St. Maximos' Hut

Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell is one of the two GOP contenders for governor and he recently sat down for a chat with the (Cleveland) Plain Dealer editorial board. The topic of religion's role came up and Blackwell had some interesting comments. One of the best of the PD's columnists, Philip Morris (no relation, he's missing an 's'), has some thoughts here.

Among Blackwell's comments:

"I don't believe in a theocracy. I believe in the right of nonbeliever to nonbelieve. As I believe in my right to believe and to have my faith as an integral part of my decision making. . . . The flip side of a theocracy is not a secular state . . . but religious liberty. . . . It's the purest expression of individual liberty."

I like Blackwell and hope he wins both the nomination and the general election. He's an articulate candidate, far better than his Republican and Democratic rivals, and is the only candidate likely shake up the state in the way it needs to be shaken up. It is going to be interesting to see how Blackwell's faith plays in the election campaigns. Ohio is a very socially conservative state (~65% voted for Issue 1 last year, one of the most stringent "no gay marriage" constitutional amendments anywhere). Some liberal churches have already filed complaints with the IRS over more conservative churches' activities on behalf of Blackwell.

My friend, and sometime coauthor, Greg Sisk has a new paper on Harry Blackmun's jurisprudence, "The Willful Judging of Harry Blackmun." Here's the SSRN abstract:

Although admirers describe Justice Harry Blackmun as the conscience of the Court, on closer inspection this appears to mean little more than that they agree with his political views as enshrined in Supreme Court opinions. The appellation of conscience in this way either is meaningless, amounting to nothing more than an expression of political affinity, or else is largely misplaced and misconceived by reason of the special nature and restrained purpose of the judicial role. Being a zealous warrior on behalf of a political agenda is an odd understanding of conscience, which ordinarily is understood to encompass fundamental principles that call one to account even when one's preference is to act differently. Instead, a well-formed judicial conscience draws upon the rule of law, is manifested by adherence to neutral principles and impartial procedures, and embraces humility lest a decree improperly override democratic governance. There is little evidence that Harry Blackmun regularly felt or finally accepted a conflict between his preferences and his judicial opinions; indeed the general thesis of this essay is that he failed to fully appreciate that there is properly a difference between them. With further background revealed in his released papers and oral history, Justice Blackmun's opinions on the central constitutional controversies of our time are better described as acts of will than as acts of conscience.

The paper is here. I haven't read it yet but everything Greg writes is worth reading.

“But they cried, saying, Crucify him, crucify him.”
-From the Gospel of St. Luke xxiii

For a moment, I would like to step away from the intersection of economics and religion, the locus of St. Maximos' Hut, to that of Heaven and earth.

In Holy Week (whether this week or next!), we are squarely faced with questions, the first being, “Why are we here?” The answer is that we are here at the foot of the Cross to find out who Jesus really is. It is easy to have vague ideas about Him. It is far more difficult to face up to His reality, particularly as we turn to our Lord as he hangs on the Cross.

Our modern world does not put a premium on having the will to genuinely think on life. But, the Cross is a challenge to think, “What does it all mean?” It calls us to think, re-think and think again.

In life, people generally show their true colors in moments of great trial. The boaster reveals himself as a coward, and the quiet person as a hero. We can gauge character by observing it in the great crises of life. And Holy Week culminates in the great crisis of all humanity.

If we lift our eyes to the Cross we can find the true Christ. We shall be able to decide whether the man from Galilee is unattractive, a very scorn of men, of no form or comeliness that any should desire Him, or whether He reveals all that we admire and love in full perfection. We shall be able to decide whether He is the one whom we must make our king.

The Cross itself is a symbol, as well as a fact-two shafts intersecting; the current of our natural desires (inclination) runs one way, but it is interrupted by a current of spiritual motions (sacrifice) running across it. Which is to win?

We shall have to ask ourselves this Holy Week if we are big enough to follow where He leads, and how we can make ourselves worthy of Him who died so that we might live. At the foot of the Cross, as life ebbs from our Lord’s Body, we look up at Him, so amazing, so lonely, and we have to face whether our lives can ever go on in the same way as they have.

Isn’t this the kind of man we would be proud to follow? Could we ever be ashamed of fighting under the banner of so brave and gentle a King? In a month’s time, will we have forgotten all about the Cross? Will we have slipped back into the old ways that keep us from Him and which prevent us from rising up and truly following Him, or will we be trying humbly and patiently to follow in His steps?

We face so many great questions in Holy Week, questions of death or Eternal Life. If His majesty appeals at all, we must take up the Cross and follow. He will help at every turn, by His own example itself, and through the Church, the Sacraments and the Word-all are there to help along the way-His way. For a comfortable Christianity is contradiction in terms. The consolations of the Faith are meant for those who suffer and are willing to bear suffering. As long as we do all for Him, and under the will of God, we shall win-we will gain the incorruptible crown.

There is no greater adventure in all creation.

It's Lent and I've been derelict in posting here. The Gospel reading from last Friday's Presanctified Liturgy hit an economic theme, however, and that reminded me to post.

We read from St. John's Gospel (10:9-16) the following:

At that time the Lord said, "I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and find pasture. The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly. I am the Good Shepherd. The Good Shepherd gives His life for the sheep. But a hireling, he who is not the shepherd, one who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees; and the wolf catches the sheep and scatters them. The hireling flees because he is a hireling and does not care about the sheep. I am the Good Shepherd; and I know My sheep, and am known by My Own. As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one Shepherd."

My thought, upon hearing this was that Christ used this analogy to reach his audience - and it is an analogy built on economics. This suggests to me that economic reasoning is both natural and, at the very least, "not bad." Shepherds care for their flocks because their flocks belong to them; hirelings will not sacrifice for their flocks because the flocks do not belong to them. What better illustration of the value of property rights in encouraging stewardship could there be?

My other thought is that I'd really, really like to eat some lamb and that it is still two weeks until Pascha. I am sure it will build character to wait, but I can almost smell it cooking, with garlic & rosemary & basted with vermouth......