A Rant About the Job Description of a Shepherd

I usually ramble. Right now, I want to rant. I feel like ranting and raving, and making large gestures in the air with my hands and arms to the effect of “what the...? Are you kidding me? How can you... Ughhhhhh!” Yeah, something like that sounds about right.

As many of you know, I work right now in a children’s home in northern Idaho in a house full of teenage girls with emotional and psychological issues. It’s not the only dorm on the campus, but it is the only one with girls in it. On Sundays, a group from a local church comes in and sets up shop to do services with the boys on campus who want to go, but nothing is made available for the girls. I was told that they used to do something for the girls, but they stopped when the number of girls interested dwindled to one, and the girls can’t join the boys for services (for various, very legitimate reasons). They felt that just one girl interested in services wasn’t worth the effort. Thus my arm gesturing desire to rant and rave. (Yes, the question comes up as to why I don’t just offer services to them, but the simple answer is that I’m already staff, and by policy can’t do anything which could be taken as proselytizing the residents. Cans of worms anyone?)

I began to rant a little when I heard that, and one of my co-workers spoke up in the pastors’ defence. She mentioned that maybe it didn’t make much sense to them to just go and spend time doing a service for one girl when they could go and preach to hundreds. My response was “I’m going to shut up now,” and I then went to go find something constructive to do while I bit my tongue, ranting in my head.

There is so much wrong with this kind of thinking towards pastoring that I don’t even know where to begin to rant. As a priest, and thus as a pastor (which word literally means “shepherd”), my job is to give Jesus to people and be Jesus for people. This is the general job description of a shepherd of the Church. We feed the sheep. We keep the predators away. We tend the sick and injured, and we go after the ones that wander away from the rest of the flock. We put ourselves in harm’s way to ensure the safety of the sheep. That is what we do. We spend long hours on hillsides watching and paying attention. We go sleepless at nights when one is being born. No one sheep is more important or less important than the others and none of them are considered expendible. They don’t belong to us, and each one is priceless to the Owner of the sheep.

We don’t do this because it’s fun. We do this because no shepherd belongs to himself, but we ourselves are also the property of the Owner and we are answerable to Him if one of the sheep is lost or injured because of our negligence. We don’t get the excuse that, “oh, it’s just one sheep. She’ll never be missed there are so many more.” If you think I’m ranting about this kind of attitude, imagine how livid the Owner of the sheep is.

There’s a story in Eusebius’ History of the Church (4th century, A.D.) about the Apostle John. When he was an old man and not in the greatest of health, he brought a teenage boy into the care of a bishop of a certain town. The boy was a recent convert to the faith and was recently baptized. St. John left instructions that the boy was to be taken care of and taught, and then he went away for a while. Some time passed, and the boy left the care of the bishop, ran away and took up with a notorious gang that had a reputation for robbing and beating travelers on the highway. St. John eventually came back to the bishop and asked him for the treasure he had left with him. The bishop looked confused, “what treasure?” He asked him. St John clarified, “the treasure. The young man I left in your care.” The Bishop replied, “Oh, him. He left the faith, ran away and joined a gang.” St. John reprimanded the bishop strongly, and then this frail old man walked up a mountain to the gang’s hideout, walked into the middle of them, and refused to leave until the young man came with him. He spent days praying for him, and pleading with him with tears, until finally the young man relented, repented and returned with him. St. John the Apostle was paying attention when Jesus asked, “what man among you who having a hundred sheep and loses one of them would not leave the ninety-nine to go and find the one?”

Being a pastor has nothing to do with the size of your congregation. It doesn’t matter if the Lord has entrusted to your care one, or a hundred and one. That person is still your responsibility. It doesn’t matter if the sheep isn’t being looked after by any one particular shepherd at the moment. That sheep belongs to the Owner and you are called and charged with looking after His sheep. Any and all of His sheep. “But that one’s not a part of my flock, it’s not my responsibility, it’s that shepherd’s over there. He needs to pay more attention.” If you work for the Owner, and it’s His sheep, it’s your responsibility. Do you really want to have to explain why He lost some sheep when you could have prevented it?

I know there are lost sheep that I will likely have to answer for. I dread the day when I have to give an account of them because of my own negligence or ignorance. I won’t sugar coat it. There are times when I really haven’t known what to do, or been too cowardly to do what I knew I should have. It terrifies me, as well it should. The Scriptures are clear on this also that we who are teachers are held to a higher standard and a stricter judgment. In short, we claim to know better and be able to teach others the Path of Jesus Christ. That knowledge requires action. I know that this knowledge alone terrifies me.

Well, what if they have other responsibilities? What if it’s too demanding on them? We are called first to love one another as He loved us. We are called to crucify ourselves, and put our selves to death. Those of us who have been called to take Holy Orders must be very careful to walk this path and not deviate from it. There is no other responsibility for us towards anyone, including ourselves, greater than crucifying our selves and our own desires so that the life of Jesus Christ may be free flowing through us to all others around us. If your being Jesus for someone has to take a back seat to some other priority, ditch the other priority. It’s not worth it. Remember what He said to us, “whatsoever you have done to the least of these My brethren, you have also done to Me.” If you’re so distracted by your other “priorities” you can’t see Jesus in the other person, then the distractions need to be done away with. They simply aren’t worth treating our God and Savior with contempt because He’s just one lone girl who might be interested in services on Sunday.

A Ramble About Prosperity

I tried to find the reference to this passage this morning so I could attribute it to the Saint who said it, and I couldn’t locate the exact phrase, so I hope you will forgive me for paraphrasing it. He said that God has ordained that everything which is truly needful and necessary for spiritual growth, and progressing in our prayer, and knowing God, everything which we need to move from sinner to saint is God has given to us freely and in abundance; poverty, solitude, hard work, tears, prayer, Grace, and more. But he also said those things which hinder our spiritual growth and obstruct our prayer, and can throw us off and lead us away from him, these things God has made very difficult to obtain; money, comfort, ease, security, and so on. He said you actually have to work very hard to obtain the things which will poison your relationship with God, while you practically have to do nothing at all to receive the things which can strengthen it. I don’t remember which Saint said it, but I wish I did, because it was one passage that keeps coming back to me.

“But God wants me to be rich!” This seems to be the battle cry, and the main message, of a great many preachers and pastors today. Their “churches” look much more like concert halls, and their congregations number in the tens of thousands. Their sermons often sound more like financial seminars aimed at helping people achieve financial security, personal wealth, and independence. They write book after book teaching people how to feel better about themselves, how to acquire more possessions, and how to satisfy themselves and they do so all because “God wants me to be happy.”

God loves us dearly. There is no question about that. But like a good parent, He wants what is best for His children. He wants them to be healthy, mature properly, have a good education, and enjoy the best He has to give. He also wants to keep them away from anything which can harm them, these include anything which can become addictions, poisons, or those things which can ruin their relationship with Him. In short, like any good parent, He doesn’t want us to do anything which could harm us.

And like most children, we have no real idea what is actually best for us. We want what feels good to us. We want the candy. We want the toys and more of them. We want to be first in everything. If we get a cut we want Him to put a band-aid on it and make it better even if we got it doing what He told us not to do. And we throw temper tantrums when we ask Him, and He says “no.”

Jesus didn’t go around teaching people how to play the stock market, or how to be financially successful. When someone asked to follow Him, He told him to sell everything he had, give the money to the homeless, and then come and follow Him. The New Testament is very clear about Jesus’ own financial state. He was homeless, and He and His disciples were provided for by the financial means of a few women. After Pentecost, it was a regular practice of the Church for its members to sell any property they had and give the proceeds to the Apostles who then distributed the money to anyone who needed it. In the writings of the Fathers, voluntary poverty is always encouraged for Christians to follow as the preferred financial state.

One of these Fathers, Evagrios the Solitary (4th century), wrote passionately about this. He said that the “demon” of avarice is particularly deceitful because it will come in pretending to be concerned about the poor, and then suggest to you that you need to somehow acquire more money and more income so that you can help the poor. But then once you start focusing on that, then it turns your mind away from Christ and on to the matters of acquiring more and more money, and thus the downward spiral continues until you are Christian in name only, and eventually, even this is lost. These Fathers taught to give until you had nothing left, and were poor yourself.

This “prosperity gospel” teaching is nothing short of a demonic heresy designed to pull people away from Jesus Christ, not bring them towards Him. It profoundly contradicts both the teaching and example of our Lord, and perversely does it in His name. It throws the gates of avarice, gluttony, and self-esteem wide open for all the demonic passions to run through and paints a smiley face with a cross on them. It is a trap which leads not to Eternal Life, but a curt “I’m sorry, who are you?” from our Lord.

God gives His good gifts freely. But like the child looking at the plate of broccoli, we don’t always see it that way. We want the bag of candy, and damn the stomach ache and vomiting to follow!

Another Ramble About Demons

If someone insulted you, threatened you, hit you, and tried to hurt you more; would you be angry with them and hold it against them? What if someone was egging them on? What if they were being provoked by someone else, quietly, to do something they might like to do but otherwise restrain themselves from doing it? What if they were mentally imbalanced, and you had a decent relationship with them on their good days? Would you still hold it against them?

I can’t say I don’t believe in demons, both from a doctrinal perspective and from an experiential one. In theology, we talk about fallen spiritual beings who are themselves, for all intents and purposes, psychotic and otherwise insane by definition. They continue to make harmful choices for themselves, and pursue harmful courses of action towards others even after experiencing that such choices will only result in more harm which continues their downward spiral.

In my experiences, I see the fruit of the activity of demons all the time, and experience their attacks on my own heart and mind. I watch, feeling powerless whether I am or not, as people I care about relive past trauma, have their worst fears pounded through their minds, are physically assaulted, and more. I have, more often than I want to, seen this activity in the eyes of certain individuals. It is something about the way the eyes look.

One of the more revealing aspects of the writings of the Philokalia is that the authors constantly refer to these same demons. They make no pretenses as to what they believe to be the sources of the quietly provoking thoughts, images, and fantasies which run through their minds. Such provocations often begin with something relatively benign. A thought, a desire for something simple or even a desire to do something good, but then it turns very quickly into a downward spiral that one must fight to get out of.

There are also figurative demons. These are not literal fallen spirits, but often the effect is no different. These are past traumas, past memories, past beliefs, past hopes, and past fears. These are a product of the person’s own mind and they can do almost as much damage as the psychotic spirit. All too often, they probably work in conjunction, making the spirit’s machinations that much easier.

The person isn’t possessed, but they do assent to the behavior suggested to them quietly, believing that it is something they really want to do. This is heartbreaking to see when it happens. The person doesn’t even realize what’s going on. They are oblivious to it, and if you should address the evil behind it, they will believe you are attacking them and not trying to help them. This is all a part of the twisted game. Demons don’t have to take full possession of a person to bend them to do what they want, they can do it more easily by suggestion, and playing on their fears, their aspirations, and their appetites. The fathers of the Philokalia continuously address three “passions” to constantly guard against: the desire for sensual pleasure, the desire to possess things, and the desire for self-esteem. These three things are referred to as the three main gates which demons use to bend us to do what they want, and the fathers wrote extensively about guarding against them through poverty, humility, and self-control.

It is popular in charismatic and evangelical movements to “cast out demons”. I can’t really comment on the effectiveness of their techniques or tactics. Exorcism is a well established rite within the Church and every division of it, but it generally only focuses on full blown possession, and that state seems to be the only one which traditional exorcism is equipped to deal with. How do you exorcise a person who is not possessed, but who assents to demonic suggestion? What do you do when they still have full control over their free will and choices, and they choose the demonic action unknowing from where the suggestion came?

Can you really be angry with the person who is a victim of both their own choices as well as something else egging them on? What if it was you? As much as I might try to guard myself from such suggestions, I know for a fact that I get little whispers all the time. They play on my fears, they more often play on my ego introducing little fantasies about how great I am or how great I could be. One of the more effective inroads with me is through personal comforts, and wanting to watch certain programs, or read certain books that are benign enough in and of themselves, but distract me long enough for them to take it further. I get angry with myself for my own weakness, but it doesn’t generally change the fact that I’m weak.

Can you really be angry with the person who is weak, seeing that you share the same weakness which gets used against you? Can you be angry with the person who hits you when it could have just as well been you hitting someone else on a different day? Can you really pass judgment on someone who acts on their fears, when you do it just as well?

I see the activity of demons all the time. I see it in people’s eyes, in their actions, and in what they say. I also see these same people going about completely oblivious to that activity in their own lives, ignorant, and, even though complicit, nearly innocent. Can I really be angry at them?

A Ramble About "Once Saved, Always Saved"

I don’t think I’ve been particularly vague about what I think of this doctrine. No, I definitely haven’t been vague. Polemic, antagonistic, and rejecting yes; but not vague. Many people would accuse me of falling into heresy or false doctrine, or of the worse sin of being “unbiblical.” What is misunderstood in this post-Reformation era is that nothing could be farther from the truth. I take my stand on this directly from both Holy Scripture and the unbroken, Orthodox teaching of the Church as it has stood since the Apostles.

This teaching is also known as the “Perseverance of the Saints,” and was initially introduced in modern times during the Reformation. In particular, it was promoted by John Calvin and later became an integral part of the Calvinist theology. Today, put in layman’s terms, it simply teaches that all those who have truly put their faith in Christ, “accepted Christ”, can never lose their salvation regardless of what they do or say. They are locked into it.

On the surface, this sounds great, and it is often promoted as a great comfort, and it does sound very comforting. The problem with this teaching, is that it runs contradictory to a number of passages of Sacred Scripture while professing to uphold a number of others, essentially pitting Scripture against Scripture. Furthermore, it requires that the teaching of the Church on salvation since ancient times be thrown out entirely and viewed as somehow heretical. The teaching itself is comparatively very recent (within the last five hundred years), and proponents of it presume that those Saints who lived prior to it either weren’t “saved”, or the salvific mechanism was in place regardless of their understanding of it. The presumption is made that somehow the Gospel was either taught incompletely, or not fully received until the Reformation.

Another problem arises in the practical application of this teaching. All too often, the state of one’s eternal salvation is considered settled once they make some kind of public, or even private, profession of faith in Christ. Many times one is asked to “pray the prayer”, or is led in some kind of a prayer. Once the person has accomplished this, they are considered “saved” and the “evangelist” moves on to the next lost soul. All too often the person who was “saved” falls back into the same pattern of life they were in. Ironically, if the behavior becomes somehow too immoral the person’s salvation is then somehow questioned as though their acceptance of Christ didn’t somehow “take”.

In dealing with this topic I know I’m going to have to be very careful because of the tangled mess this teaching has caused, and because of the number of issues involved, and confused. For example, the “faith versus works” controversy often arises in discussing this issue. Also, the issue arises as to whether or not we could ever do something which God couldn’t or wouldn’t forgive. Also, some bring up the argument as to whether or not we could ever lose God’s love, as though this might play into it. Always Holy Scripture is used to justify each and every position, contradictory or not. Always, the ancient teaching of the Church, and it’s interpretation of Holy Scripture, is ignored, and treated as somehow heretical.

So, let’s touch briefly on what the ancient Church had to say about this issue from those documents and writers accepted by the Church as Orthodox:

“We ought therefore, brethren, carefully to inquire concerning our salvation. Otherwise, the wicked one, having made his entrance by deceit, may hurl us forth from our life.” (The Epistle of Barnabas written between 70 and 130 AD.)

“Let us therefore repent with the whole heart, so that none of us perish by the way. ... Let us then practice righteousness so that we may be saved unto the end.” (Second Clement, written around 150 AD)

“Those who do not obey Him, being disinherited by Him, have ceased to be His sons.” (Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, around 180 AD)

“It is neither the faith, nor the love, nor the hope, nor the endurance of one day; rather, ‘he that endures to the end will be saved.’” (Clement of Alexandria, writing around 195 AD)

“No one is a Christian but he who perseveres to the end.” (Tertullian, Presbyter at Carthage, writing around 197 AD)

“You are still in the world. You are still in the battlefield. You daily fight for your lives. So you must be careful that ... what you have begun to be with such a blessed commencement will be consummated in you. It is a small thing to have first received something. It is a greater thing to be able to keep what you have attained. Faith itself and the saving birth do not make alive by merely being received. Rather, they must be preserved. It is not the actual attainment, but the perfecting, that keeps a man for God. The Lord taught this in His instruction when He said, ‘Look! You have been made whole. Sin no more, lest a worse thing come upon you.’ ... Solomon, Saul, and many others were able to keep the grace given to them so long as they walked in the Lord’s ways. However, when the discipline of the Lord was forsaken by them, grace also forsook them.” (Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, written around 250 AD)

“As to one who again denies Christ, no special previous standing can be effective to him for salvation. For anyone of us will hold it necessary that whatever is the last thing to be found in a man in this respect, that is where he will be judged. All of those things that he has previously done are wiped away and obliterated.” (Cyprian’s Treatise on Re-Baptism, written around 257 AD)

“True repentance makes a man cautious and diligent to avoid the faults into which he has once fallen through treachery. No one can be so prudent and so cautious as not at some time to slip. Therefore, God, knowing our weakness, out of His compassion has opened a harbor of refuge for man--that the medicine of repentance might aid this necessity to which our frailty is liable.” (Lactantius, Christian tutor writing between 304 and 313 AD)

I could go on, but then this would become a book rather than a Ramble. The teaching and understanding of the Church, even prior to the first Council of Nicea in 325 AD was quite clear and also followed after what Jesus Himself actually said in the Gospels. In short, if, after a person has accepted Christ and been baptized, he continues in his sin and does not repent he will not be saved. The teaching of the Church is also clear that struggling with one’s sin, and making mistakes, and backsliding, and even kicking and screaming are understood to be a part of the process of spiritual maturity. The key here is repentance and confession and turning away from the things you’ve done wrong and turning to God.

In short, our salvation requires our cooperation. What state in which end is far more important than what state in which we begin our faith in Christ. Ezekiel 18:21-30 says:

“But if a wicked person turns away from all his sins that he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is just and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. None of the transgressions that he has committed shall be remembered against him; for the righteousness that he has done he shall live. Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord GOD, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live? But when a righteous person turns away from his righteousness and does injustice and does the same abominations that the wicked person does, shall he live? None of the righteous deeds that he has done shall be remembered; for the treachery of which he is guilty and the sin he has committed, for them he shall die. Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ Hear now, O house of Israel: Is my way not just? Is it not your ways that are not just? When a righteous person turns away from his righteousness and does injustice, he shall die for it; for the injustice that he has done he shall die.
Again, when a wicked person turns away from the wickedness he has committed and does what is just and right, he shall save his life. Because he considered and turned away from all the transgressions that he had committed, he shall surely live; he shall not die. Yet the house of Israel says, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ O house of Israel, are my ways not just? Is it not your ways that are not just? Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, declares the Lord GOD. Repent and turn from all your transgressions, lest iniquity be your ruin.” (ESV)

Another passage to consider is John 15:4-6,

"Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned.” (ESV)

Also, 1 John 1:5-10,

"This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.” (ESV)

Where then, if it is possible to fall away, is our hope, our assurance, our comfort? How could anyone feel secure knowing that it was possible to fail? Let me ask this question, why would anyone bother to make progress in their faith if it wasn’t possible to fail?

But, here is our hope in Jesus Christ that if we fall, He will raise us back up. If we sin, He will forgive. But here is also our warning, that if we treat His blood as nothing, and take it for granted, and do not repent of it, He will not open the door for us. He will ask who we are and send us away violently. God is not stupid (as all too often we treat Him). He knows who His friends are, and who they aren’t. He knows with whom He has a solid relationship, and who only pay Him lip-service. He knows those who love Him but are visibly struggling, and those who could care less about Him but appear to have it all together.

Those who profess faith in Christ and then deny Him by their actions will also be denied by Him because, contrary to popular theology, faith and actions are not opposing forces. They are one and the same. It can equally be said that one is saved by both faith alone and one saved by actions alone. Faith is action, and action is faith. You will never act on a belief you do not possess. In the same way, you will never fail to act on a belief you do possess. Whether what you say you believe and what you actually believe are the same thing is another matter entirely and requires deep introspection and complete honesty with yourself and God who is more than willing and capable of helping you in this regard. (Often we want to believe that we believe something, when in fact we believe something quite contrary to what we want to believe we believe. This is, I think, another aspect of the Disorder to which we are all subject that we do not want to be totally honest with ourselves because it could reveal some flaw within us which we do not wish to see, but I digress...)

Our final salvation is not locked down until the day we finally shed this body. Until then, we will fight. We will win some battles against our selves, and lose others. And always God has His hand outstretched to us calling us to learn from those mistakes and failures and return to Him where He can and will lift us up. If we cry out “God have mercy on me, a sinner!” He will hear us, even if it is with our dying breath. If we walk away from Him never to return, even if no one else knows it, He hears those silent footsteps too, and mourns.

What it Means to Be Old Catholic

What does it mean to be “Old Catholic?” I get asked this question in one form or another almost every time I tell someone what Church to which I belong. Usually, I give as short of an answer as possible which goes something like “the Old Catholic Church broke from Rome about a hundred and forty years ago over the issue of papal infallibility.” It's not the most informative of answers, but it's usually the one that doesn't require a more in-depth look at the ugly side of Church history and Church politics which, if most people knew more about, they would probably wish they hadn't asked.

The truth is that the answer to this question isn't a one sentence answer. And it often differs with whoever is answering the question. To some, the Old Catholic Church is one of the most liberal Denominations out there. To others, it is strict adherence to Sacred Tradition and the founding charters of the Old Catholic Church, the Fourteen Theses of the Old Catholic Church and the Declaration of Utrecht.

The most basic statement of Old Catholicism is that we believe what has been believed by all Christians everywhere, at all times, and in every place. We shun innovations in theology and anything which deviates from what the Church as a whole agreed on in ancient times.

To be Old Catholic means that we accept the seven Sacraments of the Church, especially the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, and the Sacrament of Baptism. It means that we profess and champion the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, while at the same time refusing any explanations of how that comes to be whether it is transsubstantiation, consubstantiation, or something else entirely. It is a mystery and it will always remain a mystery, as it should.

To be Old Catholic means that we venerate, look up to, those saints who have gone before us, especially Mary, the mother of God. Why? Because when all is said and done, these are family who have already won the race, and now watch us run ours, praying for us, and encouraging us onwards with their examples. We hold up Mary because she was a prime example of faith and obedience to God both in agreeing to the conception of His Son, and in following Him right up to the cross. According to Church Tradition and history, she was an active and known part of the Church right up to her death, and after her death her body was not left on earth to rot. We do not worship human beings, but we look to their examples, and as family ask them to pray fr us.

To be Old Catholic means that we believe that the Holy Scriptures are infallible and inerrant in the original autographs.

To be Old Catholic means that we worship corporately in a liturgical manner which agrees in form with the liturgical worship with which the Church has always celebrated from the earliest times up until the present day, thus you are likely to hear the Roman Rite, the Anglican Rite, the Eastern Orthodox Rite, or some combination thereof in an Old Catholic Mass.

To be Old Catholic means that we accept that all men have fallen through our ancestor Adam, but that the image of God was defaced, not destroyed. It means that we profess that it is only through Jesus Christ that anyone can be delivered from their fallen state.

To be Old Catholic means that we make no presumption on our final salvation, but believe and profess that Jesus Christ died for our sins and those of the whole world, and He is capable of saving even us if we are willing to repent and cooperate with Him. Eternal Life is a relationship with God, and every relationship takes working together to maintain it. (This is a difficult concept for many Protestants to understand and accept because of the Protestant “once saved always saved” doctrine. Such a doctrine was never found in the ancient Church and wasn’t taught until the Protestant Reformation.)

To be Old Catholic means that we maintain the equilateral, autonomous authority of the local Bishop over the clergy and parishes under his care. We reject the imposition of any one Bishop’s authority over another Bishop, and thus reject the claims to universal authority of the Bishop of Rome. We accept the universal authority of the Ecumenical Church Councils which were held in the first millennium, and were decision made by representatives of the entire Church equally where matters of doctrine, faith, and practice were concerned. To this end, being Old Catholic means that we accept the three great creeds of the Church: Nicene, Athanasian, and Apostolic, and reject any additions to these which were not agreed upon by the entire Church in Council (such as the “filioque” clause added some hundred years after the Council of Constantinople finalized it).

To be Old Catholic means that we maintain valid lines of Apostolic Succession which can be traced back to the Apostles.

To be Old Catholic means that we profess, maintain, and defend the Sacred Tradition of the Church as found in the writings of the Church Fathers, the Liturgies, the Sacred Scriptures, the Ecumenical Councils, the Creeds, the Sacraments, and the Lines of Apostolic Succession.

But what does it mean to me?

To me, being Old Catholic means that I claim spiritual lineage, and valid holy orders, from St. Ignatius of Antioch, from St. Irenaeus of Lyons, from St. Peter the Apostle as well as St. Peter of Damascus. That I look to St. Augustine of Hippo, St. John Cassian, St. John Crysostom, and the writings of the holy fathers of the Church for the first thousand years of the Church in order to understand what the faith of Jesus Christ is, how it should be lived and practiced, and what the interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures is instead of pastors and theologians who lived within the last couple of centuries. It means that I look to the early writings, the Church Fathers, the Creeds, and Ecumenical Councils of the Church when she was One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic in practice to outline and define the limits of Christian orthodoxy.

It means that I am theologically Eastern Orthodox without being accepted by the Eastern Orthodox. It means that I am a Western Rites Catholic while being denounced as illicit by the Roman Catholic. It means that I am looked on with disdain by the Mainline Protestant for being too Catholic, and as a heretic by the Evangelical for the same. It means rejecting the Reformation doctrines outright, while not catering to either the Roman delusions of grandeur, or succumbing to the isolationism of the Eastern Orthodox.

It means that while other denominations celebrate worship in liturgy and song in vast cathedrals with thousands of congregants, I say Mass quietly with just myself, my family, and our Lord. It means I watch while pastors in other ministries take in salaries of forty thousand a year or more, while I draw a near minimum wage income from outside employment so I can minister in whatever way the Lord would have me do so to whomever He brings me.

Being Old Catholic means listening to what our brothers and sisters had to say who persevered in the faith long before us, and also recognizing that they are still family now and as family love and support not only me, but all the rest of our brothers and sisters and want us to succeed. It means honoring the Mother of God as such without confusing honor with worship. It means faith in the body and blood of Jesus Christ without trying to explain how the bread and wine become such. Being Old Catholic means to me that I have the peace of knowing that I stand connected with those brothers and sisters who gave their lives for their faith in that very same faith unaltered for nearly two thousand years, and knowing that I often must stand alone. It means not having to “re-discover” how the early Church did things, because the Old Catholic still does them more or less the same way.

Most of all, being Old Catholic is about that unbroken faith. That faith and practice which stands unaltered by the flow and ebb of theological fads and innovations. The faith which stands in spite of the attempts to twist and shape it to whatever this or that teacher or preacher wants to turn it into. It means remembering why the priest wears black, and what the white collar stands for and putting both into practice with as much Grace as God gives even if no one else around me does.

Old Catholic means just that. Old Catholic. The kind of Catholic before the splits, and schisms, and divisions, and denominations, and break aways. The kind of Catholic when the Church was “the Church” and not some fractured mess ruined by human ego and politics. Perhaps a better term would be ancient Catholic, or pre-schism Catholic, or “Catholic before the Roman Church made off with the word 'Catholic'”. A particular favorite, and slightly more explanatory is “Western Rites Orthodox”, but then that has to be explained in more detail, too.

Being Old Catholic means that I believe in Jesus Christ with my actions as well as my words. It means that I aspire to deification and union with God while being well aware that I deserve Gehenna. It means that I care about all those who would be my enemies or do me harm, and give back Jesus when I am abused and mistreated. It means that I renounce everything in principle even if I must use it in practice, and count it as trash anyway, so that I may know Him free from distraction if that might be possible.

This is not a technical definition, and as I said, it is likely you will hear something different from someone else. But this is what being Old Catholic means to me.

A Ramble About Counseling

I’ve done a fair amount of counseling over the last twenty years. Oddly enough, I’ve never really been a professional counselor. I’ve never really gotten paid for it, and it always seems to happen when I least expect it, in just those right moments. Near as I can tell, it’s my own peculiar “charism”, otherwise known as a spiritual gift. I know it’s not a natural one, because every time I’ve found myself in a counseling situation thinking I was prepared and could handle it, I couldn’t have been more wrong. Those situations still make me twitch when I think about them.

I’ve never been naturally suited to counseling, but it’s never really been much of a choice for me either. It happens in those moments when Grace takes over and says “Sit down, buckle up, shut your mouth, and hold on!” It started when I was in high school, and over the years I’ve learned more and more to keep my proverbial mouth shut, even as I hear words and ideas flowing from my literal mouth that weren’t my own thoughts to begin with; and begin to know, understand, and see things about the person which I couldn’t possibly have known, and often don’t remember after the fact. More often than not, I learn just as much from what comes out of my mouth as the person I’m counseling does, and wish I could remember more of it.

In any counseling situation, I’ve learned more and more to say less and less. Often, the best thing I can do, as those situations have taught me, is to say nothing and just listen as well as I can. I’ve often heard that you need to take the person where they’re at. As I’ve been around and near more professional counselors in the last few years, I’ve made the observation that that is too simplistic of a way to put it.

There are three ways to take someone where they’re at: 1)where the person believes himself to be at, 2)where you, the counselor, believe the person to be at, and 3)where the person is actually at. It complicates it further in that each interaction between two or more people changes each person in either a large or small way so that where they were at prior to speaking to you is different from where they are at when speaking to you which is also different from where they are at after speaking to you. It’s much like trying to measure both the speed and the position of a sub-atomic particle. You can measure the speed accurately, or you can measure the position accurately, but never both because just the fact you are trying to measure it changes the measurement. People are much the same way.

I found the best way to guage a person is to say nothing, give no input, and just let them talk. Let them tell you where they’re at. After they do so, make no judgments about where they think they’re at. Most often, I’ve come to realize, there’s absolutely nothing I can say which can actually make a person see things the way I do. I’ve argued my case before. I’ve tried to persuade. It never works, especially if a person is convinced that they are a certain way and life is a certain way. More often then not, attempts to persuade only cause the person to reinforce their own view of things against the view I am trying to superimpose.

The person you are trying to counsel is never going to be coming from the same place you are at. They may be coming from similar places, they may have had similar experiences. But they are not you. Attempting to approach them with “common sense” almost always fails because common sense is relative to the person who believes it should be common.

In many ways, the person we are now is made up of the experiences we have had from birth, as well as the choices to which those experiences have led. No one, from creation until now, has had the exact same set of experiences. No one has the exact same brain chemistry. No one makes their choices in exactly the same manner.

I often get the sense, as I watch other people giving counsel, that, as they initially begin to listen to the person, they know or believe they know where the person is actually at, even if the person is telling them something completely different from the counselor’s conclusion. While it is true that counselors often get told about a reality which doesn’t exist, it is equally true that such a reality often exists in the person’s mind and is how they are perceiving the world. In such a case, it occurs to me that the perceived reality must be really listened to and taken into serious consideration when given counsel, even if the counselor does not perceive it as reality.

Often, what any one person takes as reality is very different from what another person perceives as reality. This is why we have Republicans and Democrats, Christians and Buddhists, Creationists and Evolutionists, and so on. This is why we have so many differing points of view, because the experiences and choices which we have made and encountered have “programmed” us to perceive reality in different and opposing ways, even if it is the same reality we are perceiving.

All too often, it seems to me, counseling is used as a tool to try and get the other person to see things the way the counselor sees them, because, of course, the counselor sees them in the “right way”. Or, the counselor is the one in his “right mind”. All too often, the counseling session is used to pass judgment on the other person’s perception of reality.

It is true that one person’s perception of reality may lead that person into harming themselves or others. Do we intervene then? Are they really causing harm to themselves or another person? What is the rule to go by in deciding whether or not to intervene, and who’s to say we’re right in doing so? These are all questions, I think, which really need to be contemplated.

Ultimately, the only one who can really change a person’s life is that person himself. Others would argue here that God is the one who changes lives. Again, it is a matter of perception. God goes out of His way to arrange our experiences in such a way to where we will make the choices He favors as healthy ones (as He is the only One qualified to decide what Reality actually is and where a person is actually at). But when it comes right down to it, we still have to make those choices. God can throw everything at a person imaginable, He can rain Grace down on that person in unimaginable torrents, but that person still has to make the choice to go this way or that. God won’t do it for him. Even if He’s capable of forcing him to choose one or the other He won’t do it. It’s that person’s choice to continue to accept his perceived reality, or allow a change in that perceived reality towards what God is telling that person is Reality.

I have become convinced that there is nothing I can say or do with a person which will change their life. Nor should I ever dupe myself into thinking that I can (sadly, I’ve done just that before, it wasn’t pretty). My interaction with them might cause a change in direction, as all interactions must, but the person must make those choices for themselves. It must be their choice whether they decide life is fair or unfair, they’re ugly or pretty, smart or stupid, priceless or worthless, and they will decide that based on their experiences both old and new, long past and recent, including the conversation they hold with me whether I say anything or not.

A Ramble About Freedom in Christ

This is probably going to be a short Ramble. I'm sitting in a lazy-boy with my laptop and my back is absolutely killing me.

There is a lot of talk about having freedom in Christ among the various Churches and in various sermons. But, as I was thinking about it this morning during prayer, I don't think it means what a lot of people take it as.

First, Freedom in Christ has nothing whatsoever to do with doing whatever you want and getting away with it. often, the message comes across as freedom in Christ being equated with freedom from law, from discipline, from consequences, etc. But nowhere does it ever teach this concept in the New Testament, in fact it teaches quite the contrary as St. Paul writes in Romans 6, "Should we continue to sin that grace may abound? Absolutely not, how can we who died to sin live any longer in it?"

Freedom in Christ is about freedom from self, freedom from the slavery to possessions, the slavery to one's passions and carnal inclinations, it's about the world being crucified to you, and you to the world. The person who is still enslaved to his porn habit, the person who can't stop smoking because his body demands it, the person who feels like he always has to have more and more, the person who loves to get up on stage and hear people clap for him--these people haven't found freedom in Christ, they are still slaves to their own disorder and will be so until they embrace the death of the cross.

Freedom comes at a price. This is the lesson of American history. That price is almost always paid in blood, as well as sweat and tears. Freedom in Christ is no different. He paid it in blood so that we don't have to be enslaved to ourselves but that we might live for Him who died for us. In order to truly realize that freedom in Him we have to do the hard work of abandoning ourselves, letting go of all those things which enslave us, and embracing His death as our own. Then, and only then, will we truly experience that freedom.

A Ramble About Being "In" the World But Not "Of" the World

I've done a lot of talking about what I think Christianity isn't, but I haven't said a whole lot on the subject of what it actually looks like in practice. I go back and look at the spiritual masters of the Church, but most of them were monks, either living in communities or solitary, and, as my wife points out, most of them were men which makes it tough for women to relate to what they're saying. My wife and I talk a lot about this, but the discussion never seems to end with any finality. Most of the discussion centers around this passage found in 1 John 2:15-17:

"Don’t love the world, neither the things that are in the world. If anyone loves the world, the Father’s love isn’t in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, isn’t the Father’s, but is the world’s. The world is passing away with its lusts, but he who does God’s will remains forever." (WEB)

A lot of what the earlier saints wrote about was freeing yourself from any and all attachments and distractions which would impede your relationship with God. Those monks out in the desert literally gave away everything they had, ate only what the body needed to live, broke off most if not all of their family relationships, and spent large amounts of time in prayer and meditation when they weren't busying themselves with working just enough to be able to feed themselves or give their wages away.

For one's spiritual health these are probably the ideal conditions of living because they discipline the body, and encourage the person to devote their attention solely to God. Today, often churches will hold retreats which often resemble miniature weekend monasteries which involve few possessions brought of one's own, personal prayer times, and intense communal sessions devoted to prayer and worship. The outside world is shut out so that one can focus on the Lord free of distractions. But then what happens when one must return to "the real world"?

"The Real World" is full of possessions, movies, music, television programs, books, and relationships with people. In the real world you are constantly bombarded with things which demand your attention and take it away from God so that the most important relationship professed in your life only gets five to ten minutes a day at best. In "the real world" you have to own several sets of clothing. In "the real world" you have to bring in at least a few thousand a month just to be able to eat, have shelter, and be "normal". And in order to reach out to other people in "the real world", you have to be able to relate to them somehow.

Yes, it is possible to pitch the dvds, books, tv, etc. Yes, it is possible to give away all but the most basic of clothing. Yes, it is theoretically possible to live in this day and age completely isolated from the rest of the world. Some people do. But what about those obligations like spouses, and children, and people you care about and who depend on you, and what about our obligation to "disciple the nations"? How do we do this in isolation?

I have thrown away my books before (believe it or not). It seems I always acquire new ones. I have given away all of my clothes except for my clerics before. I seem to acquire more of those too. We got rid of most of our furniture and belongings in order to follow where the Lord leads, and both times we received more "stuff" again. What do you do when it doesn't seem like you can even get rid of the "stuff"?

I don't have all the answers, I wish I did. I have a funny feeling that this may look similar yet different for everybody as God works with everyone a little differently, personalizing His treatment plan for each of us, so to speak.

There are a few things however which I think we can learn from those monks out in the desert and apply to our lives having to live in the middle of the world. The first follows from the passage I quoted above, and they centered in on these three things: the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. These are labeled in the writings of those spiritual fathers as gluttony, avarice or greed, and self-esteem.

In short, they write that these three demons (as they call them) are the forward assault for all other demons to come in and wreak havoc with us. They fasted and ate only what the body needed in order to keep the body under control and thus keep gluttony at bay. They gave away everything they had and refused to acquire anything more as their own property in order to control their desire to own anything. Self-Esteem was the hardest one to keep at bay because it could creep up even, and some times especially, when a person was fasting and praying, and could only be combated with tears and the remembrance of our own sins, and the certainty of death.

To allow any of these free reign opens the door to a downward spiritual spiral. Gluttony, for example, may seem rather benign, but by allowing our body's appetite for food control us, instead of us controlling it, we then set the precedent for ourselves to obey what the body wants to satisfy it, and this in turn opens the door for other things like misplaced sexual desires, for example. Simply wanting, for example, a new dress or a nice pair of shoes seems pretty benign if it doesn't hurt anyone and you can afford it. But it can again open the door to justifying having still more. Self-Esteem is often preached from the roof-tops and from the pulpits, but the truth is that Jesus taught that we are to crucify ourselves for His sake, and it doesn't take much before we start believing that we "deserve better".

The second thing is how we approach our relationships with other people. Jesus taught that if we loved anyone, and I mean anyone, more than Him, we were not worthy of the Kingdom of God. Does this mean that we don't care about anyone else? Far from it, but what it does mean is that we have to be aware of our own attachments to other people. Do I depend on my relationship with this person to be happy? Does my self worth depend on how this person sees me? Do I have an attachment to this person which will interfere with my relationship with God? Am I spending more time being aware of my relationship with this person (positively or negatively) than I am being aware of my relationship with God? If the answer is yes to any of these questions, we need to reevaluate that relationship. All of our relationships with other people must be viewed through our relationship with God, and not vice versa. For example, I love my wife and children dearly. But I also know that there will come a time when we will all have to say our good byes and those relationships will end in this life, one way or the other. The loss of those relationships should never be able to damage my relationship with Him. My relationship with God will continue permanently. Just as I must place my relationship with my family as more important than my relationships with co-workers, so must I also place my relationship with God as more important that those with the members of my family.

The third thing I want to address is simply spending time with God and focusing on Him. No relationship can develop unless the two or more parties spend time with each other and get to know each other. The more time spent, the better the two know each other. The less time spent, the less of a chance the relationship has. Be aware of your choices on how you spend your time in this matter.

Finally, we must simply be aware of the choices we make and the consequences thereof. We must always keep in mind that we were born naked, and we will die with less than that. And when we die, we will have only our relationship with God, or lack thereof. Everything else in this life is either a hindrance to that relationship, or a help depending on how it's used. If you can live in this world with possessions, family, friends, etc. and be free from distractions and attachments which impede your relationship with God, more power to you. If you need to give everything away and live as a hermit in the desert in order to draw closer to Him, then do it. Most of us will probably fall somewhere in between, but we need to be aware of when we believe we can't do without something of this world, or if it seems more important than Him. That's the time to give it up completely.

A Ramble About Change and Perception

It is a stated fact that God Himself doesn't change. Some theologians or would be theologians would probably debate this, but He doesn't. He says as much within Sacred Scripture "I am the Lord, I do not change, therefore you are not consumed O sons of Jacob."

Think about what this means for a minute. God Himself is static. He doesn't move. Change happens around Him, within Him, and through Him. But He Himself remains motionless, still, and we and the flow of time move and change along His quiet surface like the ripples over a pond. God doesn't move through time. Time moves through God. God doesn't move through space, space moves through Him. This is the virtue and consequence of true omnipresence. All places, all times, all dimensions, everywhere there is a where when and how simultaneously.

He doesn't present one version of Himself to one group of people, and another version to a different group of people. But the funny thing about people, is that while God Himself doesn't change, they do. People are constantly in flux, never the exact same person from one minute to the next. With every new experience, change occurs. With every new thought, new idea, new choice the person dies and is reborn remembering everything, or much of everything, which happened before but with a new, or at least altered, understanding of how to interpret it, no matter how small the change may be.

So, God Himself doesn't change, but people do; and different people interpret their experiences of life, other people, and even God differently depending on their perception. Some people perceive God as harsh and judgmental; others perceive Him as gentle and loving. God Himself remains motionless.

God Himself remains motionless, but we project motion onto Him. We perceive motion in Him because we ourselves are moving. Just as we perceive motion in the Sun when it rises and sets, but in reality it is the earth which is, and consequently ourselves who are, in motion around the Sun which, relative to us, remains stationery.

So, God remains stationary, but we perceive Him in motion. We project our own expectations, good or bad, fair or unfair, onto Him. We project our figures of authority, figures of abuse, father figures, mother figures, friendly and enemy figures onto Him depending on what is in the forefront of our minds, or buried deep in our subconscious. We get angry when He doesn't act on what we want, but then ignore Him when He permits events to give us what we need and more often than we want to admit, we curse Him for it.

In our life we often project our idea of what He is supposed to be onto Him, and rarely bother to slow down enough to know Him as He is. Often, as with other people, we don't really care about who He is and what He is like, we only care about what we think about Him and what our perception of Him is. We do this often without thinking just because it is how we interact with everybody. Often our perception of a person is formed by who they appeared to be in the past, and has little to do with who they actually are right now, which is always going to be at least slightly different from who they were five minutes ago.

Our biggest problem when knowing God is that He doesn't change, but we do. Our perceptions of Him change and so we perceive that He is changing when in fact it is we who are changing through the motion and experience of life. So one day we may perceive Him as judgmental and harsh, and another we perceive Him as loving and kind. He has not changed, but our understanding and perception of Him has.

The first rule of getting to know someone is to not form any preconceptions, or to lose one's preconceptions, and then to go and spend time with them and learn from them who they are. This applies also to God. We move through time, and as we move through time we encounter Him through every point in time in His stillness which we perceive as motion because we are in motion. Therefore in order to truly know Him as He is we ourselves must slow down as be still as He is still. As we move through Him He reveals Himself if only we will pay attention.

God is love in everything He is and does, but we will only experience this if we drop our own perceptions, be still, and get to know Him. He is not harsh and judgmental one minute and kind and loving the next, we are. He does not wish some saved and some damned, we do. He does not send some to heaven and some to hell. We ourselves dwell in either place right now by our own choices, and only through our motion through Him responding to His Grace do we move from hell to heaven here and now, and later on.

Jesus said that "the one who saves his psyche will destroy it, the one who destroys his psyche for My sake will save it," (literally what the Greek says). In order to know God, which is our salvation here and now, we must put aside our own projections, perceptions, thoughts, and ideas and just spend time with Him on His terms. Otherwise we attempt to worship only those same ideas, thoughts, and perceptions of what He is like, and not He Himself. This is little different from the idolatry which was so condemned by Him in the Old Testament. He doesn't want us to speculate about Him, he wants us to know Him. He doesn't want us bowing down to a concept we have of Him, He wants us to spend time with Him as He truly is. Idols don't have to be made of wood or stone, they are far more often made of feelings, images, and memories amalgamated together into something that we call God and either love or fear, revere or mock. But such idols are still not Him, and like the Israelites in the Old Testament, He commands that they be torn down and we know Him as He is.

God remains stationary as we move through Him. Are we paying attention to where we are along the way?

A Ramble About Buddha's Choice

Around twenty six hundred years ago there was a prince in India named Gautama Siddharta. His father gave him everything anyone could ever want, and was careful to keep anyone who appeared old or sick away from him, so as to keep the knowledge of sickness and death a secret from him. He was married, wealthy, and powerful. And then within a very short amount of time it all fell apart as he met someone old, someone sick, and finally saw a dead body. He then had to come to grips with the fundamental truth of humanity which his father had tried so hard to keep from him: suffering. Gautama then wrestled with the problem and felt compassion, not only for himself, but for everyone else who had to experience suffering. It drove him to the point where he could no longer stay in the palace, but because he wanted to find the solution so desperately for everyone, he left. He left his wealth, his power, his father, and his young wife and newborn son, the latter doing so in tears, but still he left because he knew they would experience suffering too.

There is another account in "The Gospel of Buddha" which talks about a choice which Gautama Siddharta made when he reached enlightenment and became the "Buddha". The tempter, Mara (for all intents Satan in Hindu theology), came to him and said, "thou hast attained the highest bliss and it is time for thee to enter the final Nirvana." After this, Brahma (for all intents the equivalent of God in Hindu theology), also spoke to him and implored him not to enter Nirvana yet, but to go and preach his dharma to as many as will listen to bring them enlightenment and salvation as well. Out of compassion for everyone else, Gautama spent the next fifty or sixty years preaching and living his dharma until he died in his eighties. The philosophy and the religion he founded survives to this day, some twenty-six hundred years later.

The Buddha's choice was to place other people above himself even at the risk of his own salvation and enlightenment. In both instances he could have chosen his own personal comfort and safety. He could have stayed safe and secure, or he could have gone on to the final Nirvana and have chosen to avoid the suffering which naturally comes with life and interaction with other people. He could have, but he didn't. He saw that other people were suffering in their ignorance and fear, sickness and sorrow, and knowing that he had an answer to raise them above it he chose to work for their best interests instead of his own.

The Buddha's choice is one which we are all faced with. Do we look out for our own interests, or do we sacrifice our own interests and even run the risk of sacrificing our own salvation and enlightenment so that others can be saved and enlightened?

Jesus Christ gave us, as those who profess to follow Him, the example to follow. There were so many times when He could have remained safe, and He chose not to. He didn't have to heal people on the sabbath, but compassion drove Him to do so. He didn't have to go to the cross, but compassion drove Him to do so. In everything He did He placed what was best for others above Himself, even if it wasn't what they thought was best for themselves. The people of Judea wanted to make Him a king by force one time, He got out of there in a hurry because it wasn't what was best.

Sacred Scripture teaches that we are to deny ourselves, dying to ourselves daily. That we are to love one another as Christ loved us. This means even to the point where we would give not only our physical lives for the other person, but if necessary our own hearts, minds, and souls because this is what Jesus Christ did for us just by incarnating into a human being and emptying Himself. He poured Himself out as a sacrifice long before He ever went to the cross physically.

There is a tendency among Christians which runs contrary to the teaching and practice of Jesus Christ. We tend to want to close ourselves off from those having problems, especially if those same problems are difficult or ongoing. We get to a point where we feel like we're doing ok spiritually and we don't want to be dragged down by someone else's suffering. So we distance ourselves from that person so that we don't have to suffer with them. We want to remain spiritually in tune and don't want someone else's negativity interrupting that.

What we fail to see when this happens is that when we turn our back on each other, we are no longer spiritually in tune. We are following some other path and not the path of Jesus Christ. It is some other voice telling us, "don't worry about those other people, you've made it, you've done it, now it's time to rest and go on to your final Nirvana." This voice has nothing to do with God, who pleads with us in Jesus Christ to go out and preach the gospel (using words if necessary as St. Francis of Assisi said). He tells us to go and "disciple the nations", bring everyone the teaching of enlightenment in Jesus Christ, and when a brother is suffering to "bear and share one another's burdens and so fulfill the law of Christ."

The practice and teaching of Jesus Christ is compassion, and where this is no longer present, neither is He.

Twenty six hundred years ago, a Hindu prince who had no understanding of the God of Israel made a choice to have compassion and give up his own immediate salvation for the sake of all those who were suffering. Six hundred years later the God of Israel walked the earth as man and gave up everything for the sake of all mankind who was suffering. Are we, who profess to follow the latter, going to then ignore the suffering of our brothers and sisters; or are we going to take the hard road, follow the path of Jesus Christ and make the Buddha's choice?

A Ramble About "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

I've been watching a certain news program at night on my iPod. It's by no means a conservative news program, but I appreciate the honesty, candor, and humor the host, Rachel Maddow, brings to the realm of politics, and the light she tries to shed on the otherwise intentionally muddied subject of politics. I don't always agree with her point of view, but I appreciate it and it has opened my own eyes to things I would have otherwise not been aware of had I stuck only to watching shows which purport to reflect views more closely associated with my own.



One of the topics she has covered recently are the debates and court rulings over the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law. This is the policy of the United States military that, if you are a homosexual, practicing or otherwise, employed by the US military, officer or enlisted, you are obliged to neither reveal this information yourself, and they are obliged to not ask you outright. If somehow this information falls into the hands of the military then they will discharge you, honorably or dishonorably as the case may be.



Whatever other arguments may be held against it's repeal, there seems to be one overriding argument in favor of removing it. It violates the United States Constitution and the basic principle of equality and civil rights which is enshrined therein. There is no solid evidence that a person who is homosexual is any less capable of serving in the US military than a person who is heterosexual, and from my (admittedly limited) understanding, there is a great deal of evidence that persons who have been discharged under this law were extremely capable personnel, and the removal of them from service has been a terrible disservice to the operation of the US military.



So, why are so many people, especially professing Christian people, in the US government, and the US at large against having homosexual people serving openly in the US military? I believe the answer is that it is a result of misunderstanding and misteaching about the practice and application of the Christian faith and the teachings regarding not only homosexuality, but any sexual practice whether it is popularly considered deviant or not.



What is the ideal "sexual state" of the practicing Christian as found in both Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition?



Chastity.



Let me say this again. The ideal sexual relationship in Christian practice according to the writings of Holy Scripture and the writings of the Church Fathers and Leaders for the last two thousand years is, and has always been, no sexual relationship at all. So if we were all to live according to the Biblical ideal, none of us who profess and practice Jesus Christ would be married or have children.



Why is chastity the ideal sexual relationship? Because the practice of Christianity is the denial of one's self, and the discipline and denial of one's own bodily appetites, bringing them under the control of Grace. It is the letting go of one's possessions, relationships (both friendships and family relationships), attachments, desires, and the emptying of one's entire being to pursue the one and only relationship which truly matters: one's relationship with God through and in Jesus Christ. He gave up His life for us, and so the practice of Christianity is to respond in kind. If something draws our attention away from Him it is to be cut off and let go of, otherwise it becomes a trap.



This was the teaching of both Jesus Christ and St. Paul:



Matthew 10:32-39 (WEB)

Everyone therefore who confesses me before men, him I will also confess before my Father who is in heaven. But whoever denies me before men, him I will also deny before my Father who is in heaven.Don’t think that I came to send peace on the earth. I didn’t come to send peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man at odds against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.A man’s foes will be those of his own household.He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me isn’t worthy of me.He who doesn’t take his cross and follow after me, isn’t worthy of me.He who seeks his life will lose it; and he who loses his life for my sake will find it.


Matthew 10:44-45 (WEB)

“Again, the Kingdom of Heaven is like a treasure hidden in the field, which a man found, and hid. In his joy, he goes and sells all that he has, and buys that field.Again, the Kingdom of Heaven is like a man who is a merchant seeking fine pearls,who having found one pearl of great price, he went and sold all that he had, and bought it.



Matthew 19:4-12(WEB)

He answered, "“Haven’t you read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall join to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh?’So that they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, don’t let man tear apart.”"They asked him, “Why then did Moses command us to give her a bill of divorce, and divorce her?”He said to them, "“Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it has not been so.I tell you that whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries her when she is divorced commits adultery.”"His disciples said to him, “If this is the case of the man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.”But he said to them, "“Not all men can receive this saying, but those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven’s sake. He who is able to receive it, let him receive it.”



1 Corinthians 7:1-8, 27-28, 32-35(WEB)

Now concerning the things about which you wrote to me: it is good for a man not to touch a woman. But, because of sexual immoralities, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. Let the husband render to his wife the affection owed her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife doesn’t have authority over her own body, but the husband. Likewise also the husband doesn’t have authority over his own body, but the wife. Don’t deprive one another, unless it is by consent for a season, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer, and may be together again, that Satan doesn’t tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 But this I say by way of concession, not of commandment. Yet I wish that all men were like me. However each man has his own gift from God, one of this kind, and another of that kind. But I say to the unmarried and to widows, it is good for them if they remain even as I am. But if they don’t have self-control, let them marry. For it’s better to marry than to burn. ... Are you bound to a wife? Don’t seek to be freed. Are you free from a wife? Don’t seek a wife. But if you marry, you have not sinned. If a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Yet such will have oppression in the flesh, and I want to spare you. ... But I desire to have you to be free from cares. He who is unmarried is concerned for the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; but he who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife. There is also a difference between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman cares about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she who is married cares about the things of the world—how she may please her husband. This I say for your own profit; not that I may ensnare you, but for that which is appropriate, and that you may attend to the Lord without distraction.



Philippians 3:7-14

However, what things were gain to me, these have I counted loss for Christ. Yes most certainly, and I count all things to be loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus, my Lord, for whom I suffered the loss of all things, and count them nothing but refuse, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own, that which is of the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith; that I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, becoming conformed to his death; if by any means I may attain to the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained, or am already made perfect; but I press on, if it is so that I may take hold of that for which also I was taken hold of by Christ Jesus. Brothers, I don’t regard myself as yet having taken hold, but one thing I do. Forgetting the things which are behind, and stretching forward to the things which are before, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.


The Sacrament of Marriage was given as a compromise or a concession for those of us who want to follow Jesus Christ, and devote ourselves to Him, but for whom also certain passions overwhelm us. Jesus Christ Himself was celibate by all trustworthy records. So was St. Paul. To my knowledge, many of His Apostles were not. Certainly not St. Peter of whom even Holy Scripture says He was married and mentions both his wife and his mother-in-law.



Within the Church, marriage is the only permissible actively sexual relationship because it was the only one sanctioned by Jesus Christ and His Apostles and their successors the Patriarchs, Bishops, and Fathers of the Church.



Now, how then do we respond to actively practicing homosexuals? According to Jesus Christ, with love, compassion, and understanding; the same way He responds to us. As He taught: "how can you see well enough to take the splinter out of your brother's eye when you have a log in your own eye?" And also "love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, and pray for those who mistrust you and abuse you." (See the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7, and the Sermon on the Plains in Luke 6). In other words, we respond to homosexuals the same way we are taught and avowed to respond to everyone irregardless of who they are or what they do to us or anyone else. We are to care about them, love them, and help them in any way we can.



If it is a homosexual person who stands outside the Church, who are we, and what right do we have to judge them or look down on them? Weren't, and often aren't, we in the same position at one time or another? Blind and incapable of seeing our own Disorder and Malfunction for what it truly is? Didn't God have to break through our blindness with His light and doesn't He continuously still have to do so?



If it is a homosexual who stands inside the Church, who are we to beat up on our brother or sister who is struggling with desires and attachments? We are to love and care about them and when they reach out for help we are to gently guide them back to the path. We cannot abandon the Sacred Tradition and teaching of Holy Scripture just because it is the popular thing to do in any age whether it is in sanctioning practicing homosexual activity within the Church, or in bashing and persecuting practicing homosexuals. Both are forbidden. Ours is the path of Love Himself: The Path of Jesus Christ. And it is only in the practice of this path wherein any of us find our salvation in Him, and deviation from it is to step off into darkness and our own personal Gehenna from which it is very hard to recover in this life, and impossible in the next.



God desires that none, I repeat none, should perish but that all should come to repentance and know Him. It is our job to help people out of hell, not to gleefully condemn them to it, irregardless of what they've done, because we have the exact same Problem and would be there ourselves if someone had not intervened in our lives, and if God Himself did not constantly intervene.



Don't ask? Don't tell? It shouldn't matter if they do. Our response should always be the same no matter what. His is with us.

A Ramble about Confessions

As a part of my job as a residential care worker, I get to participate in various "groups" held by the residents. One of the kinds of groups is where the kids get together and then admit to things which they have done which are among one or more of nine problems on a list such as a problem with authority, for example. Sometimes these problems are called up because we, as staff, have given them paperwork to fill out because we see the problem being displayed. Sometimes they see the problem themselves and address it. Sometimes their peers do, and they either call it out or say that they'll "look into it".

I have sat through many of these groups now. And there are two things that strike me most about them. The first is how much like the sacrament of confession they are in intent. The second is, like many confessions, how phony many of these admittals are. The hypocrisy is overwhelming at times. The only reason why these kids usually call them out and admit them is because they're required to or else they lose the ability to do anything fun. Ideally, the kids that have been there longer are supposed to guide the newer kids in how to explore and call out their problems. In reality, they only show them how to give the mechanical responses everyone expects.

There's no sincerity. There's no real change of heart. It's so mechanical that the kids read through the list of problems at breakneck speed so that I usually can't understand what they're saying, and many don't even bother to actually read through the list. They just read off the number or letter of the point on the outline. They get extremely annoyed when I ask them to slow down their reading. After the groups are done, they will frequently behave in such a way so as to receive more paperwork for the very same things which they just admitted they recognized as a problem and the cycle will repeat itself.

I do a lot of listening to the kids, too. Often I let them talk about more then they are supposed to be allowed in order to determine where they're really at from day to day. From these conversations it's pretty easy to see that very little has changed even after the groups. The behavior of those kids who have been there longer may have changed to conform to the standards so that they don't get into as much trouble, but the beliefs and attitudes which caused the initial behavior seem just as prevalent. They fall into line just enough to merit discharge, but intend on falling back into the same thing which precipitated the need for them to be in the facility they're in.

I can't help but think when I am at work how much like the Church this is. How often do we go to confession (whether with a priest, at Mass, or in private) go through the routine and ask forgiveness with no real intent on changing the causes within our hearts which precipitated the need for confession to begin with? We only go through the motions in order to get out of any disciplinary action, and then like the kids I work with, we are mechanically told "good job for calling your problems" by our peers.

Do we really think we're fooling God into thinking we are actually repentant? If I, as a human staff member, am able to see through the false fronts, how much more does God see into our hearts knowing what our true intent is?

The purpose of the Sacrament is to reconcile us to God and each other, to recognize the change of mind and heart and to bring us back into communion with each other, including God, in the same way that the purpose of the groups is to bring the kids back into the normal practice of the program where I work. It is to acknowledge our failures but also to reach out for real help in moving past them. Simply saying what we did wrong and expecting an absolution so that you don't have to face discipline is a misuse and abuse of the program, and of the Sacrament and is a deep misunderstanding of both.

I can't say that I am any different either because I too am equally guilty of this. How many times have I gone to the Lord mechanically only because somewhere in the back of my mind I think I will somehow escape discipline or consequences for what I have thought, said, or done; all the while not letting go of the passions, fears, or desires which were the causes of what I have thought, said, or done.

God sees all of it, and we can hide nothing from Him. He sees more about us than we do. He also knows when we're faking it just to be perceived as advancing in the program.

A Ramble About Attachment Disorders

As part of my training for work, I am having to plow through a three inch thick binder of reading materials. Most of it is a repeat of materials, laws, and regulations which I have already read or with which I have already become acquainted. But recently I read through a pamphlet in the binder on attachment disorders which caught my attention and got me thinking. It isn't the first time I had encountered material on AD or RAD, but this time rusty gears started whirring.

In short, an attachment disorder occurs when a child fails, generally through either neglect or abuse, to form a healthy nurturing attachment to their parent. This in turn leads them to be unable to form healthy attachments to other people and can cause them to either cling to a person, or to completely reject and become abusive to the person, and in many cases to become abusive to themselves. The author of the article I had read stated that such children will often try to cause their foster parents (assuming a foster care situation) to abuse them to try to get them to treat them as their abusive birth parents did. The author also states that such children engage in pathological lying, invent stories of being abused, and refuse to take responsibility for their actions blaming others; such behavior continuing into adulthood.

I have often referred to "sin" as a disorder or malfunction of the human psyche (the very word in Greek, hamartia, meaning "error, malfunction, disorder, mistake", and used frequently in Greek literature to denote the "fatal flaw" which resides within every human being). I have also often referred to it as a kind of Spiritual Autism or Spiritual Asberger's Syndrome where the person initially is unable to communicate or socialize normally with God, or the spiritual world in general. I have also described the path of Jesus Christ as a kind of treatment plan for this disorder.

Now I would like to explore these elements, add one or two more, and then try to put a bigger picture together.

Another psychologist, Abraham Maslow, described what he called a hierarchy of needs, also referred to as Maslow's pyramid. In it he describes five levels of need, each level of which must be realized and satisfied before the person can progress upwards: 1)physiological, 2)safety and security, 3)love/belonging, 4)esteem, 5)self-actualization. This scheme is debated as to which level should go where, and that it doesn't always look the same in every individual, but the basic idea is sound. It is when a need is perceived as not being met that psychological aberrations begin to occur, and the person is often unable to progress to the next level.

Another piece of the puzzle I am attempting to put together lies in the descriptions given of experiences of deep prayer and meditation and even enlightenment among the various mystical traditions. To condense a great number of such witnesses, when one draws ever closer to God to the point where there is only the individual and God, and the lines begin to blur, the general consensus is the experience of overwhelming peace, joy, love, and fulfillment in knowing Him in an intimate way.

I would posit that the human being's "natural" state was to be in intimate constant relationship with God. Such a relationship would consistently and permanently meet all that person's needs for safety, love, belonging, esteem, and self-actualization. It would not matter if everything collapsed and burned down around them(as has also been reported as being experienced), this constant relationship and awareness would continuously provide that those needs would be met. I should add here that in this kind of relationship it would be understood that the physical needs, while important, would likely be considered of secondary importance (also reported as being experienced).

The hamartia disorder (no, I don't like using the word "sin" because of it's frequent misuse and abuse) renders the human being unable to communicate or relate "normally" with God. Like a person with Asperger's or Autism, the person is often aware of God, or rather aware of the absence of "Something", but is unable to socialize normally or experience normal relationship. It is not that God is not present, but that the person in question is unable to recognize that presence without promptings from Him, and even often with promptings the person is unable to recognize and respond appropriately to Him.

The leads to the perception that somehow God, the Primary Parent, is not present or is somehow neglectful of the person whether or not that is the actual reality. This then precipitates a kind of Attachment Disorder with God, or more often because of the initial disorder, our perception of God which is all too often a misperception or a fantasy created in our mind of what we expect God to be because of our lack of direct experience or "observation". The mind creates an image which to which it then attaches the label "God" with God Himself being formless and imageless. We lie, we refuse to take responsibility, we become abusive to ourselves, to our perception of God, and to other people. We cling to our perceptions or fantasies about God, or we reject them outright hoping that He will love us while we tell Him how much we hate Him.

This also lends itself to the conclusion that it is this primary disorder, hamartia, which is the root cause of all other disorders. Without the uninterrupted relationship from birth of the psyche to God, the psyche then turns to the people around the person to fulfill those needs perceived as being unfulfilled. This then leads to a Russian roulette where the person's apparent psychological health is dependent largely on the circumstances of his birth, childhood and upraising, as well as his own choices which are highly influenced by these factors.

Even after a person is baptized, and is so joined to God through being grafted onto Christ, there is still the matter of integrating that new state. The person has developed a lifetime of behaviors which developed while unable to respond to the presence of God, and now they must integrate that new sense and ability into their pattern of behavior which takes both time and practice. Integration does not happen immediately, and it must progress and occur before the full benefits of such Treatment can be realized, at least in this life.

It stands to reason that we will relate to God in the same way that we will relate to other people. If we present a false front to other people, we will likely attempt to do so with God. If we are honest with other people and open, we are likely to do so with God. If we are capable of dysfunctional relationships with other people, then we are equally capable of it with God and are likely to treat Him thus.

In spite of all this, God is still present. He still loves us. He still wants desperately for us to work through this and to know Him, knowing the whole time the kind of fight and struggle it will be. He wants us to succeed in this and ultimately to experience deep, intimate, normal relationship with Him. The way things were supposed to be.

A Ramble About Burning the Qur'an

If you're a news junkie like me (yes, I have high speed news again!), and maybe if you're not, you've probably heard about the decision by a pastor down south to hold an "International Burn the Koran Day." From what I understand, in spite of repeated statements and requests by the US government, including General Petraeus who happens to be responsible for the lives of the men and women serving overseas in Afghanistan; in spite of these high level requests this church still intends to go ahead with this.

At first glance, I must admit that I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, no, I don't agree with Islam, and I don't agree with the Koran on most points, although I was surprised at how much we do agree on and what we agree on having read through part of it. That one of the feelings that comes into my mind.

But it's the other which comes into my mind more strongly. This is the feeling of, "How can you possibly call this a Christian act when it is direct contradiction to what Jesus taught?" And, by extension, "how can you call yourself a Christian?"

Jesus taught us to love our enemies, to do good to those who hate us, to bless those who persecute us, and to pray for those who abuse us. How is burning the most sacred book in the Islamic world loving them? How is performing an act of vengeance and petty spite doing good to them? In short, how does this action pass the acid test of what Jesus actually taught and lived when, as He was being nailed to a cross, prayed for the forgiveness of his tormentors? How does this give and display Jesus to the Muslim world?

Another teaching of Jesus comes into my mind, and that is "how can you see clearly enough to remove a splinter from another's eye when you have a log in your own?" And also, "don't judge so that you won't be judged; don't condemn, so that you won't be condemned; forgive and you will be forgiven."

Burning the Koran is, in some ways, an illustration of pointing out the faults and errors of everyone else around you, while being completely blind to your own. The basic practice of the Christian faith is to look deeply at your own errors and admit them. To recognize that there is something wrong with you. The primary focus must be on one's own spiritual problem, not everyone else's. Burning someone else's Koran doesn't do anything to advance one's own spiritual growth and it only drives them further away from Truth, not closer to it. You have to let them do the burning when they're ready and prompted by Grace and the Holy Spirit, otherwise they will only draw farther away.

There was a scene in the recent remake of "The Karate Kid" where Mr. Han takes his student out of the professional Kung-Fu teacher's dojo and then declares adamantly that "That is not Kung-Fu! That is a bad man teaching very bad things!"

This Pastor who plans this... "That is not Christianity! That is a misguided and ignorant man teaching very bad things!" I hope the Muslim world understands that.

Just Rambling

There have been a lot of thoughts rambling about in my head now for a while, and the truth is that I'm not sure where to begin. Every time I come to my computer and try to type them out, my mind goes blank, and I can't bring them back.

While I'm thinking about it, they go something like this:

First: I find it sad that to say you have a degree in theology these days is all too often taken as declaring that your college major was underwater basket weaving, especially by those in the fields of psychology and counseling. It isn't necessarily their fault, as much as it is ours and the theological, biblical, or religious communities in general. In some real sense, our field was the original study of the “psyche” (the word for soul in Greek) and its treatment, and thus ours was the original psychology. But because we have drifted away from the treatment and deliverance of the psyche from our fundamental disorder and all too often concern ourselves with arguments over semantics, and irrelevant and inconsequential teachings, and shied away the practical applications of the Gospel because we have ourselves misunderstood or been ignorant of them; because of all of these things and more we have practically no credibility in that field within which we should know better than anyone.

Second: I recently watched “The Last Airbender” for the third time in the theater today. The acting and dialogue aren't great, but there's just something about it which speaks to me, to the point where I get choked up and nearly cry in a couple of scenes. Judging by the crowd in the theater this late after the movie opened this summer, I'm not the only one to whom it speaks. And I have to ask myself “why?”

“Avatar: The Last Airbender”, as a movie and as the original TV series takes much of it's spirituality from the eastern religions and beliefs, and over the last twenty or thirty years, many western people have turned to these beliefs to fill a spiritual need which they have been unable to meet in the churches. I have written and ranted in my rambles a lot about the catalysts involved in this exodus so I won't go through a full rant here about them. But it is sad.

I myself found a great deal of peace in Buddhist and Taoist writings, and a great deal of agreement and complementary teachings. I was disturbed about my reaction until I began to read such writings as “The Imitation of Christ,” “The Cloud of Unknowing,” and those by St. Peter of Damascus, and others from the Spiritual and Mystical traditions of the Church; and in these writings I found our brothers from the centuries before us saying much the same thing about practice, focus, detachment, and self-abandonment as the Buddhist and Taoist writings do while adamantly focused on Jesus Christ.

I have to wonder if, in some way, the world of “The Last Airbender” doesn't reflect the state of spirituality today, if not the Church directly. We, like the four nations, are fighting amongst ourselves. I can't even speak to old friends at times without them looking for an opportunity to try and “convert” me, or feel like I have to defend my Christianity as though it were somehow inferior to theirs. And in the end, I think most of us are trying desperately to practice our faith in Jesus Christ, knowing the Father through Him, but often don't really know where to turn. In some sense, like those in the movie, I think many of us are hoping that there is an “Avatar” out there who can teach us and lead us back to the way we somehow just know things are supposed to be.

I think this is why so many people leave the churches for something else, or else just think the Church is fraudulent at best.

Third: I have to be careful with this. I think, in some small way, I'm getting the hang of this. I'm not saying I've arrived, or that I'm perfect, or anything like that. If I were to feel or think that way, it would be a sure sign that I hadn't got a clue and was plunging headlong down a really, really dark path. But I think I'm finally at the point where it no longer feels like I'm spinning my wheels spiritually.

I'm finding that, at least for me, withdrawing from myself, and denying myself has less to do with isolation and more to do with being with people. I tried for months, as I wrote about before, to spend time in meditation, sometimes hours at a time. Meditation, prayer, private Eucharist. Sometimes it was well, sometimes it produced little it seemed. And then, a couple of months ago I was convicted about it. I had gone to do my prayers and Communion on my own again, and then realized that it had been a few weeks since my wife, not to mention my kids, had taken Holy Communion. I then included my wife. The truth is that it was a bit uncomfortable for me at first. In some ways it still is, because I have always been uncomfortable with other people being involved with my prayer life.

But that's just the point. I was trying to stay in a place where I was comfortable. I wasn't denying or abandoning self when I retreated to do my prayers, I was running headlong to it. And in so doing, I was preventing my family from receiving the Eucharist, and denying them Jesus rather than providing Him to them. I wasn't fulfilling my calling as a priest, I was abandoning it without truly understanding what I was doing, and so instead of drawing closer to Christ through self-abandonment, I was pushing Him away and keeping those dearest to me from receiving Him.

We began doing morning and evening prayers as a family using the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, and doing Mass at home with both my wife and kids; and I have struggled with it. But, that's the point. I do struggle with it because it's not comfortable to have anyone else be a part of my prayer life. Just like it's not comfortable to do the dishes, or feed the animals, or water the garden when my wife is unable to do so. It's not comfortable to sit and listen to someone rant about their problems when all you want to do is get away and watch a movie, or read, or play a game.

I think I'm finally beginning to get the hang of this because I am now recognizing that it isn't me who is doing any of these things when they happen, but the Grace of God within me. I recognized it before, but now I think I've got a grasp on it, if that makes any sense. It's penetrating through my thick skull that I can't just plow through a day and assume that I'm going to be kind, or gentle, or gracious. I can't assume that I'm going to keep my temper if things don't go my way. I'm accepting now that whatever temptations I encounter are because I want to do those things and therefore I am the one who is dysfunctional, not the circumstances surrounding me, and because I am the one who is dysfunctional I must, I repeat must, confess this dysfunction daily, hourly, minutely, and ask for His grace to flow through me, for Him to overflow within me with His presence, and power, a love, and compassion, and wisdom, and humility because I am poor, blind, weak, naked, and ignorant. I have a serious disorder, and ignoring that fact isn't going to make it go away. It's only when you admit that you have one, and apply yourself to the treatment plan that you are able to learn to function in spite of it. If you at any point deny that it exists, you are only lying to yourself and will make it worse, not better.

At any rate, I think I've finally said my peace, so I'll quit rambling for now.