Chris-tocentric.com

Nicolas Cabasilas (c. 1322 – c. 1392), a saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church, was active in Byzantine politics during his youth. As a result of supporting the losing side of a civil war, he was forced into monastic retirement. Though Cabasilas wrote primarily on spiritual issues as a monk, he did make comment on the confiscation of church property for tax revenue in the Rulers’ Illegal Outrages. While his main focus was the preservation of Church property, he extended his argument against the redistribution of wealth across the entire economic system. In the first excerpt Cabasilas restates the paternalistic argument used by the rulers as a rationale for confiscating property from the governed.

Those responsible for the common good must consider what benefits the community. They must act like guardians who administer the property of juveniles not as young people think best but as they know will benefit them most. . . . Subjects may not lack years, like children, but they lack sense, and they use their property irresponsibly. . . . [S]o we need common guardians. . . . to supervise them like children and make the best use of their property, whether they like it or not, even if they react against it or resent it.1

To counter this reasoning, Cabasilas contends that the freedom to own and spend private property is the linchpin of the economic and political liberty that truly serves the common good.

How could there ever be a stable form of government which made it impossible to live in freedom? Freedom has no equivalent, no exchange value in the life of men, whether in currency, lands, or honor. . . . For if no one is master of his own possessions but rulers may make what use they will of them, then at the very mention of “community,” everyone will have to fall a-trembling in fear of their possessions. Who, then,—what craftsman, farmer, merchant—will take the trouble to make money, knowing that everything he earns will go to other people? How can anyone sustain the pursuit of wisdom when struggling against poverty? Or study military tactics, become a learned jurist, master the principle of military command? Where will the community’s revenues come from, with every section of society in the grip of poverty? That is why perceptive rulers have always grasped the need to protect their subjects’ freedom as well as maintain justice . . .2

It is fascinating to consider the veracity of Cabasilas’ words in the light of Eastern European history and for the matter the political happening of our own day here in America. Because we are made in the image of God, living beneath God’s rule, we uphold the liberty, justice, and truth which emanates from his character. It is in the context of this divinely provided freedom that we use our minds to think, our hearts to love, our imaginations to create, our labor to produce, and our wills to worship. In short, political freedom is a gift to be used in the service of God and when it is so used, everyone in society benefits.

Footnotes:

1 Nicolas Cabasilas, “Rulers’ Illegal Outrages against Sacred Property,” in From Irenaeus to Grotius: A Sourcebook in Christian Political Thought, eds. Oliver and Joan O’Donovan (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999), 477-478.

2 Ibid., 480-481.

On January 31, 2006, more than 160 people were injured in clashes between Israeli settlers and Israeli police, ordered by interim Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to demolish an unauthorized West Bank outpost at Amona. Yisrael Yitzhaki, the officer in charge of the evacuation, told Israeli army radio: “In my many years in the Israeli police force, I have never seen such violence against police.” The violence led Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz to exclaim, “Where are their parents, where are their rabbis? Is this the kind of society we want to live in?” Whether deliberately or not, Mofaz made a very appropriate connection between parents, education, and civilized behavior.

Fellow church member and Old Testament scholar Dan Block describes the family in the Old Testament as “patricentric.” Indeed, an extended family unit was designated as a bayith ’ab, or “father’s house.” The father functioned like the hub of a wheel, the family radiating from him. Thus,

Biblical genealogies trace descent through the male line; a married couple resided within the household of the groom; in references to a man and his wife or a man and his children, the man is generally named first (Gen. 7:7); children were born to the father (Gen. 21:1-7); fathers negotiated family disputes (Gen. 13:1-13; 31:1-55); God generally addressed heads of the household; when families worshiped, the head of the household took the initiative; and when men died without descendants their “name” died. In short, the community was built around the father; in every respect it bore his stamp.1

It would be a mistake, however, to understand the role of the father as one primarily of power. In fact, as Block points out, the Bible emphasizes the responsibility of the father, not his privilege or power. Among those enormous responsibilities, fathers were to teach their children the commands of God and the history of His redemption of His people (Deut. 6:1ff.)—“that it may go well with you, and that you may multiply greatly, as the Lord, the God of your fathers has promised you in a land flowing with milk and honey.” And fathers were to teach by example as well. Recall the prohibition against idolatry in the Ten Commandments, where we learn that the father who practices it will be responsible for God’s judgment falling on the children to the third and fourth generations (i.e., upon his house, cf. Exod. 20:4-5; Deut. 5:8-9]). Or notice the fourth commandment where the head of a household is picked out as the one who is specifically prohibited from having those under his care (including his livestock) work on the Sabbath (Exod. 20:10; Deut. 5:14-15).

In ancient Israel, the female counterpart to the father was identified either as ’ishsha (“woman,” “wife”) or ’em (“mother”). Mothers, like fathers, had daunting responsibilities for their children. In addition to giving birth, the mother was responsible for “carefully cutting the cord, bathing the child in clean water, massaging it with a special saline solution and wrapping it tightly in bands of cloth”2 (cf. Ezek. 16:1-4). Additionally, mothers were often involved in naming their children. Finally, Proverbs 31:10-31 describes in some detail the responsibilities wives had in the daily care of their children. At the heart of her responsibilities was that of teaching her children; “she opens her mouth with wisdom, and the teaching of kindness is on her tongue” (Prov. 31:26). In fact, Block maintains that “In laying the foundations for civilized behavior, excellent performance and responsible decision-making, the mother’s role was as important as the father’s.”3

From the beginning, God ordained that parents take the primary responsibility for their children’s education. Fathers and mothers both contribute.6 The lesson from ancient Israel is not necessarily that children must be home schooled, but that wherever children are educated, parents shoulder the burden of responsibility for rearing the next generation of civilized society.

Footnotes:

1 Daniel I. Block, “Marriage and Family in Ancient Israel,” in Marriage and Family in the Biblical World, ed. Ken M. Campbell (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 42.

2 Ibid., 76.

3 Ibid.

A few months ago, I watched a computer animated movie with my boys entitled, The Polar Express. An eight year old boy gets on a train with other kids heading toward the North Pole where they eventually meet Santa Claus in his snow glistening glory. The train conductor resembles and has the voice of Tom Hanks. The story revolves around the children’s train ride and brief visit with Santa.

At the end of the film, when the eight year old boy (who remains nameless throughout the movie) disembarks the train to return home, the conductor imparts a final word of wisdom. With a compassionate twinkle in his eye, he declares, “One thing about trains, it doesn’t matter where they’re going, what matters is deciding to get on.” These words hang in the cold winter air to encourage the heart of life’s timid traveler.

May I suggest, against the Polar Express, that it’s not only important to step onto the Christian train; we must also consider our destination. With all due respect to Tom Hanks and company, our target really does matter. In real life, the initial step of a journey is usually taken in light of the destination. The key lesson of the Polar Express was learned by the boy in the North Pole with Santa. The destination was crucial. If the train had traveled southward to Key West, away from Santa, the boy might have gotten a tan, but the lesson would have been lost.

Likewise, Paul the Apostle reveals to the Ephesians that all of creation is destined to be summed up in Jesus Christ (1:10). The Church already enjoys this spiritual union while simultaneously looking forward to its completion when Jesus returns. This destination not only provides our hearts with joy for the journey, it also gives us a purpose to inform our thoughts and conduct from day to day.