All Things Katrina

I am not a newsy kind of blogger. I’m not a newsy kind of person. But I’m slowly catching up with the few blogs I read, and with the news. Of course I have been aware of Katrina and aftermath (who could not be?), but I wasn’t aware of the extent of media and blog coverage. There is even a blog out there reputed to be “the source” for All Things Katrina.

“How many terrible things there are going on in the world right now!” I lamented to N yesterday during our walk. Not only are there such great natural catastrophes (my memory of last December’s tsunami is still fresh), but there is such human error and strife compounding it. How could we not do a better job responding to such disasters in “our day and age”?

N responded that the reason we can become so caught up in disasters like the December tsunami, or hurricane Katrina, is because the media is able to report every last detail, and do it with such immediacy across so many venues. We easily become obsessed! (How many hours did I spend in front of the TV during the days and week after 9/11?) Beginning with CNN reporting during the bombing of Baghdad during the first Gulf War (how clearly I remember watching that on TV!), our world has become able to participate first hand right along with the victims of war and disaster. It’s not that there haven’t been wars and disasters throughout all of history, it’s that now we can all participate personally in each and every one of them (to the extent it is reported) in real time.

In at least one respect all this media attention is a wonderful thing. Imagine the aid that now flows to people in need!

But there’s also a bad side. People get worked up over it, as if it “shouldn’t happen”, as if somehow we should be able to do a better job preventing or responding to such disasters in “our day and age”. Well, of course, in a cosmic sense, none of these things “should happen”. The world wasn’t meant to be the way it is. But in a fallen world, inevitably, they DO happen — always have, ever since Adam was tossed out of the Garden and began to till the earth by the sweat of his brow and Eve was obliged to give birth in pain and sorrow. Remember Noah and the flood? Remember Christ on the Cross? This fallen world even kills GOD as He comes to SAVE us.

The kids and I have been reading Job this past week and discussing suffering. Job may have been a righteous man, and yes, we understand that both he and his friends believed in a certain kind of justice, that “the righteous should be blessed, and the wicked should be cursed.” To each his due. And God Himself is just. But whatever happened to the Fall? Whatever happened to all of us being in this together? It’s not just me and my righteousness or wickedness that counts. I am my brother’s keeper, and he is mine. We humans are keepers in the world. What has come about through Adam’s fault, and later through our own fault, keeps coming around, and around, and around. It has passed even into the rest of created nature, which fell with us. Why are we always so surprised when it comes around again?

God can bring good out of ALL of it. There is justice, even in a fallen world. But God’s Way of bringing good about is bound to be beyond our reckoning — exactly as God admonished Job when He spoke to him from out the whirlwind. A whirlwind indeed. God speaks, even from within a hurricane. The question is, can we hear Him? Are we like Job’s friends, insistent upon “justice”? Unbelieving that Job could be a righteous man? Or can we take Job as our example, who speaketh well of God — well after he admits that he knows NOTHING, and repents in dust and ashes, after God accosts him from out the whirlwind. Job does not give up on God, no. He does not curse God (and die). But he gives up his fuss. He repents, even in his righteousness, he accepts, he goes on with his life such as it is, and his Life is restored to him double-fold.

I’m the last person not to find great joy in this world, in the beauty of nature, in the beauty of a human smile, in a handshake or hug, even in many forms of human art and contrivance. But the truth is, in a fallen world, All Things are Katrina.

There were present at that season some that told him of the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. (Luke 13:1-5)

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows. (Matthew 10:28-31)

And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death. And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake. But there shall not an hair of your head perish. In your patience possess ye your souls. (Luke 21:16-19)

The Good News is that the fallen world is not — contrary to appearances in times like these — hell. Fear hell. Fear losing your soul in your impatience with God and man. Repent in dust and ashes, and let God be God, Who can bring all good out of worldly evil — Who already has.

IOCC

Skepticism and Superstition

Skepticism is doubt that one can know anything. A skeptic might also be a person who downright disbelieves — for example in the existence of God. Superstition, on the other hand, is belief in the religious significance of things in such a way that non-religious events are made out to be religious (a lost article is blamed on some unfriendly power taking it), or the religious meanings of events are interpreted wrongly, usually according to some popular misconception of how God works. In the latter case, a superstition is heterodoxy (perhaps not full-blown heresy because a superstitious person may not know any better). I begin to think there are no truly “non-religious events”, so a superstition will always be a wrong interpretation. (Please don’t ask me about the religious significance of my lost car keys.) In any case, both skepticism and superstition are epistemological problems. Reality is what it is, whether someone doesn’t believe in it, doesn’t know how one could possibly believe in it (or be justified in one’s belief in it), or believes wrongly about it.

What is interesting is that superstition in some people produces skepticism in others. This is quite a phenomenon historically speaking. I suppose it underlies the Enlightenment’s rejection of “medievalism” (along with medievalism’s attendant religiosity), which was deemed superstitious in the face of the rise of modern science and the newly emergent worship of almighty Reason.

But let’s be honest. Were the medievals superstitious? In at least some respects, certainly yes. If superstition is heterodoxy (at least), then rejection of it is a good thing! The modern critical, empirical turn wasn’t all bad. But why then land in skepticism at the opposite extreme? Why not find orthodoxy, which is critical of wrong belief but is in no way unbelieving or doubtful that true belief is possible? Why could not the critics of medievalism, the scientists and investigators, the “reasonable” folks of the early modern world, find the truth of the matter? Was it their dedication to a method capable of discrediting falsehood (via its skepticism and criticism) but incapable of finding truth (via its skepticism and criticism)? Why cannot truth stand up to skepticism and criticism? Or was the truth never proclaimed, in order to have a chance to stand up? Or was it proclaimed but not heard? Or was it heard but rejected (perhaps under the influence of an idolatry of “method”)?

I keep coming back to the problem: What is worse, secularism/atheism or heterodoxy/heresy? Skepticism or superstition? Aren’t they related to one another? Is it possible to have skepticism without heterodoxy?

Is it possible that with orthodoxy one can have rejection, yes, but not skepticism? What does Jesus say? The world will reject and persecute His disciples, yes. But can it fail utterly to hear the Good News, or understand it at all? In the Parable of the Sower, is it possible that some seeds never reach the soil at all?

What is needed to reduce skepticism and criticism (if not persecution) in our modern world is a good, solid preaching of the Good News — the Real Thing, not shadows of it. Not chimeras. Not superstitions. The latter, I fear, do more harm than good. A lot more harm. Superstition breeds skepticism. The battle for orthodoxy must go hand in hand with the battle for souls.

Of Large Quantities of Books

Hello, my name is Tracy. I am a bibliophile. I have been in recovery for a single day.

I’ve spent the last few days sorting out books from our move in the hope of finding shelves for them. Our library (yes, the formal dining room is going to be converted into a room of shelves) does net yet exist, and so there are boxes upon boxes waiting for that. No, I’ve been working on my upstairs books and our schoolroom books. No library-only collection for this household.

OK, this is crazy. There are too many. A good friend from church who helped us move commented that he had moved the Kansas City Library from Kansas City to Olathe. Actually it was pretty funny because it started out with me being apologetic about the number of books. (He was on box #3 or so.) He said, “Oh, but books are wonderful.” I wonder if he felt the same way when he got to the last box. How high can you count?

But they are all good books. True, they are. I don’t collect junk. Lots of them are Orthodox books. And then there are the myriads of books claiming worldly wisdom. Great Books. Harvard Classics. Literature, history, philosophy, art, science.

I need them, for homeschooling, for work, to continue my education, for personal growth. I do! But…

Maybe it’s that my newly middle-aged back is seizing up every time I have to lift another box.

Maybe it’s all the books I haven’t read yet — it used to be that not only did I own lots of books, but I had actually read most of them! Not anymore.

Maybe it’s that I’d rather hang out in a good used bookstore than just about anywhere else on the planet. Or that I never leave said bookstore empty handed.

Maybe it’s the fact that I buy books when I want answers, or comfort — instead of praying. (And I rarely, or never, find the answers or comfort I need in them.)

I doubt I can - or should - throw them all out. Weeding them out will be difficult, because they are all good. My home library represents an enormous investment in time, energy, and money — and it is needed for my kids’ education, my work, etc. And I do read them, most of them, at least in part, eventually.

But… I will admit it:

My name is Tracy. I am a bibliophile. I have been in recovery for a single day.

Heresy, Heterodoxy, and Schism

Schism between churches is a break in communion. Right now there is empirical schism between the Roman Catholic (and related) churches (those in communion with the pope of Rome) and the Eastern Orthodox churches (those in communion with the four, ancient eastern patriarchates). This schism is long-standing, which means that overcoming it to restore unity between the churches will require long, hard investigation into the depths of history. Fundamentally, tho, repair of the schism — dealing with schisms at all (breaking communion or restoring communion) — is a pastoral issue. It’s not a theoretical issue. It’s something to be undertaken by bishops with pastoral responsibility for their flocks, not by lay Christians debating on blogs and email lists.

Nevertheless it is clearly an issue that affects Christians living in countries where there are territorial (and familial) overlaps between the churches. In that spirit, I’ll venture to put forward a couple ideas.

Heresy involves choice between two mindsets, between the Gospel and a pseudo-gospel masquerading as the real thing. The true heretic is a person able to see the difference between them who deliberately chooses one, the false teaching, over the other, the true teaching, i.e. the Gospel of Christ. (Presumably he thinks the false view is true and/or he prefers it for some bizarre reason of his own.) In this modern age of information overload, a multiplicity of “Christianities”, and a general lack of moral and spiritual discernment, my bet is that there are very few true heretics out there today. Most people wander about in a religious fog (or all-too-understandable skepticism about everything).

For the few cases in which true heresy exists, it is clear that schism and a break in communion is generally the most appropriate pastoral action the Church can take. All efforts should be made to convert the heretic back to orthodoxy, but should he persistently choose error, schism (excommunication) is appropriate. The reason is that the heretic himself has already cut himself off from Christ, has already deliberately rejected Him. He has already chosen to deny Christ - if not in name, then in spirit and in truth (in reality). For the Church to commune a heretic is dangerous for the heretic himself, first of all. The Church attempts to protect him even from himself. Second of all, to commune a heretic is dangerous for the rest of the flock. The sheep must be protected from false shepherds, which is why a heretical priest or bishop — or any public figure — is far more dangerous than someone not in a leadership position. A visible sign is called for.

(It is conceivable that a pastoral decision might maintain communion for such a person depending on the circumstances, but such a course would always be highly dangerous and risky, for both the heretic himself and the Church.)

True heresy aside, the Church today IMHO deals primarily with heterodoxy, that is, with the pastoral problems posed by the millions and billions of Christians who do not have an orthodox faith. (There are heterodox Christians within all Christian churches and denominations, including Catholicism, Protestantism, and Orthodoxy.) In addition the world is full of pagans, Muslims, adherents of eastern religions and philosophies, agnostics, and atheists - to whom the Gospel of Christ still needs to be preached, in every generation. The modern situation poses inconceivably large and complex pastoral problems. (Pray for all bishops and priests!) The heterodox - many of them - genuinely seek Christ, more or less to the best of their ability. They are seriously hampered, tho, and prone to wandering. In many other cases they are not seeking Christ at all, but an idol of their own making (a fact they probably do not know and would not want to admit). The cure for heterodoxy is orthodoxy. It is faith in — belief in, trust in, knowledge of, prayer to, worship of, communion with — the Real Christ. Nothing less.

So what about schism and heterodoxy? Should there be breaks in communion between orthodox and heterodox Christians? Pastoral decisions must be made on a case by case basis. The case of Catholic/Orthodox relations is particularly difficult because the schism has lasted so long, and it is so huge and complex. The two churches are now in a state of schism, and have been for centuries. Were there heterodoxy within a church not experiencing schism, the pastoral approach to it might be very different. But as it is, the problem is to deal with heterodoxy in churches that are in schism. Under what circumstances can orthodoxy and communion be restored? What teaching is necessary? What preaching? What historical research? What prayer and worship? What kind of conversation? What common causes? What pronouncements and denouncements? How can all Christians be made to hear and love the Gospel, and live it to the full, the One Gospel of Christ? In all cases the bishops must look to the good of their flocks. It’s not a theoretical problem.

Many Catholics, it seems, would restore visible communion with the Orthodox, and then undertake conversation (and life) for the restoration of orthodoxy. Most Orthodox would not restore communion before all relevant conversations had taken place and orthodoxy had been recovered first. (There are also several major disagreements about what is orthodox.) Not being a pastor, I do not know which is the better course. I know there are many Orthodox who would be scandalized at a restoration of communion with the Catholic churches. I know there are many Catholics — and Catholic/Orthodox families — who would be greatly benefited by reunion, including my own. My whole family would worship in an Orthodox parish church, and my husband and children would not have to renounce Catholicism (in my husband’s view, Christ Himself, Who is on that altar) to do so.

As unsatisfactory as the present situation is, I can understand Orthodox reticence. The Hippocratic Oath of the physician is first of all, to do no harm. However bad the situation is — however scandalous and harmful in and of itself — to give the wrong medicine to attempt a cure might well be fatal to the patient. The lives of literally millions and billions of souls are at stake. After centuries of schism I seriously doubt that a new medicine will be tried over night.

May Christ have mercy on all of us as we desire and work to bring His Life as cure to a broken world.

Heresy and Disbelief

I forgot to add to what’s below under “Worse Harm” that, of course, heresy is also a chief cause OF disbelief. Add reason #4 to “Why don’t people hear the gospel?” (Because it ain’t good news.)

On the Will of God

This was such a hard lesson for me to learn. My perception of “doing God’s will” always used to be tied up, not with how good God is, but with how I had to sacrifice my own will, how I had to give up everything, how I had to become a martyr, suffer, etc. Doing God’s will was all about sacrificing, squashing the self, and above all OBEYING no matter what the consequences. What was always implied (or even made explicit) was: the more suffering the better. (the glorification of suffering)

I believe this teaching comes from Catholic quarters, but maybe also from some other Christian sources. So, for example, an “obedient” Catholic woman would have many, many children. She would put up with all and sundry from her husband, including even abuse. The more suffering, the more martyrdom, the more squashing of self that went along with “obedience”, the better. So I once heard a Catholic woman discussing the Magisterium’s teaching on birth control. She did not “want” this teaching, but she would “obey” it “against her will” — squashing her will; and her self-sacrificing obedience would bring her salvation. God would be pleased with her martyrdom.

Now, I always thought this was pretty sick. For the longest time it put an utter distaste in my mouth (not to mention a wrench in my stomach) whenever I even thought of “God’s will” or “obedience” or self-sacrifice or suffering or anything along those lines. It’s not so much that I just wanted my own way — though undoubtedly there was a good bit of that — but that nobody ever bothered to clue me in (on the obvious, it seems to me now), that God’s will is what I ought to want — desire, and desire as my OWN will — if I truly want what’s good. Which I do! I want what’s good for me, for those I love, and for the whole world.

What I totally missed in all the encouragement to sacrifice was that God’s will IS good. It is to be desired! It is not something you must force yourself to swallow against your will — and be rewarded for choking it down!

God doesn’t want us to suffer and to die. He wants us to thrive and to live! It’s that simple. That must be one’s faith to underly all else. So what DO we make of the Christian approach to “doing God’s will”? And what are we to think when bad things happen? The answer is that we are fallen. God is not fallen. WE are fallen. We are unhealthy. We are burdened. Our souls are twisted and confused. So… we need healing. We need healing from our fallenness, our disease, our burdens, our twistedness and confusion. God wants to heal us, to bring us back to life.

Unfortunately, the medicine for our cure isn’t always easy to swallow. And the context of this fallen world in which we live is not always easy on us, especially if we try to cooperate with our Good God’s efforts at our cure. So we do suffer, and God can use this suffering. Repentance, for example, is suffering. Think of the regret you feel when you know you did something bad, when you hurt someone. It hurts! But how good is repentance for our souls! We need to know that even distasteful medicine can be good for us. It’s not meant to make us suffer because suffering is good! No! It is not meant for the destruction of our selves. Quite the opposite! It is meant for the cure of our person. This healing perspective was always lacking in what I heard about “God’s will” and about the need for “obedience” before. Suffering should never be glorified. It’s a tool. It is something to be endured with God’s help. It’s a fiery furnace that forges steel and pure gold, which are strong and lovely. Before, I always heard the promotion of martyrdom without hearing the gospel, the bad news without the good. No sane soul IMO should listen to such (ahem) … stuff.

Here is St. Silouan on the matter:

It is a great good to give oneself over to the Divine will.

Ahhh…. See where he starts?

Then the Lord alone occupies the soul. No thought can enter in, and the soul, undistracted, prays to God, and is full of love for God…

Here we have a description of the state of the soul when it gives itself over to the Divine will. Distractions fall away, there is prayer, there is love. The soul is full of God. This is a good thing!

… even though the body be suffering.

The suffering is not God’s will. St. Silouan says “even though” there is suffering. God provides love and prayer “even though”.

When the soul is entirely give over to the will of God, the Lord Himself takes her in hand, and the soul learns directly from God; whereas, before, she turned to teachers and the Scriptures for instruction.

Where is this need to be taught by God in the suffering-oriented version of doing God’s will?

But it rarely happens that the soul’s Teacher is the Lord Himself through the grace of the Holy Spirit, and few there be that know of this, save only those who live according to God’s will.

The proud man does not want to live according to God’s will: he likes to be his own master, and does not see that man has not the wisdom enough to guide himself without God.

Now we see the reason why we should not pursue our own will. It is because we have not wisdom enough! Pride is foolishness. We think we are strong when we are weak. Surely that is true enough. Compare, though, how, when God is made out to sound like a Great Sadist, we end up with no choice but to follow our own will, foolish though it be.

And I, when I lived in the world and as yet knew not the Lord and His Holy Spirit, nor how the Lord loves us — I relied on my own understanding. But when by the Holy Spirit I came to know our Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, my soul submitted to God, and now I accept every affliction that befalls me, and say to myself, ‘The Lord looks down on me, what is there to fear?’ But before, I could not live after this manner.

At my chrismation, I rejected all error. I know not whether this suffering-oriented version of doing God’s will is traditional Roman Catholic teaching. I hope not. Whatever the case, I am glad to have renounced my own error.