(NOTE: I originally started this in May, but never finished it. If it seems a little disjointed and rambling, it is because I just wanted to finish it. I left the original starting date, but I posted this on November 16, 2005).
There was a news item I found regarding stem cells, embronic human clones and essentially replacement body parts: http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,67575,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2
Stem cells and cloning and everything related to them seems to bring out the extremists on either side. I am not talking about the moral issues particularly.
What I am taking about is the idea of the viability of a particular medical practice. Cloning for example: can cloning a human work? We generally know the process: remove the nucleus from one cell and replace it with the nucleus of the organism to clone (highly simplified).
We (as a people) have a good idea of the physical (viewable) processes that go on from pre-conception to birth. What we do not understand are the things that are not "visible." Visible in the sense of being able to test via the scientific method. Who was it that said that this life is but a mere shadow of the life to come? (Aristotle?, but I believe it is the position of the Church) We "see" such a small part of what actually exists in God's creation.
Even though we see such a small part of the true creation, we tend to think in very limited view of how things must work. For example cloning. When cloning first was discussed, a lot of people expressed to me that there was no way cloning could work. They made their assertions on the base idea that only God could create life. Life (any life, animal, plant, human) could only exist by following a certain action-effect sequence established by God.
When Dolly the cloned sheep was announced, I found this group of people split into two camps. 1. cloning was a lie used to either obtain money or discredit religion; 2. ok, cloning does work, but it will only work for non-humans. Since humans have a soul and animals/plants do not, cloning will only work for these types of organisms.
Looking just at item group 2, I find a idea that I could accept. I do not usually jump to conclusions, but I was so horrified by the fact of cloning, I gravitated towards an idea of cloning that at least kept the sanctity of human life intact. This group of people, myself included, came to the decision that the granting/creating of a soul for a human happens at conception.
But the question remains, is this how and when a soul is granted to a human? I tend to disagree with the notion of constraining God's operation. I don't mean to say that we cannot know how God works, if even in little ways, but that I am not in a position discern how God works. So I leave this an open question, one that does not matter to my salvation.
Medical ethics is becoming a issue that is drawing much attention lately. Advances in medical technique are starting to encroach on formerly solid beliefs in how God works. But this controversy is not necessarily new. Consider the Christian Scientists. Now I cannot say that I know much about them, except that as a principle they do not accept current medical treatment as a Godly way of treating illness.
I believe that most people who are modern day Christians, including Orthodox Christians, accept modern medical procedures without much concern. Accepting that God gave us the ability to learn and understand the human body and develop remedies to what ails our physical bodies. But in light of stem-cell therapies and cellular cloning, where do we draw the line?
Will we allow into our bodies a new heart, one that was cloned from our own tissue? Is this immoral (immoral in that it is against God's will)? Or is this an extension of the unwritten logic we have used to justify surgeries and other medical treatments?
I foresee a future in which Christians will be torn by this dilemma. Not unlike Christians are now regaring how Christian Scientists view medical treatment. But I what I see is something darker. There will be those Christians that will accept the practices of cloning in exchange for the 150-year life span. They will scoff the those "fools" who think there is a problem with the ethics of these treatments. And there will be those that accept that life is for a time and that those who would try to save their life will lose it...
Friday, May 20, 2005
Wednesday, January 19, 2005
"Making up" for sins
I have come across an idea when talking to a friend; an idea that I though was my own particular creation. The idea is that upon the commission of a sin or upon failing to fulfill our Christian duty (whatever it may be) that we have some way, of our own power, to make this sin go away.
I put forward this idea using the example of fasting. Now fasting has its own large issues that could be discussed, however, let us take the Orthodox Christian example of Fasting as an obligation for us as Orthodox Christians. The scope of the obligation and the reasons behind it are not something I want to discuss now, but simply that it is a widely accepted obligation within Orthodoxy. You could replace fasting with any other particular obligation and the this essay is still valid.
If on a day that I am to fast, say a Wednesday, and I do not fast, what are my options to remedy this failure to fulfill my obligation? Do I even need a remedy?
The first answer is that yes, I need a remedy. I know in myself and through the teaching that I have received, that fasting is an important part of my spiritual health and growth. Why did I not fast? Why did I have to do something contrary to my own stated and strongly held belief? There are many reasons, and these reasons dovetail with the nature of sin. But there are reasons that I use that make me feel better: I call them rationalizations!
I commit this error because I want to do it and I have a hard time controlling the urge to want to do it. Before I commit this error, I rationalize. I rationalize because I want to placate my guilty feelings for this error. After the commission of the error there are the consequences. Sometimes the only apparent consequence is the guilt. So how do I deal with this guilt? I promise to make up for the error by doing something greater than the error I committed.
In this fasting example, I might think, "I feel bad for breaking the fast. I will make up for breaking the fast by fasting on a day that I am not required to fast." This seems somewhat reasonable. Kind of a fasting day credit exchange program. Something akin to I will give you a dollar tomorrow for a hamburger today (from the old Popeye cartoons).
What I am trying to do is bargain with God. I know I need to fast, God, but I just can't today. I will make it up to you by fasting on Thursday and even Monday just so that I can have a pizza today.
This doesn't seem so bad as I said above, and via my conversation with my friend I realized that a good number of other people use this line of reasoning and bargaining with God. At some point I came to realize that this is not a good idea at all, for a whole host of reasons.
The first question is to deal with the error in general. Why is the error an error? What purpose does it have in our lives that it is something to avoid? In this case fasting (again, a huge topic) is for us, not for God. Fasting is not easy, but it is very useful. Fasting helps our self-control, and self-control is so important for our whole life. Why did I want to break the fast? Mostly because I lacked self-control.
Well, one of the greatest aspects of Orthodox Christianity is that 1. it is a whole lifestyle and 2. few are perfect in this lifestyle, but our love for God is demonstrated by the effort to become more perfect in this lifestyle.
Trying to "make-up" for our errors is a reaction to guilt. I want to do the right thing, and end up doing not the right thing and I feel badly about it. To appease this guilt I try to make it up. We do this in all areas of our life. We do something stupid that affects our spouse, and later we feel badly about it and we try to make it up. But imagine if you didn't have to make it up. Imagine if you thought about the consequences of your actions and didn't do the thing that caused you to have to make up for something.
Making up for sins/errors does not do anything profitable for us. Making up for errors is a manipulative device with which we try to fool others and ourselves.
I have kids and I hate it when they bargain with me. "I will do this if you will give me that." I can't stand that and think it a very bad habit to have. I do not know of anyone that enjoys being bargained with. So why do we think that God would enjoy and accept it?
Making up for errors is not the same as seeking forgiveness. Forgiveness comes through earnest repentance. For example, if in the heat of an argument I say something hurtful to her. She is hurt and I feel badly afterward. By trying to make it up to her by doing the chores she would normally do and/or by buying flowers is more akin to bribing her for forgiveness. The point is that my error caused harm and no amount of making up will remove that harm. Even after she has forgiven me, that harm will still have occurred. However, we fool ourselves by thinking we can hide or eliminate the harm by making-up for it. (Of course I should do these other things if I put her and myself into this position, to try to help restore her, but it will never put us back to the place we were before the incident.)
In the case of fasting, the harm we are doing is two-fold. One is the harm we are doing to ourselves. By not practicing the art of self-control (only one aspect of fasting of course) we are harming ourselves by creating a precident behavior of giving into desire. We are harming our relationship with God because we are knowingly committing an error. These harms cannot be repaired by making up for this breach by fasting twice as hard.
Far worse, however, is that if we think that we can make up for errors committed, we are far more likely to commit the error or sin again. For me, this is the bottom line. We can talk about the harm of not fasting, we can discuss the necessity to fast, we can discuss forgiveness, but the most fallacy of the idea of making-up for errors is that instead of helping to bring us back into "line," it actually relaxes our inhibitions against committing the error in the first place.
Seeking forgiveness, and also the act of Confession within the Orthodox Church are not about making-up for the errors and sins we committed. It is about expressing remorse for the error, pledging to try to stomp out our desire to commit the error again, and bringing ourselves back into communion with God. Penance, if assigned at Confession, is not about making up for sins either. It is used as a method to help remind us of the consequences of sin and enlighten us to the possibilities of life without sin.
So for those that think that they can make up for their sins through another act, it would be better to spend the energy actively combating the error/sin rather than making up for it afterward.
I put forward this idea using the example of fasting. Now fasting has its own large issues that could be discussed, however, let us take the Orthodox Christian example of Fasting as an obligation for us as Orthodox Christians. The scope of the obligation and the reasons behind it are not something I want to discuss now, but simply that it is a widely accepted obligation within Orthodoxy. You could replace fasting with any other particular obligation and the this essay is still valid.
If on a day that I am to fast, say a Wednesday, and I do not fast, what are my options to remedy this failure to fulfill my obligation? Do I even need a remedy?
The first answer is that yes, I need a remedy. I know in myself and through the teaching that I have received, that fasting is an important part of my spiritual health and growth. Why did I not fast? Why did I have to do something contrary to my own stated and strongly held belief? There are many reasons, and these reasons dovetail with the nature of sin. But there are reasons that I use that make me feel better: I call them rationalizations!
I commit this error because I want to do it and I have a hard time controlling the urge to want to do it. Before I commit this error, I rationalize. I rationalize because I want to placate my guilty feelings for this error. After the commission of the error there are the consequences. Sometimes the only apparent consequence is the guilt. So how do I deal with this guilt? I promise to make up for the error by doing something greater than the error I committed.
In this fasting example, I might think, "I feel bad for breaking the fast. I will make up for breaking the fast by fasting on a day that I am not required to fast." This seems somewhat reasonable. Kind of a fasting day credit exchange program. Something akin to I will give you a dollar tomorrow for a hamburger today (from the old Popeye cartoons).
What I am trying to do is bargain with God. I know I need to fast, God, but I just can't today. I will make it up to you by fasting on Thursday and even Monday just so that I can have a pizza today.
This doesn't seem so bad as I said above, and via my conversation with my friend I realized that a good number of other people use this line of reasoning and bargaining with God. At some point I came to realize that this is not a good idea at all, for a whole host of reasons.
The first question is to deal with the error in general. Why is the error an error? What purpose does it have in our lives that it is something to avoid? In this case fasting (again, a huge topic) is for us, not for God. Fasting is not easy, but it is very useful. Fasting helps our self-control, and self-control is so important for our whole life. Why did I want to break the fast? Mostly because I lacked self-control.
Well, one of the greatest aspects of Orthodox Christianity is that 1. it is a whole lifestyle and 2. few are perfect in this lifestyle, but our love for God is demonstrated by the effort to become more perfect in this lifestyle.
Trying to "make-up" for our errors is a reaction to guilt. I want to do the right thing, and end up doing not the right thing and I feel badly about it. To appease this guilt I try to make it up. We do this in all areas of our life. We do something stupid that affects our spouse, and later we feel badly about it and we try to make it up. But imagine if you didn't have to make it up. Imagine if you thought about the consequences of your actions and didn't do the thing that caused you to have to make up for something.
Making up for sins/errors does not do anything profitable for us. Making up for errors is a manipulative device with which we try to fool others and ourselves.
I have kids and I hate it when they bargain with me. "I will do this if you will give me that." I can't stand that and think it a very bad habit to have. I do not know of anyone that enjoys being bargained with. So why do we think that God would enjoy and accept it?
Making up for errors is not the same as seeking forgiveness. Forgiveness comes through earnest repentance. For example, if in the heat of an argument I say something hurtful to her. She is hurt and I feel badly afterward. By trying to make it up to her by doing the chores she would normally do and/or by buying flowers is more akin to bribing her for forgiveness. The point is that my error caused harm and no amount of making up will remove that harm. Even after she has forgiven me, that harm will still have occurred. However, we fool ourselves by thinking we can hide or eliminate the harm by making-up for it. (Of course I should do these other things if I put her and myself into this position, to try to help restore her, but it will never put us back to the place we were before the incident.)
In the case of fasting, the harm we are doing is two-fold. One is the harm we are doing to ourselves. By not practicing the art of self-control (only one aspect of fasting of course) we are harming ourselves by creating a precident behavior of giving into desire. We are harming our relationship with God because we are knowingly committing an error. These harms cannot be repaired by making up for this breach by fasting twice as hard.
Far worse, however, is that if we think that we can make up for errors committed, we are far more likely to commit the error or sin again. For me, this is the bottom line. We can talk about the harm of not fasting, we can discuss the necessity to fast, we can discuss forgiveness, but the most fallacy of the idea of making-up for errors is that instead of helping to bring us back into "line," it actually relaxes our inhibitions against committing the error in the first place.
Seeking forgiveness, and also the act of Confession within the Orthodox Church are not about making-up for the errors and sins we committed. It is about expressing remorse for the error, pledging to try to stomp out our desire to commit the error again, and bringing ourselves back into communion with God. Penance, if assigned at Confession, is not about making up for sins either. It is used as a method to help remind us of the consequences of sin and enlighten us to the possibilities of life without sin.
So for those that think that they can make up for their sins through another act, it would be better to spend the energy actively combating the error/sin rather than making up for it afterward.
Sunday, September 12, 2004
Contributing to the sins of others
This morning I was with my family seeing His Grace Bishop Joseph being Enthroned as the first Bishop of the diocese of Los Angeles and the West. It was a great service and it was finally nice to see Metropolitan Philip close up in person.
However, as always seems to happen when you in a different place among a large group of different people, someone always seems to get bent out of shape. And as happens to me a lot, I was the one to get pushed out of shape.
The setup: three young children, my wife and I, and a church with about 800 people in it. It is a hot day in a church without air conditioning. I'm in a full suit (not my cassock since it isn't my church and I wasn't serving). The church is about 70% full with all pews (I dislike pews, but oh well) having at least two people. We picked a pew that would fit us all even though it meant that we would sit in the middle of the pew, which I hate, because of a minor case of claustophobia. Everything was fine until the rest of the pew filled up, save one seat.
Shortly after a person filled the seat and even though I thought my claustophobia would flare up, it didn't and I was ok. If you know young children, it can be quite hard to control them in confined spaces for very long. This is part of the problem with pews, but that is a different story. Fortunately this day my children truly blessed us with modal behavior. It could have been real ugly, but everyone made the best of the situation.
The problem started with that last space. The person that filled it, left briefly and returned with another person, the spouse. Not to be mysterious, but I am leaving the gender of the person out intentionally. Now pews are quite limiting. If there is no room, there is no more room, period. This being a well attended service, with overflow in the fellowship hall, people were not spread out in the pews, as might normally be the case. Where these people expected to sit was beyond me, but they slide into place anyway. How they managed, I'm not sure. Maybe the people on the other side squeezed more to accommodate them. However, this was only the start of the problem.
The issue involves my children. I am a quite defensive parent and I do not like when my children are not taken into consideration by the people around them. This is the beginning of my sin.
Progressively, the couple seemed to spread out so that one of my children was now forced to sit in the pew behind where I was standing. This obviously was not a great position to be in for any of us. As a family we tried to accommodate them by squeezing more, but by that time I was already pouring with sweat (well maybe not pouring, but quite sweaty). But the couple did not seem to relent.
Now I am somewhat passive-aggressive. I do not like making a fuss and certainly not in a very public place in the middle of a religious service. But I was getting bent out of shape, both for the couple thinking that two people could fit in a space that really was only big enough for a single person. Second, my child was on the receiving end of the big squeeze. This led to my sin of anger directed to these people.
The phrase "misery loves company" comes to mind here. Sometimes it makes us feel better to tell others why we are angry about our problems. I think it has to do with wanting our feelings to be acknowledged and vindicated. Sharing this misery is one of the gifts of marriage... to an extent. Having someone with which to share your feelings and have the acknowledge them and share them is a great gift of marriage. The Orthodox marriage server even talks about the joys being doubled and sorrows halved by our spouses. Being in a Godly place at them time, although it didn't curb my initial sin, it did help me to curb my desire to spread my sin to another person.
My wife is great. She would defend me and defend my feelings and try to assuage my bad feelings. She would validate my feelings and share in my feelings as well. In this case, this would be bad. I was just about to complain to her about the situation and I caught myself and realized that I did need to add to her sin with the sin of my own!
Words and thoughts can be powerful and dangerous things. Complaining is particularly dangerous. To complain starts with discontent and even anger. Anger is most often not righteous. Maybe I could be justified in being upset. But I don't think so. Part of this sin is caused by my low tolerance for frustration. This combined with my social unease in telling people that I need them to do something different than what they are doing, causes an escalating frustration which leads to anger. Since I became Orthodox, I have better learned to control this anger cycle. I have obviously not completed my journey to the solution.
By complaining to another person about other people, is dangerous for both people. For the complainer it is dangerous because they seek to have their complaints, sometimes a sin, validated. Seeking to have a sin validated as normal and right is especially bad for our spiritual health. Spreading this to another person, especially a person whom you know will take your side by default, is spiritually dangerous for them as well. I think this transference of sin is contributing to the sins of the other person.
At the end time, when we are called to account for our sins, we will have enough "explaining" to do for our own sins. What will we say for the sins of someone else. For every sin we contribute, what other sins do those sins create in the other person? Are we willing to take responsibility for those sins? If that person is your loved one and you are not allowed to take responsibility for those sins, how would you feel knowing those sins where on account of you?
My own thoughts are the sins that we contribute to others are more serious then the sin you commit yourself. Both are sins. But if and when you repent for the original sin, how do you recall that sin from the other person? You can't. Your sin has now spread like a virus and could spread further. The further is spreads, the less influence your repentance can have on the situation.
The better course is to try not to contribute your sins to others. I realized this at the right time, just before contributing it to my wife. But in truth, not only did I not contribute my sin, but by realizing the consequences and not propagating my sin, it actually alleviated my anger. I still have to repent for the original sin, but I am much happier that no one else was harmed by that sin.
However, as always seems to happen when you in a different place among a large group of different people, someone always seems to get bent out of shape. And as happens to me a lot, I was the one to get pushed out of shape.
The setup: three young children, my wife and I, and a church with about 800 people in it. It is a hot day in a church without air conditioning. I'm in a full suit (not my cassock since it isn't my church and I wasn't serving). The church is about 70% full with all pews (I dislike pews, but oh well) having at least two people. We picked a pew that would fit us all even though it meant that we would sit in the middle of the pew, which I hate, because of a minor case of claustophobia. Everything was fine until the rest of the pew filled up, save one seat.
Shortly after a person filled the seat and even though I thought my claustophobia would flare up, it didn't and I was ok. If you know young children, it can be quite hard to control them in confined spaces for very long. This is part of the problem with pews, but that is a different story. Fortunately this day my children truly blessed us with modal behavior. It could have been real ugly, but everyone made the best of the situation.
The problem started with that last space. The person that filled it, left briefly and returned with another person, the spouse. Not to be mysterious, but I am leaving the gender of the person out intentionally. Now pews are quite limiting. If there is no room, there is no more room, period. This being a well attended service, with overflow in the fellowship hall, people were not spread out in the pews, as might normally be the case. Where these people expected to sit was beyond me, but they slide into place anyway. How they managed, I'm not sure. Maybe the people on the other side squeezed more to accommodate them. However, this was only the start of the problem.
The issue involves my children. I am a quite defensive parent and I do not like when my children are not taken into consideration by the people around them. This is the beginning of my sin.
Progressively, the couple seemed to spread out so that one of my children was now forced to sit in the pew behind where I was standing. This obviously was not a great position to be in for any of us. As a family we tried to accommodate them by squeezing more, but by that time I was already pouring with sweat (well maybe not pouring, but quite sweaty). But the couple did not seem to relent.
Now I am somewhat passive-aggressive. I do not like making a fuss and certainly not in a very public place in the middle of a religious service. But I was getting bent out of shape, both for the couple thinking that two people could fit in a space that really was only big enough for a single person. Second, my child was on the receiving end of the big squeeze. This led to my sin of anger directed to these people.
The phrase "misery loves company" comes to mind here. Sometimes it makes us feel better to tell others why we are angry about our problems. I think it has to do with wanting our feelings to be acknowledged and vindicated. Sharing this misery is one of the gifts of marriage... to an extent. Having someone with which to share your feelings and have the acknowledge them and share them is a great gift of marriage. The Orthodox marriage server even talks about the joys being doubled and sorrows halved by our spouses. Being in a Godly place at them time, although it didn't curb my initial sin, it did help me to curb my desire to spread my sin to another person.
My wife is great. She would defend me and defend my feelings and try to assuage my bad feelings. She would validate my feelings and share in my feelings as well. In this case, this would be bad. I was just about to complain to her about the situation and I caught myself and realized that I did need to add to her sin with the sin of my own!
Words and thoughts can be powerful and dangerous things. Complaining is particularly dangerous. To complain starts with discontent and even anger. Anger is most often not righteous. Maybe I could be justified in being upset. But I don't think so. Part of this sin is caused by my low tolerance for frustration. This combined with my social unease in telling people that I need them to do something different than what they are doing, causes an escalating frustration which leads to anger. Since I became Orthodox, I have better learned to control this anger cycle. I have obviously not completed my journey to the solution.
By complaining to another person about other people, is dangerous for both people. For the complainer it is dangerous because they seek to have their complaints, sometimes a sin, validated. Seeking to have a sin validated as normal and right is especially bad for our spiritual health. Spreading this to another person, especially a person whom you know will take your side by default, is spiritually dangerous for them as well. I think this transference of sin is contributing to the sins of the other person.
At the end time, when we are called to account for our sins, we will have enough "explaining" to do for our own sins. What will we say for the sins of someone else. For every sin we contribute, what other sins do those sins create in the other person? Are we willing to take responsibility for those sins? If that person is your loved one and you are not allowed to take responsibility for those sins, how would you feel knowing those sins where on account of you?
My own thoughts are the sins that we contribute to others are more serious then the sin you commit yourself. Both are sins. But if and when you repent for the original sin, how do you recall that sin from the other person? You can't. Your sin has now spread like a virus and could spread further. The further is spreads, the less influence your repentance can have on the situation.
The better course is to try not to contribute your sins to others. I realized this at the right time, just before contributing it to my wife. But in truth, not only did I not contribute my sin, but by realizing the consequences and not propagating my sin, it actually alleviated my anger. I still have to repent for the original sin, but I am much happier that no one else was harmed by that sin.
Tuesday, August 24, 2004
Memorial and rememberance of the dead
Today on my way to work, I passed a big-rig (lorry) for a sand and gravel company. On the back of the trailer, someone painted "In memory of Gary ...".
Obviously Gary meant a lot to someone at the company. This person also had the authority or permission from someone of authority to paint this memorial. I wondered who was this person, what did he do, what made him a source of rememberance?
Beyond that, I though about the temporary nature of the memorial. When the company decides to repaint the trailer, will they also repaint the memorial? When the company sells the trailer or it gets destroyed, will they paint the memorial on another trailer or in some other place or form?
Finally, when the person to whom Gary was important leaves the company and the last vestige of any corporate memory of Gary is gone, whom will carry on this rememberance? Who will attest to the importance of Gary.
I don't mean to be overly melodramatic, but this idea of rememberance is important, more than we think about. For instance, your work directly affects the company you work for. They pay you to make that contribution. You can take pride in the contribution. However when you leave the company, how long will people remember your contribution. How long will that fact that you ever worked there be in the company memory? Certainly the amount of time has to do with how important you really were, or how long your contributions actually affect the company after your departure. But my guess for "normal" employees, that it is a couple of years at best.
To me this is sad. I worked long and hard at my last company. But it has been almost 4 years since I left. There are maybe 4 people still at the company that would remember me and maybe only one or two of my pieces of software that are still used... but used by people that never knew me. All of my hard work had no lasting effect. This may seem a little egomaniacal, but I am slightly overstating the idea for emphasis.
A yet sadder circumstance would be that of cemetaries and gravestones. Near where I live, there was a cemetery that had fallen into disrepair. Around 1965, the county decided that it didn't like having a cemetery that was full of weeds and where seemingly nobody cared that it was even there. Instead of fixing up the cemetery or trying to find a caretaker, they removed all headstones (some 5 feet high of rare solid marble) "dumped" them in a nearby dry creekbed, and made the cemetery into a park. Granted most of the bodies were buried their in the 1850's so there would be little if anything to exhume and rebury, but this was quite shocking to me.
Still, when we die and the people that cared for us die, who will remember us? Who will care that we lived. Who will care about us? Likely no one. Harsh as this sounds, it is inescapable that our current society only cares about what is current. I am as guilty as anyone. Some may question, though, why even bother? Beyond our desire to be remembered as important, why does it matter to be remembered?
For us, we can show our love (something that transcends life and death) by rememberance. This is one reason we have cemeteries. My sister's husband died (he was just 34) while an on-duty Califonia Highway Patrol Officer. She and her husband seemed to be utilitarian people, not particularly religious. He wanted to be cremated. I was with her when she made the decision to bury him instead. She said that she would feel better to have a place to "visit" him, than just some vase on the mantle. We supported her decision because knowing him, he would have wanted her to be happy; he would want her to do what is best for her. She and their daughter can physically express their love for him through a visit to the cemetery.
Orthodox Christians pray for those who have died. We do it not because we think we can change how the person lived their life (although time is a funny thing). We do it as an act of love for the person, to tell God that this person meant something to us and to ask mercy for this person at the final judgement. God's mercy is freely offered and unbounded. If we pray for people in this temporary world and expect God's favorable response, why would death seem to limit our prayer. Love is not something created in this world, for God is Love. Love trancends death. Gary was loved by someone and they wanted to show that love to others and made a memorial for him.
The Church is the ultimate organization to remember people. The Church has no end. Though a corporation does not remember you when you leave, the Church does. The Orthodox Church keeps a list of those who have passed away. It remembers them at every Divine Liturgy (Eucharistic service).
Our prayer is more than simply asking for mercy. Our prayer is a sign of respect and love. Our prayer is as much for us as it is for the person for whom we pray. Expressing love we show the true nature for which God created us. If God hears our prayers for those who are still alive, why would he not hear our prayers for those who are alive in Christ?
It is nice to know that someone will remember me when I am dead, and all those that cared for me are gone. That I will matter to people who never knew me. That I will be cared for simple because I finished the race.
May your memory be eternal, Gary.
Obviously Gary meant a lot to someone at the company. This person also had the authority or permission from someone of authority to paint this memorial. I wondered who was this person, what did he do, what made him a source of rememberance?
Beyond that, I though about the temporary nature of the memorial. When the company decides to repaint the trailer, will they also repaint the memorial? When the company sells the trailer or it gets destroyed, will they paint the memorial on another trailer or in some other place or form?
Finally, when the person to whom Gary was important leaves the company and the last vestige of any corporate memory of Gary is gone, whom will carry on this rememberance? Who will attest to the importance of Gary.
I don't mean to be overly melodramatic, but this idea of rememberance is important, more than we think about. For instance, your work directly affects the company you work for. They pay you to make that contribution. You can take pride in the contribution. However when you leave the company, how long will people remember your contribution. How long will that fact that you ever worked there be in the company memory? Certainly the amount of time has to do with how important you really were, or how long your contributions actually affect the company after your departure. But my guess for "normal" employees, that it is a couple of years at best.
To me this is sad. I worked long and hard at my last company. But it has been almost 4 years since I left. There are maybe 4 people still at the company that would remember me and maybe only one or two of my pieces of software that are still used... but used by people that never knew me. All of my hard work had no lasting effect. This may seem a little egomaniacal, but I am slightly overstating the idea for emphasis.
A yet sadder circumstance would be that of cemetaries and gravestones. Near where I live, there was a cemetery that had fallen into disrepair. Around 1965, the county decided that it didn't like having a cemetery that was full of weeds and where seemingly nobody cared that it was even there. Instead of fixing up the cemetery or trying to find a caretaker, they removed all headstones (some 5 feet high of rare solid marble) "dumped" them in a nearby dry creekbed, and made the cemetery into a park. Granted most of the bodies were buried their in the 1850's so there would be little if anything to exhume and rebury, but this was quite shocking to me.
Still, when we die and the people that cared for us die, who will remember us? Who will care that we lived. Who will care about us? Likely no one. Harsh as this sounds, it is inescapable that our current society only cares about what is current. I am as guilty as anyone. Some may question, though, why even bother? Beyond our desire to be remembered as important, why does it matter to be remembered?
For us, we can show our love (something that transcends life and death) by rememberance. This is one reason we have cemeteries. My sister's husband died (he was just 34) while an on-duty Califonia Highway Patrol Officer. She and her husband seemed to be utilitarian people, not particularly religious. He wanted to be cremated. I was with her when she made the decision to bury him instead. She said that she would feel better to have a place to "visit" him, than just some vase on the mantle. We supported her decision because knowing him, he would have wanted her to be happy; he would want her to do what is best for her. She and their daughter can physically express their love for him through a visit to the cemetery.
Orthodox Christians pray for those who have died. We do it not because we think we can change how the person lived their life (although time is a funny thing). We do it as an act of love for the person, to tell God that this person meant something to us and to ask mercy for this person at the final judgement. God's mercy is freely offered and unbounded. If we pray for people in this temporary world and expect God's favorable response, why would death seem to limit our prayer. Love is not something created in this world, for God is Love. Love trancends death. Gary was loved by someone and they wanted to show that love to others and made a memorial for him.
The Church is the ultimate organization to remember people. The Church has no end. Though a corporation does not remember you when you leave, the Church does. The Orthodox Church keeps a list of those who have passed away. It remembers them at every Divine Liturgy (Eucharistic service).
Our prayer is more than simply asking for mercy. Our prayer is a sign of respect and love. Our prayer is as much for us as it is for the person for whom we pray. Expressing love we show the true nature for which God created us. If God hears our prayers for those who are still alive, why would he not hear our prayers for those who are alive in Christ?
It is nice to know that someone will remember me when I am dead, and all those that cared for me are gone. That I will matter to people who never knew me. That I will be cared for simple because I finished the race.
May your memory be eternal, Gary.
Wednesday, August 04, 2004
About my thoughts
I am always coming up with new ideas and opinions. Some about society, many about Orthodox Christianity. So I decided to publish them via a blog.
I am an Orthodox Christian living in the USA. I am a member of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America. I am a member of a minor clergy order called a Subdeacon, but not because I am particularly intelligent or holy. However, I am very opinionated!
As a disclaimer, my opinions may not reflect those of the Church in general, or the Archdiocese in particular. I do not claim to have deep theological knowledge. My opinions stem from a common sense understanding of Orthodox Christianity (herein simply referred to as Orthodoxy) and society in general. I expect that there will be many differences in opinion, and I am always open to hearing them and changing my own opinion if convinced.
If you would like to solicit my opinion about society or Orthodoxy, just post a comment.
I am an Orthodox Christian living in the USA. I am a member of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America. I am a member of a minor clergy order called a Subdeacon, but not because I am particularly intelligent or holy. However, I am very opinionated!
As a disclaimer, my opinions may not reflect those of the Church in general, or the Archdiocese in particular. I do not claim to have deep theological knowledge. My opinions stem from a common sense understanding of Orthodox Christianity (herein simply referred to as Orthodoxy) and society in general. I expect that there will be many differences in opinion, and I am always open to hearing them and changing my own opinion if convinced.
If you would like to solicit my opinion about society or Orthodoxy, just post a comment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)