One Self, Many Selves (I)

Neuropsychologist Nicholas Humphrey writes on how the “self” emerges in the life of a baby.  Immediately after birth the baby’s brain is receiving stimulation from all of its senses even without an “I’ yet existing to process the information.   Somehow a self emerges which makes sense of the sensory perceptions which are constantly streaming in to the brain.  Humphrey asks, does the baby experience the different sensations at first as many distinct “selfs” each experiencing something but not yet as a whole or unified self?  Humphrey compared this experience to watching an orchestra before a concert as each musician tunes his or her instrument – there are only individual musicians tuning instruments and we watching them cannot make sense of them as a unit, nor do we hear yet the symphony.  The conductor must take the stage to form the unified symphony.

A unified “self” does emerge eventually taking in all information the various senses send to the brain and sorting it out realizing “I” exist.  “I” am distinct from all the sensory perceptions.  “I” not only make sense of them, but can act toward them and upon them for “I” am not a mere object being acted upon, but a subject capable of choice and actions myself.   Time passes, we mature and move into the world  where we come to experience our ‘self’ as many ‘selfs’ again.  I am young, a boy, white, I speak only one language.  I am different from others.   I experience the world through gender, race, nationality, language or member of a clan, family, nation, ethnic group.  Each of these ‘selfs’ make up my one self, and at times one of the ‘selfs’ emerges to the forefront as I relate to others or they relate to me.  This may be the self I consider myself to be or that others think is me.   However, no matter who I think I am, I realize others do not necessarily perceive me as I think of myself.  I may see myself as human, they as black or poor or dangerous or friendly or intelligent or fat.  I become part of other groups and there is my self as military, teammate, loyal fan, Southerner, educated, Democrat, Christian.  I can choose to fit in, blend in to community rather than stick out.  Or, I can become a leader, advocate for one of my many ‘selfs’.

Life becomes a balancing act of these various ‘selfs’ as we realize the selfs we identify with shape our worldview and shape the world’s view of us.  We have to make choices in contexts in which peer pressure is real.  I allow what others think of me to shape my ‘self’.  It is possible for my ‘self’ to be amorphous at times as I cope with uncertainty, ambiguity, ambivalence, opportunity or danger.

For Christians, there is the hope that one self emerges as we grow spiritually and grow in Christ – that believing self which is consistent with the teachings of Christ.  This we understand is part of the healing that comes in Christ.   The many ‘selfs’ are a result of the splintered, broken and fallen world.  A whole self is wholesome.   But, oh, how difficult it is to be consistent in every single circumstance one finds one’s self in.

These are some of the themes that Russian writer Nikolai Leskov  (d. 1895) explores in his short story, “Figura.”  It is a story that has stood out in my mind for decades since I first read it.   It isn’t the best short story I’ve ever read, nor does it resolve all of these issues.  For me, it just helped make clear as a Christian the cutting edge of one’s ‘self’ as well as how individual conscience relates to society, even a society in which conscience is essential such as the church.

The story takes place in 19^th Century Russia, Figura is an army officer from nobility in Orthodox Russia.  The story introduces ideas of regionalism (Russian vs Ukrainian, the Cossacks), class and social status (human divisions especially in the context of 19^th Century Russia), which play into the many ‘selves’ of Figura.  The story ends up focusing on his Christian identity, which is part of what Leskov wrestles with: individual conscience when one is a member of an institutional church and cultural Christianity.  Figura is an officer over 42 soldiers and 6 cavalry men (who are Cossack’s, another social distinction).  On Pascha night he is feeling his humanity and decides to try to do something nice for his men as he realizes how hard their lives are.  He is struck by what it is to be human and the struggles this brings for each of us.  He spends all the cash he has on hand to buy them tea and sweet treats so they can celebrate the Feast even though they are on guard duty.  He has decided as soon as the “Christ is risen!” is proclaimed after Pascha midnight, he will treat his men.  Unfortunately, the very thing that makes Figura feel compassion for his men – their humanity – will become the thing that confronts his compassion and his ‘self.’  His 6 Cossack soldiers get drunk and just about midnight, in the dark, one of the drunken Cossacks assaults Figura, striking him on the face and tearing the epaulette off his uniform.  The Cossack then passes out.

Figura who had started the night off feeling his shared humanity with his soldiers and wanting to do something special for them because he realized their lot in life was hard, is assaulted by one of them, someone of lower rank than himself and also not from nobility.  For the second time in the story he is struck by the soldiers’ humanity – this time though in a literal and painful way as he is assaulted by the rawness of fallen humanity.  His emotions roil and boil, but then his Christian self comes into the forefront and he has to decide what to do.  The soldiers have witnessed the event and his uniform is torn, so he can’t hide what has happened.  The soldiers know there is dire consequences for a peasant to assault an officer and nobleman.  They are prepared to deliver their fellow soldier over to justice which might include corporate punishment which could result in the offending soldier’s death.

Figura however is overwhelmed by his Christian sense of what to do if someone strikes you on the cheek. He hears Christ saying to turn the other cheek. He knows as nobility he must defend his honor.  He knows as an officer he has to maintain discipline and order in the troops.  He knows he is part of a military hierarchy and so has no choice about what to do.  He is a man, a male, who must defend his personal honor in a society which would admire his willingness to use violence to defend himself.   He feels the pressure that he has to set an example for all the other soldiers standing around him as well as for his fellow officers.  He feels the weight of the expectation that he must defend the prestige of all those of his rank and class.  The issue is not only a personal assault and insult, for he must defend the order of society itself.  All the soldiers around him recognize what Figura ‘must’ do.

Yet, he forgives the soldier recognizing it was his drunkenness not malice that led him to this point.  He is moved by the soldiers tearful begging for mercy and tells all the soldiers to just forget what happened.  He has no heart to see his soldier punished to death for a stupid act.  As Figura says, “I couldn’t remember Jesus and at the same time go against him in the way I treated people.”   Figura’s ‘selfs’ have come in conflict and he has to deal with the cognitive dissonance.

Figura remembers an Orthodox prayer from the First Hour which he begins to recite, “O Christ, You are the True Light, instruct and enlighten every man that comes into the world…”  As the translator notes the Russian word for world and peace is the same and Figura’s mind hears both meanings – “I interpreted this to mean that He would enlighten every one who came from enmity to peace.  And I called out in a still louder voice: ‘May the light of Your countenance shine upon us sinners.’”  Liturgical prayers that he recited all his life suddenly took on meaning in a non-church context, and Figura suddenly desires to live and embody the things he prays.  All his soldiers are moved by his faith and prayers.  They all understand the demands on Figura of social and peer pressure but are moved by his desire to practice his faith.

One self has emerged in Figura as his true self.  This however is not the end of the story.  While Figura comes to peace with God and his neighbor, with the world and himself, he will now be put to the test as his fellow officers and commanders proceed to judge his case.  What he has come to peace with, society still has a say in.  He will again have to weigh his decision.

Next: One Self, Many Selves (II)

 

Vices vs. Virtues

“Let us rather avoid greed, through which injustice thrives and justice is banished, brotherly love is spat on and hatred of mankind is embraced. Let us avoid drunkenness and gluttony, which are the parents of fornication and wantonness; for excess of every kind is the cause of insolence, and outflow is the begotten child of plentitude, from which fornication and wantonness are hatched. Let us avoid strife, division, seditions, whereof plots are born and murders begotten; for evil crops grow from evil seed. Let us avoid foul speech, whereby those who are accustomed to it slip easily into the pit of evil deeds; for what one is not ashamed to say, one will not be ashamed to do either, and what one enjoys hearing one will be drawn into committing. Let us abominate these things and spit upon them, but let us love the Lord’s commandments and adorn ourselves with them.

Let us honor virginity, let us attain gentleness, let us preserve brotherly love, let us give lodging to hospitality, let us cling to fortitude, let us cleanse ourselves with prayers and repentance, let us welcome humbleness that we may draw near to Christ; for the Lord is near to those who are of a contrite heart, and He will save the lowly in spirit. Let us embrace moderation; let us practice the judgment and distinction of the good from the bad. Let the soul be undaunted by the evils of life, especially if they are inflicted on us on account of Christ and His commandments, for we know that justice will follow, and it is thanks to them that we are easily carried up to heaven.”

(St Photius, The Homilies of Photius Patriarch of Constantinople, p. 71-72)

Caring for the Sinner

 

by Robert Morris (1989)

“When we want to correct someone usefully and show him he is wrong, we must see from what point of view he is approaching the matter, for it is usually right from that point of view, and we must admit this, but show him the point of view from which it is wrong. This will please him, because he will see that he was not wrong but merely failed to see every aspect of the question.”  (Blaise Pascal, in Peter Kreeft’s Christianity for Modern Pagans, p. 39)

Robert Morris’s painting, Private Silence/ Public Violence, which I saw some years ago at  the Corcoran Gallery of Art in Washington DC, is certainly timely.  The many recent reports of sexual misconduct by famous people shows how people keeping silence enables public violations/ violence to take place.  The #Me Too Moment has blossomed, rightfully disgracing some while empowering others.  Pascal writing in the 17th Century points how change can take place – by showing people from what point of view their behavior is wrong.

The Evils of War

St. Justin the Martyr

Christians have in their long history experienced all sides of war – being attacked as well as sending forth armies to defend and protect themselves.  The early Christian centuries saw Christians persecuted by the empire in which they resided: the Roman Empire brought to bear on the Christians all of the weight and might of its power to contain and eliminate them.   At least as far as I know, the early Christians did not call their fellow Christians to strike back at the Empire in armed resistance.  There were no calls to take revenge or to fight evil with evil, death with death, eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth.

The persecuted Christians defended themselves through the writings and speeches of the apologists, such as St. Justin the Martyr.   Despite seeing their fellow Christians martyred by the Empire, I’m not aware of any early Christian calling for or organizing an armed defense.  Certainly they would  have been aware of the armed rebellion by the Maccabees from the Scriptures.  That was a Jewish example of how to respond to persecution – but the Christians didn’t follow that path.  Miraculously, without an army or call to armed resistance, they survived and continued to gain new adherents.  The witness of the martyrs and confessors continued to sew seeds in the hearts and minds of other Romans which yielded a harvest of faith in God among more and more of Rome’s denizens.

40 Martyred Soldiers of Sebaste

Only with the Emperor Constantine and the legends of his vision do we see an Empire being conquered by the cross with a use of force.

In later centuries, once the Empire itself embraced Christianity, the Christians found themselves with new moral dilemmas as to what it meant to be a Christian soldier and what it meant for Christians to go to war or to defend their empire.  The Christians did not lose or forget the morality of the Gospel commands, but they struggled with how to apply it to their new found position of power.  In the year 300, it was forbidden by the Empire for Christians to be in the army.  By 400, it was required that to be in the Roman army you had to be a Christian.

One early Christian writer who did write about the moral dilemma for Christians being in the army and going to war is St. Augustine (d. 430AD).  Apparently Augustine found that it was not war in itself which was wrong for Christians, but the motives and passions which guided the Christians which could be sinful.

“For Augustine, soldiers in battle must be motivated by charity, love of neighbor, and even love of enemies. They must not delight in the blood sport of war or be motivated by revenge.

‘The real evils in war are love of violence, revengeful cruelty, fierce and implacable enmity, wild resistance and the lust of power.’”

The moral problem as St. Augustine describes it is what war does to us internally.   We can be changed by war so that we take some pleasure in the the violence we do against our enemies.  We rejoice in their suffering and believe our wrath is godly.  We come to find joy in destroying those that we have come to  hate.   It appears that for Augustine, the issue is losing the sense that we are defending the innocent and those who can’t protect themselves and coming to enjoy inflicting pain and suffering on those enemies we hate.  It is dehumanizing ourselves and our enemies which itself is morally wrong.  This is one of the evils of war – changing the very reason one goes to war and what one does in war into an evil.  When war raises our own sinful passions and those passions take control of our behavior, then war causes evil to exist in us.

At first blush, Augustine seems hypocritical. He decries violence in the name of self-defense but allows killing in battle and says it is not murder. For Augustine, intention and authority are key. When an individual sheds blood with vengeance (motive) or without permission (authority), that person commits a sin; but as a tool or delegate of the state, the soldier can kill without sinning, so long as the soldier does so dispassionately (without taking delight) and in service to the common good.”

(Mark J. Allman, Who Would Jesus Kill?, p 169)

This is a very treacherous moral path.   We can lose justification for our fighting in war if we allow sinful passions to take control of our reasoning.  But it also is possible that leadership may have the authority to declare war and do it for wrong or evil intentions.  The individual does not surrender responsibility for what he or she does to authority, but can without malice obey authority to serve others who cannot defend themselves.   None of this glorifies killing, or makes war a good.  The world is not perfect; it is fallen.  It is in this world that we have to function and make choices – difficult and hard choices.  We can make wrong choices, or right choices for wrong reasons, as well as wrong choices for right reasons.  Whenever their is choice to be made, we answer ultimately to God’s judgment.

The question remains: What level of force is allowed to stop others from committing evil?   When is lethal force morally correct?

The defense of war is that it is using lethal force to stop others from committing evil or from  inflicting evil upon people.  The moral dilemma remains for us: as people who are ourselves sinful and living in a fallen world, our motivations for doing things can be wrong.  Our sinful passions can control our behaviors which can lead us to act for wrong reasons and to accomplish sinful ends.  We can take men and women and remove from them moral reasoning and empower their sinful passions to commit acts of violence without having any remorse. The military has become quite successful at training its soldiers to accomplish their mission.   That might be the key to military victory.  But therein also lies part of the danger and evil of war.  It is not only what we do to our enemies – it is what we do to ourselves that is the problem.   In war we can encourage sinful passions to take control of ourselves.  We can turn off our moral reasoning in order to accept or justify whatever behavior we engage in.  We can dehumanize ourselves, not just our enemies,  in order to win a war. But, as the Lord Jesus asks . . .

“what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?  Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?”  (Mark 8:36-37)

We can train soldiers to win wars, but we bear responsibility if they lose their souls in the process.   Physical death may not be the worst end for the soldier. Those who die in battle are hailed as heroes.  Those, however, who live and are emotionally and spiritually wounded, are sometimes pitied, sometimes forgotten, sometimes incarcerated, sometimes left homeless.

Certainly this tells  us we have as a nation not only a responsibility to defend ourselves from evil, but we also have an obligation to tend to the men and women we send to war – to help them deal with their passions, moral dilemmas and regrets not only while in the military but when they return to civilian life.  It is wrong to send young men and women to war, to make them killing machines and then to fail to help them return to society.  The cost of war is not just supporting our military in the actual combat.  It also means funding the care for the souls, hearts and minds of those who return from war with their moral, spiritual or emotional lives broken or in turmoil.    The nation has a responsibility to rehumanize all who might have suffered because they went to war.

The cost of war and the evil of war can be the damage it does to us, to cause us to be less than human.  The war may end, but sometimes it does not for those wounded by it.

Christ raising Lazarus

Business and Religion: Choosing God

“In business, the custom of the trade must be understood by both contracting parties, else it can have no place, either as law or excuse, with the disciple of Jesus. The man to whom business is one thing and religion another is not a disciple. If he refuses to harmonize them by making his business religion, he has already chosen Mammon; if he thinks not to settle the question, it is settled. The most futile of all human endeavors is, to serve God and Mammon. The man who makes the endeavor betrays his Master in the temple and kisses Him in the garden; takes advantage of Him in the shop, and offers Him ‘divine service’ on Sunday. His very church-going is but a further service of Mammon.” (George MacDonald, Life Essential: The Hope of the Gospel, pg. 82)

In one children’s story I read many years ago, one of the many versions of the story of the baker’s dozen, the woman tells the baker, “You’ll never get rich because you are greedy.”  Christians are always faced with this choice and not just as customers.  Everyone of us who works also faces the same idea in the phrase “a day’s work for a day’s wages.”   Do we give to others what they are paying us to do?  In a capitalist world we are always facing this challenge no matter which side of the exchange we are on.

The Triads of St. Paul the Apostle

“There are three sorts of men: The man of God, who renders good for evil; the man of men, who renders good for good and evil for evil; and the man of the devil, who renders evil for good.

Three kinds of men are the delights of God: the meek; the lovers of peace; the lovers of mercy.

There are three marks of the children of God: gentle deportment; a pure conscious; patient suffering of injuries.

There are three chief duties demanded by God: justice to every man; love; humility.

In three places will be found the most of God: where He is mostly sought; where He is mostly loved; where there is least of self.

There are three things following faith in God: a conscious at peace; union with heaven; what is necessary for life.

Three ways a Christian punishes an enemy: by forgiving him; by not divulging his wickedness; by doing him all the good in his power.

The three chief considerations of a Christian: lest he should displease God; lest he should be a stumblingblock to man; lest his love to all that is good should wax cold.

The three luxuries of a Christian feast: what God has prepared; what can be obtained with justice to all; what love to all may venture to use.

Three person have the claims and privileges of brothers and sisters: the widow; the orphan; the stranger.”

(Catherine McCaffery in A Cloud of Witnesses: Woman’s Struggle for Sanctity, pg. 39.   My note: “The Triads of Paul the Apostle” were first made public in 1871 and originally were claimed to be a first century document proving St. Paul had been in England.  Many modern scholars think it a fraud.  The text is offered here for its content, not because of any claims of coming from antiquity. )

Behaving as a Christian

“This is Paul’s use of the command to ‘be what you are’. Those who are in Christ must behave accordingly. How should they behave towards fellow-Christians? They must remember that they are one body in Christ (Rom. 12:3-8). What kind of behavior is appropriate for Christians? They must ‘put on the Lord Jesus Christ’ (Rom.13:14). Should they observe holy days and abstain from certain kinds of food? They should do what they believe to be right, provided what they do brings honor to the Lord who died and rose again (Rom. 14:5-9): for it is because  he had been made Lord that Christians now do everything – living or dying – to him. How should they behave towards those with whom they disagree? They must welcome one another, since they have all been welcomed by God himself (Rom 14:1-3). They must be careful not to injure one another by their behavior, since that would bring destruction on those for whom Christ died (Rom. 14:13-21). On the contrary, the strong should bear the infirmities of those who are weak; they should not please themselves, for Christ did not please himself – indeed, he accepted reproach (Rom. 15:1-3). They must therefore welcome one another, as Christ welcomed them – Christ who, indeed, became a servant for their sakes (Rom. 15:7-12). (Morna D.Hooker, From Adam to Christ: Essays on Paul, pg.58)

Of Brains and Brawn: Human Evolution

Carl Zimmer writing in the 8 July 2011 DISCOVER science magazine notes that in 1758 Carolus Linnaeus in creating his taxonomy labeled humans, “Homo sapiens” which is Latin for “wise man.”  Zimmer says one might question how wise humans are but far less questionable would have been to call us Homo megalencephalus – “man with a giant brain” since compared to the body size of other animals, our brains are huge.   On the other hand, humans have far less guts/intestines than one would expect when compared to the weights of other primates.  Studies also indicate that the human and genetic codes between chimps and humans differ in that the human genetic code led to the development of “molecular pumps” that funneled sugar to our brains, whereas in chimps the sugar is more funneled to muscle.  So even if you are not sure about certain people you meet, studies would say humans tend to have more brain while chimps more brawn.

According to Zimmer an amazing 25% of the calories we eat each day are needed to fuel the brain’s functioning.  So by thinking more could we lose weight?  He doesn’t say, and so far it isn’t working for me, but I’ll keep thinking a lot about dieting and see if it helps burn calories.

The size of the human brain and the amount of calories it consumes may also be a reason not to compare humans to rats or mice in certain scientific studies.  Such studies show that these animals when kept on a diet that includes periods of too few calories tend to live longer.  It is not known whether a similar idea applies to humans, but it could be that such a diet would end up starving the human brain and not prolonging human life.

Evolutionary science theorizes that it was humans changed from eating “lower-energy diets of barks and leaves to higher-energy cuisine of seeds, tubers and meat” which fueled the growth of the brain.  The brain demands a lot of energy to grow, and in animals more reliant on their muscle than their brains to survive, there is little chance for the energy to be funneled to the brain.  This may explain why though the large brain has helped Homo sapiens adapt so well to this planet, the large brain has remained a rarity in the animal world.  The flight or fight pattern of survival may draw too much energy to the muscles to allow the brain to grow.

Now, of course, there is the issue if we have all this brain, can we use it to further reduce the need for fight or flight survival and help all humans to further develop their potential?

We do not have to compete in order to survive on planet earth.  We can cooperate with one another to solve problems and to provide for the needs of our fellow humans.

The Sin of Pride

“Pride= solitude = hell’s darkness. Pride, hence ambition, hence partiality, incapacity for self-estimation; hence stupidity. The proud man is stupid in his judgments, even if he is by nature born with the mind of a genius. And vice versa: the humble man is wise, even if he is ‘not clever’; the essence of wisdom – the sense of Truth and humility concerning it – is accessible to him. (Fr.Yelchaninov in A Treasury of Russian Spirituality, pgs. 447-448)

Culture War vs. Spiritual Warfare

“And Joseph said to his brothers, ‘I am Joseph! Can my father be still alive?  They were so dumbfounded at finding themselves face to face with Joseph that they could not answer.”   (Genesis 45:3  REB)

Patriarch Joseph

Thus came to an end one of the great deceptions of the Bible with the deceivers dumbfounded by their own deception:  they had no doubt come to believe their own lie about what had happened to Joseph and the lie regarding their own role in plotting his demise.  Ten brothers conspired together to lie to their father about Joseph’s death, and through the many years accepted their own version of the lie as truth (after all, by this time, Joseph surely must be dead).   What could they do? Once the lie had been told,  there was nothing left but to live by it.

But in Genesis 45, the lie and cover up were exposed and now the conspiring brotherhood has to go back to their father, who is at this point an old man who bore the grief of losing a son all his life, and tell him the good news  – you’ve been made to grieve for nothing all your life, your son is alive!  Which of course simultaneously exposes not only their lie but their evil deed as well.

“Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive.”  (Sir Walter Scott)

Such I think is also the dilemma the Church faces in dealing with issues of clergy sexual abuse and misconduct.  The Church not openly addressing these issues used to be justified on the basis that such truth would so scandalize the faithful and harm innocent souls that it was better to cover over and cover up such sins and deal with them internally and secretly.  All done for the supposed good of the faithful who would lose their faith and trust… in God or only in the leadership?    Would that it were the case that the institution was so worried about protecting its membership.  But in failing to deal frankly with the problem, the membership is not protected at all from the problem, but only is prevented from understanding the risk.  This ends up protecting the institution and its leaders, not the flock.   Secrets and darkness are the friends of the devil.

Once the leadership of the church is trafficking in secrets, there is a horrible price to be paid by and in the Church.  There should be no secrets about sin in the Church, for the Church exists to triumph over sin and death, not to hide its secrets: “since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God…” (Romans 3:23 – the “all” presumably includes the clergy).   Three Scripture verses for the Church to consider in dealing with clergy sexual misconduct:

Jesus said: “For there is nothing hid, except to be made manifest; nor is anything secret, except to come to light.”  (Mark 4:22)

“Meanwhile, when the crowd gathered by the thousands, so that they trampled on one another, Jesus began to speak first to his disciples, ‘Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees, that is, their hypocrisy. Nothing is covered up that will not be uncovered, and nothing secret that will not become known. Therefore whatever you have said in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have whispered behind closed doors will be proclaimed from the housetops.’”   (Luke 12:1-3)

“For it is a shame even to speak of the things that they do in secret; but when anything is exposed by the light it becomes visible, for anything that becomes visible is light.” (Ephesians 5:12-13)

Now we live in a very litigious society and people sue and threaten to sue even the Church constantly over every issue.  There is in the case of clergy sexual misconduct many factors for the Church to take into consideration in deciding how to publicly deal with such misconduct.  There are victims and their rights and needs to consider.  There may be other innocent victims – spouses and children not only of the victims but of the clergy who engage in misconduct.  There are parish communities to consider,  the law, confidentiality, human rights and innocence until guilt is proven.  Lawyers and church legal committees favor a very high degree of secrecy to avoid lawsuits.

But what the Church has to do is taking into consideration all of those factors – courts, laws, victims, victim rights, the rights of the accused, innocent victims and witnesses and confidentiality – and come up with a plan for how to deal publicly and transparently with the sins and failures of the clergy.  We should never be like the brothers of Joseph conspiring together to cover up the sins of some or one of the brothers.  That is not Christian ethics.

Today in the OCA some seem to think that current controversies are only about a culture war in which one man wants to speak boldly and others want to silence him.  A real battle  has to deal with the temptation of secrets and of covering over problems within the institutional church.  There is a need for consistent church discipline, rather than a PR campaign which mixes up what people want to be true with the truth of how things are done.  It is not a cultural war but a spiritual warfare.

(See also my blogs  Sexual Abuse in the Church,  The Meek: The Avenger of the Abused,   Christian Sexual Abuse: Apostasy of the Worst Kind,  Celibacy and Sobriety,  Allegations and Accusations,  and   Sexual Misconduct in the Church: Where Truth, Justice and Wisdom Meet)