Spartan or ?

Several years, in commenting on the decor, our lack thereof, in my classroom, the principal at the school at which I was teaching, labeled me as "spartan" in my approach to decorating.  That didn't seem like a bad thing to me at the time, but now looking back I don't believe he was exactly accurate.
The idea of being Spartan is about non extravagance.  It's about living with only what is necessary.  It's about no frills.  While those types of things were true about me, the motivation is what was different.
One big aspect of Orthodoxy is that of focusing on the eternal and disregarding the temporal, worldly and trite.  As we continue in our sanctification, we fight against the desire of the flesh to rule over us.  We are striving to continually deepen our relationship with Christ, to the point of minimizing ourselves and becoming more like Christ.
This is one reason why the Eucharist is so important and central to our faith.  The Eucharist is communion with God.  The more we center our lives around the life of the Church, the closer we will draw into Christ.
Probably the most difficult aspect of trying to be "Spartan" is trying to figure what it means for you, and learning to see our own weaknesses.  It's easy to see the weaknesses in others, but much more difficult to see ourselves.

Missionaries?

In a recent conversation with a co-worker, he shared with me that he had recently spent two months in Romania doing missionary work.  I smiled politely and listened to his story.  After a short period, something very unusual occurred to me.  I have to wonder what Protestants (in this instance, Baptists) are thinking.  The country of Romania, before, during and after its overthrow by Soviet communism, remained an Eastern Orthodox country.  Being 92,000 sq miles, it contains over 300 monasteries.  That's one monastery for every 300 sq miles.  That is nothing short of amazing.
So I ask myself, what do the Protestants think they are doing?  Sending Protestant missionaries into Romania is like sending Mc Donalds into France.  Is it food? Kind of.  But what is the point?

A fundamental and foundational problem of epic and universal proportions

    I am going to argue that vanity is most likely the biggest problem within Christianity today. I am not arguing that it is the most serious problem, but it is universal and spares no one.
     The way the current problem stands looks something like this.  Visit any church and observe what the high school and college girls are wearing.  Then look at the young mothers, the middle age women and the older women.  What you are going to observe is that all of these women dress according to the standards of the world.  They are wearing what's cute, what's fashionable, what's attractive, and what draws the attention. The problem with this is that all of these things are immediately contrary to the Christian faith.  Show me in Scripture or the writings of the Church fathers or monasticism where this kind of thinking about appearance is encouraged.
     We cannot think like the world.  We must not think like the world.  As followers of Christ we must be different from the world.  If nothing else, this should at least be seen in our thinking.  We must be able to articulate why we do the things we do, in regards to our appearance, amongst other things.  This includes clothing, makeup, hairstyle, etc.
     I am not going to argue for any one particular standard or set appearance, but i am going to argue for the necessity of having a well thought out and supported position.  What has the Church historically said about clothing and appearance?  What do the church fathers say about this?  What do the monastics say about this?
     Some could argue that I need to mind my own business and not concern myself with things that others might not even see as sinful.  But we need to move beyond self- centeredness.  When I go to church, I may need to answer to my children as to why someone is dressed a certain way.  It's a shame that I cannot go to a church picnic without having to be concerned with seeing someone’s half naked body.  If someone has to continually be attentive to the way they sit or move, because someone may see up or down somewhere otherwise, that is a serious problem.
     Our children are our responsibility.  We must train them up to think like Christ.  If their concern is gaining the attention of some young man who is looking for a pretty wife, then we have failed to train them in choosing a godly spouse.  Our young men ought to be looking for a wife that is striving after godliness, humility, chastity and charity, not looking pretty.
     Vanity is vanity is ungodliness.  And if we are training our daughters to work towards being pretty, then we have failed them.

Consideration of President Putin

     I just came across this photo of Russian President Vladimir Putin venerating (kissing) an icon of the Theotokos (Mary the Mother of God) in the presence of the Patriarch of Russia.  This photo alone should give us some pause and consider just what kind of man he is.  For the Orthodox Christian, to see the President of Russia offering such veneration to the Mother of God is extremely moving.  At least for me it is.
     When is the last time we have seen Obama doing anything even remotely religious?

Creating worlds

Recently I read about the motivating factors behind the roots of Christian monasticism.  Christians who were very serious about their faith couldn't or didn't want to be in a fallen world any longer.  To put it more precisely, these Christians saw how when Christianity became legal, it became very easy to be a believer and the faith was becoming watered down and polluted, so they left the world and went into the desert to work out their salvation, praying for the world and fighting against sin.  In a very real sense, they re-created their world according to what they thought should be.
In our current day, and in many times throughout the past, those who were very wealthy would set up their worlds according to the standards they desired.
The rest of us, all throughout time and even today, do our very best to create our world in the fashion we desire but are much more limited in our available time and money.
What does this all mean?  Success or failure in this endeavor doesn't ensure right or wrong.  We must use the direction of the Christian faith as seen in Scripture and the Church to create our world the best we can.  And we must work at it, hard, as an effort of faithfulness. We must not follow the easy or comfortable path.

Practical

The practical implications of culture.  The culture in which we live is formed by the faith we actually practice.  Thus the world currently around us is Protestantism run out to its end.
With that thought in mind, we can ask and answer the following question.  Why has every culture since the formation of the Christian faith, failed? Every single culture: Protestant, Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox has failed and degenerated.  Why?
I want to start with the idea of consistentsy.  None of us are perfectly consistent in the living out of our faith.  We make mistakes, we make bad choices, bad decisions and bad things often result from our sin.  This is true in the individual and true on a large scale in a culture.
But the thing to realize is the fruit, the end result of any system of thought or religious belief. We can see the end result of a consistent practice of Protestantism is standing before us, the United States of America.  That which makes up the core foundation of Protestant thought, that is, self as final authority, is fleshed out to a logical end in America.  America is Protestantism.
The failures we see in Roman Catholic countries and cultures is truly of the same form, just simply with a different emphasis.  The Roman Catholic Church declared itself superior to and independent of the other patriarchates of the historic church.  In doing so, in setting up a single individual as the final authority, the Roman church rebelled against the Church as a whole.  In essence, they were setting themselves up as the final authority. Thus the countries and cultures that grew from that way of thinking would eventually become like the parent, self identifying as authoritative.  And in doing so, would deviate from the historic faith, having no legitimate authority over them to protect them.
But what about those Eastern Orthodox countries and cultures that have fallen?  I would argue that these cultures have fallen or declined either through inconsistent faith (i.e., thinking and acting like Protestants), or are being treated and tried to further strengthen their faith. 
The last one may sound like a begging of the question, but we do see this explanation given in Scripture as an explanation for hardship.  God has never promised us an easy life.  To the contrary, the path of faithfulness is extremely difficult.
So practically speaking, the culture in which we find ourselves is going to either be faithful to the faith or not.  Either way, we are responsible to live our lives as ones denying ourselves, taking up our cross and following Christ.  This means constantly repenting, constantly examining ourselves and dealing with all our weaknesses, finding and getting up each time we fall.  Ours is a life of perpetual salvation.

Hearing the critique

It seems that most people don't like conflict or confrontation.  Don't rock the boat, don't get into anyone's face, don't talk about religion or politics, seem to be the standing rules, unless you are a talk show host or a musician. 
But in the case that someone fails to follow these unspoken conventions, our best response is to hear them.  We don't have to believe them, but we should take their words at face value and consider what they say.  A critique, given from any perspective, with whatever intent, can be helpful to our sanctification.  It very well could be that others see things in us that we don't see.  A different perspective may reveal our blindspots.
In the case that the critique is unfounded and not legitimate, we can disregard it and love the person anyway.  Their words give us an opportunity to love the unlovely.
Let's make the most of any situation, regardless of how uncomfortable it may be.  We might learn something from it.

American culture

     I hate to have to use this particular terminology, for one, because it sounds unpatriotic and two, it sounds blasphemous, but here goes. American culture is nearly omnipresent and it is leading us to hell.
     Now, an explanation. Every since WWII, American culture has been leading the world in nearly all fields.  Science, religion, medicine, entertainment, etc, etc. The worldview behind American culture is that of individualism.  Be your own man, decide for yourself, be your own leader, submit to no one.  This pretty much sums up the rugged individualism that Americans seem to pride themselves in.  Unfortunately, this kind of thinking is everything contrary to the Christian faith.
     The prevalence of this mentality is unbelievably wide.  With the exception of obscure corners, American culture is everywhere.  American thinking has become so deeply ingrained, that we no longer recognize or question it.  On almost a daily basis, I catch myself doing or saying or thinking something American, contrary to the historical Christian faith I hold so close.  Not to mention the constant bombardment of American thought from all corners.
     What do we do about it?  We must learn to question everything we see, say or do.  We must first learn what constitutes Christian thinking.  And that can only happen by immersing ourselves in the lives of the saints and Scripture as interpreted by the Church.
     This will not happen by immersing ourselves in American culture.  The end of that road is incoherent blindness and deafness.  American culture leads to distracted ignorance.
    To put a different spin on a Proverb, "Better to live in the corner of the attic with a crust of bread and a comprehensive faith, than to live in a mansion with cable TV," Proverbs 25:24.

Baptism saves you

In 1 Peter 3:18-22, we read that there is an anti type that saves us, that is, baptism.  This verse generates a great deal of verbal, linguistic and grammatical gymnastics.  People do not want this verse to mean what it says because it seems to speak contrary to the Lutheran/Calvinistic mantra of salvation by faith alone, sola fide.
Possibly the greatest stumbling point in this regard is the meaning that is often affixed to baptism.  The evangelical world wants to disembowel the word and reduce it to a public profession of faith.  But obviously this is clearly contrary to 1 Peter 3:21.
As you can probably guess, I am going to argue for the historic meaning of the text.  Baptism is a sacrament that actually does something.  As a sacrament, baptism identifies us as part of the body of Christ.  Similar to the Old Covenant mark of circumcision, baptism is the New Covenant "mark" as belonging to the people of God. It is very helpful to consider circumcision when seeking to understand baptism.  In the Old Covenant, if someone wanted to be part of the people of God, they needed to accept the covenant sign.  Did the covenant sign save them? In a sense, yes, but only if they were faithful.  Consider the Day of Atonement.  The high priest would enter the holy of holies once a year and offer up sacrifices for all the people.  If he emerged from the tabernacle alive, then it meant that God accepted his sacrifice.  This means the sins of all the people were covered. All of them for all of them.  But we know full well that not all of the Israelites entered the Promised Land.  Many of them died in the wilderness.  In other words, some went to heaven and some didn't.
This same pattern holds true for the New Covenant believer. If someone wants to be part of the body of Christ, he must be baptized into the church, the body of Christ.  Does this save him? In a sense, yes, as long as he is faithful and perseveres to the end.  Having a right understanding of the nature of baptism will truly help one rightly understand this passage.
Baptism saves us as it is "the" means of entering into right relation with the body of Christ.  It is into Christ that we are being baptized and life is only in him.  But we only attain eternal life in and with Christ when we are faithful and persevere in the faith to the end.

Self identification

Is this legitimate? Can someone independently self identify themselves as a Christian? Or does that need to occur within a community and by a community?
Part of the problem comes from self defining what it means to be a Christian.  When we make this up for ourselves, there are no boundaries and any personal interpretation or twisting of the text happens. Obviously, the Orthodox church has a very definite answer for this question.  Another piece of this consideration is that of the place and meaning of baptism (see 1 Peter 3:18-22). As i have said in my previous post on baptism, we are baptized into the body of Christ, not as a mere personal statement about our faith but as a sacrament actually making us part of the body of Christ.
This reality about baptism then precludes a self identification as a Christian.  We are Christians because we have been baptized into the body of Christ, not because we simply claim to be.  Surely, our profession or taking on of the name of Christ is vital to our lives in Christ, but only secondary to baptism.
The other thought that occurred to me in this regard is that no other situation allows for self identification as a means of defining who we are.  A man can start painting pictures and call himself an artist, but this is merely something one "does", not "is".  When we get married, the church or the state says it is so, for example.  I cannot think of any area where self identification is legitimate.  I would love to hear some feedback on this question.

Music and modesty

I had an interesting thought today that seems to tie together two seemingly disconnected things.  As i am as big fan of music, the philosophical grounds for music and the worldviews behind them are of interest to me.  I believe i have observed in the Protestant world the pattern of being about five years behind the creative curve.  For the most part (a very large part), most Christian artists are not original or creative, they simply imitate, usually poorly, what is happening in the world, but they are about five years behind.
The second point that occurred to me is that in the world of clothing and modesty the same type of mentality is occurring.  The Protestant world, American evangelicalism, has no standard for modesty, it merely follows the lead of the world, but only about five to ten years behind. If one was to survey a large number of Protestant pastors, i fear that about 90% of them have not given modesty more than a cursory consideration, if at all.  The remaining ten percent may have a definite position, but that position is probably not based on an objective standard but a personal, subjective one.  Maybe I'm wrong, hopefully i am, but looking at the way the modern American teenager and young adult dress agrees with my conclusions.
My final question is, is this a pattern that we will see elsewhere, if we take the time to look?  I believe these observations for perfectly with the modern evangelical worldview, that of making oneself the final authority, interpreting Scripture for oneself.

Objective standards

It seems standard fare in Protestant America for the average citizen to choose the standard by which they form their thoughts and actions.  One example of this is the manner in which people raise their children.  Mr and Mrs X, self identified Christians, raise their children according to a set of standards that they believe are in accordance with the Christian faith.  But Mr and Mrs Y, also self professed Christians, observe particular thinking and practices in Mr and Mrs X's children that they believe to be sinful.  Who is right? Or is there even a set criteria by which these different standards can be judged?
And even consider the position into which this puts the child.  If this is a particularly introspective child, he may wonder which path to follow.  From a Protestant perspective, I honestly cannot identify an answer.  But from the historic Orthodox perspective, there is an answer.  Because the Protestant world has no final authority to which to appeal, they must appeal to private interpretation.  But the Orthodox world can and does appeal to the historic faith. As Orthodox, we say that the faith and practice of the church as it has been held and practiced for the last two thousand years is our final appeal.  That which the apostles practiced and taught, that which the church has always practiced and believes, based on the faith of the apostles, is that standard we hold.
We must learn to submit to the authority of the apostolic faith, regardless of how it makes us feel.

Life as a ritual

The thought just occurred to me that what if our lives were constructed in the same way as the church calendar?  The Orthodox church follows a rhythmic pattern, throughout each day, each week and all year, in our worship.  What if we formed our lives on the same pattern?  What if we created a pattern to our daily lives, a ritual to be followed?
This sounds really good to me, but that might just be my preferences talking. I really like pattern and ritual.

People are evil, people are foolish

In the news today, I read of an Atlanta, Georgia man who "accidentally" left his 22 month old son strapped in his car seat in his Suburban while he worked in his office.  He said that at the end of the day, he returned to his vehicle to find the boy dead.  Later evidence showed that he had been in his vehicle during lunch.  The man is being charged for murder with a possible death penalty. 
I next read an article about a 25 year old woman who beat her 4 year old son to death because he "walked and talked gay".  She and her boyfriend beat him so badly that his intestines burst.  The boy died two days later from septic poisoning.
I cannot even begin to articulate how angry this makes me.  These situations and so many others are wrong in so many ways.  These people who are supposed to love and care for these little children are doing the opposite.  The only people these children have and depend on are failing them. The evil being perpetrated in these situations is beyond my comprehension. 
In addition to this familial failure is the failure of the church.  If everyone in the church would be reaching out and involving themselves in the lives of those around them, situations like this could be greatly minimized or eradicated.
But we are too distracted.  We are too busy with entertainment and pleasures. We get angry when we have to wait in line at the grocery store.  We get angry when our favorite sports team loses a game.  We get angry when our internet connection isn't fast enough.  But we don't get angry at sin and suffering.  We sit on our leather couches playing video games on large screen tv's.  We eat $100 dinners and drink $50 bottles of wine.  We complain if the pastor isn't funny or talks too long.
America has become the land of the easy and complacent.  American evangelicalism is the self created self sustaining fabrication of the self willed man.  We want to be rich and comfortable and not be bothered by anything.
Our foolishness is made painfully evident in the suffering of those around us, while we ignore them.

Nice or godly?

There is a difference between these two characteristics but it seems that many people confuse the two or make them synonymous. Almost as a side note, the etymology behind "nice" is interesting.  The word previously was an insult, a way of calling someone a simpleton.  But as time has progressed, it has become a way of identifying someone as pleasant and kind.  Obviously there is nothing wrong with these characteristics, but they simply are not synonymous with godliness. 
Comparing "nice" with "godly" reveals that one doesn't necessarily follow from the other, in either direction.  In my experience, it seems that many people see a "nice young man" or a "lovely young lady" and automatically assume that they are Christians.  We tend to look upon the children of others, we see their good manners and courteous behavior and wish our own children would emulate such characteristics.  There is nothing wrong with these characteristics but they do not equate with godliness.  Everyone has sins with which they struggle, including the well behaved child.  Just because child "A" is nice and child "B" is somewhat surly, does not necessarily mean that child "A" is better off. It very well could be that the first child is self centered and vain, while the second has an extremely good work ethic and is self sacrificial.
The point in all of this is simple.  We need to set our standard at a level described by the Church, not by modern American culture.  It is very easy to be nice, it takes a lifetime of hard work, struggle, fasting, prayer and asceticism to be godly.  Striving for nice is far too low of a goal.  We can and should encourage our children and ourselves for the higher goal of godliness.