Last week, just before I started my shift, a patient died. He had first entered the hospital with heart trouble, suffered complications and was placed on a ventilator. He came to us in fairly good shape relative to some of the other patients we get. There is this semi-conscious state that a lot of people linger in as they start to wake-up from the complications they suffered through (some for weeks on end) and were completely unaware of. They are "in there"; they try to respond to your commands, though often they fail due to sheer physical inability. And they try to communicate - their lips are moving and their expression changes, hands gesture. It is almost impossible to make out what they are trying to say because they are unable to vocalize on the vent and frequently lack fine motor control, so you can't read their lips (something I've actually become pretty adept at over the last several months). And, of course, they are generally confused and would be speaking nonsense and non sequiturs could they actually form words. As I said, people can linger in this in-between state - aware but not oriented, trying to communicate but not coherent enough to realize what they need to do to overcome the barriers. Some stay like this for only a few days, others for a few weeks and a few never find their way out. They remain locked in their own mind for reasons that are rarely clear. He was one of the latter, though I must confess I thought the family moved rather quickly to putting him on a terminal wean. I think they were talked into it by their doctor(s) and though it is fairly likely he would have never pulled out of this half-life, I wish they had given him a another couple of weeks. Miracles do happen.
I ended up helping the family - his wife and daughter - carry some things out to their car. It was a somber walk and one that left me reeling. What do I say? How do I offer comfort? In the end, I didn't say much. I told them I was sorry for their loss and that I had enjoyed caring for him. But in my mind, as I'm walking with those suffering the agony of their loss and the mixed feelings of guilt and relief, the hymn from Sunday's liturgy repeated itself over and over in my head. "Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death..." And that, to me, provided some comfort, some degree of understanding. His death was not the end. Death is not the end and the pain is just for a night.
5.09.2006
5.08.2006
Promise?
In the May issue of Touchstone, there is an interesting article on high school students that are anything but typical. Terrence Moore writes from his own experience with what are obviously very gifted and very blessed students, and stand as shining examples in a field of peers that are jaded, entertainment-minded, relativists. It is an article that completely belies my own experience working with youth and one that offers some degree of hope for the future of this generation. But, it also scares the pants off of me.
To illustrate his point, Moore introduces us to "Promise", a young woman whom he knows personally. She comes from a good home, is intelligent, faithful and a hard worker. But...
Promise has never set foot in a public school. Her parents discovered in their freshman year of college how little their public schools had taught them and how unprepared they were for higher learning. Moreover, they would never allow their daughter to be exposed to the drugs, sex, and crass behavior that are the norm from middle school onward.
It is true that high schools have largely been turned over to the social norms of sexual and chemical experimentation in today's youth and that this trend is pushing ever lower. I saw it in my students and I heard their stories. I don't blame any parent for wishing to spare their child from the deluge of temptations they will face in today's public schools. And yet, I cannot help but think that this separation from the vast majority of her peers will be to Promise's detriment. How will she understand her generation? How will she know how to reach them? If she can't speak their language and know the things that matter to them, how will she lead them, as Moore suggests she will? I don't for one minute think that a child must succumb to the temptations of their peers in order to better understand them. But without at least some common experiences, how will Promise forge a link with those in her age group? I saw those highly intelligent, moral, faithful homeschoolers in the youth group I lead - I saw that they never fit in and that their separation invariably lead them to live in completely different worlds than their peers. It didn't matter what they knew or how their lives could have been examples to the other students; no connection was possible. And frankly, it is entirely possible to traverse the perils of public school and still come out well-educated and having resisted the temptations of sex, drugs and relativist thinking. I know because I did it.
From here, Moore goes on to list more of Promise's promising qualities. She doesn't disrespect her parents, drink or do drugs, sleep around or brush off school. She feels sorry for girls who do, not because she is self-righteous but because she believes they simply don't know any better. Promise rejects feminism and "...is pretty and enjoys feeling pretty." (This point strikes me as tendentious - what does being pretty have to do with anything and how would Promise feel and behave if she were unattractive? It does not strike me as particularly counter-cultural to enjoy being pretty, what with the amount of emphasis today's culture places on feminine beauty.) Promise is also politically engaged and aware of the import of today's key issues and debates, which I certainly found to be quite uncommon among my high schoolers. All-in-all, Promise is a bright, well-rounded, Christian student who takes her faith and education seriously. But Moore goes on to conflate what appear to me to be clear issues of morality (abortion) with politics and here is where I have the greatest problem with his description:
Promise wholly supports the war on terrorism. This sweet girl will tell you without batting an eye that anyone who blows up a building or decapitates someone for a misguided faith is pure evil. Promise is glad that strong and brave men carry guns to protect this nation both at home and abroad.
Supporting the war on terrorism is not on par with abortion, which is the issue he discusses immediately prior to this paragraph. Having genuine political disagreements over this country's response to 9/11 and the war in Iraq are simply not the same as abortion and nor is there an explicitly Christian position on these points. Also, both men and women defend this nation at home and abroad and I find it odd that Promise should discount this fact and that Moore should forget to mention it. It seems to me that failing to mention the sacrifice of women in the police and armed forces implies more than just Promise's rejection of feminism, although I could be reading into it. But what worries me most is that second sentence. Moore points to this generation's inability to think morally several times, but I cannot accept that this statement is well supported by sound ethical consideration. Perhaps I'm mired in relativistic thinking, perhaps I did not make it through public high school and a state university with a degree in religious studies without being infected by the shoddy thinking Moore derides, but I seriously doubt whether, as Christians, we can ever describe another human being as "pure evil."
Is blowing up a building or decapitating someone for a rightly-guided faith pure good? Is it a mixture of good and evil? Or is it pure evil, as well? What if you're blowing up buildings for a misguided foreign policy? How does that rank? What troubles me is the conflation of "misguided faith" with motive. Those executing the attacks of 9/11 or decapitating Nick Berg were not doing it because they knew themselves to be supporting a false religion; they believed their actions were both in accord with and demanded by their faith. And in that, they were actually acting on good motives. Don't mistake me - I believe terrorism to be intensely evil and motivated by demonic forces, but that does not mean that those who engage in it are "pure evil." They were seeking what they perceived to be a good end, an end pleasing to God and beneficial to their coreligionists, and if their actions had focused on planting trees rather than murder, no one would accuse that aspect of their intentions as being inherently evil. Though there are times when our subjective motivations have nothing to do with the objective moral status of our specific behaviors, we all recognize that motive is indeed a salient point. Our society routinely and uncontroversially recognizes a legitimate moral difference between murder and self-defense, even in cases where there was no actual threat to the defender.
So the question really becomes 'can a person acting on subjectively good motives really be purely evil?' I think the answer is no, just as someone acting on subjectively bad motives (who somehow brings about an amazing good like curing cancer or ending world hunger) can be said to be purely good. Our society would want to turn our misguided philanthropist into a hero of heroes, a celebrated and honored person, to shower them with praise and adoration even though they intended to do evil. We would label them as good and forget about their failings. This is why I find Moore's, and by extension Promise's, unsubtle thinking on this matter so disturbing. To label anyone, even a hate-filled, murderous terrorist as "pure evil" is to cease to see them as human. It allows us to do anything we want to them because they have become completely alien. And in doing that, I fear we cross a line that we simply cannot cross.
To illustrate his point, Moore introduces us to "Promise", a young woman whom he knows personally. She comes from a good home, is intelligent, faithful and a hard worker. But...
Promise has never set foot in a public school. Her parents discovered in their freshman year of college how little their public schools had taught them and how unprepared they were for higher learning. Moreover, they would never allow their daughter to be exposed to the drugs, sex, and crass behavior that are the norm from middle school onward.
It is true that high schools have largely been turned over to the social norms of sexual and chemical experimentation in today's youth and that this trend is pushing ever lower. I saw it in my students and I heard their stories. I don't blame any parent for wishing to spare their child from the deluge of temptations they will face in today's public schools. And yet, I cannot help but think that this separation from the vast majority of her peers will be to Promise's detriment. How will she understand her generation? How will she know how to reach them? If she can't speak their language and know the things that matter to them, how will she lead them, as Moore suggests she will? I don't for one minute think that a child must succumb to the temptations of their peers in order to better understand them. But without at least some common experiences, how will Promise forge a link with those in her age group? I saw those highly intelligent, moral, faithful homeschoolers in the youth group I lead - I saw that they never fit in and that their separation invariably lead them to live in completely different worlds than their peers. It didn't matter what they knew or how their lives could have been examples to the other students; no connection was possible. And frankly, it is entirely possible to traverse the perils of public school and still come out well-educated and having resisted the temptations of sex, drugs and relativist thinking. I know because I did it.
From here, Moore goes on to list more of Promise's promising qualities. She doesn't disrespect her parents, drink or do drugs, sleep around or brush off school. She feels sorry for girls who do, not because she is self-righteous but because she believes they simply don't know any better. Promise rejects feminism and "...is pretty and enjoys feeling pretty." (This point strikes me as tendentious - what does being pretty have to do with anything and how would Promise feel and behave if she were unattractive? It does not strike me as particularly counter-cultural to enjoy being pretty, what with the amount of emphasis today's culture places on feminine beauty.) Promise is also politically engaged and aware of the import of today's key issues and debates, which I certainly found to be quite uncommon among my high schoolers. All-in-all, Promise is a bright, well-rounded, Christian student who takes her faith and education seriously. But Moore goes on to conflate what appear to me to be clear issues of morality (abortion) with politics and here is where I have the greatest problem with his description:
Promise wholly supports the war on terrorism. This sweet girl will tell you without batting an eye that anyone who blows up a building or decapitates someone for a misguided faith is pure evil. Promise is glad that strong and brave men carry guns to protect this nation both at home and abroad.
Supporting the war on terrorism is not on par with abortion, which is the issue he discusses immediately prior to this paragraph. Having genuine political disagreements over this country's response to 9/11 and the war in Iraq are simply not the same as abortion and nor is there an explicitly Christian position on these points. Also, both men and women defend this nation at home and abroad and I find it odd that Promise should discount this fact and that Moore should forget to mention it. It seems to me that failing to mention the sacrifice of women in the police and armed forces implies more than just Promise's rejection of feminism, although I could be reading into it. But what worries me most is that second sentence. Moore points to this generation's inability to think morally several times, but I cannot accept that this statement is well supported by sound ethical consideration. Perhaps I'm mired in relativistic thinking, perhaps I did not make it through public high school and a state university with a degree in religious studies without being infected by the shoddy thinking Moore derides, but I seriously doubt whether, as Christians, we can ever describe another human being as "pure evil."
Is blowing up a building or decapitating someone for a rightly-guided faith pure good? Is it a mixture of good and evil? Or is it pure evil, as well? What if you're blowing up buildings for a misguided foreign policy? How does that rank? What troubles me is the conflation of "misguided faith" with motive. Those executing the attacks of 9/11 or decapitating Nick Berg were not doing it because they knew themselves to be supporting a false religion; they believed their actions were both in accord with and demanded by their faith. And in that, they were actually acting on good motives. Don't mistake me - I believe terrorism to be intensely evil and motivated by demonic forces, but that does not mean that those who engage in it are "pure evil." They were seeking what they perceived to be a good end, an end pleasing to God and beneficial to their coreligionists, and if their actions had focused on planting trees rather than murder, no one would accuse that aspect of their intentions as being inherently evil. Though there are times when our subjective motivations have nothing to do with the objective moral status of our specific behaviors, we all recognize that motive is indeed a salient point. Our society routinely and uncontroversially recognizes a legitimate moral difference between murder and self-defense, even in cases where there was no actual threat to the defender.
So the question really becomes 'can a person acting on subjectively good motives really be purely evil?' I think the answer is no, just as someone acting on subjectively bad motives (who somehow brings about an amazing good like curing cancer or ending world hunger) can be said to be purely good. Our society would want to turn our misguided philanthropist into a hero of heroes, a celebrated and honored person, to shower them with praise and adoration even though they intended to do evil. We would label them as good and forget about their failings. This is why I find Moore's, and by extension Promise's, unsubtle thinking on this matter so disturbing. To label anyone, even a hate-filled, murderous terrorist as "pure evil" is to cease to see them as human. It allows us to do anything we want to them because they have become completely alien. And in doing that, I fear we cross a line that we simply cannot cross.
Final final finally finished
As of Saturday, around 845 in the morning, I officially ended this semester. Now onto a blissful and school-free summer vacation. I may try to pick up some extra work over the summer to pad the coffers for fall, when I will have to cut back on my work schedule. In the meantime, I will be focusing on preparing for my brother's wedding, where I will be co-officiating, in the first part of June. And, much to my delight, catching up on some of the pleasure-reading that has been so overwhelmed by school the last several months. My first 2 books are The Sacred Gift of Life and A Feast For Crows. The first book is due to my own lack of preparation for dealing with the hard questions, particularly end-of-life and meaning of suffering questions, that I either deal with now or will have to deal with as a nurse. I want to clarify my own thinking on the matter by examining the thinking of the Fathers and the Church. The second book is the long-awaited continuation of what has turned out to be an amazing fantasy series. I'm normally into sci-fi, but my brother concinved me to read the first one and I was hooked. Its not your typical kind of elves & wizards fantasy writing; there is magic, a world very much unlike our own and a fair share of otherworldy creatures, but it focuses much more on political intrigue and the growth of characters as they work through a tremendous upheaval that draws an entire continent into war over a vacated throne. Its quite good.
4.29.2006
Sexual ethics
Adam, over at Pomomusings, has posted a
summary of the sexual ethics presented in a book called Love Does No Harm by Marie Fortune. Here they are:
5 Guidelines for Sexual Ethics
1. Peer Relationship: Is my choice of intimate partner a peer, i.e. someone whose power is relatively equal to mine? We must limit our sexual interactions to our peers. Some people are off limits for our sexual interests.
2. Authentic Consent: Are both my partner and I authentically consenting to our sexual interaction? Both of us must have information, awareness, equal power and the option to say "no" without being punished, as well as the option to say "yes."
3. Stewardship of my Sexuality: Do I take responsibility for protecting myself and my partner against sexually transmitted diseases and to insure reproductive choice? This is a question of stewardship (the wise care for and management of the gift of sexuality) and anticipating the literal consequences of our actions. Taking this responsibility seriously presupposes a relationship: knowing someone over time and sharing a history in which trust can develop.
4. Sharing of Pleasure: Am I committed to sharing sexual pleasure and intimacy in my relationships? My concern should be both for my own needs and those of my partner.
5. Faithfulness: Am I faithful to my promises and commitments? Whatever the nature of a commitment to one's partner and whatever the duration of that commitment, fidelity requires honesty and the keeping of promises. Change in an individual may require a change in the commitment which hopefully can be achieved through open and honest communication.
All in all, these are not a bad set of guidelines. I don't think there is a whole lot in there to argue with - possibly the "ensure reproductive choice" thing and the part in the last one about how fluid our sense of commitment should be. It is also clear that number 3 doesn't actually require a pre-existing relationship. If I've got some disease, I could just be following simple human decency by putting on a condom; no long-term relationship is necessary. But for a secular set of sexual ethics these would probably lead, if followed, to some healthier choices regarding sexual activity.
These are, however, not written by a secular author but by a minister. And while the author's intended audience is not specifically Christian, "she believes these guidelines would be put to good use in Christian circles as well." Really? A set of ethical guidelines that fails to include any consideration of the biblical witness, the historical witness of the Church or any reference to God or Jesus could be well-used by Christians? I find that sentiment deeply troubling. Moreover, I find Fortune's assumption that an ethic of love that separates and subordinates the Gospel to itself is even possible for a Christian to ponder repellent. Yes, God is love, but we cannot extract that statement from the love God has shown us in Christ. We cannot attempt to shake off the rootedness of that reality in the narrative of God's activity in the world, first through Israel and then through the Church. That is precisely how we know God is love! We are not permitted to take that statement out of its context and try to develop an ethic, a theology or any other system of thought. If we do that, we immediately demonstrate that this is not something we are trying to say about God but about ourselves, about our own way of thinking, our own goals and desires. Which is why we can talk about "reproductive choice" as if it impacted only us as individuals, and not the child in the womb or God in heaven. It is why the sexual ethics we try to create for ourselves make no mention of any external moral set other than respecting the other person's freedom. It is only our choice and their choice that matters, and it is little surprise that Adam's post includes negative commentary on the propensity for the "modern" church to focus so much on convincing youth not to have sex. That is forcing something upon them, not respecting their choices and making them feel guilty about something that should be celebrated.
Needless to say, this is a dangerous game to play. It is true that the evangelical church's youth culture has seized upon abstinence as seemingly the end-all and be-all of youth programs. This is clearly imbalanced - the norms of chastity need to encompass more than just sex, but it is also obvious why sex is so important to youth leaders: it damages people. As does every sin, of course. But the difference is that most other sins do not undermine a future marriage relationship as much as premarital sex does. And a failed marriage hurts kids and thus the damage is perpetuated. So no, these are not good sexual ethics for Christians to use, as they are not Christian and do not take the reality of sin into account.
summary of the sexual ethics presented in a book called Love Does No Harm by Marie Fortune. Here they are:
5 Guidelines for Sexual Ethics
1. Peer Relationship: Is my choice of intimate partner a peer, i.e. someone whose power is relatively equal to mine? We must limit our sexual interactions to our peers. Some people are off limits for our sexual interests.
2. Authentic Consent: Are both my partner and I authentically consenting to our sexual interaction? Both of us must have information, awareness, equal power and the option to say "no" without being punished, as well as the option to say "yes."
3. Stewardship of my Sexuality: Do I take responsibility for protecting myself and my partner against sexually transmitted diseases and to insure reproductive choice? This is a question of stewardship (the wise care for and management of the gift of sexuality) and anticipating the literal consequences of our actions. Taking this responsibility seriously presupposes a relationship: knowing someone over time and sharing a history in which trust can develop.
4. Sharing of Pleasure: Am I committed to sharing sexual pleasure and intimacy in my relationships? My concern should be both for my own needs and those of my partner.
5. Faithfulness: Am I faithful to my promises and commitments? Whatever the nature of a commitment to one's partner and whatever the duration of that commitment, fidelity requires honesty and the keeping of promises. Change in an individual may require a change in the commitment which hopefully can be achieved through open and honest communication.
All in all, these are not a bad set of guidelines. I don't think there is a whole lot in there to argue with - possibly the "ensure reproductive choice" thing and the part in the last one about how fluid our sense of commitment should be. It is also clear that number 3 doesn't actually require a pre-existing relationship. If I've got some disease, I could just be following simple human decency by putting on a condom; no long-term relationship is necessary. But for a secular set of sexual ethics these would probably lead, if followed, to some healthier choices regarding sexual activity.
These are, however, not written by a secular author but by a minister. And while the author's intended audience is not specifically Christian, "she believes these guidelines would be put to good use in Christian circles as well." Really? A set of ethical guidelines that fails to include any consideration of the biblical witness, the historical witness of the Church or any reference to God or Jesus could be well-used by Christians? I find that sentiment deeply troubling. Moreover, I find Fortune's assumption that an ethic of love that separates and subordinates the Gospel to itself is even possible for a Christian to ponder repellent. Yes, God is love, but we cannot extract that statement from the love God has shown us in Christ. We cannot attempt to shake off the rootedness of that reality in the narrative of God's activity in the world, first through Israel and then through the Church. That is precisely how we know God is love! We are not permitted to take that statement out of its context and try to develop an ethic, a theology or any other system of thought. If we do that, we immediately demonstrate that this is not something we are trying to say about God but about ourselves, about our own way of thinking, our own goals and desires. Which is why we can talk about "reproductive choice" as if it impacted only us as individuals, and not the child in the womb or God in heaven. It is why the sexual ethics we try to create for ourselves make no mention of any external moral set other than respecting the other person's freedom. It is only our choice and their choice that matters, and it is little surprise that Adam's post includes negative commentary on the propensity for the "modern" church to focus so much on convincing youth not to have sex. That is forcing something upon them, not respecting their choices and making them feel guilty about something that should be celebrated.
Needless to say, this is a dangerous game to play. It is true that the evangelical church's youth culture has seized upon abstinence as seemingly the end-all and be-all of youth programs. This is clearly imbalanced - the norms of chastity need to encompass more than just sex, but it is also obvious why sex is so important to youth leaders: it damages people. As does every sin, of course. But the difference is that most other sins do not undermine a future marriage relationship as much as premarital sex does. And a failed marriage hurts kids and thus the damage is perpetuated. So no, these are not good sexual ethics for Christians to use, as they are not Christian and do not take the reality of sin into account.
4.25.2006
Just 2 short weeks...
...and this semester will finally be over. No more painfully boring anatomy lectures, no more Saturday morning microbiology labs - ahhhhh, sweet freedom. I've only got a brief presentation for micro, and the 2 finals. I've currently got 101% in my micro class and could actually fail the anatomy final and still make an A for the semester, so I'm really not sweating finals this time around. While next fall will likely be rather nightmarish in terms of class-load, I'm going to put that out of my mind and enjoy the next few months of school-free days.
4.24.2006
Paschal vigil
Saturday night the wife and I went to the Paschal Vigil at St. Nick's. She actually got there a little later since she had been out of town with her mother at a woman's retreat that day, which unfortunately left her with a horrible sinus headache which caused us to leave early. When your wife is on the verge of tears because her head hurts so badly (and you know the incense only makes it worse), you just gotta leave no matter how much you want to stay or how much she protests that she's ok. So we left before the processional, which was unfortunate, and the post-vigil feast (even more unfortunate), but what I saw was enough. I craved what I saw, I wanted to be able to fully participate in that. When the catechumen came forward to be chrismated, I wished we were up there beside her. I want the fullness of the faith and I believe I saw it Saturday night. Which, of course, makes the tension between me and the wife on this issue all the more acute. We see eye-to-eye on practically all other matters - most without need for discussion, so how can we be so far apart on this?
4.16.2006
Odd going back
Friday night we went with the mother-in-law to her church's Good Friday service (the father-in-law is in Africa right now). It was the first time I had been to a Protestant church since starting at St Nick's back in late August or early September. The church is fairly large with about 2000 members (I think) and 3 services on most weekends. I've met the senior pastor before and heard him speak on other occassions; he's a good preacher if a little frenetic at times.
The service was interesting. There was a spoken word portion that served as a set up for some of the songs, the brief sermon and the close of the service, which was quite well done. They had a goodly sized choir that did a couple of performance pieces but also backed up the worship leader on a couple of praise choruses. Aside from being poorly mic'ed, they were also good. The worship leader was definitely not to my taste - a lot of repetition of choruses and at one point he stood for a full minute with his tead tossed rapturously back. I will give him credit for picking a couple of older hymns that were God-focused (rather than me- or emotion-focused) and which were performed well. The SP gave a brief sermon about the Last Supper and we then proceeded to take communion after taking a few minutes "to do business with God." I have always found it quite remarkable that almost everyone's business with God lasts the same amount of time, ie, until someone gets the guts to stand up. Once that individual has completed his/her transaction with the Almighty most everyone seems to wrap their dealings up pretty quickly. It was one of those serve-yourself affairs with little cups of juice and pea-sized bits of bread. The SP seemed - to me, anyways, I'm sure I'm sensitized to it given our current church situation - to focus an awful lot on the "remembrance" and "symbols" aspect of communion almost at the expense of any other theme he was trying to develop. All-in-all it was a good service, though the flow of things was a little disjointed and it ended rather abruptly and in such a way that most people weren't sure if it was actually done.
But to me it all seemed vaguely foreign. Some elements felt forced, some felt overly emotional and it all felt very showy. Having worked at a church that viewed its Sunday service as an evangelism tool and not a time of focused worship (my mother-in-law's church isn't even close to the church I worked at, but it does share some of the same values in regards to its services) I know Good Friday/Easter Sunday are one of the prime "hook" events of the year - a chance to show the crowds what you've got and see if you can't hook some of them into coming back. There are a lot of motivations behind that "hook", some very good and some quite questionable. Whatever the reason, the quality of the performance on stage, be it music, drama, speaking or other elements, is a prime focus because that is what will bring people back. It is self-conscious to one degree or another and that is something wholly lacking in Orthodoxy. For Orthodoxy, worship is worship and meant for God alone. Whatever aesthetic qualities that are present are there to glorify God; that they please human senses is quite incidental to their purpose. I'm sure there are Protestant churches that strive for this ideal, but this seems like something inherent in Orthodoxy. And having imbibed of that un(self)conscious worship for the last several months, being back in the presence of it was unsettling. It just felt odd. Wherever this church journey takes us, it cannot be to a church that is concerned with how it looks to outsiders over and against how it looks to God.
The service was interesting. There was a spoken word portion that served as a set up for some of the songs, the brief sermon and the close of the service, which was quite well done. They had a goodly sized choir that did a couple of performance pieces but also backed up the worship leader on a couple of praise choruses. Aside from being poorly mic'ed, they were also good. The worship leader was definitely not to my taste - a lot of repetition of choruses and at one point he stood for a full minute with his tead tossed rapturously back. I will give him credit for picking a couple of older hymns that were God-focused (rather than me- or emotion-focused) and which were performed well. The SP gave a brief sermon about the Last Supper and we then proceeded to take communion after taking a few minutes "to do business with God." I have always found it quite remarkable that almost everyone's business with God lasts the same amount of time, ie, until someone gets the guts to stand up. Once that individual has completed his/her transaction with the Almighty most everyone seems to wrap their dealings up pretty quickly. It was one of those serve-yourself affairs with little cups of juice and pea-sized bits of bread. The SP seemed - to me, anyways, I'm sure I'm sensitized to it given our current church situation - to focus an awful lot on the "remembrance" and "symbols" aspect of communion almost at the expense of any other theme he was trying to develop. All-in-all it was a good service, though the flow of things was a little disjointed and it ended rather abruptly and in such a way that most people weren't sure if it was actually done.
But to me it all seemed vaguely foreign. Some elements felt forced, some felt overly emotional and it all felt very showy. Having worked at a church that viewed its Sunday service as an evangelism tool and not a time of focused worship (my mother-in-law's church isn't even close to the church I worked at, but it does share some of the same values in regards to its services) I know Good Friday/Easter Sunday are one of the prime "hook" events of the year - a chance to show the crowds what you've got and see if you can't hook some of them into coming back. There are a lot of motivations behind that "hook", some very good and some quite questionable. Whatever the reason, the quality of the performance on stage, be it music, drama, speaking or other elements, is a prime focus because that is what will bring people back. It is self-conscious to one degree or another and that is something wholly lacking in Orthodoxy. For Orthodoxy, worship is worship and meant for God alone. Whatever aesthetic qualities that are present are there to glorify God; that they please human senses is quite incidental to their purpose. I'm sure there are Protestant churches that strive for this ideal, but this seems like something inherent in Orthodoxy. And having imbibed of that un(self)conscious worship for the last several months, being back in the presence of it was unsettling. It just felt odd. Wherever this church journey takes us, it cannot be to a church that is concerned with how it looks to outsiders over and against how it looks to God.
4.11.2006
The bite of sarcasm
Jeff Wright (linked at right) has generated a minor buzz of controversy and the beginning throws (as in unwarranted mudslinging) of debate by referencing some group called "War On Easter." WOE (an ironic acronym, that one) is apparently planning on easter-egging 666 copies of some anti-Christian DVD in churches across the nation. I'd link to their website, which apparently contains a FAQ, but it is currently down. While trying to find a Google-cache of the site I discovered it was down due to a denial of service attack, which one commenter seems to think is Jeff's doing. Another claims Christians need to undergo a sex-change operation before we can understand the plight of women - what those Christians who are already women are supposed to do is as yet unclear. Hopefully future updates will clue us all in. I, too, left a post sarcastically condemning Jeff for excercising his free speech rights, which was unfortunately misunderstood and the source of his query in the comments of my previous post.
4.10.2006
Distractions and struggle
As one can tell from scanning the last few posts, my posting frequency has fallen off quite a bit lately. There a variety of reasons for this but most have either to do with petty distractions that keep cropping up and the ongoing struggle the wife and I are having with Orthodoxy. Together, they have both served to leave me feeling somewhat drained lately. Work, which I normally enjoy, has taken on a new dimension of difficulty. As my prayer life has dwindled, so too has my ability to find joy in the simple acts of service I provide those under my care. So when it becomes all too apparent that opportunities for learning are growing ever scarcer, my motivation to work, to try to serve my patients fades away. I have also been working through a rather painful shoulder injury which I woke up with the day after we got back from our vacation in Arizona and a fairly chronic spate of fatique. Those will be addressed at a doctor's appointment Monday morning.
I think one of the biggest problems lately, though, has been the wife's steadfast reservations about Orthodoxy. I found some of the resources I had asked for on baptism a few weeks back and we had some good discussions on that. She says she understands the Church's perspective better but still has her doubts. The same is true of the Eucharist, the sacraments in general, icons & saints and the hierarchy. What, to me, are or have been completely resolvable issues, are for her major stumbling blocks. It has led to much heartache for both of us and she has stated repeatedly that she wishes there was some middle ground, some safe place between Orthodoxy and Protestantism. The only option would seem to be Anglicanism, but the Pontificator has surely turned me off on that option. And even if he hadn't, once you've become convinced (or at least largely convinced) of the truth claims of Orthodoxy, you don't want to go halfway. I don't want a middle ground; I want the solid ground of the Church, but right now, I don't know if that's ever going to happen.
Please pray for me, in my struggles with work and prayer, and for us, in our wrestling over Orthodoxy.
I think one of the biggest problems lately, though, has been the wife's steadfast reservations about Orthodoxy. I found some of the resources I had asked for on baptism a few weeks back and we had some good discussions on that. She says she understands the Church's perspective better but still has her doubts. The same is true of the Eucharist, the sacraments in general, icons & saints and the hierarchy. What, to me, are or have been completely resolvable issues, are for her major stumbling blocks. It has led to much heartache for both of us and she has stated repeatedly that she wishes there was some middle ground, some safe place between Orthodoxy and Protestantism. The only option would seem to be Anglicanism, but the Pontificator has surely turned me off on that option. And even if he hadn't, once you've become convinced (or at least largely convinced) of the truth claims of Orthodoxy, you don't want to go halfway. I don't want a middle ground; I want the solid ground of the Church, but right now, I don't know if that's ever going to happen.
Please pray for me, in my struggles with work and prayer, and for us, in our wrestling over Orthodoxy.
4.06.2006
It seems anyone can become a hero
Yes, even Judas. A new 3rd or 4th century work called the "Gospel of Judas" claims that Christ asked Judas to betray him, which "pained Judas greatly." Apparently the struggle with the religious left has been going on for some time.
An archeologist claims the work has been age-authenticated through variuos means and is a genuine bit of "Christian apochryphal literature." I personally don't care when the document was written, but does it really make sense to call it Christian?
An archeologist claims the work has been age-authenticated through variuos means and is a genuine bit of "Christian apochryphal literature." I personally don't care when the document was written, but does it really make sense to call it Christian?
3.23.2006
Icons as narrative: What story do we tell ourselves?
Earlier this week, I received a call from our parish priest. Since we had been out of town, he had not had a chance to ask us about our status relative to joining this Pascha. I told him I was pretty close to being ready - I still struggle with some things but am willing to submit and trust that God will work them out for me as things progress - but that the wife was not; her questions and doubts are still just too big. [Which, incidentally is both fine with me and quite frightening; I respect her need to take things slowly and to really mull them over. I don't want to push her or force her into a decision she will later regret. But I'm also worried that she may never "come around" and what that will mean for the rest of my church-going life and the stresses that will introduce in our marriage. But I digress.] Our priest, being the good man and leader that he is, offered to meet with us and did not put any pressure on us to hurry up and decide. We talked for several minutes and he asked about my experience in youth ministry and wanted to know if, when/if we decided to join, I'd be interested in helping out with the kids. I told him I was definitely interested and we talked about that briefly before moving on.
But that got me thinking. I was, first, flattered that our priest wanted to get me involved in that way. Even though I'd be volunteering under someone else's supervision, that is still a leadership position and I'm grateful that he considered me for it. But it also got me thinking about what youth ministry in the Orthodox context might look like and how I would approach teaching the kids and talking to parents. One of my biggest focuses in working with youth is getting them to critically evaluate our culture; what does it contain? how does it affect us? and is that good or bad? Clearly there are good things in our culture, but there are also many corrosive, even satanic, principles that infiltrate us everyday. Particularly kids and most particularly in the media aimed at them. So how would I get kids to think about what they're watching and what it is doing to them? And I immediately thought of icons. Actually, I thought of one icon, that of St John the Forerunner, as it appears on the iconostasis at St. Nick's.
St John is pictured, one hand raised pointing upwards, the other clutching a scroll, dark robe, unkempt hair & beard, exposed legs & sandaled feet, and his severed head situtated in the lower corner. If you take the time to contemplate this image, it is striking how many narrative details spring immediately to mind. His upraised hand is indicative of his role as the herald of Christ, the scroll his prophetic fulfillment. His untidy appearance, coarse robe and exposed legs show his humility and ascetical life in the wilderness; "hair shirt" and "locusts and honey" echo in your mind. And his "extra" head in the lower corner reminds us how he died, like the Christ he was sent to proclaim, at the hands of unjust despot. If we take a moment to really see what is in front of us, the story of St John's life and role in salvation history is unconsciously reinforced. We reflexively tell it to ourselves again every time we see that icon, and in so doing, it takes deeper root in who we are, how we think and what we believe.
In the same way, the media we imbibe, particularly visual media with its rich weaving of both color and sound, unconsciously takes root in us. But what is the story it tells us, or rather, what is the story we tell ourselves when we engage this media? What are we reinforcing in our own minds and spirits when we get hooked into a show or series? Most of the shows aimed at teens focus on relationship drama and the closely related cause & effect of promiscuity, drugs and violence. These tell kids not just that pre-marital sex is perfectly fine, parents are stupid, materialism is the way to go and that drugs & alcohol are required to have fun, but also that relationships are inherently unstable and commitment but a fairytale. To see people constantly break-up, get back together, cheat, lie and hurt each other only reinforces that such is normal, which it most certainly is not. This, I think, is perhaps the greatest danger of these stories; at best they promote serial monogamy, at worst a state of chronic debauchery and pointless self-indulgence. It would take a great deal of study to determine if this mode of living is a result of these kinds of stories or vice-versa. Either way, with the age of first sexual experience seeming to spiral ever lower, I believe it is clear that this generation is going to grow up emotionally scarred from so many lost loves, abuses and betrayals. The potential for negative effects on their children and our society are obvious; a generation that cannot find the discipline and self-denial necessary to maintain relational commitment cannot model that to the next in any context. Not in the home, work, school, to our fellow countrymen and neighbors. Nor, most importantly, to God.
But that got me thinking. I was, first, flattered that our priest wanted to get me involved in that way. Even though I'd be volunteering under someone else's supervision, that is still a leadership position and I'm grateful that he considered me for it. But it also got me thinking about what youth ministry in the Orthodox context might look like and how I would approach teaching the kids and talking to parents. One of my biggest focuses in working with youth is getting them to critically evaluate our culture; what does it contain? how does it affect us? and is that good or bad? Clearly there are good things in our culture, but there are also many corrosive, even satanic, principles that infiltrate us everyday. Particularly kids and most particularly in the media aimed at them. So how would I get kids to think about what they're watching and what it is doing to them? And I immediately thought of icons. Actually, I thought of one icon, that of St John the Forerunner, as it appears on the iconostasis at St. Nick's.
St John is pictured, one hand raised pointing upwards, the other clutching a scroll, dark robe, unkempt hair & beard, exposed legs & sandaled feet, and his severed head situtated in the lower corner. If you take the time to contemplate this image, it is striking how many narrative details spring immediately to mind. His upraised hand is indicative of his role as the herald of Christ, the scroll his prophetic fulfillment. His untidy appearance, coarse robe and exposed legs show his humility and ascetical life in the wilderness; "hair shirt" and "locusts and honey" echo in your mind. And his "extra" head in the lower corner reminds us how he died, like the Christ he was sent to proclaim, at the hands of unjust despot. If we take a moment to really see what is in front of us, the story of St John's life and role in salvation history is unconsciously reinforced. We reflexively tell it to ourselves again every time we see that icon, and in so doing, it takes deeper root in who we are, how we think and what we believe.
In the same way, the media we imbibe, particularly visual media with its rich weaving of both color and sound, unconsciously takes root in us. But what is the story it tells us, or rather, what is the story we tell ourselves when we engage this media? What are we reinforcing in our own minds and spirits when we get hooked into a show or series? Most of the shows aimed at teens focus on relationship drama and the closely related cause & effect of promiscuity, drugs and violence. These tell kids not just that pre-marital sex is perfectly fine, parents are stupid, materialism is the way to go and that drugs & alcohol are required to have fun, but also that relationships are inherently unstable and commitment but a fairytale. To see people constantly break-up, get back together, cheat, lie and hurt each other only reinforces that such is normal, which it most certainly is not. This, I think, is perhaps the greatest danger of these stories; at best they promote serial monogamy, at worst a state of chronic debauchery and pointless self-indulgence. It would take a great deal of study to determine if this mode of living is a result of these kinds of stories or vice-versa. Either way, with the age of first sexual experience seeming to spiral ever lower, I believe it is clear that this generation is going to grow up emotionally scarred from so many lost loves, abuses and betrayals. The potential for negative effects on their children and our society are obvious; a generation that cannot find the discipline and self-denial necessary to maintain relational commitment cannot model that to the next in any context. Not in the home, work, school, to our fellow countrymen and neighbors. Nor, most importantly, to God.
3.21.2006
Long story short...
Even though the letters were not supposed to come out until the end of this week, through a providential turn of events last night I found out that I was accepted into the nursing program. I am in one of 20 available slots out of a few hundred applicants. The wife and I both agree, quite obviously, that this is good confirmation that here is where God wants us to be right now.
We, thy thankful and unworthy servants, praise and glorify thee, O Lord, for they great benefits which we have received; we bless thee, we thank thee, we sing to thee and we magnify thy great goodness, and in lowliness and love we hymn thee: O Benefactor and Saviour, glory to thee.
We, thy thankful and unworthy servants, praise and glorify thee, O Lord, for they great benefits which we have received; we bless thee, we thank thee, we sing to thee and we magnify thy great goodness, and in lowliness and love we hymn thee: O Benefactor and Saviour, glory to thee.
3.19.2006
Baptism resources
Of late, the wife and I have gotten into several discussions, sometimes heatedly, on the issue of infant baptism in the Orthodox Church. And by extension the practice of communing infants, as well. To me, they are of a set. If the infant has been baptized into the body of Christ, then there seems no logical theological reason to exclude them from the Eucharist. We've kind of been running around in circles but have finally gotten to a point where fruitful discussion is more likely, so I'm hoping that some Orthodoxy-knowledgeable person can point me in the right direction for some good online and book resources that provide theological, biblical and historical support for Orthodoxy's paedo-baptism. Any help is greatly appreciated.
3.16.2006
"...growing from the size of a marble...
to a volume larger than all observable space in less than a trillionth-trillionth of a second."
But, you know, this all just sort of happened on its own.
But, you know, this all just sort of happened on its own.
3.15.2006
Obsession?
In the "Letters to the Editor" section of this months Atlantic comes this little gem in response to The Year of the Two Popes in the Jan/Feb edition:
"If the Holy See could come down to earth, get over its obsessions with contraception, abortion rights, in vitro fertilization, divorce, homosexuality, and male dominance - obsessions most First World Catholics do not share - and concentrate on the social-justice and ethical teachings of the Nazarene carpenter, it could make enormous contributions toward helping to solve the myriad real problems facing humankind today."
The problems with this kind of thinking are legion. First, casually dismissing some of the most important ethical and moral debates of our time - issues that directly affect the lives (deaths) of some 1 million plus unborn children each year, hundreds of thousands of marriages and the emotional-mental-spiritual health of the members of this generation who actually survived to see their parents split - is not at all in line with Jesus' thinking. That the circumstances of the Church in a secular nation are different from the world in which the first Christians found themselves, and thus requiring different responses, is almost painfully obvious. This sentiment would seem to imply that Christians are required to remain silent precisely because we live in a democracy wherein those collective voices can actually have an impact; apparently it is only under tyrannical regimes that politically powerless Christians may give breath to their views on such matters.
Second, while helping to solve the myriad "real" problems that humankind faces today (though I must admit that I find it hard to believe that anyone would label the above-named "obsessions" as unreal) would indeed be very nice, that is not the Church's mission. The Church is not a humanitarian organization and it is neither a charity nor a philanthropic society; it is the Church sent to proclaim that aforementioned Nazarene carpenter and Him more than just a teacher with strong ethics and a penchant for social-justice. Whatever these "real" problems actually are, I have no doubt that at their root we will find the only problem that matters: sin. And if my recollection serves, I think that carpenter had a few things to say about that.
And finally, there is the vapid premise that these "obsessions" mean little to First World Catholics. Protestors with rainbow sashes are not obstructing the administration of the Eucharist in the Third World, and frankly, in the slums of African no one is very concerned with abortion rights (which is not to say that abortions do not happen, only that the political construction of "abortion rights" isn't really the issue Third World Catholics are obsessing over). I would also be very interested to meet those TWC's who are overly concerned with in vitro fertilization, because while FWC's may show similar disinterest in the moral dimension of IVF it is quite clear that they are the only Catholics who can actually afford such procedures.
"If the Holy See could come down to earth, get over its obsessions with contraception, abortion rights, in vitro fertilization, divorce, homosexuality, and male dominance - obsessions most First World Catholics do not share - and concentrate on the social-justice and ethical teachings of the Nazarene carpenter, it could make enormous contributions toward helping to solve the myriad real problems facing humankind today."
The problems with this kind of thinking are legion. First, casually dismissing some of the most important ethical and moral debates of our time - issues that directly affect the lives (deaths) of some 1 million plus unborn children each year, hundreds of thousands of marriages and the emotional-mental-spiritual health of the members of this generation who actually survived to see their parents split - is not at all in line with Jesus' thinking. That the circumstances of the Church in a secular nation are different from the world in which the first Christians found themselves, and thus requiring different responses, is almost painfully obvious. This sentiment would seem to imply that Christians are required to remain silent precisely because we live in a democracy wherein those collective voices can actually have an impact; apparently it is only under tyrannical regimes that politically powerless Christians may give breath to their views on such matters.
Second, while helping to solve the myriad "real" problems that humankind faces today (though I must admit that I find it hard to believe that anyone would label the above-named "obsessions" as unreal) would indeed be very nice, that is not the Church's mission. The Church is not a humanitarian organization and it is neither a charity nor a philanthropic society; it is the Church sent to proclaim that aforementioned Nazarene carpenter and Him more than just a teacher with strong ethics and a penchant for social-justice. Whatever these "real" problems actually are, I have no doubt that at their root we will find the only problem that matters: sin. And if my recollection serves, I think that carpenter had a few things to say about that.
And finally, there is the vapid premise that these "obsessions" mean little to First World Catholics. Protestors with rainbow sashes are not obstructing the administration of the Eucharist in the Third World, and frankly, in the slums of African no one is very concerned with abortion rights (which is not to say that abortions do not happen, only that the political construction of "abortion rights" isn't really the issue Third World Catholics are obsessing over). I would also be very interested to meet those TWC's who are overly concerned with in vitro fertilization, because while FWC's may show similar disinterest in the moral dimension of IVF it is quite clear that they are the only Catholics who can actually afford such procedures.
3.10.2006
Back in the 4-8-0
The wife and I are currently in Arizona visiting family and friends. Yesterday, my mom took a day off from work and the three of us went out to get coffee and spent 3 hours talking a lot about life, faith, Orthodoxy and where we see ourselves going in the next few years. It was an interesting conversation and it reminded me that Orthodoxy is still largely an unknown to a big majority of Americans who confuse it with Catholicism. My mom, who was raised Methodist, seemed to learn a lot and come away from the conversation with a much improved understanding, so that was good. But it was just nice to have 3 uninterrupted hours to sit back and shoot the breeze with her and the wife. I only wish my brother and step-dad could have been there.
We're seeing various friends over the next few days, which reminds that the nostalgia I feel for this place is just that and the warm feelings of the past will never be rekindled like they were. Even a couple of years ago, all I would have had to do coming back into town is call one of any number of people and we would have immediately been drawn back into the network of friends. There would have been some group gathering either planned due to our return or already in the works. But that is no longer the case; what was once a relatively tight-knit group of friends has suffered the steady attrition that marriage, work, moving and the struggles of daily life inevitably introduces. It will never be the same and I have to remind myself of that. I'm left with the inescapable conclusion that this is a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live here.
We're seeing various friends over the next few days, which reminds that the nostalgia I feel for this place is just that and the warm feelings of the past will never be rekindled like they were. Even a couple of years ago, all I would have had to do coming back into town is call one of any number of people and we would have immediately been drawn back into the network of friends. There would have been some group gathering either planned due to our return or already in the works. But that is no longer the case; what was once a relatively tight-knit group of friends has suffered the steady attrition that marriage, work, moving and the struggles of daily life inevitably introduces. It will never be the same and I have to remind myself of that. I'm left with the inescapable conclusion that this is a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live here.
3.07.2006
Necrotizing fasciitis ate my butt...
OR Why the little things matter.
Today I helped do a dressing change on a guy who has a gigantic wound on his butt from the a very bad internal infection that was not detected until they did a little work to clean up a very minor, superficial wound. Once they started they realized that this infection was deep, dangerous and spreading fast, so they did some emergency surgery to clean out the infected tissue. This infection was not going to respond to antibiotics and playing wait-and-see would likely have killed him.
They had to go in aggressively. So he now has a 4" deep crater about the size of a dinner plate a little up and to the side on his rear end. Its a huge wound and one that is going to take a long time to heal. I mean months of being in a hospital, of needing medication and a special diet. While its open he will be at risk for other infections, sepsis and is in for a whole lot of pain - lots and lots of pain. He will be left with a huge scar and will require skin grafts, which themselves will be quite painful and leave scars. For the next several months, his whole life is going to revolve around that wound and his healing progress, or lack thereof depending on his body's ability to heal and good care, will determine the quality of the rest of his life. And possibly its length.
The worst part about all of this, though, is that this all started with a tiny little bed-sore. A little bitty break-down in his skin, probably no bigger than a pencil eraser, that in all likelihood could have been prevented with good skin-care and regular turns. And these are minor things, tiny little jobs that don't take more than a few minutes of a caregiver's time. But either they couldn't be bothered, or he wouldn't let himself be bothered long enough to get these things accomplished. It is a very little thing to turn a patient or apply some protective ointment. It is clear now to him, and to his family and to everyone who has suffered like this, and to me, that these little things matter. They are not dramatic, they generally win little thanks and certainly one is not well-compensated for performing them. But oh, do they matter and perhaps they are not so little, after all.
Now to my real point. In our relationship with God, that seemingly endless movement of ebb and flow, passion and apathy, it is the little things that matter the most. The little things of prayer, of devotion, self-denial - the daily disciplines that sharpen the edges of our faith and make it stronger - are what make the biggest difference for us and those around us. While we are "healthy", when we shrug many temptations off with ease and we feel nearly constantly in the presence of the Spirit, we can tend to get lax in our discipline and overlook those little things; at least I know I do. And in those times, such failures may not be catastrophic and may even be inconsequential in that immediate space of time. But(t) when we are unhealthy, when we are beset by temptation and God feels not just absent but nonexistent, if we have not cultivated those little disciplines, then we are in a for a very rude awakening. In those times of struggle and weakness, the seemingly insignificant wounds produced by ignoring those little things can blossom into deadly infections almost overnight. What starts as a minor annoyance, a small frustration or temptation may end up leaving scars we never thought possible.
Today I helped do a dressing change on a guy who has a gigantic wound on his butt from the a very bad internal infection that was not detected until they did a little work to clean up a very minor, superficial wound. Once they started they realized that this infection was deep, dangerous and spreading fast, so they did some emergency surgery to clean out the infected tissue. This infection was not going to respond to antibiotics and playing wait-and-see would likely have killed him.
They had to go in aggressively. So he now has a 4" deep crater about the size of a dinner plate a little up and to the side on his rear end. Its a huge wound and one that is going to take a long time to heal. I mean months of being in a hospital, of needing medication and a special diet. While its open he will be at risk for other infections, sepsis and is in for a whole lot of pain - lots and lots of pain. He will be left with a huge scar and will require skin grafts, which themselves will be quite painful and leave scars. For the next several months, his whole life is going to revolve around that wound and his healing progress, or lack thereof depending on his body's ability to heal and good care, will determine the quality of the rest of his life. And possibly its length.
The worst part about all of this, though, is that this all started with a tiny little bed-sore. A little bitty break-down in his skin, probably no bigger than a pencil eraser, that in all likelihood could have been prevented with good skin-care and regular turns. And these are minor things, tiny little jobs that don't take more than a few minutes of a caregiver's time. But either they couldn't be bothered, or he wouldn't let himself be bothered long enough to get these things accomplished. It is a very little thing to turn a patient or apply some protective ointment. It is clear now to him, and to his family and to everyone who has suffered like this, and to me, that these little things matter. They are not dramatic, they generally win little thanks and certainly one is not well-compensated for performing them. But oh, do they matter and perhaps they are not so little, after all.
Now to my real point. In our relationship with God, that seemingly endless movement of ebb and flow, passion and apathy, it is the little things that matter the most. The little things of prayer, of devotion, self-denial - the daily disciplines that sharpen the edges of our faith and make it stronger - are what make the biggest difference for us and those around us. While we are "healthy", when we shrug many temptations off with ease and we feel nearly constantly in the presence of the Spirit, we can tend to get lax in our discipline and overlook those little things; at least I know I do. And in those times, such failures may not be catastrophic and may even be inconsequential in that immediate space of time. But(t) when we are unhealthy, when we are beset by temptation and God feels not just absent but nonexistent, if we have not cultivated those little disciplines, then we are in a for a very rude awakening. In those times of struggle and weakness, the seemingly insignificant wounds produced by ignoring those little things can blossom into deadly infections almost overnight. What starts as a minor annoyance, a small frustration or temptation may end up leaving scars we never thought possible.
I wish I had kept count
Another oddity in the ol' textbooks that I noticed this week - the phrases "spontaneously assemble" and "self-assemble" seem to to pop up quite often in discussions regarding the tiniest building blocks of life. There's no explanation of how these little molecules know how to combine in exactly the right way (and yes, there are frequently other possible configurations), or how they know to get together in the first place. Apparently these things just kind of happen. And I wish I had kept count of each time these phrases appeared so I'd know how often.
2.28.2006
The creation of man
Having become more than a little bored with anatomy and microbiology readings and with Great Lent and Holy Pascha upon us, I decided to undertake some readings in the Church Fathers, specifically Ss. Chrysostom and Athanasius.
I briefly scanned Chrysostom's On the Priesthood but was forced to put it aside - not for any defect in the writing, but because of certain realizations I had when reading even the small sections I made it through. I hope to expand more on this in the future when I am able to take the work up again, but basically I came to understand that in all likelihood I was fired from my youth pastor position because God was sparing me the judgment that was my due for not taking my pastoral duties seriously enough. There were aspects of that position I was quite good at, others where I needed some work or mentoring, but the reality is that I did not the charge of those young souls with the depth and gravity such resonsibility warranted.
This theme of "being spared" actually came up in a book by Fr (or was he a bishop?) Anthony Bloom on prayer. I don't want to get to in-depth with that right now, but in discussing those times when we fell cut off from God in prayer it may be because God is sparing us his presence because of the damage it could do to us at that time. If we are in sin or unrepentant, or if our attention is elsewhere, then the presence of God could be to our judgement and condemnation instead of our salvation. This theme also came up in "Mary: The Untrodden Portal", wherein the author argues that the curse of death was not a punishment for Adam and Eve's trangression; rather, removing them from the Garden was God's way of keeping sin, and the resulting separation from God, eternal. Had they eaten of the Tree of Life, their rebellion would have been made permanent with no chance of redemption.
St Athanasius also discusses creation in his "Incarnation of the Word", again in the context of being spared. But his is a point I found quite startling:
For transgression of the commandment was turning them back to their natural state, so that just as they have had their being out of nothing, so also, as might be expected, they might look for corruption into nothing in the course of time. For if, out of a former normal state of non-existence, they were called into being by the Presence and loving-kindness of the Word, it followed naturally that when men were bereft of the knowledge of God and were turned back to what was not (for what is evil is not, but what is good is), they should, since they derive their being from God, who IS, be everlastingly bereft even of being; in other words, that they should be disintegrated and abide in death and corruption. Incarnation, 4:4-5
You see, I had always assumed that man had been created "on high", so to speak, that we were made at an elevated level. Adam's human perfection (as opposed to the true perfection of God) was an inherent part of his being - put there by God no doubt, but still something integral to who and what he was. But Athanasius says otherwise; man was created out of corruptible and impermanent matter and is, therefore, by nature corruptible and impermanent. It is only man's knowledge of God and participation in God's life that pulls man up out of nothingness and impermanence into being. When Adam turned to rebellion, he turned away from being and "looked for corruption into nothing...." Man, then, was not created at an elevation from which we fell. Rather, Adam was made at the bottom of this metaphoric mountain and raised to the top by communion with God. At the top of that mountain, he rebelled and fell back to the bottom.
Our "elevation" was, and still is, always external to us. This lays to rest any notion of man's inherent goodness or ability to raise himself up to God's level, to earn heaven. How can the imperfect, corruptible nature of man makes itself perfect and incorruptible? How can the flawed make itself into the unflawed? How can the product make itself into the source? This vision, of man being raised up and falling down, of our being actually existing outside of us, has profound implications. And it is helping me to see the contours of the seamless Orthodox theology - more on that later.
I briefly scanned Chrysostom's On the Priesthood but was forced to put it aside - not for any defect in the writing, but because of certain realizations I had when reading even the small sections I made it through. I hope to expand more on this in the future when I am able to take the work up again, but basically I came to understand that in all likelihood I was fired from my youth pastor position because God was sparing me the judgment that was my due for not taking my pastoral duties seriously enough. There were aspects of that position I was quite good at, others where I needed some work or mentoring, but the reality is that I did not the charge of those young souls with the depth and gravity such resonsibility warranted.
This theme of "being spared" actually came up in a book by Fr (or was he a bishop?) Anthony Bloom on prayer. I don't want to get to in-depth with that right now, but in discussing those times when we fell cut off from God in prayer it may be because God is sparing us his presence because of the damage it could do to us at that time. If we are in sin or unrepentant, or if our attention is elsewhere, then the presence of God could be to our judgement and condemnation instead of our salvation. This theme also came up in "Mary: The Untrodden Portal", wherein the author argues that the curse of death was not a punishment for Adam and Eve's trangression; rather, removing them from the Garden was God's way of keeping sin, and the resulting separation from God, eternal. Had they eaten of the Tree of Life, their rebellion would have been made permanent with no chance of redemption.
St Athanasius also discusses creation in his "Incarnation of the Word", again in the context of being spared. But his is a point I found quite startling:
For transgression of the commandment was turning them back to their natural state, so that just as they have had their being out of nothing, so also, as might be expected, they might look for corruption into nothing in the course of time. For if, out of a former normal state of non-existence, they were called into being by the Presence and loving-kindness of the Word, it followed naturally that when men were bereft of the knowledge of God and were turned back to what was not (for what is evil is not, but what is good is), they should, since they derive their being from God, who IS, be everlastingly bereft even of being; in other words, that they should be disintegrated and abide in death and corruption. Incarnation, 4:4-5
You see, I had always assumed that man had been created "on high", so to speak, that we were made at an elevated level. Adam's human perfection (as opposed to the true perfection of God) was an inherent part of his being - put there by God no doubt, but still something integral to who and what he was. But Athanasius says otherwise; man was created out of corruptible and impermanent matter and is, therefore, by nature corruptible and impermanent. It is only man's knowledge of God and participation in God's life that pulls man up out of nothingness and impermanence into being. When Adam turned to rebellion, he turned away from being and "looked for corruption into nothing...." Man, then, was not created at an elevation from which we fell. Rather, Adam was made at the bottom of this metaphoric mountain and raised to the top by communion with God. At the top of that mountain, he rebelled and fell back to the bottom.
Our "elevation" was, and still is, always external to us. This lays to rest any notion of man's inherent goodness or ability to raise himself up to God's level, to earn heaven. How can the imperfect, corruptible nature of man makes itself perfect and incorruptible? How can the flawed make itself into the unflawed? How can the product make itself into the source? This vision, of man being raised up and falling down, of our being actually existing outside of us, has profound implications. And it is helping me to see the contours of the seamless Orthodox theology - more on that later.
2.23.2006
As hard as it was...
As hard as it was getting used to working the 3rd shift, I've found switching back to days to be even more of a challenge. I've been so tired in the evenings, I've barely wanted to get up to go to bed. Part of it is, I think, the (much) faster pace of days; on nights there was usually plenty of downtime but on days the only time I get to sit is when I take my lunch break. The rest is resetting the old internal clock, and the last couple of nights have been better. Hopefully by next week I'll have fully adjusted.
2.14.2006
Ascending the peak of compassion
I'm not sure what it is, but lately I have had a hard time finding love and compassion for the people I take care of at work. The other day, the wife commented that I don't talk about any of the patients like I used to, people I had developed special bonds with over and above the normal patient-caregiver relationship. Part of this is that until recently our patient census has been down and part is just a personality thing - I haven't really 'clicked' with any of them. But the largest part, the biggest culprit is, I know, this difficulty with compassion.
Some people are easy to take care; they are kind, grateful, in genuine need and complain very little, or at least no more than one would expect of someone in their condition. We have a woman who was involved in a serious car accident which broke her neck. She has some gross motor skills in her arms but is otherwise paralyzed. And she is incredibly needy. She rings her call light about once an hour, if not more, needing to be adjusted, to have a sip of water, have a pillow fluffed or to have a wrinkle pulled out of her sheet. But she is abundantly grateful for these acts and certainly can't do them for herself. Though, admittedly, her constant need can be frustrating at times when there are many other things going on, for the most part, I have no difficulty helping her. It is easy because I am being thanked and because the need is clear and unambiguous. But on the other end of the spectrum we have another woman (I'm not trying to be sexist here, these are just the best polar examples we have right now) who is almost the exact opposite. She was in respiratory failure when she came to us, but was weened from the vent within a couple of weeks and is now with us just to finish up some physical therapy and to make progress on a pressure ulcer on her lower back. She is racist and has called black employees various slurs. Though she can walk and eat and do pretty much everything on her own, she is constantly asking for help on even the smallest tasks. She is crass, manipulative, ungrateful for even large acts of assistance and worst of all (in my book) is a complainer and a whiner. Not only am I unable to find the least bit of compassion for this woman, I actively dislike her. There are perhaps several reasons from my past why this particular personality type bothers me so much, but even without those triggers she is not a likeable person. I dread going into her room when she rings her call light, I hate having to listen to her complaints and serving her is a constant battle against frustration.
And I am cut to the quick by what this reveals about me, the failure of love this represents. If the goal of the Christian life is to be Christ-like then surely I am not. If I am unable to get past my pettiness, to overcome the temptation of frustration and anger and to look on these people as the very image of God, as souls Christ suffered and died for in order to redeem them, what illusion of my own goodness can I possibly maintain? What lies can I tell myself about making these failures up elsewhere or with other patients? There are no excuses, no qualifiers, no mitigating factors - I have failed. But I must not stop there and I will not let that be the end of my story. I see, perhaps more clearly than ever, the great distance I have yet to traverse and I am but taking the first small steps.
Some people are easy to take care; they are kind, grateful, in genuine need and complain very little, or at least no more than one would expect of someone in their condition. We have a woman who was involved in a serious car accident which broke her neck. She has some gross motor skills in her arms but is otherwise paralyzed. And she is incredibly needy. She rings her call light about once an hour, if not more, needing to be adjusted, to have a sip of water, have a pillow fluffed or to have a wrinkle pulled out of her sheet. But she is abundantly grateful for these acts and certainly can't do them for herself. Though, admittedly, her constant need can be frustrating at times when there are many other things going on, for the most part, I have no difficulty helping her. It is easy because I am being thanked and because the need is clear and unambiguous. But on the other end of the spectrum we have another woman (I'm not trying to be sexist here, these are just the best polar examples we have right now) who is almost the exact opposite. She was in respiratory failure when she came to us, but was weened from the vent within a couple of weeks and is now with us just to finish up some physical therapy and to make progress on a pressure ulcer on her lower back. She is racist and has called black employees various slurs. Though she can walk and eat and do pretty much everything on her own, she is constantly asking for help on even the smallest tasks. She is crass, manipulative, ungrateful for even large acts of assistance and worst of all (in my book) is a complainer and a whiner. Not only am I unable to find the least bit of compassion for this woman, I actively dislike her. There are perhaps several reasons from my past why this particular personality type bothers me so much, but even without those triggers she is not a likeable person. I dread going into her room when she rings her call light, I hate having to listen to her complaints and serving her is a constant battle against frustration.
And I am cut to the quick by what this reveals about me, the failure of love this represents. If the goal of the Christian life is to be Christ-like then surely I am not. If I am unable to get past my pettiness, to overcome the temptation of frustration and anger and to look on these people as the very image of God, as souls Christ suffered and died for in order to redeem them, what illusion of my own goodness can I possibly maintain? What lies can I tell myself about making these failures up elsewhere or with other patients? There are no excuses, no qualifiers, no mitigating factors - I have failed. But I must not stop there and I will not let that be the end of my story. I see, perhaps more clearly than ever, the great distance I have yet to traverse and I am but taking the first small steps.
2.09.2006
Protecting our freedom
From CSMonitor, comes this piece about massive data-mining program that may be being developed by our government to detect and analyze information patterns that may be terrorism related. Leaving aside the potential problems with this system (the cost, the technical difficulty, the possible abuse of power and increased government intrusion into our lives) and its benefits (stopping another deadly terrorist attack), I found this quote from a software developer interesting, not the least which because it reflects an oft-repeated sentiment:
Starlight [a precursor to this new data-mining program] has already helped foil some terror plots, says Jim Thomas, one of its developers and director of the government's new National Visualization Analytics Center in Richland, Wash. He can't elaborate because the cases are classified, he adds. But "there's no question that the technology we've invented here at the lab has been used to protect our freedoms - and that's pretty cool." (emphasis mine)
Exactly how has this program, assuming it has indeed contributed to foiling a terrorist plot, protected our freedoms? Really, how does any counterterrorism program protect our freedom? Terrorists are not, and can never be, an occupying army that could overthrow the US government and establish an Islamic theocracy. While they may have the potential ability to kill our leaders, damage our infrastructure and cause other severe problems, our way of life and our system of government could survive even a hugely devastating attack. Terrorists are not a direct threat to our freedom in that they cannot take it away and they will never take over this country.
So how are terrorists a threat to our freedom? They are a threat to our freedom because of us. I think we are now, as a nation, incredibly weak emotionally and spiritually. I don't believe we are a nation that could sustain itself in the wake of some new atrocity. The panic that would have followed a Beslan in the US would have destroyed us - our economy would have stalled as parents stayed home to take care of kids they would no longer send to school, millions of people would have demanded billions of dollars in increased spending to stand cops and soldiers shoulder-to-shoulder in a ring around every school in the country. Terrorists are a threat to our freedom because of us and the fear that we would undoubtedly let rule in the aftermath of some significant attack. We are no longer a nation that can face hardship with a grim determination, no longer a people that can handle adversity in our own lives. We may come to relearn these "skills", but immediately following a new and deadlier strike, we would likely be our own worst enemy. We would willingly curtail our own freedoms and increase the power and reach of government. So in essence, we are fighting terrorism in an effort to fight our own weakness. Terrorists scare us not just because of what they will do, but what we will do as well.
Starlight [a precursor to this new data-mining program] has already helped foil some terror plots, says Jim Thomas, one of its developers and director of the government's new National Visualization Analytics Center in Richland, Wash. He can't elaborate because the cases are classified, he adds. But "there's no question that the technology we've invented here at the lab has been used to protect our freedoms - and that's pretty cool." (emphasis mine)
Exactly how has this program, assuming it has indeed contributed to foiling a terrorist plot, protected our freedoms? Really, how does any counterterrorism program protect our freedom? Terrorists are not, and can never be, an occupying army that could overthrow the US government and establish an Islamic theocracy. While they may have the potential ability to kill our leaders, damage our infrastructure and cause other severe problems, our way of life and our system of government could survive even a hugely devastating attack. Terrorists are not a direct threat to our freedom in that they cannot take it away and they will never take over this country.
So how are terrorists a threat to our freedom? They are a threat to our freedom because of us. I think we are now, as a nation, incredibly weak emotionally and spiritually. I don't believe we are a nation that could sustain itself in the wake of some new atrocity. The panic that would have followed a Beslan in the US would have destroyed us - our economy would have stalled as parents stayed home to take care of kids they would no longer send to school, millions of people would have demanded billions of dollars in increased spending to stand cops and soldiers shoulder-to-shoulder in a ring around every school in the country. Terrorists are a threat to our freedom because of us and the fear that we would undoubtedly let rule in the aftermath of some significant attack. We are no longer a nation that can face hardship with a grim determination, no longer a people that can handle adversity in our own lives. We may come to relearn these "skills", but immediately following a new and deadlier strike, we would likely be our own worst enemy. We would willingly curtail our own freedoms and increase the power and reach of government. So in essence, we are fighting terrorism in an effort to fight our own weakness. Terrorists scare us not just because of what they will do, but what we will do as well.
2.07.2006
I've been tagged...
Clifton has tagged me, so here goes...
4 jobs you have had in your life:
Auto claims adjuster
Youth pastor
Counterterrorism analyst
Nurse's aide
4 movies you could watch over and over:
Almost any Bill Murray movie
In America
Garden State
The Big Lebowski
4 places you have lived:
Tempe, AZ
Seoul, South Korea
Anchorage, AK
Doboj, Bosnia
4 TV shows you love to watch:
Simpsons re-runs
Seinfeld re-runs
Grey's Anatomy
The Office
4 places you have been on vacation:
The Great Lakes
New York, New York
Yosemite
Various points in Mexico
4 websites you visit daily:
The Christian Science Monitor
Pontifications
Minor Clergy
Touchstone
4 of your favorite foods:
Pizza
Sushi
Bureks (a Bosnian dish)
Most of my wife's cooking repertoire
4 places you would rather be right now:
At my own graduation ceremony at the completion of the nursing program
Sarajevo - the Old City, specifically
In the house my wife and I bought and sold last year
Anywhere with my old group of friends if things could be like they were for one night
4 bloggers you are tagging:
Minor Clergy
Troy
Kevin
Okay, I'm only doing three - several people I would have tagged have already been tagged.
4 jobs you have had in your life:
Auto claims adjuster
Youth pastor
Counterterrorism analyst
Nurse's aide
4 movies you could watch over and over:
Almost any Bill Murray movie
In America
Garden State
The Big Lebowski
4 places you have lived:
Tempe, AZ
Seoul, South Korea
Anchorage, AK
Doboj, Bosnia
4 TV shows you love to watch:
Simpsons re-runs
Seinfeld re-runs
Grey's Anatomy
The Office
4 places you have been on vacation:
The Great Lakes
New York, New York
Yosemite
Various points in Mexico
4 websites you visit daily:
The Christian Science Monitor
Pontifications
Minor Clergy
Touchstone
4 of your favorite foods:
Pizza
Sushi
Bureks (a Bosnian dish)
Most of my wife's cooking repertoire
4 places you would rather be right now:
At my own graduation ceremony at the completion of the nursing program
Sarajevo - the Old City, specifically
In the house my wife and I bought and sold last year
Anywhere with my old group of friends if things could be like they were for one night
4 bloggers you are tagging:
Minor Clergy
Troy
Kevin
Okay, I'm only doing three - several people I would have tagged have already been tagged.
Microlutherology
On Saturday during my microbiology class, part of the lecture focused on the history and development of microbiology. The teacher began this part of the lecture by asking, "what did people think caused disease in 'pre-scientific' times?" Vapors, curses, evil spirits, punishment for sin - all manner of things were thought to cause disease before we discovered the world of microbes. My teacher, who started as a biology instructor and later became an administrator at a neighboring Lutheran high school, apparently believes that it was the Roman Catholic Church that kept humanity in the dark about the true nature of sickness. She went on a 5-minute rant about the Catholic Church's keeping the Bible from the masses, keeping people illiterate and ignorant, opposing the progress of science and scientists and just being a bad group of folks all around. Then, and at this point I almost burst out laughing, she said, "And that's what Martin Luther came along to oppose." She then went on a 5-minute panegyric in praise of Luther's theological, and apparently, scientific acumen. She all but attributed the discovery of microbes to him. I've heard that for many Lutherans Luther's writings and teachings are just a step below the Bible, but I think this is the first time I've ever heard anyone trying to attribute the advent of microbiology to him. Thanks goodness for Luther, the Reformer and the True Discoverer of the Germ Theory of Disease!
2.01.2006
The 'ethnic' problem
A couple of weeks ago in the inquirer's class after church, a woman and her 20-something daughter were introduced to the class by Father M. with the announcement that they would be joining our class next week. We didn't see them the next week, but the mom came last Sunday. She spoke with a thick slavic accent and explained that she was from Yugoslavia and had been Orthodox her whole life, but that since coming to America her daughter had grown up knowing little about the Church. The mother agreed to come to the classes with her daughter so the young woman would feel more comfortable, presumably. Unfortunately, her daughter was ill that day. Unfortunate that she wasn't there to learn about the priesthood and ordination, which was the actual topic of that day's class, and most unfortunate that she wasn't there to hear the teacher's rebuttal to her mother's obviously ethnicized understanding of what it means to be Orthodox.
She raised the first question about "how can be there an American Orthodox church?" right in the middle of a discussion on the priesthood of all believers - I didn't quite grasp the connection, but it was clearly bothering her. St Nick's was originally a Macedonian congregation and many of the older members of the congregation are Macedonian immigrants (a fact that occassionaly causes some tension with our thoroughly American convert priest; they want the old way and still look at it as "their church" to the exclusion of outsiders), but the younger folks are all either converts or were born into other national churches. These latter people all, obviously, view the Orthodox Church as 'the Church', regardless of whatever ethnic flavor its local expression may present. And St Nick's is now a part of OCA. But this posed no small stumbling block to this woman; how can the Liturgy be in English? how can a priest be a convert with German heritage? how can the Church be American at all? She seemed to think that whatever changes the transition from an ethnic to an American congregation might cause almost completely invalidated its Orthodox credentials. Comparisons to the Serbian churches in Chicago were frequent, which still use Church Slavonic and follow the Old Calendar. That St Nick's follows the "American" calendar also bothered her - she asked if they were actually Catholic because they celebrate Christmas in December.
The teacher for that day gamely tried to answer her questions while steering the conversation back to the appropriate subject, but failed in the latter regard. The ethnic problem became the main focus of the class, and frankly, it was the first time I'd ever encountered it first hand. I've heard of it, of course, but this was the first time I'd ever heard someone say directly that they doubted it was possible for there to be an American Orthodox Church, that one had to at least worship in an ethnic congregation (if not actually be that ethnicity) in order to really be Orthodox. I was flummoxed. This represents such a huge disparity in understanding as to what the Church really is that its almost as wide as the divide between Orthodox and Protestants over issues of authority. How do you get someone to see that the Church of Christ could never be limited by language and nationality? How do you get them to understand that the non-Orthodox world is in need of salvation and redemption, that it needs precisely what Orthodoxy has to offer? I can hardly wait for next Sunday's class.
She raised the first question about "how can be there an American Orthodox church?" right in the middle of a discussion on the priesthood of all believers - I didn't quite grasp the connection, but it was clearly bothering her. St Nick's was originally a Macedonian congregation and many of the older members of the congregation are Macedonian immigrants (a fact that occassionaly causes some tension with our thoroughly American convert priest; they want the old way and still look at it as "their church" to the exclusion of outsiders), but the younger folks are all either converts or were born into other national churches. These latter people all, obviously, view the Orthodox Church as 'the Church', regardless of whatever ethnic flavor its local expression may present. And St Nick's is now a part of OCA. But this posed no small stumbling block to this woman; how can the Liturgy be in English? how can a priest be a convert with German heritage? how can the Church be American at all? She seemed to think that whatever changes the transition from an ethnic to an American congregation might cause almost completely invalidated its Orthodox credentials. Comparisons to the Serbian churches in Chicago were frequent, which still use Church Slavonic and follow the Old Calendar. That St Nick's follows the "American" calendar also bothered her - she asked if they were actually Catholic because they celebrate Christmas in December.
The teacher for that day gamely tried to answer her questions while steering the conversation back to the appropriate subject, but failed in the latter regard. The ethnic problem became the main focus of the class, and frankly, it was the first time I'd ever encountered it first hand. I've heard of it, of course, but this was the first time I'd ever heard someone say directly that they doubted it was possible for there to be an American Orthodox Church, that one had to at least worship in an ethnic congregation (if not actually be that ethnicity) in order to really be Orthodox. I was flummoxed. This represents such a huge disparity in understanding as to what the Church really is that its almost as wide as the divide between Orthodox and Protestants over issues of authority. How do you get someone to see that the Church of Christ could never be limited by language and nationality? How do you get them to understand that the non-Orthodox world is in need of salvation and redemption, that it needs precisely what Orthodoxy has to offer? I can hardly wait for next Sunday's class.
1.27.2006
1.24.2006
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.
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.
1.23.2006
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."
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."
1.16.2006
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.
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.
1.09.2006
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?
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?
1.08.2006
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?
1.04.2006
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.
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.
12.31.2005
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 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?
12.12.2005
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?
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?
12.07.2005
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?
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?
12.05.2005
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.
11.25.2005
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.
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.
11.22.2005
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.
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.
11.13.2005
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.
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.
11.08.2005
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
