It wasn’t long before John [Chrysostom was condemning the extravagances he witnessed among the upper class of [Constantinople]. He preached that the earth was common property and that inequalities in wealth were tantamount to theft from God, who intended all to have access to the resources of creation.
The range of those in the city whom John offended was quite wide.
Irvin & Sundquist, History of the World Christian Movement, p. 190-91.
Only a fool would attempt to change the world with a simple message of love and peace. So we can conclude that Jesus was a fool. Only fools would agree to follow such a man, and then continue his mission even after he had been killed. So we can conclude that the apostles were fools. Only fools would take seriously the message which a bunch of fools were preaching, and accept that message. . . . So let all happily admit we are fools. Then we will happily commit ourselves to trying to change the world.
— John Chrysostom (circa 370 A.D.)
Over the past year, I’ve been studying early Christian history and the Church Fathers. It’s been quite rewarding. One of the great pleasures of the World and Christian Imagination conference was browsing the table set up by Eighth Day Books. They specialize in works by the church fathers and other spiritual classics. I picked up a book of homily excerpts by John Chrysostom. Chrysostom lived in the 4th Century and served as a monk and as Patriarch of Constantinople. He was deposed and exiled because of his stance against the excesses of the imperial court and his defense of the poor. He was one of the great preachers in Christian history (his popular name “Chrysostom” means “golden mouthed”).
I’m finding Chyrsostom’s words on simplicity and justice deeply inspiring. Read on for a lovely excerpt from Chrysostom on owernship and possessions.
(Note — Chrystostom has been accused of anti-semitism, and a few of his sermons most unfortunately were used by the Nazis to support their evil philosophy. Apparently, there’s a debate about whether these accusations are correct; some well-known scholars aver that claims of anti-semitism against Chrysostom are false. One of the challenges in studying the Patristic period is that the rhetorical style of the day can sound strident to modern ears and much of the Fathers’ writing and sermonizing takes the form of polemics against the pagans who were claiming the Christian faith was antisocial and dangerous. The Fathers sometimes sound harsh when trying to distinguish the still-young Christian faith from the Jewish faith in this context. And, some of the Fathers likely did hold attitudes towards the Jews that thoughtful Christians today would condemn as wrong and inappropriate. Nevertheless, I think we can situate figures like Chrysostom in their historical context and mine the gems while rejecting the dross. Along with all Christians of good will and mature faith, I abhor all forms of anti-Semitism, and recognize my debt to and common bond with my friends of the Jewish faith.)
I was listening to the Sean Hannity show on my way into the office this afternoon. He was discussing the Florida District Court’s ruling denying the plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order under the federal statute passed by Congress (the “Schiavo Act”). Hannity stated that he believed the court’s opinion did not even reference the Schiavo Act. He was hammering the federal court’s decision as symptomatic of the arrogance of the judiciary. Senator Rick Santorum came on the Hannity show and claimed the Schiavo Act required the federal court to order the reinsertion of nutrition and hydration tubes pending a full hearing on the merits. Santorum also decried the ruling as an abuse of judicial power. This seems to be the Christian Right’s theme: a National Right to Life Committee spokesman referred to the federal court’s decision as a “gross abuse of judicial power”; Christian Defense Coalition Director Pat Mahoney, quoted in a Focus on the Family article, attributed the federal court’s decision to “an arrogant and activist federal judiciary.”
Unfortunately, all of these comments about judicial activism are wrong.