A Short Ramble About Papal Succession

Recently, Pope Benedict XVI, the former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, made his decision public and official that he is resigning his papal office. There is very little precedent for this except that of Gregory VII, some 600 years ago. Generally, when a Cardinal is elected Bishop of Rome, he remains in that office until his death. His Holiness chose to resign because of his age and increasing infirmity, and he didn't want that to interfere with all that the papal office requires.

What I find fascinating and bewildering is all the “experts” speculating about what kind of “change” the election of a new Bishop of Rome could or should bring to the Roman Catholic Church. There are some who are hoping for more recognition of homosexuality, the ordination of women, or other changes both major and minor.

What bewilders me, is that these experts don't seem to understand a very fundamental fact of the nature of the Church and its clergy. The clergy of the Church don't have the power to change the Church, they are only charged with its maintenance. They aren't charged with making it more progressive and adaptive. They're charged with protecting the sacred trust which was handed to them. They have a responsibility to guard the teachings and practices of the Church which have passed from generation to generation since the first century. To modify those teachings and practices is to say that Jesus Christ and His Apostles didn't know what they were doing, or didn't possess the fullness of the Gospel. In a way, the Roman Catholic Church has already gone much farther from that original deposit of faith than it should have with its decrees of papal infallibility and clerical celibacy, things which the ancient Church wouldn't have recognized or taught.

The primary role of a Bishop, any Bishop including the Bishop of Rome, is that of a pastor. His role is not as a politician, a monarch, or a CEO. His role is to guide and shepherd the congregation God has charged him with, while also maintaining his own relationship with God. Any new papal candidate needs to have this understanding above all others, and from what I understand, most do.

As the resignation of Benedict XVI and the election of a successor play out, what should be looked for is not some radical new change, but the consistency and continuity, as much as is possible within the Roman Church, of an unchanged ancient faith which was entrusted to them.

A Ramble About Patriotism

I recently got around to watching “The Patriot” with Mel Gibson. Overall, I was impressed. It was a well done and well crafted film which captured much of the flavor of the American Revolution, if not the accurate details.

The thing which struck me most about the film was how it made me feel as an American. I had no less than three or four ancestors in the original New England colonies in the mid sixteen hundreds from both sides of my family. I have relatives on both sides of my family who have traced our family lines throughout the history of the United States from its first English colonies through the American Revolution, and on through the Civil War and the westward expansion. In many ways, my own personal family history is a mirror of the history of this country. Relations of mine helped forge the huge chains that were strung to keep out British ships. Other relations were slave owners. I even had ancestors fighting on both sides of the Civil War, North and South. My own great grandfather was either full or at least half Cherokee, so at least some of my ancestors had to walk the Trail of Tears (I never forget that I would have had to). So when I sat and watched this film it stirred something within me which I'm not sure I can explain. Something deep within me, something in my blood resonated with the American soldiers in their red, white,and blue uniforms and the American flag flying as they fought a desperate war against an Empire upon which the sun never set.

I was taught to be patriotic and to love this country since as far back as I can remember. I suppose that's what happens when you're born into a military family and live on or near military bases for the first six years of your life. It's ingrained into your very being to feel something at the sight of the American flag flying in the breeze. It's ingrained into you to have nothing but respect for American soldiers even if you will never serve that way yourself (not that I didn't try).

Patriotism is defined as a love for one's native country. Good or bad, right or wrong, to be a patriot you must love your country and want the best for it. A real patriot would not think of trying to cause its downfall, or try to shatter it into pieces. A real patriot would work for the good of their country even if it means coming to a compromise with people you disagree with, so that everyone can benefit.

Earlier tonight, as I write this, I saw a piece on the news about a new “fortified city” being proposed in Northern Idaho, within a couple hours drive from us, by a group that wants to have as little to do with the US government as possible. Their advertisement for “citizens” for this community calls for “true patriots” who must own an AR-15 assault rifle and maintain a thousand rounds of ammunition. I really have to wonder at the irony that this group only considers those people true patriots who are willing to separate from the United States and fight against it “if the need arises.” As I think about my family's history, I really have to wonder if they understand the meaning of the word “patriot.”

Often, there seem to be too many within the Church who seem to use the same definition of “patriotism” as this group. Their measure of loyalty to and love for Jesus Christ is taken by how willing they are to break apart the Church and cloister themselves against its unification, refusing to come to a mutual agreement of faith, and allowing each other the freedom to disagree on minor issues which hurt no one. Local pastors or laypersons who believe themselves to be sovereign in and of themselves instead of subject to a greater unified authority under a single Head (no, I'm not talking about the Pope for those who assume all Catholics are Roman). This is how civil wars begin and continue, such as rage within the Church to this day.

The Red, White, and Blue will always be a part of who I am, and I will always be intertwined with it, for better or for worse. In the same way, regardless of how much people within the Church try and rebel against it, the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic nature of the Church and its historical government and practice will always be a part of it, for better or for worse. The teachings and practice of Jesus Christ are interwoven into its very fabric and DNA. Those who are true patriots of the Kingdom of Heaven will always feel this deep within them, regardless of whether they understand it. And those who are true patriots will always feel the pull towards unity as a single nation of people regardless of where we come from, even if we disagree and squabble over details. And those who are true patriots will always be willing to sacrifice their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to see that unity maintained, and will defend it against all those who seek to tear it apart.

A Ramble About Newtown

I've been more or less silent on this subject so far. There's been a lot of pain, and it is all too easy to add to it even with well intentioned words. People have been hurt and traumatized severely by what happened in Newtown, and anything like this should never be used to make or score points on opinions or viewpoints. I've read a lot of articles and headlines using the tragedy to make points about everything from gun control, to prayer in schools, to abortion. It really does turn my stomach.

It turns out the shooter had Asperger's syndrome. As many of you know, this is something with which I am intimately familiar. Immediately once this became known, certain parties have come out to assure people that his disorder had nothing to do with the killings and that there are many, many good people with the disorder who will never harm another human being. The concern is that somehow it will spark a fear of people with Asperger's or autism if people find out the shooter had it, and so every attempt is made to downplay it. His Asperger's syndrome had absolutely nothing to do with it they assert.

As I said, I am intimately familiar with this disorder. I am one of the few people, if not the only person, who can refer to having the disorder in the past tense due to bio-feedback treatments. What's more, I can remember what it was like. I have family members with the disorder as well. I know this demon very well, and I know what it can do with the wrong stimulus. As a teenager, I knew how easy, too easy, it would be for me to shut off any pretense at empathy with other people and take a life. It scared me then when I realized it was true. I also know how difficult it would be to do the same thing now that my brain is functioning normally and I am able to feel what other people feel.

To be sure, there are thousands, if not millions of people with this disorder, the vast majority, who make the choices every day to try and fit in and live normal lives. They choose to not act on how they feel inside or how they perceive others feel about them or make them feel. But you must understand that to be born with Asperger's syndrome is to be born into a life of misunderstanding, ridicule, and personal emotional pain that never really goes away and that you don't really understand. This is true whether or not anyone around the person intends to be the cause.

To have Asperger's syndrome is to not be able to read the intentions or feelings of other people, and often to not be able to process your own. It also means that you are likely to be more academically intelligent than your peers. Because of this latter thing, people expect you to understand social cues, facial expressions, and relational subtleties that your brain can't process in the moment. The mirror neurons which allow for true empathy between two people simply don't function correctly in someone with Asperger's.

Often, someone with Asperger's is at least four years behind their peers in terms of social and emotional development because the part of the brain which processes it can't do it at the same rate as everyone else. When most kids move on to seeing things as right or wrong, black or white (normal around 7 or 8), a kid with Asperger's is probably still focused on “mine, mine” (normal around 3 or 4) and only makes progress depending on the severity of the disorder, and the perceived understanding and acceptance of the people around him.

This causes two problems. The first is that the kid isn't socially appropriate for their age group, and their peers know it. Kids are cruel and taunt the kid for being different. The kid with Asperger's has no idea why they are making fun of him, and why he can't make friends like they can. The second is that the kid with Asperger's can't feel it right away when someone truly cares about him and loves him, or when someone is offering real friendship. The only emotions which may register in real time are strong emotions like pain, anger, fear, and hatred because strong feelings are what will push through the brain's processor faster. Getting across to the kid that he is really cared about takes an incredible amount of time and energy. More than many people are willing to devote to someone who isn't a member of their family.

All the people with Asperger's who live peacefully have, at some point in time, made the choice to live with that pain and not seek retribution for perceived injuries and trauma. They have done so because they have made the personal choice that to do so is right and causing harm to those who have “wronged” them is wrong. This choice doesn't make the pain go away, sometimes it only compounds it as they struggle to fit in and pretend to be “normal”.

As I read the descriptions of the twenty year old kid who did the shooting, he seems to have had all the classic signs of Asperger's. The difference between him and the rest of us is that he didn't or couldn't make that personal choice to not act on his pain. Now, the reasons why he didn't can only be speculated at. Did he have any kind of religious upbringing? Did he have any kind of a moral compass or guide? Was it because his parents divorced a couple of years previous? I haven't the foggiest idea, and only he really knows.

The truth is that there were only victims in Newtown. The shooter was among them. This is a hard thing to accept but it is true.

People don't want to think that way though. They want to find someone or something to blame so they can persecute it and stamp it out so that it can never happen again. “If we can only eliminate guns...” or “If we can just return God to the schools...” The one which Autism advocates are afraid of is “If we can just contain or control people with Asperger's...” This is a perfectly human response to this kind of a trauma, but it is a misguided response. The human response is to try and control or eliminate the cause of our fears, but the truth is that such things can't be controlled.

No, the thing which must be controlled is fear itself, and fear can only be controlled through understanding, compassion, and forgiveness. It is hard to forgive such a grievous crime. We want to judge and hate the person responsible, and somehow forgiving that person makes us feel like we're somehow condoning it and thus somehow ourselves responsible. But people don't commit atrocities like this unless they're somehow in pain themselves. That pain creates fear, which then causes anger, which leads to hatred. This twists the mind until the most heinous actions seem good and reasonable. Denying the existence of this progression only makes it more likely to occur. It creates a cycle which then spirals outward to inflict damage on everyone it touches as it infects everyone.

Forgiveness doesn't condone the action, but it does accept some responsibility for it. And in order to keep an atrocity from happening again we must all accept some responsibility for it happening in the first place and not try and shield ourselves from that responsibility.

Twenty seven innocent people died that Friday, but there were twenty eight victims.

A Ramble About Upgrades

Recently, Microsoft released the latest version of its operating system (OS), Windows 8, to the computer hardware manufacturers and to those savvy enough to upgrade their own computers from the previous versions. Microsoft does this periodically; about every three years or so. Ubuntu, the operating system I usually use on my personal computer, does a regular release about every six months and a long term support release about every two years.

I'll admit, I was one of those computer junkies who kept getting lured by the promise of newer and better software. I would see some new version number of a program I already had and phrases like “Oooh! Shiny!” would enter my subconscious mind. Newer features... better graphics... I had to have it. I even began, as many do, to start using developmental versions of software (in other words, not ready for daily use) so that I could stay, not just on the cutting edge, but the bleeding edge.

The problem with this though is that it's based on a dirty little secret of the software and computer industry. What drives software upgrades isn't the desire for better software. It's the desire to keep people buying newer computers and hardware. Computer manufacturers can't make money if people are satisfied with the computers they already have. Software that has more features or better graphics usually requires better hardware which means that you have to either upgrade or buy another computer. If you don't, chances are either it won't run at all, or it may crash your otherwise perfectly functional computer system. Often, they rope people into upgrading by promising that the newer version will be easier to use, have better security, and will make all the problems they've been having fade away.

The truth of the matter is that there is usually nothing wrong with previous stable versions. A case in point is Windows 3. There was nothing wrong with this operating system. It did exactly what it was supposed to. It gave you a user friendly environment to find and run the programs you needed to. You could write with it. You could network with it. You could play games with it. You could organize your life with it. A lot of software was written for it. I know of people who are still unhappy with the direction Microsoft took when they moved away from it, and didn't appreciate being forced to relearn how to use their computers.

Another case in point is Word. It is a known fact that there are something like a thousand new features in the latest version of Microsoft Word that almost no one knows are there and neither are they used by virtually anyone. The old versions of Windows, Word, and other programs worked just fine and got the job done. A lot of aficionados find that they still do. Apple's Mac OS is another case in point. I had the privilege of using Mac OS 9.22, the last version before OSX was introduced about ten or eleven years ago. There was very little this OS couldn't do even in comparison to a “modern” operating system. The switch to OSX seemed kind of pointless.

After moving away from Windows, I continued the upgrade bandwagon with Ubuntu for years. I finally jumped off of it with the last, long term version of Ubuntu, 12.04. I could upgrade my computer to the latest version, 12.10, for free. But I came to realize that I really don't need to. My computer and everything on it works just fine the way it is. Maybe it won't always, but it does now.

The devotion some computer nerds like myself have to their preferred operating system has often been likened to a religious devotion. There are Windows devotees, Mac devotees, and Ubuntu Linux devotees. Most are fairly reasonable and open minded, but some are extremists who would happily see the other's OS go down in flames (and often try to bring it about). But that's not where I'm going with this.

There is a train of thought among people that one's faith needs to be upgraded periodically. That there was something wrong with the old way of believing and practicing one's faith. This train of thought is often encouraged by the “Christian” media industry. One can make some educated guesses as to why. “Are you still stuck in the old version of your Christianity? You need Christianity 8.0 with cutting edge graphics and better security!”

It sounds ridiculous, but let's face it, it's not new. It's something that has been continuously handed to us for centuries. Every split, every division, every new theology or heresy within the Church is due to something like this. If people were satisfied with their Christian practice the way it was they wouldn't go looking elsewhere for a change.

“Something's not working the way I think it should with my Christianity! Oh, I need an upgrade!” At that point, the question really needs to be asked, “Did anyone properly show you how to use it?” “Oh, that version of Christianity looks so much more exciting! It must be better!” Chances are, it's a resource hog which will drag down your system, cause it to crash, and force you to pay through the nose to get more expensive hardware. “Oh, but that version has so many more features than mine does?” Have you even bothered to learn to use the features yours already has? “Oh, but it's brand new! Newer is always better!” It was the stance of the pre-Nicene Church (the Church of the first three centuries) that the full revelation of the Gospel had already been given by Christ to His Apostles and that He wouldn't have kept anything from them; especially not anything important. Thus, they were constantly refuting people like the Gnostics, the Docetists, the Ebionites, and many others who continuously claimed to have a newer, shinier version of Christianity. The Fathers of the Church never tried to add to the revelation of the Gospel, only to defend it and explain it as best they could, and they wrote manual after manual to that effect. “Oh, but I need to stay on the bleeding edge of my Christian faith!” To this I must respond, why? The reason why they call it the bleeding edge is because developmental versions usually don't work right and can cause your system to fail miserably if you're not careful. The latest version isn't worth it if it fries your processor to a little puddle of goo, or trashes the rest of your faith so that it becomes totally unusable.

Some may find my analogy here a little far fetched. Others will know exactly what I'm talking about because they've been there. As for myself, I've finally learned to be satisfied with what I found that works. I suppose you could say that I've downgraded my Christianity to the old stable version from the more “upgraded” version I grew up with and I can honestly say that when I look at the newer shinier versions, I'm not impressed any more; not in the slightest. It doesn't take long until you see the bugs in the programming begin to appear and goof things up. I like things to just work well, and mine does. Is it the easiest to use? No. Does it have the latest eye popping graphics? No. Does it have thousands of new and exciting features? No. Its claim to fame is that it is absolutely rock hard stable, impervious to malware, and does everything it is supposed to do. Have I learned how to use all its features yet? No. I'm still working on that, but at least I don't have to spend time focusing on features I don't need and would never bother with in the first place.

Before you head out to pick up that latest version, think about whether or not it's really what you need and consider that newer isn't always better.

A Ramble About Patience

We bought a PC game for our girls today with some Christmas money. The girls were there when we bought it, so it was kind of pointless to wrap it and make them wait until Christmas morning for it. It was one of those Sims games with a Pets expansion included. Our girls love the Sims games and were excited about being able to create the pets with the expansion. I wasn't entirely sure whether our main desktop would meet all the graphics requirements for it, but everything else checked out, and the graphics card requirements were just vague enough to give us some hope that it would run.

We got it home, unwrapped it, and installed it onto the computer. Everything looked like it checked out during the installation, and then we tried playing the main game a bit. Everything looked good, so we installed the expansion disk. That's when we ran into problems. The pets wouldn't show up right, and the game occasionally crashed.

A few inquiries into Google via our cell phone, and we found out that our graphics card is the problem. It happens to be on the extreme low end for this particular version of the Sims to run. Further, while it will in fact run the main game okay, the Pets expansion refuses to cooperate with it, or so say all the forum comments by people who have had the exact same problem we do. All of our other computer hardware checks out as either adequate or above, but Dell went cheap on the graphics processor.

Needless to say, our girls were disappointed, my middle daughter in particular. She really wanted to play this one because she could make horses with it. I found myself then calmly explaining to her several times about patience.

If it is one thing I have learned over time, I told her, it is that if there is some book I want to read, some movie I would like to see, or some game I would like to play, then, in all probability, I will eventually be able to do so. It may not be right now, or tomorrow. But I have learned that it will happen if it is important that I do, and it may happen eventually even if it isn't important. Prices come down, games become abandonware or open sourced, movies eventually wind up broadcast on network TV for free, and computers eventually get upgraded. Sometimes it takes months, years or decades, but it does happen. I have learned that God doesn't withhold good things from us, and those things He does withhold aren't good for us right in that moment. The same thing might be bad for us at one point in time, but later on He allows it at just the right moment when it can be good for us or do the most good for us. I went on like this for some time until she seemed to understand.

As I was talking to my now twelve year old daughter, I realized that it wasn't really I who was talking per se, but God was talking through me. And I also realized that I wasn't the one explaining, but I was the one it was being explained to just as much as my daughter was. He was answering some of my own questions and disappointments I had posed to Him just the other day through my own words and experiences which I was relating to my daughter.

It's not the first time He's answered me in this manner, and it likely won't be the last. It's a humbling reminder as well that whatever wisdom which I think I possess really comes from Him.

A Ramble About Salvation

I am Orthodox Old Catholic, but I wasn't always. There was a time when I came from a non-denominational bible church in California, and attended a non-denominational missionary bible school in Wisconsin. The bible school, like the church I attended, was one which taught that, if you accepted Christ as your savior and truly believed in Him, you were saved, and nothing could take that away from you.

One day, the question was raised, as a part of the class, “how much does someone have to know and believe in order to be saved?” As an answer, and a tool for evangelizing, we were given a system called the “Three Crucial Issues.” The first crucial issue is that everyone has sinned and can do nothing to earn their way into heaven. The second is that Jesus Christ died for our sins and paid the price for us so that we don't have to. The third is that it's our responsibility to believe this and act on it. This was considered the bare minimum standard of faith and understanding necessary for salvation.

As I was thinking about this lately, I also thought about the Catholic/Orthodox faith, and how it is perceived by Evangelicals, and even by many Catholics and Orthodox, who see it as somehow requiring us to work to earn our salvation or somehow do enough penance to become “worthy” of our salvation. What a load of rubbish. The writings of the Saints are replete with the understanding that there is no way for us to make ourselves worthy of Him, but that He is also capable of saving even us, unworthy as we are. Time and time again, the Saints write about how unworthy they are of Him, and the closer they draw to Him, the more intense this sentiment becomes and the more vocal they become as to their inability to save themselves. They did not presume on their final salvation, but they did entrust it to God as they grew in their understanding and knowledge of Him.

The truth is that if, as was taught in my old school, these three crucial issues represent the bare minimum of understanding for salvation, then according to this, all professing Catholics and Orthodox who understand their faith are saved. Furthermore, so are all Mormons (at least insofar as the Book of Mormon itself teaches). For that matter, any professing, devout Christian, of any stripe or denomination, Orthodox or not, falls under this category because these “crucial issues” are the most basic understanding of Christianity there is. They are understood as true by everyone who understands what their Faith actually teaches, and this is the key point.

The error in what I was taught in that bible school lies with the misunderstanding of how to evangelize and not proselytize. Evangelizing is spreading the Gospel. Proselytizing is trying to convert people to believe what you believe. There is a wide gulf between them, but they are too often confused. Evangelizing seeks to give Jesus Christ to people. Proselytizing seeks to grow local churches and denominations (and, need I add, increase revenue from tithes).

If such Evangelicals truly wish to Evangelize other Christians of different traditions, then the best thing they can do, according to their own belief system, is to teach these other Christians about their own faith traditions, and not try and force them to leave the Churches they know. If you teach a Roman Catholic about his own faith from the official Catechism of the Catholic Church, you will certainly inform him enough about the Gospel to ensure his salvation according to the Three Crucial Issues. If you teach an Orthodox Christian about his own faith from any of a number of good Catechisms (I like “The Orthodox Way” by Kallistos Ware) you will most certainly fulfill these Crucial Issues. Even if you teach a Mormon from the Book of Mormon itself, once again you will run directly into these Crucial Issues again and again within its pages. If a sincere belief in these three tenets alone ensure one's salvation, and not a belief in other doctrines, or actions or practices associated with the faith tradition in question, then it is better to make the foundation of their salvation more secure by working within their faith tradition and not against it. If you work against it, you run the risk of ruining their faith and pulling up the wheat with the weeds, so to speak.

I am no longer a Protestant Evangelical, but I still understand the theology underpinning it. There is no logic, in this theology, in the attempt to draw Christians of other faith traditions out of their own churches in order to save them when it can already be demonstrated that the tradition in question already meets the bare minimum understanding for this purpose. The only purpose to trying to convince them to leave is to grow one's own church for either that church's financial gain, or personal glory. This is the root of heresy, and what the Apostles and their successors were trying to combat relentlessly. The question which an Evangelist must ask himself is this, “am I trying to truly give Jesus to this person, or am I trying to get him to join my church and leave his?” The person who does the first is a true Evangelist. The person who does the second is a true Heretic.

A Ramble About Getting Older

I woke up one day recently and made the realization, “hey, I'm almost forty.” I then thought “how the heck did that happen?!” I think these thoughts had something to do with my having a birthday a few months ago. Suddenly I went from the middle of my thirties to my later thirties and forty didn't seem as far away as it should have. Something inside me shouted, “no, wait! I can't be nearly forty yet! I couldn't possibly be!” But, here I am. And, with the realization of my impending four-oh, I realized that most likely, I'm in the middle of my life now.

No, thirty-seven isn't generally considered middle-age, that's true. But both my grandfather and great-grandfather died when they were in their early to mid seventies, and my dad isn't doing so hot right now being in his late sixties. That doesn't improve my odds at longevity past my early seventies.

Be this as it may, it doesn't bother me that I may die in another thirty-seven years like my forefathers. I know it's going to happen at some point in time. To be honest, I'd rather it happen with all of my faculties intact. I suppose it struck me more because it means I most likely only have a little less than forty years left. Forty years seems like a long time at first, but seeing as I wasn't prepared for the last thirty-seven to blaze by as fast as it did, it seems a lot closer now than it used to.

The question then becomes, what have I done with my life for the last thirty-seven years? I suppose it depends on whom you ask. I'm fairly certain there are people who would swear that I've totally wasted it. Others might say that I spent it chasing after a fantasy. Still others might be kind and point to my family, my wife and kids, and the people the Lord has used me to work with and say that neither is true, as rough a road as it has been.

A wise friend once told me that God isn't so much concerned about the work of a worker as He is concerned about the work in the worker. He later told me that God's work is the worker himself. I've come to understand that more and more. Everything He's allowed me to do and be a part in has been done with the goal in mind of making me one with Him. Every failure, every success, every slip, and every re-direction. When God said “no” to something, it was because it wasn't in my best interests as much as it wasn't in the best interests of everyone else who would have been impacted. When He permitted something, it was because it would further that goal with me, and with everyone else involved.

The greatness of the successes and failures which we cling to and allow to define who we are in this life don't really matter much in the end. In a hundred years, no one except people interested in obscure history will remember them. Wealth, accomplishments, personal disasters, and poverty all end in this way for everyone. Even our memories which we cling to will fade as the brain fails, and we don't recognize even our loved ones. So what is left to aspire to then?

God does not fade. God does not end. And the purpose and goal of our lives is to become one with Him through Jesus Christ. Because, at the end, we will lose everything of this life we have worked so hard to achieve no matter how hard we try and hold on to it. But what cannot be lost through the death of the body is our upward calling to union with God.