I knew our government wasn't terribly efficient, but...

...this is ridiculous.

Tired abortion arguments

Last night, one of the nurses mentioned in passing that she had recently visited a website that displays information, including mug shots, of registered sex offenders living in this area. One of the other nurses (the nurse mentioned earlier and who we'll call "Rita") said that her previous partner's then-7-year-old son had been molested by a female babysitter. She spent a few minutes describing her frustration with the woman's response and attempted justification of her actions, the involvement of this woman's minister, and the ridiculous failure of the local law enforcement to pursue an appropriate course of action and press felony charges. It was a sad story, to say the least. The dietitian, who normally comes in early but for some reason came in around 2am last night, somehow thought this was an opportune time to mention a story she allegely heard about some conservative commentator who said he thought women who have abortions should be legally required to have their tubes tied at the same time. I had to answer a call light, so I walked away for a few minutes.

When I came back, the dietitian was pontificating, with much agreement all around, that she believes anyone with male genitalia (not her precise wording) has absolutely no say in the abortion debate. I expressed my scorn and derision for such nonsense, though likely due to the late hour I was not all that eloquent. I pointed out that it takes a man to make that baby and that if a woman decides to keep that child, the man may be obligated to a couple of decades of child support. Those 2 simple facts alone mean a man has a say in the debate. Rita said that since so many of those men end up being dead-beat dads, that effectively counters my point. I pointed out that just because people fail to uphold their responsibilities does not mean that their rights, and the right, are somehow eliminated. The dietitian then modified her earlier statement to say that married men could have a say in whether or not their wife gets an abortion. So I guess I got a point on that one. Rita made a muddy argument about either the politicization of religion or the religious influence on politics, either way she perceived it as an obvious evil and claimed that any effort to bring a religiously-informed morality into politics was somehow against the Constitution. A couple of call ligths were going off and the debate was turning rancorous and noisy (3 against 1), so I decided to simply back off rather than let things get ugly.

Had it been just Rita and I, I certainly would have argued that her view of religion-free politics is absolutely 1) not what the Constitution actually requres and 2) as much a religiuosly-informed opinion as anything in the conservative's moral agenda. It is the view of religion-as-private-preference, one that has absolutely no bearing on any other area of one's life. If that is how you want to live, then that is fine - keep your religion private and vote like an atheist. However, attempting to prevent others from allowing their faith to influence their politics and views on public morality is just as contentious, imposing and "intolerant" as anything that they object to in the conservative camp. That it is expressed secularly in no way diminishes the religious underpinnings of the argument since many making that kind of statement do, in fact, make claims of faith. Based on their personalized, relativistic understanding of belief and the morality derived thereof, they move forward with an agenda that is irreligious on its surface. But it ultimately attempts to impose that personalized & relativistic concept of faith onto everyone else, to denude and destroy the comprehensive religious understanding of conservative Christianity in this country. Its a tired and failed argument and one that does nothing to make meaningful statements of any kind in the abortion debate.

The difficulty of speaking evolutionally

This semester I am only taking 2 classes; Anatomy 2 and Microbiology. This is a blessed relief from the 4 classes of last semester, but I've noticed a trend that has carried through - my professors cannot seem to restrict themselves to truly evolution-based language. I, of course, have no idea as to the level or flavor of faith to which my teachers may or may not subscribe, but it is clear from my classes so far that they have do not speak evolutionally. By that I mean they do not speak in the language of random chance or natural selection. They rarely speak of advantageous adaptations or survival of the fittest. There is little discussion as to how our delicately balanced internal systems could have developed such intricate interdependence or how cells developed the ability to control their internal mechanisms with exquisite precision. It seems almost impossible for them to speak of physiology of the body or cells/microorganisms without using words one would, in all other situations, associate with an external conscious agent. Words like "purpose" pop up a lot - "the purpose of the epithelium is to..." - but how can a directionless, unconscious anything have purpose? A function, yes, but purpose? And, of course, "design" is bandied about quite frequently, but almost always with the underlying assumption that either the cells themselves or some amporphous, impersonal "nature" did this work. But how can a cell direct its own evolution? How can a microscopic arrangement of proteins, phospholipids and water plan its own development and growth into something more complex? Of course it can't, but in an academic system dedicated to naturalistic reasoning, how can such talk still exist if evolution is the ultimate truth as to the origin of all life? It seems we should find speaking evolutionally far easier than we do.

But it is not just my teachers, lest anyone assume their own personal faith is shining through. Even my books utilize the language of external agency. Take this quote from my micro book - "The earth initially may seem like a random, chaotic place, but it is actually an incredibly organized, fine-tuned machine." How exactly does random chance produce an 'incredibly organized, fine-tuned machine'? And why is this language so hard to avoid? I'm sure there are those who would argue that our language and culture are themselves barriers to the correct use of evolutionary termingology in everyday speech, but I still find it highly ironic that we find it so difficult to naturally speak "naturally."

Catechumen class and what ensues

Every Sunday after Litury, the wife and I have the inquirers/Catechumen's class. There are, or were, 5 of us attending regularly. One was a young woman who had gotten married to her Orthodox husband in a civil ceremony. They wanted to get married in the Church back in December, so she was Chrismated early with the understanding she would continue to come to the classes through May - we haven't seen her in a few weeks, though, so I don't know what's up with her. The other 2 are an older married couple with 5 daughters. Their eldest became Orthodox last year and I think, partly anyways, her quest rubbed off on them and they are now searching for historic Christianity. They went through the class last year and are going through again with the intention of joining this Pascha. They were very active Protestants and had participated in church plants and what not, so this is certainly a big change for them. It would be almost like my in-laws converting.

Anyways, class went well - we were the only ones there, so we had plenty of time to talk to the deacon and ask questions. I'm much further along to wanting to "convert" than the wife. She's got a variety of hurdles to overcome, not the least of which was growing up in a healthy church and in a firmly believing Christian home. The former is important because many of the reasons that have driven me to search, and what has apparently driven many of the other recent converts in our parish to search, are huge problems with the church's they formerly attended. Some attended a wide variety of styles, church sizes and denominations and found something wanting, something missing, in every situation. They saw problems that were the result of weak theology or shallow thinking and wanted to find something more resilient, stronger, deeper. Aside from our lousy experience at the church I pastored at, the wife has by and large had good church experiences. They weren't perfect, but the people tried to live their faith and did a reasonably good job of it. So she isn't carrying the baggage I and some of the others are carrying and can't really identify with those problems. What's more, the latter point from above means she has a consistent and pervasive understanding that is thoroughly Protestant with a strong Anabaptist flavor (the denomination has a Mennonite background though they do not identify with it any longer and haven't for some time). Needless to say, infant baptism and sacramentalism have played huge roles in our discussions about Orthodoxy and probably represent 2 of the larger problems she has yet to resolve.

The wife and I's discussion after Liturgy got a little heated and eventually turned into an unfortunate argument. However, once tempers cooled, we were able to talk more clearly and she has recognize that she has not really been giving Orthodoxy an honest try. She's been trying to lay Orthodoxy on the foundation of her pre-existing Protestant theology instead of letting Orthodoxy find its own level, do its own foundation-laying. I'm hoping and praying that this new insight will help us both to know if this is really where God is leading us and where it will be best for us to be. Your continued prayers are much appreciated.

Troy tackles icons

Some may remember Troy from a previous post (here) and I've gone round and round with him on his blog a couple of times. He's now attempting to disprove the Orthodox veneration of icons - an issue we've debated before (here and here). I'll probably give him another go but all are welcome. So come on over and enjoy the debate!

The throne

During the coffee hour last week after church, the wife and I got into a conversation with a couple who converted to Orthodoxy only a year or two ago. His wife was mostly minding their young child, so we were pretty much talking to him. We were talking about our faith journey and some of the issues we're still dealing with in regards to Orthodoxy and possible conversion. He said he and his wife dealt with many of the same things and, in what is becoming a frequent refrain, that his wife had a much greater problem with these things than did he. But things kind of clicked for his wife one day, ironically, as she prepared to ask a rabbi a question. She worked in a potato-chip factory and once a month the factory would make a run of kosher products under the supervision of a rabbi. Her question was about Temple worship and why the Jews stopped worshipping that way (I assume she didn't know the Temple was destroyed by the Romans). She realized, though, that what she was seeing at St Nick's every Sunday morning was precisely that. She saw the elements and architecture of the OT brought into fruition and relationship with Christ. The Temple architecture, the decorations/icons, the incense, the sacrifice and the priests - it was all there right in front of her. So things clicked for her and they joined later that year.

A couple of days later, the wife and I were out doing our Bible study. We try to go through a book of the Bible, one chapter per week, and talk about what we've read; questions, things that jumped out at us and insights or connections we've made. Right now we're working through Hebrews, and last week we looked at chapter 8. I hadn't really thought about our conversation with that couple at all that week until I got to verse 5 and then something hit me - where is the throne in Protestant worship? Hebrews draws elaborate parallels between Christ and the high priest of the OT, between Christ's sacrifice of Himself and the high priest's yearly atonement sacrifice, and between the high priest's entering into the Holy of Holies and Christ's "taking his seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven." (Hebrews 8:1) In the heavenly things upon which the Temple and its worship was based, the Holy of Holies is the throne room and the Ark of the Covenant is the Father's throne. God is present on his throne, which is why the Holy of Holies could only be entered once a year by the high priest, and him alone. We see the same pattern in Orthodox worship. Only the priest and those specially appointed may enter into the altar area because Christ, through the Eucharist, is present on the throne of the altar. God's presence sanctifies that area and it connects the mundane to the divine, opening something between heaven and earth. Those heavenly types upon which OT Temple worship was based have not been done away with. No, they are eternal and thus are still the example we should follow, the pattern to which we should adhere but with the new dimensions Christ introduces through the Church.

With this in mind, my thinking instantly flashed back to the Protestant church I recently worked at. I pictured the west-facing auditorium, the wide, flat stage, the lack of decoration and any kind of Christian symbol. I pictured the lack of sanctity in that place, the raucuous music and irreverent spirit. I pictured the coffee stains and bagel crumbs on the floor. But I saw no throne. I saw no seat for God, no place where Christ is made present to us. So is that still worship, biblically understood? Can we worship without the throne?

Why, then, are you a member?

The wife and I went to Border's this evening to do a little reading and coffee drinking. I saw a magazine I hadn't seen before - Conscience. The sub-title was (I think) "A Catholic Opinion Journal." I stumbled across "First Things" in much the same way, so I thought I'd give it a gander. Yeah, needless to say I was sorely disappointed by this "religiously progressive" rag. One of the first articles was on the (alleged) success of a World Youth Day demonstration in favor of condoms. The author positively squirmed in delight at the discomfort of the Catholic hierarchy and at one point, compared the Pope to a queen. I understand disagreement and a desire to debate passionately held issues, but why the heck are these people still Catholic? Their views go beyond mere disagreement on the small things into questioning the very core of the Church herself. Why, then, are you still a member?

Co-workers never cease to amaze...

I took my latest copy of Touchstone to work with me last night. We've got quite a few open beds at the moment, due to a dip in the number of people who go in for surgery around the holidays (many of our patients are people who had complications after a procedure) so things are a little slow and there is time to do some reading. I was put on the lower ward with one nurse (normally there are 2) and at one point she picked up the magazine and briefly thumbed through it. This issue is on abortion and family, so she asked me what my views are. I told her and the conversation quickly turned into a wide-ranging discussion of faith, Catholicism, the role of women in the church, church history and then into the ethics of modern healthcare, the impact patient care protocols have both on the patient and on the caregiver, as well as a smattering of other topics. What intrigued me is not that we had this lengthy, in-depth conversation over such matters, but that we were in such agreement on so many issues. See, this woman is a lesbian who has been in a relationship with another woman for over 10 years and she sees nothing wrong with that.

Actually, that's not entirely accurate. She's about 55, full Italian and went to Catholic school for her entire pre-college education. She believes in God, she believes in the Church, she believes the Church can and should make moral pronouncements and respects the Catholic Church's steadfastness on its position regarding the immorality of homosexual conduct. She lives with this amazing tension between submission and rebellion, between loving the Church - for its message of hope, for what its given her, for the beauty of its worship - and hating it, largely because of the failings of its members and what individuals within it have done to her personally (she said something about her child getting molested, but this came in the middle of an exchange about the priest-abuse scandal so I wasn't sure if she was using it rhetorically). She seems to be balancing precariously between spirit & emotion, soul & heart. It was fascinating to hear her talk about living in this in-between place and she openly acknowledges that she may be risking her salvation through her defiance. "But," she said, "at leat I'd be with [my partner] in hell and I think that would make it ok." Leaving aside the obvious theological problems with that statement - ain't nobody going to make hell ok - I can't quite decide whether that is ultimately selfish (I'm going to do what I want right now) or selfless (I'm going to love no matter what the cost). Probably both.

Why are you doing this?

Part of my nightly duties includes giving at least 2 baths to patients. Sometimes that's easy, sometimes finding a willing participant can be difficult. A couple of weeks back, I had to bathe a lady because she was having problems with a drainage bag. She's alert & oriented, but has had multiple abominal surgeries in a relatively short period. The doctors apparently used the same incision site several times and now it is taking a very long time to heal. So I was in her room at about 4am giving her a bath after the nurse had finished reapplying her dressings and fixing the drainage back for probably the 3rd time that night. On the other patient's tv was an infomercial for a pornographic video set. I will be circumspent because I don't want a bunch of hits based on the search term, but its basically "Young Women Gone Crazy" or "Females Devoid of All Inhibition." This is a company that has been around for a number of years and started out, from what I understand, making compilations of girls drunkenly displaying their assets for the camera at bars and frat-parties - spur of the moment stuff. Anyways, the curtain was closed so all I heard was the audio, but I've seen brief snatches of it as its been on in other patient's rooms (it seems to be on every morning about 4 or 5am). This latest video set is not the usual drunken debauchery. Instead, the producers have whisked (apparently) dozens of girls away to an island location for some Olympic-style pornographic games with plenty of depraved variations.

I know porn exists, I know many, many men are heavily involved in it and have even looked at it myself, thankfully not getting "hooked" in any way. So usually when this kind of thing presents itself I just dismiss it as yet another example of our fallen world. But this night was different, largely because of the patient I was working with. She is in her early 60's and, according to her chart, battled drug addiction for a goodly portion of her life. And she told one of the other aides (a woman) that she had also worked as a prostitute to support her drug habit. The juxtaposition of this woman, hurting in body & soul, burdened from a lifetime of being used by men, laying in a hospital bed with practically no family and who will almost certainly die alone, and the women who willingly subject themselves to that kind of degradation for some stupid video was especially acute. I can understand why this woman, as it happens with so many women, got caught up in the humiliation and degradation of prostitution. I've known several people who were drug addicts and the horror of that dependency can drive people to insane lengths to feed their habit. But these women on the screen, the one's exposing themselves or putting on female-on-female sexual displays for what? a few bucks? the approval of some guy with a camera? or some lonely schmuck who can only find a glimmer of emotional fulfillment from his DVD player or internet connection? I don't get it. What is missing in them that they are willing to humiliate themselves, to abuse their bodies & souls in this way for what can only amount to a fleeting feeling of acceptance and approval? What is wrong with them? Moreover, what is wrong with the men who rely on these sexual crutches? I think this is the real crux of the matter. If men didn't want it, if they didn't watch it, then this kind of thing would not exist. So why do so many men seek fulfillment in watching an endless parade of women degrade themselves? Why can't they connect with a real woman? Why do they abuse their body and souls with this kind of depravity? What is wrong with our society that we produce people like this and that so many consider this "normal"? How have we so disempowered women that they willingly subject themselves to these things?

I know I'm only echoing questions that have been voiced many thousands of times by people far more astute and well-spoken than myself, but I could not help but see this differently after getting to know someone who has lived that reality.

I've got $20...

in an Amazon gift card burning a hole in my (online) wallet - any suggestions for books or music?

Obstetrics 'R' Us

I'm sitting in a coffee house working on my joke of a communications paper - I mean, what exactly does a 5 page research paper accomplish? - and 2 men sitting at the table right next to me, who are either doctors or hospital administrators, are having a fascinating discussion about potential models for some hospital's obstetrics department. Given the sensitive nature of their discussion one would think they'd be a little more discreet, but such is not the case. The basic thrust of their conversation is how to market their hospital better while controlling costs through changing the way their hospital delivers babies. I was doing a good job of focusing on my paper until one of them started talking about why many doctors prefer c-sections to vaginal births. Apparently, traditional birth, ie, the way humanity has done it since we were created, is "hard" on a woman and c-sections are just better. Oh, and its relatively cheap, too. From there, they've moved on to talking about offering massages, facials and aromatherapy as well as a 30-minute sit-down with the doctor who will actually be delivering the child. Really? A whole 30-minutes with the man who will be cutting my wife open to save on malpractice insurance costs? Gosh, doctor, thanks for wasting your time with us.

Another way to contain costs, apparently, is also to take a "team" approach using several nurse midwifes under the direction of an obstetrician. At least one of the midwives will be at the hospital at all times in case of an emergency delivery and the doctor would be on call. This seems like a good plan - most nurse midwives are skilled & dedicated professionals, but they seriously questioned whether or not a woman should be given a choice in picking which midwife or doctor they wanted to bring their child into the world. They thought they could just introduce the whole team to the expectant mother and say "one of these people will do the delivery." One guy did have the sense to wonder if most women would go along with that system. From my perspective, I don't care what the women think I DON'T LIKE IT! No way would I want my wife and child left into the hands of the person who just happened to get the short straw that day. I want to know and trust the person who will literally be taking my wife's and my child's life in their hands.

Ahhh, the world of medicine-as-business...what am I getting myself into?

Untrodden Portal: III

In lieu of any meaningful posting for the next few days - the bulk of my finals and projects will be done by next Tuesday - I'm bringing this post to the top of the stack. An interesting debate about Mary's sinlessness, original sin and a host of side issues has sprouted. Read, comment, enjoy.

Its been a while since I've had time to read any of Gabriel's Mary: The Untrodden Portal of God, but I got some time this afternoon so I figured I'd best keep up with my series on it. Chapter 4 focuses on a refutation of certain gnostic heresies that claimed Christ was not born according to the natural rules of childbirth. Chapter 5 discusses the Dormition and Chapter 6 details the differences between Orthodoxy's understanding of Mary's birth & death and that of Catholicism. I found that chapter most illuminating, primarily because I haven't really studied this subject matter before.

As I haven't heard of any modern commentators claiming that Jesus actually transpired out of Mary's side, I won't get too in depth with chapter 4. It was interesting to see how far the ancient heretics went to avoid the reality of the Incarnation for fear of contaminating divinity with materiality. It seems people will ever vacillate between a false asceticism that sees all matter as either evil or as completely void of all spiritual significance, and the hedonism that says matter is all there is so we might as well enjoy it. Christians have, for obvious reasons, tended towards the former and I see subtle strands of that in many Protestant thinkers. Not "all matter is evil" but that matter is empty, its meaningless and holds no import for spiritual matters. It is present in the pragmatic iconoclasm and austerity of our worship spaces, in the refusal to bless objects or regard any place as holy, to name but a few examples. It is a tired repetition and one I hope we will eventually be rid of.

Chapters 5 & 6 are closely linked in Gabriel's mind and he lays the groundwork in 5 to explore the key differences and their implications in 6. I knew Orthodoxy had special views about Mary's death and her role in heaven, but did not know the particulars. I found it particularly striking that Orthodoxy emphasizes her true humanity by acknowledging her death, whereas Catholicism is forced, by certain tenets of Augustinian theology, to deny it. As Gabriel rightly points out, the language of the Assumption can indeed lead to Mariolatry in one form or another. If no one is exempt from original sin except Christ and Mary, why, it makes perfect sense to begin elevating Mary above and beyond her proper role in relation to Christ. But Orthodoxy knows that this is not the case, that whatever she is, she is only that because of her relation to Christ. Though she was without the stain or blemish of sin, she still inherited the generational consequences of it, ie, death. She had to die because she was human but her theosis rendered her body incorruptible and as Gabriels says, "her bodily translation from Earth reflected the real mystery and awesome power of the Incarnation and the promise of the same incorruption for all."

Of course, the Protestant in me is going nuts about the thought of Mary being whisked away into heaven. Mother of God or no, it just seems wrong somehow. But then again, we know even less about Enoch (Gen 5:24) and we're told he was taken up into heaven. Elijah was a great prophet and he was taken up, so why do we have such a hard time acknowledging even the possibility that Mary received similar treatment? Yes, its not in the Bible and that is a key difference, but frankly, and this is becoming a similar refrain as I discuss Orthodoxy with people, quite a bit isn't in the Bible. We're told Jesus appeared to as many as 500 people at one time (1 Cor 15:6) after His resurrection and we don't receive a single piece of information about when this happened, who was there, or what Jesus said or did at this important event. We're not told what Jesus was writing in the sand in John 8, nor are we told what Jesus, Moses & Elijah talked about on Tabor. I think Protestants like to pretend that the Bible is just chock-full of all kinds of useful tidbits and that there aren't any blank spaces. There's nothing that needs to be filled in, nothing that can't be answered. But that's a load of crap! We're missing so much and so much of it is important stuff that I'm increasingly finding it hard to give a whole lot of credence to the argument that "its not in the Bible so it must be wrong."

So as I consider the Dormition, I have to say it makes a certain kind of sense. If you accept that grace redeems not just souls but physicality as well, then the unlimited font of grace we find in Christ that dwelt in Mary had to have an effect on her. It had to have changed her somehow, and if the Ark of the Covenant was treated with such absolute reverence that whatever place it entered became holy, how could we but view Mary's body as holy as well? And does it makes sense that God would toss something holy like that into the ground to rot?

Staving off a finals-induced stupor

The last 2 weeks have been rather uneventful thanks to the dull monotony of nearly constant studying - and I haven't even hit finals yet! I'm not sure why teachers thing scheduling large exams the week before finals hit is a good idea, but its happened. And one of my teachers changed all his due dates, so now I'm currently behind in that (worthless) class - on to more homework.

Happy Thanksgiving?

I work Monday through Friday nights and this week was no exception. And about the first thing I heard upon coming to work last night was that one of my favorite patients, a gentle old man who always said "thank you" for the least act of kindness, had died. Mr. S had had an x-ray earlier in the week that showed cancer had spread throughout his body and that he was beyond any hope of remission or treatment. So the decision was made to remove him from the vent and he died within a few minutes. My first duty last night was to clean up his body and take him down to the morgue where he would await transport to a funeral home.

There have been several deaths since I began working there, but this was only the second that happened on my shift and the first I was solo on taking care of. And that is the way I wanted it. I loved Mr. S - it was always a pleasure to help him. The first night I had him, I discovered that he had the disconcerting habit of sleeping with his eyes open. Thanks to the risk of aspiration he could not have anything by mouth, so it would get very dry. Everytime I went in to turn him or perform some other service, he would ask me to swab his mouth out with water with a little stick-sponge we have for that purpose. I would dip it in some nice cold water and let him suck on it a few times and he always asked for just one more. He was just so grateful for anything you did - a cool cloth on his forehead, adjusting his pillows, making sure he was getting his pain meds - it didn't matter. Every act was greeted with simple gratitude. And for a relatively small man, he had some giant feet!

I found his death to be an affront, and not just because he died but where he died. He died in a hollow place, a harsh place. It is a place that truly denies our humanity and stubbornly refuses to let us leave our mark. Every room identical and no matter how hard patients or families try to personalize them, the austere, hard formality pushes itself on your awareness. And once the superficial glaze of pictures, balloons and get-well cards are removed, it is as if that person had never been there. Had never been at all. I fight a war there every night, trying to turn the tide of inhumanity, trying to leave a mark if only for those people who will die there. To let them know that they will be remembered, that their presence lingers in a fond heart and that this place is not their end.

God's speed, Mr. S.

Not all that encouraging

It certainly isn't very encouraging that Iraqi leaders would adopt language, no matter how carefully crafted or restrictively endorsed, that legitimizes armed resistance against US forces who are, in fact, the only thing keeping that fledgling government from being felled by said "resistance". Either they're just plain dumb (which, given the state of politics in this country is certainly a possibility) or they're stuck in such a difficult place that they are forced to side with the insurgents against the US for fear of what will happen in the future.

Which actually raises an interesting question in my mind. Last night, as I was driving home from class I listened briefly to the Sean Hannity show and a caller made the dubious statement (paraphrase) "when will those darn Democrats learn that if they would just shut up and support the mission it would be successful and everyone would get home much faster." At the time I thought this was just more of the same drivel one hears on conservative talk radio. I mean, is the success of US forces really dependent on the size & team spirit of their cheering section in Congress? Maybe if we all got together and started yelling at the insurgents "We've got spirit! Yes we do! We've got spirit, how 'bout you?!" with an exaggerated pointing gesture accompanying the last beat, then we'd finally be able to get 'em licked. But I didn't think about the flip side of the coin - what about the effect talks of immediate withdrawal have on the nascent Iraqi government? All the highly believable positive statements by the Bush administration about the readiness of the Iraqi army & police forces notwithstanding, if I were a member of the new government I'd be wetting myself at the prospect of US forces leaving. So where do we draw the line on healthy political debate? We can't forsake our right to discuss these issues but we have to find the balance.

Lock up the women and children, finals are a'comin'!

Finals are fast approaching and man oh man do I have a lot of studying to do. I've got a semi-research-paper-thing due for my psych class (about 75% done, thankfully), a large-ish anatomy test & lab practical prior to the anatomy final, a research paper for my communications class and good ole chemistry. On top of that, we're moving into our new apartment on Saturday. And the cherry on top is that I need to retake the nursing school entrance exam by the 2nd. I did well the first time I took it - 91%, which is much better than the school's average of 79% - but I need all the points I can get. I bought a study guide and figure I can squeeze a few more points out in a few of the areas, like punctuation rules - I haven't looked at the rules regarding comma use in, oh, say, 10, years. Hopefully the book will help.

Family came to church

This morning my in-laws came with us to church. Needless to say, it was quite a change of scenery for them. They didn't really ask too many questions about the architecture, or even the Liturgy, although there was one point when my father-in-law took issue with one of the prayers that entreated the saints to "persuade" God to be present. I tried to explain to him about the poetic liberties sometimes taken in the Liturgy but I'm not sure he found it very convincing. Another point they raised was the repetitive nature of the prayers, both within the Liturgy itself and the fact that its repeated every week, and Jesus' words in Matthew 6:7. I know for my FIL, the main issue was mostly of a pragmatic nature - does the Liturgy do what it should? Does it meet people's needs? My MIL felt the priest's role took on a mediatorial role and that, as believers, we have direct access to the throne so why do we need a priest?

Overall, the experience sparked a lot of questions, probably a few rush-to-judgments on their part, but a good discussion. I tend to doubt that they'll ever be comfortable with Orthodoxy if we decide to convert, but at least they have a better idea where we're coming from.

The End of Life Debate: New Clarity & Confusion

As a little bit of background info, my facility specializes in long-term acute care for patients with significant complications. Many are on ventilators and we try to ween them off the machine because there are no nursing homes in this area that will accept patients on the vent. If they do not redevelop their ability to breathe on their own, they have very few options for continuing care. We have many patients with renal failure, diabetes related amputations or circulation problems and wounds. Wounds are probably the 2nd biggest reason our patients come to us, most developing from simple bedsores. What starts as a small little breakdown in the skin can quickly develop into a complete degradation of the skin.* This opens the person up to some bad infections and can exacerbate other conditions.

Since I started working at the hospital we've had several people die. Some of these deaths were expected; the patient's condition was so severe that their chances of survival were slim. One woman had a horrible wound on her leg that had developed from a bed sore and resulted in a systemic infection that left her in constant agony. Her skin was degrading and every movement was torture, so in many ways, her death was a blessing. There have been at least 2 cases wherein the family decided to "pull the plug." Contrary to what you tend to see in the movies or on TV, these "termainal weans" are generally not very quick. It can take hours, or even days, for the person's breathing to eventually stop. There was even one person who was perfectly conscious who decided to be removed from the vent - they lingered for several days before finally passing. We just had a person die yesterday evening whose death took me by surprise. When last I saw him, he seemed to be improving so it caught me off guard when his room was empty last night when I came in for work.

So far, this experience has brought both new clarity and new confusion for me as I think about end of life issues. In seeing the suffering of that woman with the wound & infection, I can see why people would think that alleviating that suffering through death (even high doses of narcotics did not appear to be helping in this poor woman's case) is a good option to consider, particularly if they have chosen it, either through a conscious decision at the time or through an advanced directive. I can even see where people could think its a good idea to eliminate their suffering even if such a patient has made their intentions clear. No one wants to see another person suffer needlessly and if pain management techniques aren't working, as they frequently don't, then the only remaining option is taking their life. Of course, one could argue that there is a profound difference between eliminating life support and actively euthanizing someone, and I agree that there is. However, I have noticed among some of my coworkers the intent of using terminal weans as euthanization - the person is in pain, there is very little chance of recovery or improvement, so why not just get it over with? They even berate the family, behind their backs of course, for not making the decision any sooner in the process. Case in Point: Last night, we (me and a couple of nurses) were discussing a patient who has been in our facility for a while - he is not only not improving, he's starting to slide a bit. But if this is the beginning of the end, its going to take a long time for him to die. One of the nurses opined that the "best thing for him would be to die." I pointed out that the man is alert & oriented. She basically said "yeah, that's rough." Here she is talking about a man, a human being made in the image of God, as if his life is worth absolutely nothing. Is his life very meaningful right now? No, its clearly not and he is just as clearly being a "drain on society" by gobbling up the resources necessary for his care, but does that mean that he should just die?! I'll grant that her view is not representative of all the nurses on staff, but its not uncommon.

It is precisely this compassionate impulse that makes clear and careful thinking about these end of life issues so incredibly important. When things become frought with emotion, or in some instances, a complete lack thereof, our feelings can easily override good moral thinking. We can lose our path quickly and easily. This is where the new clarity is coming into focus for me; we absolutely have to hold the line on these issues because, quite frankly, most of use aren't equipped for the hard thinking they require. And the confusion is that I know I'm not equipped for that yet and certainly am not in a position where I can influence any policy on this matter. Over the course of my education, I'm sure this is going to be something I need to learn a great deal more about.

* If you have family in the hospital for an extended period, probably one of the best things you can do is to make sure your loved one is getting turned at least every 2 hours.

Communion vs Eucharist: Much ado about nothing?

The in-laws were out of town for a couple of days this weekend, so we had the house to ourselves for a little while - a very nice preview of what it will be like when we move into our apartment next month (we signed the lease last weekend)! We went out to dinner with them last night after they came home and, surprisingly, my father-in-law started asking questions about Orthodoxy. He's asked a few questions here and there, but that's mostly happened when I wasn't around. Specifically, he asked about their nominally Catholic neighbors who are looking around for a church of any stripe and whether or not they would hear the Gospel if they came to an Orthodox Church. I affirmed that they undoubtedly would, though the emphases would obviously be different. We talked about this pleasantly for a few minutes before the conversation moved to communion.

My father-in-law basically stated that he felt it was a tragedy how we, as humans, had made such a big deal over communion and turned it into a point of division instead of unity. He said something about how we've taken Jesus' words and, I guess, read into them or made them into something they're not - he wasn't real clear on this, so I'm not sure exactly what he was saying. In the interest of maintaining a pleasant dinner I didn't reply to his statements, but I couldn't help but see the inherently Protestant perspective deeply inherent in that kind of thinking. The Protestant, especially the evangelical, understanding of the Lord's Supper is minimalistic, paring the biblical witness down and ignoring the patristic witness almost entirely. It is "mere communion" in line with Lewis' understanding of mere Christianity; the essential points on which all Christian groups can agree. Mere Communion is like that, as the memorial view is a part of the Eucharist, thus it is a small point of commonality. So why can't we all just agree on that and leave those other issues aside? Why do we have to make such a big deal about it and turn those peripheral issues into points of contention? I'm starting to understand why, in fact, this is position is untenable and why the proper understanding of the Eucharist is actually part & parcel of historic Christianity. These Eucharistic variances are important because they point to, and spring from, key differences that cannot be brushed aside so casually.

Can you spot the heresy?

Chase has posted a link to a rather fatuous article attempting to explain why Orthodoxy has actually gotten the whole icon-thing completely wrong, is really Nestorian and has, ahem, an insufficient Christology.