A sermon by Fr. Davenport ©
Church of the Ascension and S. Agnes, Washington, D.C.
10 February 2002
Exodus 24:12-18
Philippians 3:7-14
Matthew 17:1-9
+ In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
A dozen years ago, I was a budget reporter, and the release of the Administration's budget kicked off the annual Pork Bowl, a ten month game of obfuscation, dissembling, dodging, low blows, and even illegal procedures. It does make you wonder whether Enron learned its accounting techniques from the White House and Congress. Last week, the Administration released its proposed budget, and one of the items that got the most attention in the press was the Administration's request for a much larger military budget. Most Americans would probably agree that our defense requires the latest, most sophisticated technology. Since we want to be the most powerful nation in the world, we have to have the most technologically advanced armed forces. In last Sunday's New York Times, Thomas Friedman argued that the United States is about the only nation in the world that can fight a modern war. (1) Even European defense industries are not as sophisticated as ours because Europeans do not spend much on defense. If President Bush gets the defense budget increase that he asked for, "U.S. defense spending will equal the defense budgets of the next 15 highest countries - combined." (2)
We can argue ad nauseam about whether we are spending too much or not enough, we can argue about what we are buying, and we can trash the French, the Japanese, and the Germans for not doing their part, but the more important point is that the strength of a nation's economy is the most important factor in determining its long-term military might and political power. Any nation that has any pretension to power whatsoever can not afford to stand still economically. We crushed the Soviet Union because its economy could not produce like ours; it could not keep up with us. So far in human experience, we see that those nations with the strongest, most powerful economies have the most political power.
Strong, dynamic, modern economies have two characteristics, which we need to think about for a moment. First, they reward hard work, creativity, risk-taking, and ability. In modern economies, human beings apply themselves to their work not simply to have basic food and shelter, but to have more: better food, better homes, better medical care, better clothing, and luxuries like vacations and automobiles and tanning salons. In other words, modern economies reward greed. One of the reasons capitalism works so well is that it has harnessed greed; our avarice contributes to make a wealthier society. An enormous part of us aggressively focuses on getting, spending, and having. This does make us a wealthier society, and so more able to build a strong defense. In this way, greed - the engine of modern economies - improves our defense.
Second, and even more troubling, our culture has essentially embraced a religion of science and technology, and that is really just worship of human achievement. It is hubris; it is pride, the root of all sin. We venerate, and even worship, our material achievement. It is what our culture bows down to. Our society's greatest faith is not in God, but in our ability to know and to do. We have tremendous trust and confidence in human ability. Indeed, we live "in an age when man's knowledge [and control] of nature has far outstripped his knowledge [and control] of himself." (3) We are caught up in a race to expand our knowledge and our control over nature. It is a race that is constantly speeding up, and it is a race without a finish line. It is neurotic, at the very least. Yet more frightening, greed and pride threaten our soul, both as a nation, and individually. But if we are going to be the most powerful nation in the world, we have to run this race, and we have stay at the head of the pack. Since this is a race in which greed and pride become virtues, why do we not relinquish and give up the race? Because American supremacy in political and military power, Pax Americana, seems better than the alternatives.
I do not say that casually. We remain a powerful nation at the risk of our souls. We have to recognize that there are real spiritual dangers and ills associated with being powerful, of trying to be too God-like. We remember that Adam and Eve lost Paradise because they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They wanted to be knowing and powerful like God, and of course we continue to suffer from this. Milton began Paradise Lost with these words:
Of Man's first disobedience, and the fruit
Of that forbidden tree, whose mortal taste
Brought death into the world, and all our woe... (4)
Our pride produces our agony. The theme is universal in human history. Prometheus stole fire from the gods. We all remember that Zeus punished Prometheus, chaining him to a rock and having an eagle consume his liver every day. We often forget that is not all of the punishment. Zeus also gave us Pandora with her box of evils. When Pandora's box was opened, all of the woes of humanity flew out into the world. (5) Then there is the myth of Daedalus, the great artisan, the master of technique and technology, in this way perhaps the most American of the Greek heroes. He built great wings of wax so that he and his son, Icarus, could escape from the Labyrinth that he had constructed, but Icarus flew too close to the Sun, and so fell to his death. We are foolish to take these myths lightly. They should resonate in our imaginations. They should remind us of the dangers that necessarily accompany our striving to overcome limitations and to be powerful. They should remind us of the dangers of trying to be God.
In S. John's gospel, the Jews persecuted Jesus, and then sought to kill him because they believed he was behaving like Adam. John wrote, "This was why the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the sabbath but also called God his own Father, making himself equal with God." (Jn 5:18) We know, however, that our Lord really was God. He did not make himself equal with God; he was God, and always had been God. In a way, we could say that at the Transfiguration of our Lord, S. Peter, S. James, and S. John get to see who Jesus really is. They get a glimpse of his divine glory. At the Transfiguration, Jesus was not changed; he was not transformed, but rather the disciples' perception was transfigured. With their transfigured/transformed vision, they received a preview of the glory that is Jesus. They see what is to be in the fullness of God's kingdom.
The event shocks the disciples because it shows them who Jesus is. When they look at Jesus, they see a man, but this man is God. The Transfiguration emphasizes the mystery of the Incarnation. Eternity entered time. Spirit become flesh. God became man. God choose to limit himself so much so that he could become a man. In Christ, God, who knows everything, limited himself to the knowing of a man. In Christ, God, who is all powerful, limited himself to the power of a man. In Christ, God, who is in all places, limited himself to the body of a man. In Christ, God, who is the creator and source of all life, limited himself to be born of our Lady and to suffer and to die on the cross. While so much of human effort is dedicated to the overcoming of limits and constraints, God welcomes limitation and constraint. What we would consider to be deprivation and humiliation, what we consider to be weakness and self-negation, our Lord gladly accepts. We have to re-evaluate restraint. We can flourish when we accept limits on our knowledge, on our power, on our experience, because then our self-knowledge and self-control may develop. We can experience in new ways. We can take advantage of limitation and reap rewards from restraint.
I have mentioned a couple of relatively well-known myths about expanding human capacities through greater knowledge and power, but there is a less well-known myth that shows the benefits of embracing limitation and self-denial.
The woodland nymph Syrinx lived in Arcadia and had many suitors. She put them off and escaped from roving satyrs in order to keep her virginity and become like the chaste huntress Diana. One day, Pan, god of fields and forests, saw Syrinx coming down from Mount Lycaeus and desired her. She refused him and fled into the wildest places, until the River Ladon stopped her course. As Pan approached, she implored the wood nymphs to save her. When Pan arrived at the riverbank, the lovely form of Syrinx was dissolving into tall reeds. He tried to embrace them, but they merely stirred and sighed in the breeze. Pan marveled at the disappearance, and the sweet sound of the reeds charmed him. So he cut some of them and, with wax, bound them together, long and short, to make pipes. He called them syrinx, after the maiden he had lost. Here is a touching tale. The imaginations of Syrinx in her chastity and Pan in his frustration combine to transform their feelings into music. (6)
Through limitation, discipline, self-denial, there is new life and beauty. It transforms our hearts, and so God makes himself known to us.
This Wednesday, Lent begins. The Church gives us Lent to renew us by helping us to know who we are and who God is. In Lent, we grow by exercising discipline. It is a time for restraint, self-control, and self-knowledge. We can grow when we limit ourselves. Our character can deepen when we exercise abstinence and temperance. The purpose of Lenten discipline and self-denial is not to make us suffer, not to make us dreary, not to make us miserable. The purpose of discipline and moral rectitude is that it shows us God. It transfigures our vision so we can see the divine glory quickening and shining in all of creation.
+ In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
1. Thomas L. Friedman, 'The End of NATO?', The New York Times, 3 February 2002.
2. Ibid.
3. David S. Landes, The Unbound Prometheus, Cambridge (1972), p. 555. Brackets are my addition.
4. John Milton, Paradise Lost, I, 1-3. Quoted by Robert Shattuck, Forbidden Knowledge, St. Martin's Press (1996), p. 62.
5. Landes, p. 555.
6. Shattuck, p. 110.
|
|
||
|
||
|
|
||