Senior Citizens In the Cardiologist's Waiting Room

(A True Incident That Happened Friday)

Receptionist: How are you today, sir?

Patient: Very, very well. I woke up this morning, my feet hit the floor, the rest of me didn't. That's a very good day!

(General laughter)

Another Patient: Yeah, it's a very good day when we wake up in the morning and we can still walk.

Third Patient: It's a very good day when we wake up in the morning and our plumbing still works correctly.

Fourth Patient: It's a very good day when we wake up in the morning.

Baby Ticker

My niece, Grace, is due to be delivered of a son any day now...



(Baby isn't really rotating at this point, of course. I'll bet Grace feels she's rotating around him, though, every time she walks.)

A Tearful, Liberating, Very Good Day

Today I have understood that I've been a Pollyanna all my life. It isn't just lately; it isn't with just one incident. Whenever I have suffered any hurt at the hands of another, I have released the resentment (eventually!), but then I have buried the hurt. Why? Why on earth have I done this, with so many things, for so many years? Because our culture tells us we are supposed to be stoic? Because we are "supposed" to do that as good Christians?

No, we're not, either! That's not bravery; that's just inhuman! Bravery means carrying on anyway. It doesn't mean hardening your heart against hurt. And anyway, I didn't do it because I was somehow supposed to; I did it just to avoid hurting. But the natural, normal, human thing to do is to let it hurt for as long as it hurts, to let come as many tears as wish to flow. Why not? We have Christ to cry to!

Besides which, I also have Demetrios to cry to.

And I have been doing both today. What started out as willingness finally to cry over one thing turned into a flood of other things that needed tears, and it's been wonderful. Wonderful, not horrible! There's the marvel. I think this has been very healing already and is likely to be more so until the day when the Lord shall wipe away every tear.

And as far as I can tell, I'm nowhere near through. I keep remembering that verse about "casting all your cares upon Him, for He cares for you."

Cry, baby, cry! It's good for you.

Interpreting the "S"

Two banners I've spotted recently, hung on the fronts of businesses, each momentarily surprised me:

www.bettermenswear.com

www.farmersexchange.com

Holly Has 'Em

Our First Baby Squirrels of 2009.

Three came in, one already dead. These are females, each weighing 28 grams. They are about 10 days old.

Pollyanna Doesn't Get It

That high-pitched "kew, kew, kew!" I hear outside is a cry I always momentarily mistake for a gull. We do have gulls here; they come up from the coast via the James River. But the reaction of the other animals always reminds me, after a second or two, it's no gull screaming; it's a hawk. My outside squirrels have dived into their nest bag, and even the flying squirrels, in the sun room, are restless in their nest, making scrunching noises as if burrowing deeper down for safety. The smaller birds are hiding in the bushes. The crows are gathered together in two big trees, screaming back at the hawk, who, however, is not intimidated. I've decided not to watch how it ends, and instead to share something I've just learned about forgiveness.

Forgiveness entails putting away resentment. Carry resentment around with you and it will poison you -- and drive away the Holy Spirit as quickly as anything else. (Okay, so technically, He never departs from us, but we exclude Him from our awareness, cut our relationship with Him.) Fr. Stephen has two excellent articles on anger that are relevant here; one is called, "Understanding Anger," refuting the concept of "righteous indignation," and the other is a link to Met. Jonah's wonderful, wonderful sermon on resentment. I hope you'll take the time to read them both. That would be time very well spent.

But what about the opposite problem? It's one I never thought of before. What I mean is, there are some hurts we sustain, about which we can never say, and should not say, it doesn't matter. Some things do matter, and will continue to matter. To take a public example, the attacks on September 11, 2001 do still matter and always shall and always ought to. It would be very wrong, downright immoral, ever to say they didn't. Or, to take an all-too-common hypothetical example, a spouse's infidelity. Even if he or she repents and the married couple is reconciled, it will always matter.

So, since we are commanded to forgive, since resentment swiftly kills us, yet since there are some things about which we never can and never should say, "It's okay," what is supposed to be the condition of our hearts relative to these? A sweet, sunny insouciance seems just wrong. And it is. And the heart knows it. So what should be our attitude?

"Sorrow," said one wiser than I, "especially on account of the condition of the other person's soul. Not that we can know that, but we worry some when we see such indicators."

"So why haven't I felt any sorrow lately?"

"Because you haven't been willing to."

"That's true. I'm so tired of hurting so much..."

"But you have to."

"Why?"

"Because burying it isn't normal and right and isn't safe. But carry this cross together with Christ; that's the key."

So it is. Because all of us know, or most of us anyway, that when we do that, the sorrow is transfigured. It becomes another form of communion with Him, and so becomes a light and even sweet burden. Carry your cross together with Christ, and you will never grow tired of it.


* * *

I don't hear any more birds now. I don't know who won.

* * *

DISCLAIMER: No, I have never been the victim of marital infidelity. It's just an example.

Obama Comes to Dinner

...in my dream.

Last night, I dreamed I was walking in the neighborhood when I encountered a kid of about 10, who in the dream was supposed to be one of the neighborhood boys, who says to me, "Let's go see B'rackObama."

"Where is he?" I ask.

"Down the street, over there."

So I follow the kid, and sure enough, there is the President, with several Secret Service guys, conversing with some neighbors on a street corner.

"B'rackObama," says the little boy, "Come to my house for dinner tonight!"

Mr. Obama smiles, shrugs, and says, "Okay. I'll come! Where do you live?"

The kid recites his address and a Secret Service dude writes it down.

We go back to the kid's house. "B'rackObama is coming for supper," he tells his mother.

"Oh, right!" is her reply.

"Really," he says.

"Really," I say.

The mother, thinking I am humoring her son, decides to play along. She doesn't take the game so far as to go to the grocery store, but using whatever is already on hand, she cooks the best meal she can scrounge up. I help her.

Six o'clock, the doorbell rings.

"There he is," says the kid.

I can see the tall, dark form through the glass in the door. It really is Barack Obama, with his entourage. I go with the kid to answer the door, the mother bringing up the rear. Just to tease her, to prolong her uncertainty another moment, I say to the President, "Sir, you ought to go on television and do impersonations of Barack Obama; you look just like him!"

"Yeah, it's a pretty good resemblance, isn't it?" he laughs.

He comes in and there's a lot of handshaking.

I leave (not having been invited to stay for the meal), wondering, on my way home, whether it would be a good idea for me to invite him to my house for dinner sometime.

Then Demetrios touches my shoulder and the dream melts away as daylight and reality outshine it.

Oh, Goodness!

Demetrios says now's the time to get serious about acquiring a place to stay in England. He lived in Ormskirk for a while, which is in Lancashire, near Liverpool, so he'd like to go back there. He says the Liverpudlians have a great and unique sense of humor, a delightful culture, I'll like it there, the western part of England is especially pretty, and Lancashire is near Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. The dollar is going a bit better against the pound and housing prices are currently depressed, so now's the time to use the money from the property we sold here a year or so ago.

So I've spent some hours this week looking, on the Internet, at what's available in the vicinity of Ormskirk in our price range.

I'm having to learn new terms. The "lounge" is what we'd call a living room. An "en suite" is a small bathroom connected to the master bedroom. "First Floor" is the one immediately above the Ground Floor (as is the case throughout Europe). "No upward chain!" apparently means if you sign a contract, it won't be contingent upon the seller finding a new home. "Partial Ownership" means you still pay monthly rent to the other owner(s). DG is double glazed windows and GC is gas central heat. I don't know for sure what an Artexted ceiling is (textured?) or coved. A hob, I think, must be a stove top. (Dear Elizabeth, have I got these more or less right?)

These homes are mostly tiny. Tiny is what we want, of course, and it seems likely we'll find something delightful. Still, I think I'd feel claustrophobic in a kitchen no wider than the kitchen sink, like this one.



And, while I was looking, I came across this photo of a half-length, easy-chair shaped "tub" just like the one we used to have in Thessaloniki! I had supposed it unique, but here's its twin, except this one is bright and shiny and clean looking, whereas ours was hopeless. You sit on the shelf and lower your feet into the well.



I found a picture of a shower just like the one we installed in Greece, too, except our tiles are forest green and our glass is partially frosted. It's so small you have to be careful not to bump your elbows!



Well, it's a lot of fun looking and dreaming. It'll be even more fun if we manage to get there in March and look around in person!

Thankful Thursday, January 29

If you'd like to participate in Thankful Thursday, you would normally go here, but this week, go instead to the blog called Lori’s Reflections and add your blog to the list (so other participants can read your post). You can grab the logo either here or from that blog.



This week, I have been especially thankful:

• That poking a tube down my throat and giving my heart 4 electrical shocks turned out to be no ordeal whatsoever (except in the anticipation)


• That it worked (!!!) and I feel about 90% better


• That I’m also feeling emotionally better than I have for more than a year, emerging from the gray mists


• For the way the trees have looked this week, with tiny, globular crystals hanging from every twig, making the trees look like chandeliers


• For something else I noticed while admiring the trees: buds at the end of every twig


• That Spring will be here in a few, short weeks


• As always, for God’s unfathomable, unconditional, infinite love, and for everybody in my family


• And ditto to all the things Lori has written!

Word Games

There are a lot of ways to slip up in logic, and one web site that lists the major ones is here, and it's where I found the examples quoted in this post. I think it’s fun to note all the ways arguments can be unfairly twisted, and I believe people in general and Christians particularly ought to be very careful not to fall into any of them. Yet it happens every day.

Some denominations believe we ought not worry too much about “human logic” and just “take God’s Word for it.” But of course that in itself is a logical fallacy, because what it really means is, I insist that the places where my theology breaks down are the places where I'm being most faithful, in accepting the contradictions. I’ll go with my/our own interpretation even if it contradicts itself. If my theological system teaches, for example, that (1) grace is universal, (2) man can do absolutely nothing whatsoever toward his salvation, and (3) not everyone is saved, well all three of those are true, even though they can't all be. It's just plain sad when such contradictions do not even cause their proponents to hesitate, to consider that there may be a problem in their teaching, when not even logic or common sense deters them or brings them to sound doctrine.

It’s true that God’s ways are “past finding out,” as St. Paul tells us. But that is not at all the same as – in fact it is the exact opposite of – saying His ways insult our intelligence. It means His intelligence is infinitely greater than ours. Though the Truth will always surpass our ability to understand it, it will not fail to meet reason’s basic requirements. If any doctrine does, it isn’t from the Logos. (That's the root of our word, logic, and another name for the Second Hypostasis or Person of the Holy Trinity.) It is also true that Christian faith has a logic different from that of secular faith (Yes, secularism and materialism and humanism are all faiths.) but it is still logical in its own terms.

Here, then, are a few of my favorite logical fallacies. (The following are not my words, except as clearly labeled; they are excerpts from the above-mentioned website.)

EQUIVOCATION

Explanation

The fallacy of equivocation is committed when a term is used in two or more different senses within a single argument.

For an argument to work, words must have the same meaning each time they appear in its premises or conclusion. Arguments that switch between different meanings of words equivocate, and so don’t work. This is because the change in meaning introduces a change in subject. If the words in the premises and the conclusion mean different things, then the premises and the conclusion are about different things, and so the former cannot support the latter.

Example

(1) The church would like to encourage theism.
(2) Theism is a medical condition resulting from the excessive consumption of tea.
Therefore:
(3) The church ought to distribute tea more freely.

This argument is obviously fallacious because it equivocates on the word theism. The first premise of the argument is only true if theism is understood as belief in a particular kind of god; the second premise of the argument is only true if theism is understood in a medical sense.

Real-World Examples

(1) Christianity teaches that faith is necessary for salvation.
(2) Faith is irrational, it is belief in the absence of or contrary to evidence.
Therefore:
(3) Christianity teaches that irrationality is rewarded.

This argument, which is a reasonably familiar one, switches between two different meanings of “faith”. The kind of faith that Christianity holds is necessary for salvation is belief in God, and an appropriate response to that belief. It does not matter where the belief and the response come from; someone who accepts the gospel based on evidence (e.g. Doubting Thomas) still gets to heaven, according to Christianity.

For the kind of faith for which (1) is true, (2) is therefore false. Similarly, for the kind of faith for which (2) is true, (1) is false. There is no one understanding of faith according to which both of the argument’s premises are true, and the argument therefore fails to establish its conclusion.

Another example, this time from Anastasia:
(1) Double Predestination means God chooses whom to save and whom not to save.
(2) Single Predestination means God only chooses whom to save, but does not actually choose to damn anyone.
(3) We believe in Single Predestination but not in Double Predestination.

This is an equivocation on “choose”; it overlooks the fact that in real life, “not to decide is to decide.” Not to choose to save someone is practically (and morally!) identical to choosing not to save him.

CIRCULAR ARGUMENTS (BEGGING THE QUESTION)

Explanation

An argument is circular if its conclusion is among its premises, if it assumes (either explicitly or not) what it is trying to prove. Such arguments are said to beg the question. A circular argument fails as a proof because it will only be judged to be sound by those who already accept its conclusion.

Anyone who rejects the argument’s conclusion should also reject at least one of its premises (the one that is the same as its conclusion), and so should reject the argument as a whole. Anyone who accepts all of the argument’s premises already accepts the argument’s conclusion, so can’t be said to have been persuaded by the argument. In neither case, then, will the argument be successful.

Example

(1) The Bible affirms that it is inerrant.
(2) Whatever the Bible says is true.
Therefore:
(3) The Bible is inerrant.

This argument is circular because its conclusion--The Bible is inerrant--is the same as its second premise--Whatever the Bible says is true. Anyone who would reject the argument’s conclusion should also reject its second premise, and, along with it, the argument as a whole.

Note from Anastasia: The issue here is not the inerrancy of the Bible, but the fact that anyone who wishes to make a logical argument for inerrancy will need to do better than this.

Real-World Examples

The above argument is a straightforward, real-world example of a circular argument. Other examples can be a little more subtle.

Typical examples of circular arguments include rights-claims: e.g., “I have a right to say what I want, therefore you shouldn’t try to silence me”; “Women have a right to choose whether to have an abortion or not, therefore abortion should be allowed”; “The unborn has a right to life, therefore abortion is immoral”.

Having a right to X is the same as other people having an obligation to allow you to have X, so each of these arguments begs the question, assuming exactly what it is trying to prove.

Other Examples from Anastasia:
(1) Scripture is all trustworthy.
(2) Our confessions are drawn entirely from Scripture
Therefore, our confessions are the correct way to interpret Scripture.

The circularity lies in the fact that ones confessions are always his interpretation of Scripture. The argument in effect says, "Our interpretations of Scripture [confessions, creeds] are correct because they are [our interpretation of] Scripture."

We believe in the Bible because of Christ – and in Christ because of the Bible.

FALLACIST'S FALLACY

Explanation

The fallacist's fallacy involves rejecting an idea as false simply because the argument offered for it is fallacious. Having examined the case for a particular point of view, and found it wanting, it can be tempting to conclude that the point of view is false. This, however, would be to go beyond the evidence.

It is possible to offer a fallacious argument for any proposition, including those that are true. One could argue that 2+2=4 on the basis of an appeal to authority: "Simon Singh says that 2+2=4". Or one could argue that taking paracetamol relieves headaches using a post hoc: "I took the paracetamol and then my headache went away; it worked!"

Each of these bad arguments has a true conclusion. A proposition therefore should not be dismissed because one argument offered in its favour is faulty.

Example

"People argue that there must be an afterlife because they just can't accept that when we die that's it.”

‘NO TRUE SCOTSMAN'

Explanation

The no true Scotsman fallacy is a way of reinterpreting evidence in order to prevent the refutation of one’s position. Proposed counter-examples to a theory are dismissed as irrelevant solely because they are counter-examples, but purportedly because they are not what the theory is about.

Example

If Angus, a Glaswegian, who puts sugar on his porridge, is proposed as a counter-example to the claim No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge, the ‘No true Scotsman’ fallacy would run as follows:
(1) Angus puts sugar on his porridge.
(2) No (true) Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
Therefore:
(3) Angus is not a (true) Scotsman.
Therefore:
(4) Angus is not a counter-example to the claim that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.

This fallacy is a form of circular argument, with an existing belief being assumed to be true in order to dismiss any apparent counter-examples to it. The existing belief thus becomes unfalsifiable.

Real-World Examples

An argument similar to this is often arises when people attempt to define religious groups. In some Christian groups, for example, there is an idea that faith is permanent, that once one becomes a Christian one cannot fall away. Apparent counter-examples to this idea, people who appear to have faith believe but subsequently lose it, are written off using the ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy: they didn’t really have faith, they weren’t true Christians. The claim that faith cannot be lost is thus preserved from refutation. Given such an approach, this claim is unfalsifiable, there is no possible refutation of it.

Note from Anastasia: A claim that is unfalsifiable is not necessarily untrue; it's just not supported by a the unfalsifiable argument.

(It just so happens, however, that this particular example does have a refutation of a different sort. It's found in John 15:2, in which Jesus tells us that any "branch IN ME" that doesn't bear fruit will be cut off.)

Grace and Freedom: Two Words, One Mystery

This is from Vladimir Lossky's book, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, Crestwood, New York, 1976). This excerpt appears near the beginning of Chapter Ten; in my edition, it begins on page 197.

The notion of merit is foreign to the Eastern tradtion. The word is seldom encountered in the spiritual writings of the Eastern Church, and has not the same meaning as in the West. The explanation is to be sought in the general attitude of Eastern theology towards grace and free will. In the East, this question has never had the urgency which it assumed in the West from the time of St. Augustine onwards. The Eastern tradition never separates these two elements: grace and human freedom are manifested simultaneously and cannot be conceived apart from each other. St. Gregory of Nyssa describes very clearly the reciprocal bond that makes of grace and free will two poles of one and the same reality: 'As the grace of God cannot descend upon souls which flee from their salvation, so the power of human virtue is not of itself sufficient to raise to perfection souls which have no share in grace ... the righteousness of works and the grace of the Spirit, coming together to the same place, fill the soul in which they are united with the life of the blessed.' ('De Instituto Christiano', P.G., XLVI, 289 C.)

Note (my own): St. Gregory does not mean God deprives anybody of His grace, but that some people do not want it and God will not force Himself upon them. But in the blessed, grace and works unite and together fill the soul. Lossky continues:

Thus, grace is not a reward for the merit of the human will, as Pelagianism would have it; but no more is it the cause of the 'meritorious acts' of our free will., For it is not a question of merits but of a co-operation, of a synergy of the two wills, divine and human, a harmony in which grace bears ever more and more fruit, and is appropriated - 'acquired' - by the human person. Grace is a presence of God within us which demands constant effort on our part; these efforts, however, in no way determine grace, nor does grace act upon our liberty as if it were external or foreign to it.

If you are not a theology buff, you'll probably be glad to stop reading right here. But if you like this sort of stuff, here's a bit more. The above paragraph continues:

This doctrine, faithful to the apophatic spirit of Eastern tradition, expresses the mystery of the coincidence of grace and human freedom in good workis, without recourse to positive and rational terms. The fundamental error of Pelagius was that of transposing the mystery of grace on to a rational plane, by which process grace and liberty, realities of the spiritual order, are transformed into two mutually exclusive concepts which then have to be reconciled, as if they were two objects exterior to one another. St. Augustine, in his attack on Pelagianism, followed the example of his adversary intaking his stand on the same rational ground, where there was no possibility of the question ever being resolved.

Growing Old

My friend Sylvia sent me a whole slew of cartoons about getting older. These are my favorites of the bunch. I don't see any copyright information on them...


(You can see this better if you click it to enlarge it.)


(This one really cracks me up. That's something my cat Molly would absolutely certainly do if we had dentures!)

“…I Cannot, of My Own Strength…"

Many denominations are very emphatic in telling us all the things that are necessary yet impossible for us “on our own” or “apart from God”, such as believing or repenting or doing anything truly good. All these things, they stress, are possible only by the grace of God.

To which I usually reply that we cannot even so much as breathe or digest our food apart from the grace of God. That is, these people are not wrong about this, they’re just attacking a straw man. Why is it a straw man? Because there simply is no such thing as “on our own” or “apart from God” or “by my own strength”.

God does not, ever, literally desert anyone. Anyone. He pursues us wherever we go, even to the depths of hell.

Whither shall I go from Your spirit?
Or whether shall I flee from Your presence?
If I ascend up into heaven, You are there:
If I make my bed in hell, behold, You.
If I take the wings of the morning
And dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea;
Even there shall Your hand lead me,
And Your right hand shall hold me.
If I say, “Surely the darkness shall cover me,”
Even the night shall be light about me.
(Psalm 139:7-11)

Some people still think God abandons people, and for evidence, they quote verses such as Romans 1:24-26, which twice says, “God gave them up…” But this doesn’t mean He turns against anyone; it means He let them have their own way when they insisted; He did not force Himself upon people, precisely because He is unfailingly good to one and all.

God is not the Celestial Prig Who cannot tolerate proximity to sinners. That is why Jesus did not scorn the company of sinners, but actively sought out the demon-possessed, the traitors, the prostitutes, the cheats. God is not tainted by the presence of sinners; instead, the reverse: sinners are sanctified in His Presence.

God is often alleged to have abandoned Christ as He hung on the Cross – just at the climax of His faith, obedience, and love! – and Psalm 22:1 is cited in support of this idea. Read further if you believe it. Check out verse 24 of that same Psalm. It didn’t happen.

If you are searching for a gracious God, know that God is always gracious, and to everybody. The Lord taught us, “But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and you shall be the children of the Highest: for He is kind to the unthankful and [to] the evil.” He is kind, unfailingly kind. He does not hope for any return, for Himself, upon His kindness.

He never leaves us to our own strength, never leaves us entirely on our own, although He does allow us, so to speak, a very long leash. And that’s why everyone can breathe, everyone can digest his food, and everyone can believe in Him when given a genuine opportunity.

Certain things, however, do remain which we cannot do apart from Christian faith.
Like love our enemies
or know ourselves as we really are
or have hope that does not end in the grave
or become deified
or, well, any of the things that matter to us most.

Why God Created Us

On Saturday, my husband was having a theological conversaion with a friend who is Roman Catholic. The man mentioned (alluding to Paragraph 1721 of The Catechism of the Catholic Church) that "God put us in the world to know, to love, and to serve him, and so to come to paradise."

Demetrios burst out laughing.

No, dear friends, that is not why God created us. It's a sweet doctrine if you claim to be God's vicar on earth, of course, because then knowing, loving and serving God implies knowing, loving, and serving you! But the true God has no need nor want of our knowledge or love or service. He Who is our Revelation of the Father told us, "The Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve."

God has so much glory already that all the glory the human race could ever bring Him throughout all of its history would be infinitely less than a miocroscopic drop of water in all the oceans of the world. His glory is His goodness, and it is already infinite. He already has the plenitude of everything, "nor wanting nor wasting," in the words of the Protestant hymn. He lacks nothing.

God created us for our sakes, not His! He created us that we, too, might be good and glorious as He is good and glorious, that we might be blessed by sharing in His own blessedness, that we might be gods participating in all He does.

The true God is not, not, not self-serving.

The notion that He is appears to me to be the root of all sorts of further heterodox errors. Not the least of them is this: that the deities people worship embody their followers' highest notions of morality. This means we can't be more moral than our concept of God. If our god is self-serving, we are doomed to be likewise.

Video of the Day

Laughter is contagious! (You'd laugh, too, if you had identical quadruplets! Or maybe not...)