The Eve of the Announcement:

Death Shall Have No Dominion

Today is the eve of the Feast of the Annunciation, wherein the Archangel Gabriel announces to the Virgin the conception of the Promised Messiah.  It is the beginning of the proclamation of the Good News for the Salvation of the World.  The Son of the Father becomes incarnate, the Divine becomes human, and while history experiences a number of years from conception to the Cross to the Resurrection to the Ascension and imparting of the Holy Spirit, the Divine Plan is already being accomplished, is accomplished and will finally be accomplished.  With her consent, her cooperation, the Virgin's fiat ("Let it be to me according to your word...') is the beginning of the ultimate reconciliation between God and humanity, accomplished perfectly in the life of the Theanthropos, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.  This is the beginning of the Good News, that "God is with us."  The falleness of the world, its death by separation from God due to sin, is to be saved.  Indeed, it has been saved in the Death and Resurrection of our Lord, and death has been conquered.  For those who believe in Him, trust Him, death has no more dominion.

But it continues to have dominion over some.  For those who do not place their hope and their trust in Him.  The Good News, the Gospel, has not reached the hearts of all. 

For some, death and its effects still reign, are our obsession and fear.  We seek to avoid that which reminds us of death, or is perceived to lead to death--pain and discomfort--by doing things (sin) that seem to bring relief for the moment but actually serve to bring us closer to death in the ultimate sense, which is our separating from God.

Many have been seduced by the powers of death, choosing death over their life which seems too awful, too difficult, too painful.  The enemy of humanity has convinced many that death is the better alternative.  And even now there are those who seek an alliance with death to escape what is perceived to be unbearable injustice and suffering.  Many despair of having to live.

Many have become proponents, knowingly or not, of a culture of death.  This is manifested in myriad ways. 

For some, it is simply an ambivalence toward any life but their own; as long as they feel good others do not really matter. Life can be destroyed if it is inconvenient, unwanted or unexpected, and countless unborn children are objectively dismissed as "fetal tissue."  This is indicated by a culture that encourages a value system ranking one human life (born, cognitively sound) as inherently of more worth than another (unborn, or those in a persistent vegetative state).   

For others it is the affirmation of their own worth through the destruction of others.  Human beings can be "legally" killed if they risk the security or well-being of these people.  Those convicted of heinous crimes can be killed since they are "bad" as opposed to "good."  The unborn whose existence poses medical or psychological risks can be guiltlessly sucked through a tube.  The unborn with identifiable birth defects can be killed to spare parents from the challenge of caring for them, though excused by suggesting the motive is to spare them from suffering.

For still others, there is an apathy regarding life: "eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die."  Life is no sacred phenomenon, but the random combination of molecules that over time have evolved into what we call human life.  Human have risen to the top of the "fittest," but the span of years given is all there is, and nothing follows physical decomposition.  There is no hope for anything more.  There is no enduring value.

A culture of death devalues the principle of life in countless ways.  And Christians are not exempt from the seduction of death.  Orthodox Christians (in name) are not immune.  We have Orthodox Christians in the United States Senate that will not support a ban on barbaric, volitional late-term abortions which are never medically "necessary."  We have Orthodox Christians who write editorials defending capital punishment for the condemned, justifying the socially-sanctioned destruction of the image of God.  We have Orthodox Christians who viscerally react to a severely brain-damaged woman and think it better for her to be dead than alive.  We have Orthodox Christians who ignore the plight of the starving throughout the world, and justify their selfishness by blaming the victims for their own misfortune.

Physical death is not the end for us, and this is a matter of faith.  The real death is our attempt--wittingly or unwittingly--to separate from He who is Life.  But physical life is a sacred thing.  Each and every human being is created in the image of God, and "as you did to these the least of my brethren, so you did to me...": How we treat other human beings is how we treat Christ Himself.

Christ was incarnate and became human at the moment of His mysterious conception--in the womb.  When we kill the unborn, we kill Christ.  Christ comes to us in the form of the sick and the suffering, even in a persistent vegetative state.  We can starve Him to death or we can feed Him. 

Sometimes we are powerless to prevent physical death.  Sometimes, we can keep a body working while the brain is dead--our technology allows this.   But still we know when someone is dead or alive, despite what technology keeps warm.  And we can entrust their lives to God when recovery is beyond expectation in this world.  But other times we can prevent physical death by the simplest of actions: feeding, hydrating, basic medical care.  Physical death may be inevitable, and that may appear to excuse letting people die or even killing them, but it is no excuse to inflict suffering or to stand idly by doing nothing.  At some point we may exhaust the possibilities of care.  But not until physical death, and not even after which is indicated in our care even for those who have "fallen asleep."  Even then we do not destroy, but maintain dignity.

Life is a mystery.  And we Orthodox Christians are commanded to preserve it when possible.  We do so ultimately to allow time for repentance, to allow us the opportunity to minister to the living despite suffering and pain, that of others and our own.  And despite the pain and suffering, seeking to preserve life allows the suffering to come to know the love of others in an intensely personal manner.  We are called to reject the culture of death.  We are called to reject the devaluation of life in all circumstances. 

We are called, specifically, to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give drink to the thirsty, visit and care for those who are sick or in prison.  In no instance are we taught, commanded or exhorted to let the hungry starve, let the naked be, let the thirsty dehydrate, ignore the sick or kill those imprisoned.

We live in a society that has shown by its own Supreme Court that it is ultimately seduced by the culture of death.  Law trumps life in our society, especially now for the condemned criminal, the unborn, for those who cannot speak for themselves.  Try as we might, we do not live in a just society, only a society of human (not necessarily humane) justice.  This is no surprise, for their is no earthly Kingdom that affirms in all circumstances the principle that life is eternal, that life is sacred, that death has no dominion.  There is only one dominion that imparts life, the Kingdom of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

While I will pray for Terri Schiavo and those who exhibited their authentic love for her by fighting for her life (even if contrary to wishes we will never be certain of), I will not forget all the others victimized by our culture of death.  And this is why the Lord was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary and became man: to save us from death, which too often means from ourselves.  In the end, death shall have no dominion.

Terri Schiavo & The Culture of Death

Today, following extraordinary action by the United States Congress, a judge will once again be reviewing the case that has, of late, captured the attention of Americans.  It is a sad, tragic case filled with emotions on both sides of a debate about this one woman's life and, as some would have it, her impending death.

Why is her husband so eager to see her die?  Is it because in the many years he has begun a new life apart from her, having children with a woman he claims is his fiance?  Is it truly because he is fighting for the wife he claims to still love, and whom he claims would not want to be sustained in her current condition?  Whatever the true motives of this man, his argument to remove her feeding tube is hollow.  He claims that she would not want to live like this.  He justifies his morbid desire by claiming she is in a persistent, vegetative state unaware of her surroundings and incapable of conscious thought.  Odd...if she is unaware of anything--being only a shell of a body--why does he claim it bothers her to live like this?  If she is truly unaware of anything, why would she be wanting to die?  If unaware of anything, she would logically be unaware of her current condition.

Logically, Terri does not "lose" anything in remaining in her current condition if she is unaware of it.  But others do.

Her parents and siblings, friends and other relatives do not believe she is unaware of her surroundings or that she is, in fact, in a persistent vegetative state.  Film of Terri sitting in a chair tends to confirm their belief since it shows her responding to stimuli, but the matter is more complex than that and at the current time there is no manner to determine of what she may be conscious. Yet the persons who desire to care for her in this state are not permitted by law and by court decision to do so.  The husband, in the State of Florida, has the right to determine her care or the cessation of it.

Her husband has not allowed any rehabilitative therapy, apparently believing it would be useless.  Of course, it may not be.  We will not know until a court perhaps reassigns her legal guardianship.  For years now the husband has opposed her family's wishes in the case for his own reasons, and I shall not speculate as others have as to what those may be.  At best, he believes he is honoring Terri's wishes to die rather than survive in the condition she finds herself in today.  Of course, the definition of what that condition is can be debated.  It is debated and, to a certain extent, is the debate itself.

But should it be the debate?  Is there not a more important issue at stake?  I feel there is, one that is of utmost importance.

It is the issue of what social conservatives call a culture of death as opposed to a culture of life.  In our day, modern ideologies of "life" and "death" as portrayed in the media are not so clear cut.  Conservatives oppose the culture of death that persists in ranking a mother's right to comfort (most broadly defined) over an unborn child's right to life.  They oppose, generally, active euthanasia where doctors actively cause a person to die for what are called "humane" reasons.  Jack Kervorkian is a proponent of such measures.  But then most of these conservatives have no problem with the State executing the death penalty on convicted criminals--despite the huge amount of evidence that our legal system does not ensure absolute guilt in such cases.  Their "culture of life" extends only to a certain point.

Modern and so-called liberals (or the less controversial term, progressives) are claimed to promote a culture of death because of their support for abortion rights and euthansia and other related issues.  To a point this is accurate, but not when it comes to the death penalty.  Putting the unborn to death is permissible in such a view (even if it should be rare!) but putting a person who lives out of the womb to death is clearly wrong.

Neither side in the "culture wars" or idealogical debates in this nation is consistent.  That's politics.  But that is also why Terri's case is so complicated.  Conservatives are split on the issue, so are liberals.  Authentic Christians cannot be.

As an Orthodox Christian clergyman, I often have been with families that have to make life and death decisions for those they love.  I have had to do this for my own son, who many abortion advocates would have suggested never come into the world since he was born with a debilitating condition.  At one point, due to a congenital heart condition his mother and I signed papers in a hospital stopping medical treatment that was proving ineffective.  We expected his fight and our fight was over at that point.  Miraculously--and I do not use the word here casually--he recovered to the point where additional medical treatments were able to help, and they did.  Yet during those moments with a legal form in my hands, I was prepared to stop medical measures since it was prolonging his suffering.  But I did ask about feeding and hydration until his heart was no longer able to sustain life.  While willing to "let go" in the face of medical impotence, I was not willing to allow the infliction of additional pain and suffering.  Ending artificial respiration was one thing; ending all care something entirely different.

That is what boggles my mind in Terri's case.  Her husband is trying to end all care.  Without pressing the point, he has moved on with his life.  Those who care still sit at her bedside.  It is one thing to not take measures to save her life if her heart stops, or if there was no electrical activity in her brain, but something entirely different than stopping all care.  This is essentially what he fights for when trying to have her feeding tube removed.  She will starve to death, and without medication, this method of dying will be painful.  Again, he claims she will be unaware of any pain due to her brain damage.  But then the argument continues, if unaware, what harm is inflicted on her sensibility if care is provided.

There are others on our society eager to see her die.  This is troubling.  It is troubling regardless of the legal or political issues involved.  It is troubling not simply because someone will die, though this is serious enough.  It is troubling because the fight is essentially about the right to kill a person who simply needs food to survive.  Providing this minimal assistance is not artificial life support (though technically a feeding tube is artificial in the strict sense, though many professionals claim with rehabilitative therapy--denied her by the husband--she might be able to eat normally) on a machine keeping vital organs working...they work.

From a Christian perspective, nothing more in this case is needed other than the words of our Lord in Matthew 25: "you blessed...when I was hungey you gave me food...as you did to the least of my brethren so you did to me...[and]...you cursed, I was hungey and you did not give me food...as you did not do to these the least of my brethren, you did not do them to me."

Persons like Terri are among the "least" in our society, those who cannot help themselves, those who suffer, those who others no longer value, no different in this respect than the unborn or criminals...How those around her treat her or neglect her is how they treat Christ Himself.

November 4, 2004

At our Parish Assembly last night, one of our Parish Council members announced that I have been appointed by His Eminence Metropolitan Iakovos as Special Administrative Assistant at our Metropolis.  For some time I have been informally assisting our Chancellor and His Eminence on special projects for our Metropolis, with special correspondence and other communications, and in various administrative tasks.  I have also been representing the Metropolis on an interfaith committee (Jewish-Christian Clergy Retreat Planning) and at various other events. 

Now my position has been made formal, though my responsibilities at Saint Demetrios remain unchanged.  Frankly, these are enough, though I am honored by the trust extended to me by His Eminence.  I have always believed that the ministries and activities of our Church at the Metropolitan level are crucial, and I am committed to doing my part to enhance these. 

It remains that in the Orthodox Christian tradition, the local Church consists of the faithful together with their hierarch and shepherd.  This means that the parish is not a local Church in the strict or technical sense, but an extension of the local Church in a particular place.  For those who view some type of separation between the parish and Metropolis, it remains that we at Saint Demetrios ARE the Metropolis, and the Metropolis is, in a very basic sense, us.

November 3, 2004

Following the national elections, numerous exit polls noted that the leading issue of this election was not one the candidates explicitly raised.  It was not the economy, nor the war in Iraq, nor the broader war on terrorism.  It was "morality" or moral issues.  While this is a rather broad category into which many issues raised in this election were raised (stem cell research, abortion, war, personal freedoms, etc.), it seems that a good portion of the American public prioritized what they considered the necessity for moral values in this nation over immediate personal interest and security.  Of course, persons holding opposite opinions on moral issues can still claim "morality" as their primary motivation to vote--the polls did not specify what standards or values were being endorsed.  Supporters of one candidate can seek to endorse one set of moral values and their opponents another.

Indeed, as this and the previous national election for President revealed a roughly equal divide among the electorate, not to mention a growing animosity between the two "sides of the aisle," it seems that our American society is in the midst of a broad debate about morality which, of course, shapes our position on so many specific issues.  Unfortunately the rhetoric between the two sides often glosses over the subtle complexities of any given issue, not to mention apparent inconsistencies in the "conservative" or "liberal" positions.

Orthodox Christians are neither Roman Catholic nor Protestant, the simplistic dichotomy through which most Americans seem to perceive in the Christian world.  In similar fashion, an Orthodox perspective of the issues confronting our society often falls somewhere the political positions staked out by conservatives and liberals.  Orthodox Christians cannot simply accept acritically the notion of a "culture of life" as described by the political right which condemns abortion but enthusiastically endorses the death penalty.  Nor can the liberal position which counters this view--insisting on absolute right to an abortion whenever desired but condemning the "cruelty" of capital punishment--be accepted whole-heartedly by an Orthodox Christian conscience.

Both the candidate who prevailed and the one who conceded noted in addresses to our nation today the need to heal the "cultural divide" so apparent in our political contests.  Such healing can only begin when the American public rejects simplistic arguments in favor of thoughtful consideration and respect for the diversity of perspectives of our citizenry, and when all reject as well the "either/or" dichotomies of our current political discourse, particularly that of "religious/secular."  We need to transcend such dichotomies, and I believe that an Orthodox Christian perspective consistent with our spiritual inheritance allows us this.  Orthodox Christian doctrine and ethics often can be seen to be a "third" option that may offer us the opportunity to bridge the cultural divide.  But this can only happen if and when Orthodox explcitly share this perspective with our sisters and brothers of the world, particular those trapped in contradictory premises that, paradoxically, often arise from the very foundations of "Western" culture.  This means that we also must make our morality known and felt in the public arena by our voices and actions.

November 5, 2004

Today, Yassar Arafat, head of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Gaza, is, according to his aides, "between life and death."  His passing is imminent.  Yet this point between life and death is where he has been standing for some time.