Contending Images of Kingship

The first chapter of Genesis God states – Let us make humanity, male and female in our own image.  All well and good. But if we are made in the image of an unseen God, then we can only come to learn something about God through taking a good hard look at ourselves. The tricky question then is, which image of humanity is God reflected in? Maybe all of them?

Like a double-edged sword, the mirroring of divine and human images cuts both ways. We can deduce that God is loving, relational, and collaborative because we also possess these qualities. Yet, we can equally imagine God as jealous, angry with a propensity for violence in pursuit of the ends of power and control because these are also very typical human characteristics. The Bible’s presentation of shifting and changing images of God -may in the end simply be the projections of our own conflicting images of ourselves.

The final Sunday before the start of a liturgical year on Advent Sunday is dedicated to Christ as King – begging the question – what kind of king, what kind of kingship is being imaged here?

Pantocrator is one popular image of Christ as King – omnipotent ruler of all of creation – often pictured on the concave half dome typical of many Orthodox churches. We see Christ as Pantocrator in St Martin’s great West window which is by no mistake a war memorial window. As Pantocrator, Christ is robed in the trappings of political power, the paramount operative in the zero-sum-equation of dominion through domination.

Christus Rex is another traditional image of Christ – an image depicted in the St Martin Chapel reredos. Here Christ is robed not as king but as high priest whose resurrection life springs forward from the cross – which is now firmly behind him in the background.  Both Pantocrator and Christus Rex images sit in uneasy tension with the other enduring image of Christ reigning not from a throne or a gilded cross but dying, nailed to a tree.

The final Sunday of the year is a celebration of the end time as depicted in 1 Corinthians 15 – when the Father will place all things in subjection under his Son who as dutiful Son will complete the Father’s restoration of the divine dream for all of creation.

Our images of power vie with the our images of vulnerability. We project humanity’s competing characteristics into the blank space that is the unseen God. If we are fashioned in the image of an unseen creator, then we can only come to learn something about God through taking a good hard look at ourselves. Thus the tricky question remains, which of our many conflicting self-images do we want Christ as king to reflect?

Interesting is an interesting word! What an interesting historical moment we are living through. Our culture rocks and reels as the tectonic plates shift unpredictably. Newton’s Third Law of Motion states that counteracting forces always come in pairs – as the pendulum of history swings between the order and chaos – between continuity and disruption – each vying for dominance. The theological thrust for designating the final Sunday in the liturgical year to the kingship of Christ crystalizes the waring tensions within us – counteracting forces finding expression in competing images of God.

In 1925 Pope Pius XI proclaimed the feast of Christ the King as an assertion of the Catholic Church’s protest to the rise of fascist and communist authoritarianism. He chose the images of strength in asserting the equally authoritarian power of the Church as the only center of allegiance for Roman Catholics. At a considerable cost to liberty and freedom of thought within the Church, he marshaled the Catholic legions for battle against forces in direct competition with the power of the Church.

The historical context for the origins of the commemoration of Christ the King today sounds a tone that is both timely yet also problematic as once again we are being called to face down a new resurgence of authoritarian forces. Pius XI drew on an old story of one authoritarian system asserting itself against competing, equally authoritarian rivals – strength against strength. For those of us who do not subscribe to the notion of an authoritarian church or even an authoritarian state, Christ the King is a very necessary reminder of the dangers in mistaking power for strength and vulnerability for weakness.

Human beings have rich imaginations – but left to our own devices – as it were- our imaginations tend to recycle familiar image patterns. Consequently, we only tend to recognise what we are already preconditioned to look for.  In the pursuit of the deeper search for the spiritual or soul-filled connection we so long for – the challenge is to allow the boundaries of our imaginations to become more permeable – less strictly policed by our conventional selves – allowing something new to break-in.

An example of the in-breaking of new insight might be that instead of the all too familiar counteracting pairing of strength with vulnerability, continuity with disruption as polar alternatives- we imagine new possibilities in a collaborative pairing of strength through vulnerability – with the forces of disruption seen not as destructive of continuity but as the timely reshaping and revitalizing of continuity over the long term.

We are storied beings – meaning we are only ever the stories we tell about ourselves. Stories are one of the most effective ways through which the unfamiliar breaks-in to disrupt the familiar patterns of recycled imagination. New spiritual insight breaks-in through the medium of stories that change through shock or surprise. Parables are disruptive stories – which like the needle on an old vinyl record jumps tracks as it hits a scratch in the record’s surface – disrupting the familiar melody and jolting us suddenly into a new one.

Matthew’s Jesus parable of the Sheep and the Goats allows new spiritual insight to break-in – disrupting our usual imaginings of Jesus’ kingship. In this parable Jesus presents kingship as service, strength through the embrace of vulnerability – the in-breaking of compassion disrupting the more familiar continuity of hardness of heart.

Matthew presents a picture of the end time when the Son of Man will come in his glory to sit upon his throne. But this is not Jesus clothed in worldly power. What breaks-into our imaginations through this story are the responsibilities of kingship being those of service, empathy, and a concern for the least important, the least powerful, the least able among us. Justice is the hallmark of this image of kingship in which Jesus echoes the prophet Ezekiel in our first lesson who speaks of God as shepherd of the flock seeking out the lost, bringing back the strayed, binding up the injured, strengthening the weak, and feeding them with justice.

We embrace the image of Christ the King because at the heart of the gospels stands the iconic image of Jesus’ royalty, not as one lifted high above us decked in robes of kingly power, but as one who stoops to reach down to join us in the one nailed to a tree. Christ’s kingship – breaks open the strength, or vulnerability, continuity, or disruption polarities with a new and revolutionary image of strength displayed in vulnerability, of disruption as necessary for long term continuity.

At its base the cross was wedged into place by three huge stones hammered into the ground. These are the stones of strength through service, strength in vulnerability, and strength as the fruit of justice. 

Christ’s kingship extends over us to discomfort our search for easy answers, half-truths, and superficial relationships – so that we may live more deeply from less fearful hearts. Christ’s kingship extends over us to bless us with anger at injustice, oppression, and exploitation of the helpless – so that we may work tirelessly in the cause for freedom and peace with justice. Christ’s kingship extends over us to bless us with tears shed for those who suffer from pain, rejection, starvation, and war – so that we may reach out our hand to comfort them by standing together in their pain. Christ’s kingship extends over us to bless us with enough foolishness to believe that we can make a difference in this world – so that we can do what others claim cannot be done. Amen (My paraphrasing of an anonymous Franciscan blessing)

The Kingdom of Heaven will be as if —

Taken at face value the Parable of the Talents raises several interesting lines of inquiry. Interpretations of the parable’s meaning over time have varied. On the face of it the message seems to commend and reward trustworthiness and punish laziness, with the subtheme of productiveness or lack of running underneath. Jesus makes a somewhat surprising statement at the end of the parable.

Like many of his statements the meaning is enigmatic – it could be this or it might be that. Is Jesus commending the dynamics of the market economy where investment fuels new development with a healthy profit return for the investor? Yet, his final statement for to those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those who have noting, even what they have will be taken away could simply be read as a statement of fact that this seems to be the way things are – leaving us to draw our own moral value conclusions.

Whatever conclusion we draw from this parable it presents us with a baffling question concerning Jesus’ apparent endorsement of lending with interest. I’ll return to this in due course.

For a community of people whose financial security is closely linked to the performance of the stock market – in a parish which in addition to the normal finance committee has a very specialized investment committee whose only task is to manage our stock portfolio – how do we hear this parable and who among the stewards do we identify with? Where do our sympathies lie?

Most of us struggle to hold a fiscal conservatism – at least when it comes to the management of our own money – in an uneasy tension within a more broadly socially liberal worldview. The fiscal conservative in us hears Jesus commending wise investment in the capital markets. For us this is not only a social good in that it sponsors innovation and development but also returns a healthy dividend on our investment. In this respect we fall very much in the camp of the master’s first two stewards. But what do we make of the third steward’s resistance to participating in this system? This parable captures our dilemma – it reassures our fiscal conservative values while challenging us to examine our blind subservience to an economic status quo that promotes inequality – as in- those who have, are given even more.

Taking a deeper dive into this story we find the Parable of the Talents is much more than a story about two stewards who in the successful management of their master’s affairs are amply rewarded for the virtues of trustworthiness and the skills of their financial acumen. The third steward in this story introduces a critical element in his view of his master as a harsh and unjust man. This disturbs the otherwise congratulatory tone pointing up the injustice of one who reaps where he has not sown and gathers where he has not scattered seed. Why, thinks this steward should I collude with this system that bears abundant fruit to a very few at the expense of the many.

We might be tempted to dismiss the third steward as a man with a grievance until we find the master himself, concurring with his steward’s assessment. The master says to this steward, if you knew that I am a man who reaps where I did not sow and gathers where I did not scatter, then you should have been even more diligent with my property for fear of the consequences of my wrath.

The master then takes the talent from the third steward and gives it to the steward who’s shown the greatest financial acumen. Of course, this being a Matthew kingdom story – a feature of which is punishment for those who don’t match up – we aren’t surprised to find the third steward punished by being thrown into outer darkness, where there is much weeping and gnashing of teeth. Let’s think of the first two stewards as fiscally conservative and the third steward a social liberal – challenging the system of inequality. But here’s the kicker. Jesus’ final judgment says for to those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those who have noting, even what they have will be taken away. Is this Jesus justifying the master’s actions? Or is he implying something else here?

The central paradox in this parable centers around Jesus appearing to put aside the prohibition against usury by commending interest bearing investments.

Charging interest on a loan was strictly condemned in Jewish law. The Torah allowed the practice only when the loan was made to non-Jews. The Prophets prohibited the practice outright no matter the circumstance. Therefore, it seems unlikely that Jesus, himself standing in the strict line of the Prophets would have so openly endorsed the practice.

The Church continued the prohibition against usury, prohibiting it outright. Yet, that the Torah allowed Jews to lend to foreigners at interest provided the Church with a very convenient workaround. Neither Christians nor Jews could lend at interest within their communities, but Jews could lend to Christians to meet the growing need for Christian princes and merchants to access additional sources of finance above and beyond what could be raised by taxation. Thus, everyone arrived at a workaround of the usury prohibition – everyone a winner. Deprived of the legal rights of land ownership lending at interest was for the Jews their primary means of wealth generation. A situation that paved the way for the Jews to become the lenders of choice in Medieval Europe – a development with unintended consequences.

The prohibition against usury is an ancient example of social liberalism. Social liberalism believes in the necessity for regulation of economic activity in the interest of preserving social stability. As we know from our own time when for the last 50 years a deregulation of economic activity has resulted in profound loss of trust in traditional civic institutions and the democratic system. The paradox is that those most propelled by grievances against a system that has eroded prosperity and entrenched inequality prefer politicians who fan the heat of their grievances while doing nothing to tackle the underlying root causes of grievance.

For to all who have, more will be given, and they will have abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken seems to be Jesus’ recognition of the facts on the ground in the 1st-century. He would have witnessed the growing number of small landowners and tenant farmers forced off the land by agricultural reforms. Exposed to ballooning debt, left them in the end with less than they began with leading to indentured service -effectively slavery- as their only course of action.

Indentured service is today a practice widespread in countries with poor or no social regulation of market capitalism. As in Jesus day, from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away is the regrettable reality for many.  In the poorer districts of our own cities those living on the economic margins – driven by necessity and hampered by poor creditworthiness to take out payday loans at astonishingly high rates of compound interest lead many into ballooning debt. From those who have nothing, even what they have is taken away – becomes a reality of everyday life for so many in our society.

The circumventions of the prohibition against usury whereby the Jews became the lenders of choice to Christian princes and merchants had unforeseen consequences that only fed the flames of antisemitism – the misdirected expression of populist resentment in search of a scapegoat. Lying just beneath the surface of collective consciousness lies the primal fear of the other in our midst. Contemporary economic resentment and social grievance once again finds expression in breathing new life into old antisemitic tropes – reviving an old scapegoat to magic away our problems. The situation in Israel-Palestine is only throwing gasoline onto homegrown antisemitic embers already smoldering into flame.

At such a time it is our Christian responsibility to express our solidarity with our Jewish friends and neighbors – and we’ll have an opportunity to do so this coming Tuesday at the annual interfaith Thanksgiving Service at Temple-Beth-EL.

Who do we identify with in the parable of the talents? Do we easily see ourselves in the responses of the first two stewards whose actions of prudent risk-taking strike us as familiar, playing the equivalent of the ancient world’s stock market? Can we also see ourselves in relation to the third steward who challenges the socio-economic assumptions that result in one person – to use the agrarian images of the text itself – reaping where they have not sown and gathering where they have not scattered with impunity – afforded by their power of economic privilege but enabled by our systemic collusion? I suspect few of us have the courage to follow the example of the third steward, as much as we might applaud his stand.

If we believe this is a sacred text capable of speaking directly to us as a community, what do we hear in it that either commends or disturbs us? For the kingdom of heaven will be a paradoxical place where seeing things as they really are means not accepting that this is the way things have to be.

Being Prepared- Question Mark?

Picture: William Blake, The Parable of the Wise and Foolish Virgins 1800

Of the three synoptic gospels – so called because they follow a broad outline or synopsis of Jesus life – Matthew’s is the most Old Testament in feel with its frequent dichotomies of inclusion and exclusion, praise and judgement. Matthew’s depiction of Jesus lacks the urgent and accessible humanity of Mark’s presentation and comes nowhere near to the pastoral and social sensitivity of Luke’s portrayal. Matthew’s Jesus is modelled on the image of a new Moses. Jesus is more elevated and detached – more guru like – a figure above the fray at whose feet the disciples gather to be inaugurated into the Kingdom of God.

Today we are presented by the Lectionary with the parable of the wise and foolish virgins. Already the English translation of the female wedding attendants as virgins sets a particular patriarchal tone – as in virgins are better than non-virgins because they are virginal – meaning unsullied. A better rendering might be bridesmaids – which immediately carries a more neutral – less morally colored inference. The other thing to note is that this parable is unique to Matthew and is one of his Parables of the Kingdom.

Matthew is fond of using the wedding as the metaphor for the kingdom of God. At first sight we can see what he’s getting at. Like a wedding – the kingdom is a place of celebration and merriment. But Matthew’s wedding metaphor carries a starker inclusion -exclusion message. Weddings are celebrations only for those who are invited – or those who accept the invitation. Matthew’s parables of the kingdom all end with a warning – usually of severe punishment for those who are excluded or exclude themselves from the kingdom. Images of outer darkness with much wailing and gnashing of teeth abound. Thus themes of inclusion and exclusion lie close to the heart of Matthew’s kingdom parables.  Reading back into the historical context in which he’s writing, themes of inclusion and exclusion attest to a central struggle between two new movements in Jewish religious life. From the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD – Rabbinic Judaism and the Early Church – both fresh and vital shoots – struggled to emerge from under the ashes of temple-centered Jewish religious life.

Matthew’s tones of harsh punishment for those excluded – echo the struggle to define tribal identity. In tribal societies – like that of ancient Israel – and Matthew’s contested context in the final decades of the 1st-century AD – everyone inside the tribe are friends and those outside it are foe. We should not be surprised to find today similar themes afflicting much of contemporary white, rightwing, evangelical messaging – which has regressed to a tribal identity. For this reason alone, Matthew’s message of judgement often jars upon those of us with a more contemporary, progressive, Christian ear.

At the end of the parable of the wise and foolish bridesmaids Matthew sternly warns: Keep awake, for you know neither the day nor the hour”.

Of course, no one knows what the future will hold. We develop a tendency to anticipate events based on what we already know about life. Sometimes experience is an accurate guide, yet more often it’s misleading. Facing the uncertainties of the future armed only with a partial – often misremembered recollection of the past – only makes us even more anxious.

We alleviate our anxiety with the illusion of being prepared, and consequently we live a good portion of our lives caught up in a process of attempting to anticipate all eventualities – inducing in us a perpetual and neurotic wakefulness.  No wonder many of us no longer sleep well. The problem with anticipation of an assumed dangerous future is that it encourages risk aversion in life. Life lived circumscribed by past experience may ofer the illusion of a predictable future but it’s a very, very unsatisfying experience!

In our society we reserve our harshest judgments for those who fail the Boy Scout test to be prepared!  How easily the phrases: well, it’s his own fault, or, she has no one to blame but herself, or, its time they really took responsibility for themselves trip lightly off our tongues. To such persons regardless of gender do we not think: oh, what a foolish virgin you’ve been! You see being found unprepared is an American sin.

Matthew’s parable of the wise and foolish bridesmaids has three themes worth closer inspection.

The first is the stereotypical treatment of women. There would have been quite a number of invited wedding guests – men as well as women – so why does Matthew focus his treatment on a group of women? He seems to be playing upon the stereotyping of women into two groups – to put into modern parlance the sensible housewife or foolish, if not downright dangerous, women driver.

Motifs of virtue and shame are woven throughout this parable. We are not strangers to this denigration of women – today a prevalent theme underpinning conservative (mostly male) hostility to women owning control of their own bodies as compared with so called virtuous women who accept male expectations for both the control as well as the exploitation of their bodies.

Secondly, Matthew presents a group of people who have no sense of solidarity or a commitment to support and aid one another. Instead, the wise bridesmaids, gloat over their sisters’ foolish lack of preparedness. Likewise motivated by our fears of scarcity we exclaim – of course I want to share my surplus with you, but I can’t because – who knows what the future may bring – I might need all of it.

The lamp oil is a symbol for scarcity –reinforcing our prevalent scarcity worldview in which there is only so much to go around.  In a culture of scarcity, you keep what you have by not sharing it with others. Within a worldview that sees resources as limited, the pie is only so big – people of necessity are divided into the haves and the have-nots. At St. Martin’s like the wise bridesmaids there is no mistaking that we are among the haves when the world is viewed from the perspective of scarcity.

This past year we’ve put the resources of our successful capital campaign to good use – by which I mean uses over and beyond the perpetual drain on resources that maintaining this historic church requires of us. This past year we’ve been especially mindful of our responsibility to share what we have with others who can benefit from our support. I happen to believe that through being generous we become the net beneficiaries of our own generosity. Generous action reminds us of our ultimate dependency upon divine providence. Unlike the wise bridesmaids we discover again and again that only when our giving flows generously from our commitment to one another do we encounter the depths of our gratitude for God’s gracious providential love towards us.

In a season of stewardship renewal, we are well reminded that money is like water. Water sustains life only when it is allowed to flow freely. When dammed up it becomes stagnant – poisoning the ground around it.

Weddings are one metaphor of the kingdom. Baptism is another. In a moment we will welcome a new member through baptism into the fellowship of the kingdom of God as embodied in our St. Martin’s community. Baptism reminds us that preparedness and self-sufficiency do not qualify us for entry to the kingdom. Willingness to respond to the invitation of grace is all that is required. Will not Christ welcome us his church and bride – regardless of our state of un-preparedness? For whom can be prepared for such a life changing encounter.

Matthew’s injunction to stay awake is an odd conclusion. This isn’t a parable about staying awake – after all, all the bridesmaids fell asleep. Matthew’s gripe is that half of them were found unprepared for the grooms return. In this there is an aspersion of something shameful. What is their shame? It’s the shame of failing to be self-sufficient. We all know that failure to be self-sufficient is the real American sin. A sin to us – but not to Jesus.

Martin: Man for Our Time

Imagine we’ve come to the movies to watch the latest new Marvel epic suitably named AD 406. The curtain rises on the year 406 when in an unusually severe winter in which the Rhine has frozen solid, we watch in that peculiar ecstasy of pure horror the battle-hardened barbarian hordes stream across the frozen river into the civilized world of Roman Gaul.

The Rhine River forming a natural barrier dividing Latin and Germanic cultures has a long history that stretches down well into the 20th-century. The Rhine, winding in many places through its steep-sided valley formed a natural barrier – a boundary between civilization and the wilderness of the barbarian lands. Barbarian – a name the Graeco-Romans gave to all who lived beyond the geographic and cultural reach of their civilization. The barbarians represented the epitome of the psychological other. We need no further evidence today of how the psychological other functions to embody the terror of difference within individual and collective consciousness.

Vandal is a word that has made its way into the English language as the very symbol of destructive otherness. In his book on Martin of Tours, Christopher Donaldson describes how the Vandals, Alans, and Suevi, swarmed into Roman Gaul in complete disregard for their own loss of life. It was estimated that at least 20,000 Vandals alone lost their lives in the river crossing. Yet they still pressed on – forced by the relentless pressure of mouths to be fed and need for land. The great horde swept on into Roman Europe and North Africa leaving behind them a trail of devastation and confusion. In what had been the civilized and fertile countryside of Roman Gaul the only vestiges that remained were the giant buildings, aqueducts, and monuments of Roman civilization – things that a wattle and daub society had neither use nor imagination for.

On the South Bank of the River Loire, at a place called Marmoutier about 3 miles downstream from the city of Tours, there was a large grassy plain lying between the river and a line of forbidding grey cliffs rising for 100 feet or so. With trees clinging precariously to their face, the cliffs were honeycombed with caves, for all the world giving much the same appearance as the holes of sand-martin nests in the side of a disused quarry. And in the year AD 393 all the caves were inhabited and the grassy plain below was covered with the rough wooden shacks of a great camp of spiritual refugees, numbering in all some 2,000 men – a smaller group of women having formed their own community within the walls of the neighboring city of Tours. Working from  contemporary eye witness sources, Donaldson tells us that the whole concourse was wrapped in a deep silence from morning until evening, punctuated only by the occasional singing of psalms or hymns, and the low voices of those who were reading the scriptures aloud.

The reason for this great gathering of men, many of them the sons of the Roman Gaul nobility, lay not only in the general urge to withdraw from the responsibilities of public service in a time of civic institutional breakdown, but also in the attraction of the unconventional personality of Martin, the holy man and Bishop of Tours. His appearance at the age of 77 belied the extraordinary depth and range of his character. For underneath the deliberately unkempt hair, the pallid emaciated features, and the rough surge slave’s robe in which he was dressed, lay a personality that at one moment recalls for us the image of a Mahatma Gandhi, quickly morphing into that of a visionary William Blake, before yet again emerging into a man forged by his years of discipline in the Roman Army – a military man of commanding presence.

Martin was born in AD 316 into a high-ranking, but non aristocratic Roman military family in what is now modern-day Hungary. His father was a military tribune in the Imperial Guard – then stationed on that other great river frontier separating the civilized and barbarian worlds – the river Danube. His parents were staunch pagans opposed to the growing influence of Christianity – and so they named their son Martin after Mars the god of farm and battle, in the hope he would grow up to become a champion for the restoration of the old order.

In AD 312, with the proclamation of Constantine as the new emperor, the last great period of intense persecution of Christians under the emperor Diocletian ended. Following Constantine’s conversion to Christ – a mere four years before Martin’s birth in 316 – the Church had begun its rapid expansion. Although already an extensive and growing influence, the most significant result of Constantine’s conversion was the incorporation of the bishops into the Roman Civil Service with the rank and more importantly for many, the stipend of a magistrate.

Yet, despite the new imperial patronage, a deeper and simpler reason lay behind Christianity’s rapid growth. Christianity offered to ordinary men and women fed up with the status quo an explanation and philosophy for living that was satisfying. Unlike enforced imperial obligation the Church offered a supportive and voluntary style of community life with an educational system based on the scriptures that met people’s intellectual and emotional needs. Despite strong parental hostility, Martin could not avoid being attracted from around the age of ten to this magnetic vision of a new way of being human with its practice of a more satisfying way of life.

To cut a long story short, by the time Martin reached the age of 15, his father – increasingly fearful for his son’s development into Roman manhood, arranged for him to be press-ganged (kidnapped) into the army. Martin was to spend the next 25 years of his life in conscripted military service. Army service did succeed in making a man of Martin – but not in the way his father may have envisioned.

Martin was far from being just another plebeian conscript. He enjoyed the privileges of being a Tribunes’ son. Interestingly, Martin found his way into the Army medical corp. As a medical officer, he would have been responsible not only for the surgical treatment of soldiers in the field but for their social and emotional welfare within garrison life. Thus, Martin found a strong synchronicity between this care for his men and his developing sense of what it meant to live as a Christian. For he showed an unusual compassion for the poor whom he would have encountered hanging around the edges of his garrison town of Amiens. This sensitivity – in another military officer decried as weakness – would have found acceptance or at least toleration among his peers as an attitude characteristic of a healer.

Martin’s concern for the poor is captured in the famous incident of his encounter with a beggar at the city gates – poetically depicted in our great St Martin window. In the window we see Martin cutting his cloak in half and placing one half around the beggar’s shoulders. Incidentally a soldier’s cloak was a garment of joint ownership. The half he gave to the beggar would have been the half he owned. The half he retained was army property – and not his to give away. That night he had a vision of Christ, clothed in half his cloak saying for as you have done unto the least – you have done unto me.

Martin died in AD 397 – a mere 9 years before the catastrophic collapse of the Roman Legions along the Rhine wall in 406. While he didn’t live to see this catastrophe, he nevertheless lived in the preceding decades during which anyone with any foresight might have foreseen this eventuality. For during the preceding decades leading to the curtain rise on the 5th-century, sensitive and intelligent people had known that the end of the centuries of stable government and cultural achievement was fast approaching. The signs were all around them.

Inflation had been steadily mounting for a century or more and had become so out of control that many were beginning to return once more to the simpler system of barter. Ordinary people knew that the wealthy were seeking every possible way of avoiding taxes and turning their backs on the virtues and responsibilities of public service which had become an increasingly unsavory and dangerous occupation. From time to time the army would attempt to raise up a new emperor – someone whose value had been proved in the field – to take control of the empire and make Rome great again. But things had gone too far for such simple solutions. In the Western half of the Empire the problems lay deeper than a return to the efficient management of the economy and the revival of a spirit of public service. Rather it was a complex exhaustion of morale in the inner minds and spirits of men and women throughout the West – where many increasingly feared that the civilization of Rome had run its course.

Donaldson notes that if there was any hope for the future of Western Civilization, it was hard to see it lying in the hands of the governing classes. Rather the future had come to rest in a group of men and women who had completely withdrawn from the civilized world – men and women who were quite careless of whether it sank or swam.

Martin is a transitional figure spanning the inflection point at the turn of the 4th & 5th-centuries. He remained hugely influential across the whole of Western Europe as far north as Scotland. When Augustine arrived at Canterbury 200 years late he found the ruins of a Roman Christian church dedicated to St Martin. St Martin’s Canterbury still stand today dwarfed alongside the great Cathedral. A mystic revered by the Druids for his love of nature in preference for the highly urban life of most Christian bishops. A pastor and a healer of souls who attracted the brightest and the best of a generation disillusioned by the degeneration of civic society. A reluctant and yet more than able administrator bishop – under whose leadership a disciplined structure of administration developed relatively free of the growing corruption afflicting the more worldly among his fellow bishops – increasingly corrupted by their magistrate’s privileges and state stipend.

Martin as a transitional figure is an avatar for us today. For we also are living at a similar inflection point to that of the late 4th and early 5th centuries – a time when the post-Enlightenment spirit of progress, order and the global peace – the product of Pax Americana -seems increasingly spent. Like the men and women of the age into which Martin was born, disillusionment and loss of hope mark the pervading zeitgeist of our age.

Yet there’s a key distinction between the inflection point of the 4th-5th centuries from that of the 20th-21st. As the 5th-century unfolded – despite the devastations brought about by the first wave of barbarian incursions and the collapse of the Pax Romana – invasion also brought an infusion of energy and vitality – forging a new spirit in Western Civilization – a spirit now channeled and guided by the growing institutions of a vital and energetic Christian Church. For Martin and his church stood at the beginning of something new – whereas we and our Church today feel increasingly as if we stand at the end of something old.

I believe that the jury’s still out on the accuracy of such a premonition, real though the experience maybe. As we navigate our way forward in a time of civic challenge at home and challenges to peace and democracy abroad, we might pay closer attention to the movement of the Spirit of the God of unchangeable and yet also everchanging power. God who empowers the work of restoring the world through the raising up of things which have been cast down and inviting us to collaborate in the renewal of things that have grown old.

Embroiled in this process as we are – of finding the confidence as Christians to entrust ourselves to the hope that is within us as we navigate our way forward in challenging times – we could ask for no better guide than Martin, our patron – whose spirit is infusing those who bear his name to become increasingly molded into his likeness.

What is that likeness we might ask? It’s the likeness of a man of courageous hope, deep humility before the divine mystery, a man of resolute faith infused with the gentleness of gratitude. We can only pray and work hard to ensure that gratitude is our well spring – gushing forth through lives marked by Martin’s spirit of compassionate generosity.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑