Community in Mission

There is a remarkable reading that comes up every year in the Breviary attributed to Saint Macarius, a bishop of the early Church. I marvel at its vivid and pictorial quality. And yet at the same time, I find questions that arise in my mind as to the general application of the text. For the text states, in effect, that if the soul does not have Christ living within, it falls into utter disrepair and a contemptible state.

Allow me to have Bishop Macarius speak for himself and then I would like to pose a couple questions.

When a house has no master living in it, it becomes dark, vile and contemptible, choked with filth and disgusting refuse. So too is a soul which has lost its master, who once rejoiced there with his angels. This soul is darkened with sin, its desires are degraded, and it knows nothing but shame.

Woe to the path that is not walked on, or along which the voices of men are not heard, for then it becomes the haunt of wild animals. Woe to the soul if the Lord does not walk within it to banish with his voice the spiritual beasts of sin. Woe to the house where no master dwells, to the field where no farmer works, to the pilotless ship, storm-tossed and sinking. Woe to the soul without Christ as its true pilot; drifting in the darkness, buffeted by the waves of passion, storm-tossed at the mercy of evil spirits, its end is destruction. Woe to the soul that does not have Christ to cultivate it with care to produce the good fruit of the Holy Spirit. Left to itself, it is choked with thorns and thistles; instead of fruit it produces only what is fit for burning. Woe to the soul that does not have Christ dwelling in it; deserted and foul with the filth of the passions, it becomes a haven for all the vices.

From a homily attributed to Saint Macarius, bishop
(Hom. 28: PG 34, 710-711)

Again, a remarkably vivid and creative description of the Soul without Christ.

But herein lies my question: Is this obviously the condition of all non-believers, or of those who stray from the faith? I have occasionally had an agnostic or atheist write in to insist that they are very happy and fulfilled. I have also known non-believers in my own life who were seemingly happy and did not live reprobated lives. They had married and raised children, they were not horribly lacking in natural moral virtue. Conversely I, like you have met sworn believers who were very lacking in moral virtue or kindness.

Yet to read St Macarius, it would seem that the condition of the soul without Christ is to head straight downhill into a moral morass.

I suppose my own answer to my question is that St Macarius speaks in a general sort of way and that each person’s personal journey will be affected by any number of variables and factors.

But I would like to know what you think.

At one level we ought to be careful to not simplify the lives of unbelievers. They come in many forms and degrees. I am not unsympathetic to the complaints that, at times, we Christians simply presume that all unbelievers are unhappy and must, somehow be depressed. I for my part, am also annoyed when non believers oversimplify the faith, the scriptures and we who believe.

To be clear, I do not accuse St Macarius of over-simplifying. As I have said, I think he speaks in a general sort of way and the dangers he announces are often the case.

I especially think he is right when the “person” in question is a culture or nation. We have clearly seen how our own Western culture has suffered gravely as it has “kicked God to the Curb.” It is not outlandish to describe the Western world as a house that has no master living in it….dark, vile and contemptible, choked with filth and disgusting refuse…darkened with sin, its desires are degraded, and it knows nothing but shame.. Increasingly this is our lot in the West.

But individuals are more complicated. The effects of unbelief are often more subtle in them, and even without faith it is possible to have natural virtues.

At some level this provides hope that no one is beyond remedy or reach. And while natural virtue can never be sufficient to save any soul, it can, at least open a person to God and provide fertile ground for grace, and even prevenient graces.

I’d like to get some of your thoughts on this. What are some important distinctions to make? How do you understand the words of the Bishop St. Macarius? How should we regard the state of soul of unbelievers and those who have relapsed from or renounced the faith?

Please understand, I do not ask these questions rhetorically. I ask them genuinely and do indeed seek your thoughts of St. Macarius’ vivid description and how it may or may not apply today.

I am taking a few days of solitude at the Delaware Shore and I want to ponder with you one of our American spending priorities that irks me just a bit, especially on account of it’s direct violation of a Biblical axiom.

The practice is building on sand which Jesus uses as an image for foolishness:

But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.” (Mat 7:26-27)

Now here I am, mind you, sitting in a dwelling built on a sandbar as I write this! Hence, I am somehow partaking, albeit in a temporary, rent paying manner, in the very foolishness imaged by Jesus’ parable.

Consider too, as most of you know, the “beach” is not often where the mainland reaches the ocean. The beach, if it is of sand, is often  a barrier island, a sand bar really, with a back bay, and its front toward the ocean. These barrier islands can be as wide as a mile or two, and as narrow as a few hundred feet in places. (See photo upper right).

Always Changing – It is also the nature of these barrier islands, and even of mainland beaches, to shift and shape differently over the decades and centuries. They are dynamic systems, if you will, interacting with the sea currents and wave actions which form, deform and reform them. They are powerfully affected by hurricanes and “Noreasters” here on the east coast. Even beaches directly connected to a mainland shift and shape differently over the years.

So in the end it seems pretty clear why building on sand and especially on sand close to the ocean is a euphemism for foolishness.

And yet we do it in abundance. Here on the Delaware and Maryland shores, just about all barrier islands, whole cities and resorts have sprung up in recent decades. Ocean City Maryland really is a city, with condo buildings as high as 25 stories right along the edge of the water.

So here comes the spending question. I was out on the boardwalk and saw that the beach is much wider than last summer. In fact it now extends almost 300 feet out from the boardwalk. Lots of expensive equipment is still up at the north end of the beach continuing a “beach replenishment project.”  They pump sand from way out in the sea (about a mile away) up on to the beach. The cost for the Bethany Beach area alone (about 5 miles in length) is over 5 million dollars, spent over 3 three years. And most of the money comes from the Federal Government. I have no idea what the whole Delaware coast project costs but am sure it must be in the hundreds of millions.

Is this an appropriate use of Federal money? Is it even an appropriate use of State money? Frankly it is none of my business if someone wants to build a home or business out on a sandbar. But should I be asked to pay for this “foolishness?”

Now I realize the rhetorical tone of my question may disclose what is ultimately a more complicated question. For indeed, these beech front towns and cities are little economic engines, and sometimes not so little. And where there is an economic engine there is also a tax base.

So I can hear the local mayors, and state governors and federal senators and congressmen saying, “You gotta spend money to get money.” Hence to their mind, these beach front properties are worth protecting and restoring to the tune of many millions (and billions Federally) each decade. Indeed, this is about the third major project I have seen out at Bethany Delaware in the 25 years I have visited here.

This argument to spend works better for me at the State level.

But why is most of the money in these mega-projects federal?

And so I still must say we spend Federal money on the craziest things. Any owner of beach proximate property is by definition, a wealthy person. It’s just not possible to buy near the shore and not be prepare and able to lay out lots of bucks. Now it just seems to me that if someone (almost always wealthy) wants to build their house on a sand bar, I shouldn’t be asked to help foot the expenses.

If they want to replenish the beach as the ocean erodes their property (as oceans have always done in the waxing and waning of the beach front), then let them pay for it. Perhaps beach front owners, and all whole build homes and businesses out on barrier islands could contribute to a common fund (let’s call it the “fools fund” in honor of the Biblical text). Beach goers like me might also be expected to contribute to a local tax during our stay.

But in the end,  the Federal Government should not be asked to pay lots of money to protect the property of people who are already quite well healed.

And as we consider  this question consider the horrible condition of the federal debt. And before we too quickly ask the poor and the more urgently needy to take a hit, as we balance the federal budget, maybe its time to look at what and why we are spending huge amounts to protect the properties where we really shouldn’t be building any way.

Sand bars and barrier islands naturally shift about, eroding here, growing there. The way I figure is that the Federal Government ought just as well post a sign: Build at your own risk.

Disclaimer: I like the beach. I especially like Bethany Beech, and there are a lot of great people who live out here. But if you live in Nebraska, I’m not sure your federal tax dollars should have to go to build up my little corner of paradise. I, and those who come here, should enjoy the beach at our own cost. And if the beach and island shift about (as beeches do) we have to adjust without asking you, (or the poor), to pay for what is a biblical euphemism for foolishness, building on sand.

Somehow, in the last hundred years in America we’ve gotten into a bad and expensive habit of building cities and communities (too big to fail?) on sandbars and on land far too close to the ocean (littoral).

Photo Source:

http://www.geosci.unc.edu/faculty/glazner/Images/Coastlines/BarrierIslands/BogueBanks.jpg

Here is a video that shows the kind of storm damage that can afflict these parts, especially in winter storms called “Noreasters”