the end that is what the parable is about.  But  when I reflect on the history of the church, this parable is necessary, in order to show God’s treatment of those who came to the church recently as equal to those who came from the Jewish tradition and apostolic times.  Equity is important for the church. Perhaps it is an insertion by the early church to make the newcomer welcome - as welcome as those who knew Jesus and heard his message.  Ultimately I think herein lies the solution to the apparent injustice described in the parable.

Contrasting Visions of Reality

Today the Church celebrates St. Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, the Jesuit figure during the counter-refomation who forced Galileo Galilei to abjure and forsake the Copernican heliocentric theory. Later Bellarmine supported Heliocentrism. Also today the church celebrates Hildegard von Bingen Medieval Mystic. What a contrast in visions of reality.

One wonders what is really true, that the earth is merely a planet running around a sun.  Something of an atom in the molecule we call the Milky Way, of the greater much greater universe.  If one contemplates it one soon is impressed with the vastness of space and one is in awe of the fact that we are not even a speck on a tiny planet tucked away somewhere in a inconsequential galaxy, lost somewhere in a small corner of the vast universe of galaxies which greatly outnumber people.  We can wonder about it merely because we know it to be true.  But if we take a further look at recent scientific understandings of reality, we are not even a speck, but a small matrix of energy strings.  Curious isn't it that the more we know, the more insignificant we become, compared to the vastness of everything that is.

But Hildegard has a different vision.  One in which wisdom takes on a primary role:

"I heard a voice saying to me, "This Lady whom you see is Love, who has Her dwelling place in eternity." When God wished to create the world, He leaned down, and with tender Love, provided all that was needed, as a parent prepares an inheritance for a child. And thus, in a mighty blaze the Lord ordained all His works.
Then creation recognized its Creator in its own forms and appearances. For in the beginning, when God said, "Let it be!" and it came to pass, the means and the Matrix of creation was Love, because all creation was formed through Her as in the twinkling of an eye." - trans. B. Newman

.When we leave the physical world we find ourselves captivated by the noematic reality of thought, the real is the miracle of consciousness.  When a child is born it is not the fact that a physical being comes into existence, but that a new consciousness makes its appearance on the scene.  It is a contrast of the spirit with the body.  For we are not, unless we are both spirit (consciousness) and body.  Not merely a matrix of energy strings, but yet a matrix of energy we call love.  The great Philosophers of the past, have seen the value of both the spiritual and the material. But we should not confuse the spiritual with the mental, for spirit is more than mind, mind is only the precondition for spirit.  I think of Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Proclus, the Medievals, Leibniz, Descartes, Spinoza, Kant, Hegel, Royce, Hocking, Marcel, Husserl and even Edith Stein when I think on the philosophers who were in touch with spirit.  What makes us today in the 21st century abandon spirit in our explanations?  Is it perhaps that mystic has had a bad name?  But who can truthfully say that the mystic does not have a vision that others in our midst lack?

The New Economy and Social Class Structure

The while ago, I was watching intellectual television (Book TV) and I learned that everything I was taught concerning the structure of our society and Economics was just plain false.  I was surprised, but given the state of the present economy I thought I had better listen.  Here are some of the principles of the new economy and societal structure I learned from the experience.

There are four classes of people in our country perhaps as many as six:

The dependent class, those who are dependent on government handouts, and those who are dependent on the employer class for their income. This class could be divided into two depending on whom the members are dependent.

The employer class, these are individuals who are owners and upper managers in businesses which employ those who fall into the dependent class.  These class members may be manufacturers or entrepreneurs, merchants or service providers.

The producer class, these are people who actually produce wealth.  They may be farmers or ranchers, or those who are part of the intelligent trades, i.e. those who must be educated to do what they do.  These include Doctors, Engineers, Nurses, although there was some doubt about nurses, Lawyers, Optometrists, Pharmacists and Bankers and Money-managers. Some of these produce wealth from natural resources, such as oil drillers and miners. But this class does not include teachers, because they produce nothing and serve only the interests of other classes. They therefore belong in the dependent class. This class could also be divided according to licensure, professionals and non-professionals.

 The investor class, these are people who have sufficient wealth that they live from the income derived by way of their wealth.  They are the actual new wealth generators of our society, while others merely labor to derive an income, these class members are entitled to an income by virtue of their wealth. They may be “old money” or “nouveau riche”. 

There may be considerable overlap between these classes, because some who are in the producer class may also be employers.  Some of the investor class may be owners of commodities or natural resources, so may fall also into the producer class and the employer class depending on the type of investments they possess.

The speaker went on to describe members of the producer and employer class as “middle class” and working class as dependent. Things became, with these terms, more familiar to one who was educated so long ago.  He explained that the dependent class pays no taxes because their employers actually make the payment.  Yes, the taxes are deducted from the dependents paycheck, but that is merely a technicality.  The speaker offered several solutions to the problems we face today.  He claimed that we must reduce the dependent class by eliminating the tax burden on the employer class by forcing the dependent class to pay their own taxes and eliminate the burden of FICA taxes from the employers.  He, of course, also intimated that if we further reduced the tax burden on the investor and producer class, the economy would begin a recovery.  He advocated price controls by government assurance methods, i.e. standing offers by government for commodities, minerals and other resources. Thus assuring a healthy economic status to the producers.  His claim was also that if we reduced the tax burden on the investor class to zero, they would be more apt to invest their increased income in the producer class and employer class. 

Suddenly my interest turned to anger, not only because as a teacher I was described as dependent, but I have never heard such a bold justification of trickle-down economics.  Although what the speaker said was true as a matter of fact, fact according to a specific interpretation of the reality of things, but also a perverse interpretation of what ‘fact’ means. It is clear that the speaker was mistaken as to how things ought to be.  It was another case of the Naturalistic fallacy, or trying to derive ‘ought’ from ‘is’.  One wonders, perhaps it’s my philosophic education but, what is being taught today in Economics and Business departments?

The Golden Mouth Orator

Today the Church celebrates St. John Chrysostom (349-407) Archbishop of Constantinople.  I have an Icon of Chrysostom by the front door of my house so he is there to greet everyone who enters,  Chrysostom  was a consummate preacher and most of his writings are in the form of Sermons on diverse subjects.

Among his various talents he was also a Liturgist whom the Russian and Orthodox Churches still celebrate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6ebE9GBSdQ&feature=related

He was probably one of the most prolific writers of his time along side Augustine of Hippo.  In fact some Collections of Early Church Fathers place Augustine and Chrysostom in the same series. 

See: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/chrysostom?show=worksBy

Here are some quotes from his writings, he surprisingly seems almost modern.

Men have the power of thinking that they may avoid sin.

Nothing is more fallacious than wealth. It is a hostile comrade, a domestic enemy.

Riches are not forbidden, but the pride of them is.

The highest point of philosophy is to be both wise and simple; this is the angelic life.

We follow the ways of wolves, the habits of tigers: or, rather we are worse than they. To them nature has assigned that they should be thus fed, while God has honoured us with rational speech and a sense of equity. And yet we are become worse than the wild beast.

Happiness can only be achieved by looking inward and learning to enjoy whatever life has and this requires transforming greed into gratitude.

Helping a person in need is good in itself. But the degree of goodness is hugely affected by the attitude with which it is done. If you show resentment because you are helping the person out of a reluctant sense of duty, then the person may recieve your help but may feel awkward and embarrassed. This is because he will feel beholden to you. If,on the other hand, you help the person in a spirit of joy, then the help will be received joyfully. The person will feel neither demeaned nor humiliated by your help, but rather will feel glad to have caused you pleasure by receiving your help. And joy is the appropriate attitude with which to help others because acts of generosity are a source of blessing to the giver as well as the receiver.

Let the mouth also fast from disgraceful speeches and railings. For what does it profit if we abstain from fish and fowl and yet bite and devour our brothers and sisters? The evil speaker eats the flesh of his brother and bites the body of his neighbor.

There are of course some things which can be interpreted as anti-feminist, but considering his time, I wonder about such interpretations.

And of course some poetry:

Let no one bewail his poverty,
For the universal Kingdom has been revealed.
Let no one weep for his iniquities,
For pardon has shown forth from the grave.
Let no one fear death,
For the Saviour's death has set us free.
He that was held prisoner of it has annihilated it.

By descending into Hell, He made Hell captive.
He embittered it when it tasted of His flesh.
And Isaiah, foretelling this, did cry:
Hell, said he, was embittered
When it encountered Thee in the lower regions.

It was embittered, for it was abolished.
It was embittered, for it was mocked.
It was embittered, for it was slain.
It was embittered, for it was overthrown.
It was embittered, for it was fettered in chains.
It took a body, and met God face to face.
It took earth, and encountered Heaven.
It took that which was seen, and fell upon the unseen.

O Death, where is thy sting?
O Hell, where is thy victory?

Today's Gospel - a Departure onVengeance

21 Τότε προσελθὼν αὐτῷ ὁ Πέτρος εἶπε· Κύριε, ποσάκις ἁμαρτήσει εἰς ἐμὲ ὁ ἀδελφός μου καὶ ἀφήσω αὐτῷ; ἕως ἑπτάκις; 22 λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς· οὐ λέγω σοι ἕως ἑπτάκις, ἀλλ᾿ ἕως ἑβδομηκοντάκις ἑπτά. 23 Διὰ τοῦτο ὡμοιώθη ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν ἀνθρώπῳ βασιλεῖ, ὃς ἠθέλησε συνᾶραι λόγον μετὰ τῶν δούλων αὐτοῦ. 24 ἀρξαμένου δὲ αὐτοῦ συναίρειν προσηνέχθη αὐτῷ εἷς ὀφειλέτης μυρίων ταλάντων. 25 μὴ ἔχοντος δὲ αὐτοῦ ἀποδοῦναι ἐκέλευσεν αὐτὸν ὁ κύριος αὐτοῦ πραθῆναι καὶ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ καὶ τὰ τέκνα καὶ πάντα ὅσα εἶχε, καὶ ἀποδοθῆναι. 26 πεσὼν οὖν ὁ δοῦλος προσεκύνει αὐτῷ λέγων· κύριε, μακροθύμησον ἐπ᾿ ἐμοὶ καὶ πάντα σοι ἀποδώσω. 27 σπλαγχνισθεὶς δὲ ὁ κύριος τοῦ δούλου ἐκείνου ἀπέλυσεν αὐτὸν καὶ τὸ δάνειον ἀφῆκεν αὐτῷ. 28 ἐξελθὼν δὲ ὁ δοῦλος ἐκεῖνος εὗρεν ἕνα τῶν συνδούλων αὐτοῦ, ὃς ὤφειλεν αὐτῷ ἑκατὸν δηνάρια, καὶ κρατήσας αὐτὸν ἔπνιγε λέγων· ἀπόδος μοι εἴ τι ὀφείλεις. 29 πεσὼν οὖν ὁ σύνδουλος αὐτοῦ εἰς τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ παρεκάλει αὐτὸν λέγων· μακροθύμησον ἐπ᾿ ἐμοὶ καὶ ἀποδώσω σοι. 30 ὁ δὲ οὐκ ἤθελεν, ἀλλὰ ἀπελθὼν ἔβαλεν αὐτὸν εἰς φυλακὴν ἕως οὗ ἀποδῷ τὸ ὀφειλόμενον.

31 ἰδόντες δὲ οἱ σύνδουλοι αὐτοῦ τὰ γενόμενα ἐλυπήθησαν σφόδρα, καὶ ἐλθόντες διεσάφησαν τῷ κυρίῳ ἑαυτῶν πάντα τὰ γενόμενα. 32 τότε προσκαλεσάμενος αὐτὸν ὁ κύριος αὐτοῦ λέγει αὐτῷ· δοῦλε πονηρέ, πᾶσαν τὴν ὀφειλὴν ἐκείνην ἀφῆκά σοι, ἐπεὶ παρεκάλεσάς με. 33 οὐκ ἔδει καὶ σὲ ἐλεῆσαι τὸν σύνδουλόν σου, ὡς καὶ ἐγώ σε ἠλέησα; 34 καὶ ὀργισθεὶς ὁ κύριος αὐτοῦ παρέδωκεν αὐτὸν τοῖς βασανισταῖς ἕως οὗ ἀποδῷ πᾶν τὸ ὀφειλόμενον αὐτῷ. 35 Οὕτω καὶ ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ ἐπουράνιος ποιήσει ὑμῖν, ἐὰν μὴ ἀφῆτε ἕκαστος τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν καρδιῶν ὑμῶν τὰ παραπτώματα αὐτῶν. Matthew 18:21-35

Today is a significant day in the history of our nation, the tenth anniversary of events of 9-11.  We haven’t really got over it and we still use it as an excuse to exact revenge against those from whom we perceive are to blame for those events – the Muslim world.  We argue against building a mosque in the area destroyed by 9-11 attackers.  We continue a war on terror as an excuse for a war on Islam.  Our politicians capitalize on our despising those who perpetrated the events.  Yet our thirst for justice for events of 9-11 is more a thirst for vengeance than the compassion made clear in today’s lesson.  So like last week I will depart from commentary on the text and consider what the three Abrahamic faiths have to say about Vengeance.

Consider these words: "... and may almighty God have mercy upon your soul."

These are the words used by the judge after pronouncing a sentence of death upon a person convicted of a capital offence.  But what do they mean?  They mean we the court (judge and jury by our conventions of Law) exact vengeance and retribution for the crime committed and leave mercy to God.  But...

Vengeance consists in retaliation against a person or persons for a perceived wrongdoing. Although many aspects of vengeance seem to be making things equal, vengeance generally has a more harmful goal. The vengeful desire to make the perceived wrongdoer suffer what they perceive they have suffered.

יח  לֹא-תִקֹּם וְלֹא-תִטֹּר אֶת-בְּנֵי עַמֶּךָ, וְאָהַבְתָּ לְרֵעֲךָ כָּמוֹךָ:

  אֲנִי, יְהוָה.

18 Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

Leviticus 19:18   [Jewish Publication Society 1917]

γέγραπται γάρ· ἐμοὶ ἐκδίκησις, ἐγὼ ἀνταποδώσω, λέγει Κύριος.

for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

Romans 12: 19   [ King James translation]

And further:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ كُونُواْ قَوَّامِينَ لِلّهِ شُهَدَاء بِالْقِسْطِ وَلاَ يَجْرِمَنَّكُمْ شَنَآنُ قَوْمٍ عَلَى أَلاَّ تَعْدِلُواْ اعْدِلُواْ هُوَ أَقْرَبُ لِلتَّقْوَى وَاتَّقُواْ اللّهَ إِنَّ اللّهَ خَبِيرٌ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ

O you who believe! Be upright for Allah, bearers of witness with justice, and let not hatred of a people incite you not to act equitably; act equitably, that is nearer to piety, and be careful of (your duty to) Allah; surely Allah is Aware of what you do.

Al Quran  Surah V: 8  [Shakir Translation]

It is clear from the above that Vengeance belongs to God alone, in all three of the Religions which have their roots in the Middle-East.  It goes without saying that Buddhist, Hindu and Shinto religions disapprove of Vengeance.

Would it not be better for the court to grant mercy through life imprisonment, especially since in our finitude we cannot be certain of guilt, and leave vengeance to whom it belongs? Equity here from the Quran is terribly important.  Retribution is seeking equity for a crime, but vengeance goes far beyond an equity requirement.  In some sense to seek retribution is to somberly seek the eye for the eye, life for a life, but mercy is also required.  Compassion ought to be the watchword of a humanity seeking justice.  Compassion is shown or demonstrated through mercy, so Justice without mercy, done by humans without compassion, is simply no justice at all.

As a result of 9-11 we have committed horrific atrocities on the Muslim world through both thought and deed.  Would it not be better to have compassion on the many of the Muslim world than demand revenge for the actions of a few, misguided as they may be.  Perhaps we could learn from that world, the reasons we have put that world in such a position, that a few radicals of that world would take vengeance on us.  A cycle of vengeance is a wheel that turns round and round and does not stop, unless we implement or put on the brakes of compassion.    We ought to consider that though we must defend ourselves and our national way of life, vengeance is not the road we ought to travel.  It is clear vengeance belongs to God and God alone, it is up to us to exhibit compassion and rid ourselves of the desire for vengeance.

A Half Century Ago - a Reminisce

This week marks the fiftieth anniversary of a trip from my home in New Jersey to a little College in a Little Town in the center of Iowa.  My father took me in our Buick Station Wagon, and we drove through the night, to my grandparents in Lansing Illinois.  When I kissed my mom goodbye, I saw a tear in her eye; it was the first time I saw her cry.  My grandparents accompanied us to Pella Iowa, to a little Dutch Enclave in the middle of nowhere, and as I thought of a song from my home town, “I vowed to become a man.”  My father is no longer with us, and the college has changed, the town of Pella also has changed, but in a sense remains the same.  The trip was memorable in that it was a journey from the Banks of the Raritan and Joyce Kilmer’s Trees, to a town which, in addition to a college, had as its call to fame a Tulip Time festival in May.

After orientation and a brief walking through the town to get my bearings, classes began.  One of my first classes was Philosophy, where we read Plato’s dialogues.  Little did I know then that Philosophy would become a way of life for me, and that Plato would be read and re-read over and over for 50 years.  Once this rather tall lad of eighteen met a young gal, short of stature trying to read the announcements, straining her neck to get a good look at it.  What did this lad do?  He picked her up so she could read it better, and asked “is that better?”  What did she think?  She thought I was some sort of insulting jerk.  After all, who would make fun of someone’s stature?  Little did we each know that we would become husband and wife for the vast majority of those fifty years. 

Though many things have changed in those fifty years, what I learned in that College town carried me through wherever I went, and my wife and I have been many places.  The friends we made there in that little town are such lifelong friends, they might just as well be relatives.  All things change and what Dame Fortune has given she can take away, but fortunately she never took away the experience of beginning college, and beginning a life long journey both spiritual and physical.  I wish those today who make that journey the best, and pray that they too will enjoy their experience of becoming educated men and women.  I pray that theirs will be the loving and lovely life long journey ours is and was.

Work

ἄξιος γάρ ἐστιν ὁ ἐργάτης τῆς τροφῆς αὐτοῦ.

                                                                Matt. 10:10

No matter how you read it

the worker is worthy of his wage,

is what is meant by this little bit

of wisdom from an ancient age.

But what does it all mean,

this concept of worthiness?

Allow us to for a moment lean

on a philosophic consciousness.

The worth of the workman

is only his pay, may

clearly an error in

judgment be, I would say.

For the notion is more

a double edged sword

to the diligent for

it surely will afford,

a look at what is work

and who is he who does.

Or what may be a quirk

in what one may discuss.

Is the worker worthy

to the work or perhaps

the work worthy to the

worker in this synaps.

                I see the question more

as worthy to the worker

than most, who may call for

an enquiry much starker.

They see the worker as

a villain who would take

his wages that he has

earned in earnest sake.

I see the work as more

the question of the worth

of he who has the fore

in this enquiry put forth.