Dealing with sin

When it comes down to it, we all have certain sins that we struggle with, that we "like", that plague us.  Some are socially acceptable, others are dark and twisted, but the truth is, they are all sins, and God does not wink at or allow for any of them.
When we really understand the nature of all sins, how they all have this common theme, we will be very slow to condemn, judge or criticize. 
This ties in with previous posts I have written about focusing on dealing with our own sins and not looking at others and their sins.  Judging others is easy.  Finding fault in ourselves is not.  We always want to find some justification or excuse for ourselves.  We want to quickly condemn others and tell ourselves how much better we are than them.
It ought to be reversed.  We ought to assume that others are better than we are, that what we are seeing in others is not what it seems, that there is something else going on that justifies their actions.  Hard on ourselves, easy on others.
Of course, we want others to be this way towards us.  But are we willing to be this way toward others?

He really loves his car/wife/kids/chocolate

As the title suggests, our use of the word "love" carries a wide variety of definitions.  We can love our wife, or children, our car, lasagna or The Rolling Stones.  Each use of love is different than the other, or should be (if not, we have serious issues).
With that in mind, how should we understand the text that says, "Do not love the world or the things of the world"?  The first thing to notice is the distinction of two things forbidden here.  One, the world and two, the things of the world.  If this were a mere prohibition of things sinful, then what does the distinction mean?  What is being communicated here can be classified by use of a metaphor.  Like someone training for a marathon, the eating of doughnuts and pizza is not bad in itself, but it is bad because it is contrary to the desired goal, running 26 miles in record time.  So too the Christian life.  Often, in Protestant thinking, Jesus has completed everything and we need to simply ride his coattails into bliss.  But that is not the instruction we receive from Scripture or the church.
We are to "work out our salvation with fear and trembling," and "discipline my body and bring it into subjection".  Simply put, the world (that is, things that are not external) and things of the world (that is, material, temporal things that distract us from eternal life) are not to be loved.  We are to use those things that are necessary for our station in life, but hold on to them very loosely.  We really need to be focused on our sanctification, loving God and loving neighbor.

Pick a frivolty

I was a combination of pensive and surly today.  My motivation? Poverty and the American dream.  We live in houses way too big for our needs.  We drive obscenely expensive cars that get replaced every year for the next model.  We eat like kings, or even better, every day, so much so that we have completely lost the concept of feasting.  We live in opulence and comfort beyond nearly everyone else's dreams, in all of history.  Then we claim that it is our right to do so.
What about love?
All that I have just described is a typical day in America.  All the while, children all over the world starve to death, the masses are abused, displaced and lose everything.  Tyrants and despots take advantage of the authority given them, while their own people suffer, almost beyond comprehension.  All the while, we feast.
The thing that really makes me mad is my feeling of helplessness.  I don't have an abundance of money with which to make a difference.  But then it occurred to me.  God hasn't told us to obey his command of caring for the needy IF we can make a huge difference.  We should obey because God has told us to.  Big deal if we can spare $25 a month, that is nothing to most of us, but would make a huge difference for many elsewhere.  I had the idea: what if we actually sacrificed and gave to the needy the money that we would spend on some frivolity?  So, for example, what if we gave away $100 a month instead of having 500 channels of cable tv?  I know our suffering would be immense, but that amount of money would do amazing things.
We should help because we should love.  If we simply don't care, then we simply do not belong to Christ.

The power of signs and symbols

While we may not realize or recognize what is happening, we are constantly being directed by and influenced by, signs and symbols. Especially as of late, in our day of desktop icons and emoticons, symbolism is all around us.  But this is nothing new. Symbolism has been part of communication, especially in the field of religion, for as long as man has dabbled therein.
This thought has prompted me to articulate some of the symbolism within Christian Orthodoxy.  The thing to realize with symbolism and signs, especially within Orthodoxy, is that they are not merely just interesting modes of communication.  They actually contain power. Here are a few:
The cross:  we see this symbol probably daily, but it should remind us of what Jesus accomplished via the cross.  A fulfillment of old covenant law, the destruction of the power of death, the salvation of mankind. The ramifications of these is astounding.  This sign alone should draw us to God in awe and gratitude.
The sign of the cross:  This action needs to be understood historically.  Since the very beginning of the Christian church, the sign of the cross, as a self applied sign upon ourselves, has been taken very seriously.  By signing ourselves this way, we are saying a multitude of things.  We are reminding ourselves of Jesus' work, we are identifying ourselves with the body of Christ, we are striving to crucify within ourselves our passions and fleshly desires, we are seeking a blessing of the power of God in the cross.  This sign actually contains spiritual power.  One other aspect of this is the manner in which the hand is held in crossing oneself.  The index finger, the middle finger and the thumb held together, representing the Trinity, while the ring finger and the pinky touch the palm, representing the two natures of Christ, in one person.
The cruciform: historically and traditionally, Christian churches have been built in this shape, again to embrace and identify ourselves with the sign of the cross.
Bread and wine: these signs, given to us by Jesus himself, while genuinely a reminder of who Jesus is and what he did, they are, more importantly, the body and blood of Jesus, within the Divine Liturgy of the Orthodox church.  Not merely a reminder of Jesus' work but also not a specimen to be scholastically analyzed, these elements contain true spiritual power, that are a blessing for those who partake of them in a faithful manner.
Icons:  These apparent mere images of reposed saints are much more than that.  These are called "Windows to heaven", as they represent, not mere reminders of deceased loved ones, but specific images that communicate Christian truth.  These holy people are not gone, but are still very much a part of the church.  They are there for us, praying for us, now perfected, before the throne of God.  The colors, setting and shapes all communicate profound truths.
Much more could be said in this regard. I encourage you to look further into these and other signs and symbols of our faith.  The richness of which we are surrounded must not be lost or ignored.

Why the church is

The constant flux of ecclesiology in the United States has brought a change in how people view the purpose of church.  This has resulted in a nearly non-thought approach to doing church.  The modern evangelical church has become a seeker-friendly, nearly observation-only performance.  These gatherings seek to make people comfortable and deliver a positive message.  But this is all a far cry from the historical church.
The Greek word for "church" is "ekklesia", meaning "calling out".  In short, the church service is, even in simplest terms, a calling out of the body of Christ into a unified gathering.  This then precludes the idea of structuring the service to make non believing visitors comfortable.  There is no problem with non believers visiting a church service.  But they need to understand what we are doing.  It's not for them. They should be uncomfortable because this gathering is an otherworldly experience, something completely contrary to the worldly norm.
I suppose all of this comes down to what we want to make our foundation.  There are three ways to approach this.  One, we can follow the tradition of the historic church, two, we can make it up as we go, or three, we can work through the Bible on our own and devise a private interpretation.
I would think it would be clear by now which position is actually historically Christian.

One or three

In light of the recent events that have taken place at Wheaton College in regards to Islam and Christianity, I felt the need to point out the obvious.  From the very beginning, Christianity has understood God as three in one.  God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, three persons in one God.  Not three gods but one.  The ecumenical councils state in very strong words, that God is three in one, the Trinity.
The historic and official statement in Islam states, in no uncertain terms, "There is one God, Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet."  For the Muslim, God is one.  He has no son, he has no Holy Spirit.
Any deviation from these tenets, on either side, is heresy, for the Christian and for the Muslim.
So it is very clear, Christians and Muslims do not serve the same God.

At rest

A rather brief but intriguing thought came to my mind today.  I was reading the most recent issue of "The Orthodox Word", regarding the hieromartyr Father Thaddeus Uspensky, who was martyred by the Soviets in 1937.  His life, even after being in Soviet prison, was one of simplicity and humility.  He lived as if he owned nothing and was a guest wherever he went.  As a priest, he depended upon the support his parish could provide.
After reading this I began to wonder how I would live in a similar situation. I began to wonder what my lifestyle would be in a circumstance where I didn't have to be concerned with supplying my basic needs.  How would I spend my time, how would I spend my money? The answer to these questions would reveal, probably uncomfortably so, ones real character.

Children with garbage can lids

I had an interesting conversation with one of my sons, a little while back.  Just recently, in response to that conversation, a reasonable solution came to mind.
Our conversation centered around the stark contrast between the seemingly great maturation of the arts in the west in comparison to the almost disregard of them in the east.  It seems to me that the worldviews and presuppositions of the eastern Orthodox church are contrast to an emphasis on the arts.  If one looks back at the previous centuries of artistic development in the west, one cannot but marvel at the works of Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Da Vinci, Rembrandt, etc.  The eastern church contains nothing comparable.
This fact deeply bothered both my son and I.  As we are both musicians and have a deep and wide appreciation for music, this apparent void in the east was unsettling.  But as I said, there is an answer to this that I am starting to wrap my mind around.
As I am an Orthodox Christian, I believe that the church is led by the Holy Spirit, that the eastern orthodox church is "the church".  Because of this, I have to believe that the church has developed like it is supposed to be developing.  The western church, on the other hand, Rome and Protestants, are out of communion with the church and therefore at a disadvantage.  So my conclusion is this:  like children banging together garbage can lids in order to make "music", the west has sought to create and develop the arts far too soon.  Lacking connection with the sanctifying tools of the church and lacking the leadership and wisdom of a unified church, those outside of the church have done too much, too soon.  One needs to crawl before one walks and walk before one runs.  Those outside the church have sought after things requiring maturity when they still have souls besmudged with darkness.  Like making a sandwich before your hands are washed only results in a inedible meal, so too a work of art from a soul stained by sin.
I would love to hear some feedback on this. From an Orthodox perspective, I believe this makes sense.  The state of the creator will be seen in the creation.  The current corruption of the west and the historical lack of communion of the west with the historic Orthodox church must result in some negative fruit.  This may be one of them.

Set theory

In mathematics, set theory explains the relationship between sets of numbers and the formulas for how those sets are derived.
From this, an analogy came to mind.  When we look at and think about the details and structure of the old covenant, under Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses or David, we see the central theme of the physical.  The promises, the blessings, the curses and the signs/symbols all were built upon things physical.  To become part of the people of God, one received physical circumcision.  If obedient, one would receive long life, land, many children and blessed crops or herds.  If one was disobedient, one received the opposite.  The form of worship was centered in a specific location: in the temple, in Jerusalem.  A Jew did not want to die outside of the border of Israel.  The Jews were not looking for an ethereal, out of this world eternity in heaven.  They were looking for blessings in the here and now.
In other words, in the set "old covenant", all of the components were centered around the physical.  But now, we are not in that solution set any longer.  As new covenant Christians, we have our eyes set on eternity and perfect communion with God on a new and perfected heaven/earth.  It is important though to recognize a very important distinction.  The old covenant was about things physical.  The new covenant (that is, right now) is about preparing for things spiritual.  But eternity, that is, after the final judgment, is about all things renewed and perfect.  In eternity, we will perfectly and sinlessly enjoy all things, both physical and spiritual, while and because of, perfect communion with our triune God.
If we are to understand anything rightly, we need to understand the reality in which we live.

Idealistically speaking

I would think that most people, either consciously or unconsciously, have some sort of idealistic vision.  Whether it's an idea of how they think their own life would be perfect, or society or the world in general, there is some sort of vision for how things should be.
The question that should come up, behind all of this, is that of origins.  From where does this vision come?  What are the motivating factors and what is the ultimate end goal, either recognized or not? 
What does your perfect life look like?  What does a perfect society or world look like, in your understanding?  To make this thing ultimately practical and thus worth our attention, what steps can you take today, this month or this year to bring that about?  What are you willing to sacrifice to make this happen?  The answer to that question will reveal just how important the ideal is to you. 
I would suggest that if the ideal life, society or world involves the changing of other people, rather than yourself, then your ideal is perfectly upside down.  The Christian life and the subsequent sanctification intertwined with it are all about the things you do, not others.  Think to yourself, "I am to love God, I am to love neighbor, I am to repent." 
Start from here and two things will happen.  One, your definition of ideal will change and two, your progress toward the ideal will move forward.  You are going to be moving, it's unavoidable, every moment of your life.  You might as well make it a move in the right direction.

Dancing on the edge

Sorry, this post is about dancing only in the metaphorical sense.  I read alot and the more I read, of the serious theologians, the more I realize that so many of these men are so close.  They are, metaphorically speaking, dancing on the edge of Orthodoxy, but, for some reason, are not willing to dive in and embrace the historic faith.  I am thinking that much of this apprehension is based on a faulty ecclesiology.  If one begins with a right understanding of who and what the church is, they will end up Orthodox.  Some may balk at this, but think of what is being said here.  The church is the body of Christ. The church is the people of God.  The church is that body that God communes with, in a way even greater than what Adam and Eve enjoyed prior to the fall.
It's all about communion with the Triune God.  There is nothing more important, so we need to start from the right place.

Pattern #1

One of the first things to notice is the manner in which God relates to his people.  When God created Adam, he provided for him all that he needed.  He placed him in an already crafted garden, in order to keep it, not organize or work it out.  He gave him authority over all the creatures (i.e., he was to name them) and he gave him a set of rules.  In this first form of relationship, he only had one rule, don't eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  Because Adam was already perfect and in communion with God, he was already blessed.  God also gave Adam an explanation of what would happen if he disobeyed, death.  Think of this as his response.  Adam only had two choices, he could respond with either disobedience or obedience.
While the name is not used, this was a covenant relationship.  We can determine this by looking ahead in Scripture at the form that the Abrahamic covenant took.  The next step will be to explore the way that this covenant worked out in history.

We all know the story.  At some point after creation and after naming all of the animals, Eve was tempted by the devil, in the form of a serpent, into eating from the tree.  Adam, who was with her at that moment, did not act as leader but was instead led by Eve and ate of the fruit as well.  They immediately lost the grace of God and realizing their nakedness, tried to hide.  God confronted them for their disobedience, provided a covering for them in the form of an animal sacrifice and cast them out of the garden.  

So here is the pattern:  God establishes the covenant between himself and man, sets up the details (rules, blessing, curses), man is confronted with a situation in his maturation time and fails, then the curse of the covenant follows, death.  In the case of Adam, he and Eve lost their covering of grace and were cast out from God's presence.  The final judgment for them was in the form of a global flood.  The world from the time of Adam's initial sin continued in a downward slide into sin.  Scripture describes man at that time as only thinking evil thoughts in his heart all of the time.

My next post will look at the second phase of the Old Covenant, the covenant under Noah.

About prayer

Prayer is something that has befuddled my mind for many years.  As a Protestant, prayer never made any sense to me.  If God is absolutely sovereign, then prayer makes no logical sense.  Why ask for anything if everything is already mapped out.  After a former pastor recommended a book on prayer by John Bunyan, and I found the book seriously lacking, I gave up trying to figure it out.
Becoming Orthodox initially didn't help.  I still approached prayer with a Protestant mindset, and found myself running in circles.  It wasn't until I really began to get a beginning grasp on the Jesus Prayer that things began to fall into place. 
Summarily speaking, we are far too small and sinful to have any idea, at all, about how to pray.  Our sight and understanding is so limited, our minds so corrupted by sin and our hearts so darkened by selfishness, that any prayer that we could fabricate would most likely be ridiculous.  The Jesus Prayer, on the other hand, is perfect.  Handed down for centuries, within the church, we pray, "Lord Jesus Christ, son of God, have mercy on me a sinner."
In this we rightly acknowledge the nature and person of God, we rightly acknowledge our own sinful nature, and we rightly, only, ask for mercy.
It really is that simple.  Because we know our sinfulness screws us up, we cry out to God and ask for mercy. In whatever situation we find ourselves, whatever our need, perceived, imagined or otherwise, we ask God to have mercy on us.  In this we are submitting to God's will.  We are saying, "I don't know what is best, so please just have mercy on me and help me submit to your will."

A pattern worth recognizing

One of the great things about the Old Testament, in fact, the actual main point, is that it leads us and instructs us in our understanding of who Jesus Christ is and how he has fulfilled the salvation of the world.
This instruction is done via story and typology.  We are given, story after story, a pattern of how God interacts with his people.  Learning to recognize this pattern is absolutely invaluable in helping us to understand what God had done through Jesus Christ, to save the world.
In these next few posts, I hope to explore and map out this pattern.  I hope that this will lead us to a better understanding of the New Testament and the plan of salvation.

Location and non-corporeality

My wife and I recently had a conversation instigated by a book she is currently reading about angels.  The question came to mind about angels/spirits being "somewhere".  My responsive thought process went something like this:  it seems like we cannot speak of an angel or demon actually being anywhere because they do not possess a physical body.  Yet they truly exist.  The closest thing to which I can compare it, is to a concept.  We can point to a chair, but not the concept of a chair.  A concept is a non corporeal thing, yet still real.  The difference of course, is that an angel is a rational being. 
I would suggest that this non-location-based existence explains how a spiritual entity can seemingly be an influence everywhere at once.
This also might help explain how we can pray to the saints and understand that they can hear our petitions and pray for us.

Considering responsibilities in interpretation

The subject of the book of Revelation has again come to the fore, so I thought I would bring up my thoughts on responsibility in interpretation. 
It seems that the wide variety of thoughts on how to understand the book of Revelation bring out the worst in people.  It really is unfortunate that people can't just have simple dialog and discussion on this aspect of Scripture.  It is especially odd because of this books place in history.  For quite some time, the church did not include the book in the canon.  Obviously, they eventually did, but even now, there are no liturgical reading from the book.  These facts in themselves should provide us with slight apprehension and caution in approaching this book dogmatically or passionately.
I would like to suggest a couple of things as we approach this book.  First, we must recognize its Old Testament/covenant nature.  One honestly could view the book as Daniel part two.  The book of Revelation is opening up and revealing what Daniel had concealed.  The imagery used to communicate its message is clearly old covenant.  The people of the first century would understand the symbols and typology used by God through the apostle John, whereas we, many centuries later, miss very much. 
Second, we have to take the clear messages for what they are saying.  It simply is not honest to twist words so as to fit our preconceived theological framework.  For example, the book begins with and ends with the message, "These things will shortly take place." (1:1, 22:10, 22:12, 22:20).
And third, it must be acknowledged that the term "the antichrist" is never used in the book.  And even more pointed, the term "THE" antichrist is never used, period, anywhere.  The book of First John uses the term "antichrist" without the definite article.  As a side note, First John identifies "his current time" as the last hour, with many antichrists (2:18).
I may cover more on all of this later.

Considering Job, 3

So when one decides to dive in and read the book of Job, one begins and finds the first two chapters a very readable narrative.  So far, so good.  But then they reach chapter three, where the extended monologues and dialogs begin.  It is at this point that so many other things begin to appear more appealing. Any one who plows through and reads the entire book with understanding, ought to be commended.
That being said, chapters three through forty one consist of the thoughts and ideas of Job and his friends on why Job is suffering such tragedies.  These also contain God's words that silence the speculative ruminations of Job and his friends. The final chapter is a closing narrative, showing God's old covenant blessing upon Job, for his faithfulness. 
I really would like to merely offer a summary explanation of this large, central, monologic portion.  In essence, each person, Job included, offers his or her take on why Job is suffering.  What it simply comes down to is that men are sinful, men are weak and men are lacking in understanding.  Regardless of how hard we work, how good we try to be our how often we succeed or fail, God is covenantally faithful, but also extremely gracious.  God is a God of love.  As small minded and extremely limited in our vision and understanding, we cannot even begin to guess as to the final end result of the occurrences of history.  What God is doing, why he is doing it and how we fit into the picture, is typically and uncomfortably beyond our grasp.  Our fallen, sinful natures cannot and usually don't want to understand what God is going.
But the summary of it all is this: God loves and is working out all things for our good.  We may not understand it but we don't have to. Our responsibility is to faithfully trust God, do what he had commanded us to do, and use the tools he has given us to mold our wills to seek after and love only him.
Humility, obedience and trust that God will be faithful, even when we can't see it.  The things that he has promised, he will do.  God has put us in a relationship with him.  It is our responsibility to respond in faith.

The blood of the divine in the veins of mortals

We need to really do our best to understand what is happening when we partake of the Eucharist.  A faithful approach to understanding any doctrine of the church includes an articulate and honest assessment of the relationship between God and his people, throughout old covenant history.
When we begin to seek an understanding of what is actually occurring during the celebration of the Eucharist, we need to see the Eucharist as part of the covenant relationship between God and his people. 
Going back to the Abrahamic covenant, we can see that the sign of circumcision was not simply a nice memorial to remind the Jews of who they were.  The sign of circumcision literally made the receiver of the covenant sign a part of the people of God.  Literally, actually, truly, genuinely a part of God's people.
When we look at the sacrificial system given by God to his people during the Mosaic covenant, the blood that was spilled in the context of the sacrifice for the covering of sins was not simply a nice picture to remind the Jews how God had forgiven them.  That spilled blood literally covered their sins.  Literally, actually, truly, genuinely covered their sins.
So when we come to the celebration of the Eucharist, now, in the New Covenant, we are partaking of the literal body and blood of Jesus Christ. Literally, actually, truly, genuinely the body and blood of Christ, not a nice little picture to remind us of Jesus' sacrifice.
The mistake we do not want to make comes in one of two categories.  One, that the partaking of the Eucharist is simply a memorial, a non-sacramental reminder of Jesus' death (baptistic theology) or two, that the Eucharist is understood as a scientifically verifiable physical change in material, the bread and wine physically transform into flesh and blood (Roman Catholic theology).
The historic and Orthodox understanding of the Eucharistic recognizes the literal change of the elements into the sacramental flesh and blood.  This is a literal change in a sacramental manner.
It's not a pretend reminder but it is also not a scientific ontological change.  It is something far greater that we can label and understand as sacro-covenantal.

Why would we kill?

I recently watched a movie, a Hollywood telling of the story of the lost boys of Sudan.  It was sad, but at the same time, moving.  The people of that nation has long been in a civil war, with almost unimaginable killing.  One scene showed small children in hiding, while soldiers went through their village killing anyone they could find, men, women and children.  To me, this is incomprehensible.  On what reasonable grounds could there be justification for shooting anyone.
While the reality of man's fallen, sinful nature is ever before us, that reality is not justification for sin.  It explains it, but does not justify it.
The civil war in Sudan is, apparently, based on religious and tribal differences.  That is about all I know of those details.  There is also the reality of racism.  If someone is raised to believe that one of another race is subhuman, killing them is of no consequence.  If someone is raised to believe that one of another race is basically on the same level as vermin, then killing them is a service to mankind.  If someone has something that we want, such as land or resources, then killing them provides the means for taking it.
I hope it is obvious that all of these reasons are based on faulty worldviews.  All men are made in the image of God.  No one should be killed, executed or otherwise killed unless they are guilty of murder.
The answer is really very simple.  God calls us to love one another and treat others as we would be treated.  Everything else is secondary.

Considering Job, 2

In my first post, I emphasized the importance of comprehending the time in which Job lived.  His life, during the time of Abraham, communicated to us that he was not living contemporaneous with an identified people of God.  In other words, Job's life was lived in pre-Abraham covenant. This means that God had not yet identified and set apart a people special to him.  All men were knowledgeable of and responsible to obey, God. 
The description we receive of Job, with his large family and large estate, shows us that he was living under God's blessing, for obedience.  We see in the book that Job is identified as a righteous man. So what happened?
It's important to note that we see the free wills acting in this historical sequence.  We see God's freewill, we see Jobs, and we see the devils.  It's also important to note that the devil needed to get permission from God to attack Job.  This in itself shows us that Job was living under God's blessing for obedience.
As a means of testing Jobs character, God allows the devil to harm Job's possessions, his family and his health, but he is not allowed to kill him.  The attack on possessions shows us that Job had been faithful to God and was enjoying God's covenantal blessing.  But it also shows us that God's blessing upon men was limited to things physical.  The devil attacks Job in these ways but does not take his life.  In all of this, thus far, Job responds rightly.
The book then moves into the monologue section, where Job's wife and friends all give their opinion as to why these bad things are happening to Job.  They all get it wrong.
In my next post, we'll consider why.

Resolutions

As we approach the end of the year 2015, people will be moved, driven or motivated to make a new years resolution.  Losing weight, eating less dessert, exercising more, spending less time online, etc, etc.  I recently heard a song with a line that said, "I won't waste another day." 
The question that comes to mind in situations such as these is that of the underlying belief.  If we are motivated to make a resolution, why?  The most reasonable answer would be that one believes the thing being resolved is important.  But I would strongly suggest that the thing being labeled as important needs to be analyzed and questioned.  Is it actually important and does it fit with the worldview you claim to embrace?  In other words, is the way that you are living or want to live, consistent with what you say you believe?
To be even more pointed, do your works and actions agree with your religious beliefs?  This is not a question that is easy to answer.  We tend to be blind to much in our own lives.  This is probably a question you should ask a close confidant or your father confessor.
But be ready to act on the answer you receive.  It may be difficult.

The meaning in the words

I recently came across the phrase, "she is the world to me."  And this struck me as having two distinct but opposite meanings.  First, this could mean that this particular female is very important to the point of taking on the value of the entire world, in a word, invaluable.
Or second, this could mean that this particular female is "the world" meaning "all that is contrary to godliness".  In other words, she is the thing that draws one away from all that is good and right. 
I'm not sure what to do with this observation, other than to point out the realization that words can take on various meanings and those meanings are typically defined by the one using them.
We need to be careful in this.

Early church fathers

Over the centuries, many documents, letters and sermons have been written and preserved from which we can gain insight into the beliefs and understanding of early Christians.  I am beginning a study of volume one of the Ante-Nicene Fathers.  From this reading I hope to gain one of two things.  Either some further text that will help me understand scripture better, or show me how errors were present, even in the first/second century church, thus validating the exclusion of these texts from the Bible.
Let's see how this goes....

The forest and the trees

We have all heard the phrase, "you can't see the forest for the trees". And whether or not the one speaking the phrase understands it or not, the question is that of perspective.  When we look at a particular situation in our lives or even just our lives in general, what is it that, one, draws our immediate attention and two, what forms or controls the worldview that directs our thinking?
We must learn to recognize our presuppositions in order to recognize, understand and root out our faulty thinking.  From thinking comes actions. One can critique others for too much thinking or for placing too much emphasis on verbal articulation. But these things come from a desire to think, speak and do what is pleasing to God.
Learning to see the big picture without sacrificing the ability to see and understand the details is very valuable.
All of this is tied together in this: words and actions have meaning and that meaning is found in the immediate and wide context of the situation. Learning to see the details and interpret them in the broader picture will provide the greatest understanding. And understanding is what it is all about.  If we do not understand someone, we cannot respond to them in any helpful manner.  If we do not understand someone that we claim to love, I would argue that we don't really love them.  How can you love what you don't know?
One could offer a multitude of examples about the value of understanding.  Imagine driving in a foreign country, stopping for directions and receiving instructions in a language you do not know.  Imagine having your doctor give a medical explanation of your physical malady using only post doctoral terminology.
I've heard many times about the value of listening, but this of course presupposes understanding.  It is only when we have understanding that we can truly listen and when we truly listen can we truly respond.  And is only when we truly love that we can respond rightly.

The impression

We have all heard the saying about making a good first impression.  I would have to say that at this point in history, and many other times as well, Islam is not making a good first, second or third impression.  Right now, accurate or not, when people hear "Islam", they think "terrorism". 
Much closer to home, we should be asking the question about ourselves.  If we have taken the name of Christ upon ourselves, what impression do people have of us and of Christ, through us?
It seems to me that both Scripture and church tradition teach that our one goal should be love.  Wouldn't it be absolutely wonderful if people, when they heard our name, thought "For all his faults, I know that guy really cares."

From a position of strength

It may seem odd but the logic works.  It may not always be in our best interest to be healthy and/or wealthy.  My thought process goes like this.  First, when we are comfortable, we tend to become distracted and temporally focused.  We all have things that we like and like to do.  When everything is going our way, it seems that we tend to default to enjoying ourselves.  If we have extra money, we often think to buy something that we have been wanting.  If we have extra time, we often blow it on some form of entertainment.  If we are sleeping well, have abundant strength and health, we often focus on the things that make us even more so.
But when you look back over this list, we can see that love of God and love for neighbor aren't in the mix. 
On the other hand, when we are sick, we are forced to consider just how frail and weak we actually are.  We are forced to consider eternity and our position before God.
When we are poor, we are forced to trust in the mercy of God.  We are forced to depend upon his hand for our daily bread and not our own debit card.
When we are young, strong and seemingly invincible, we forget just how short life actually is.  When we are old, tired and spent, we can look back over our lives and pray that God will have mercy on our foolishness, short sightedness and self centeredness.
My point is not to endorse poverty and sickness, but to simply remind us that true reality is a life lived to the glory of God, not a life of distraction in a vain and empty world.

That's entertainment

One of the things I have been ruminating upon, as of late, is that of distraction.  It seems that distraction is the American way.  Find something that you like, that lets you escape, at least for a little while, so you do not think about/worry about, all of life's concerns.
Of course, this is not a Christian action.  While we should never worry about anything, we should never try to leave reality, as a response to the troubles that are common to all men.
So what about entertainment?  I have found that any entertainment, whether music, movies, art, poetry, etc., if perceived correctly, can be used to draw is closer to God and closer to valuable thought.  This is true even for the ugly things in film or reality.  As an example, I have enjoyed the Insidious movies.  While they are of the horror genre, they are valuable because they can (and should) move us to consider: death, eternity, responsibility for sin, the things that evil is actually capable of and what is true about life after death.
The movie had much that was wrong, but it also had some that was right and thought provoking.
The same can be said of music.  What is being said?  What worldview is held by the composer/performer that would move him to create such a piece?  Are they responding to something?  Is that response good and right?
In short, we need to use all the time we have in some sort of valuable way.  We should never let our minds/hearts be drawn away by the empty or evil.

"Do you want fries with that?"

A silly illustration, I know, but my point is a simple one.   Why do we think that we have a smorgasbord of options in regards to our religious practice?  Do we seriously think that worship is rightly done when it is something that moves US?  Do we choose what doctrines we believe to be true because they seem right to us?
If we go back to the first century church, i.e., the church under the apostles' direction, do we seriously think that each was doing what they thought right?  Of course not.  Each church was started by an apostle and moved in a certain direction with certain doctrines.  Any questions were passed to the apostles for clarification.
And later on, when questions or controversies arose, an ecumenical council was formed to answer the question.  The answer was another question that is, "what has the church always/believed?"
This is the question we should ask now.

"Hey, how are you?"

This question really bothers me.  We hear this, from a wide variety of people, multiple times a day.  But in nine times out of ten, they don't really mean it.  I'm not suggesting that the ones asking the question don't really care (though that may be the case), the question has become a social norm devoid of normal meaning.
I've actually read that only a "bore" would answer this question literally.  If this is actually the case or not, it is pretty sad that a question of genuine concern has been gutted of meaning. 
In my opinion, let your yes be yes and your no be no.  Let your words mean what the words actually mean, and follow up on them.  If you want to ask that question, let it be known that you want an honest answer and that you actually care about the person giving the answer.
Maybe we could use this as a way to communicate love to someone else.

Considering Job, 1

A friend recently began to muse on Job, the man in the Old Testament that lived through so much suffering.  I thought it might be helpful to give some considerations as to what was going on with Job in his particular situation.

The really get a good understanding of Job it is important to understand his context.  Job lived around the same time or just before the time of Abraham.  This is important because prior to Abraham, there were no "children of God" in the "Abrahamic Covenant" sense. At this point in history, God has not yet revealed himself to a specific people.  At creation, God revealed himself to Adam, in what we call the Adamic Covenant.  This was a very simple relationship.  Basically, "I am your God, you are my people, here is what is expected of you."  God then laid out the one requirement (don't eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil yet).  God then communicated that if they did so, death would immediately follow.  

You all know the rest of the story.  From that point onward, mankind began a rapid decline into depravity, ending with global destruction.  God spared the righteous Noah, his sons/daughter-in-laws and the animals.  After Noah got back onto land, God then established the Noahic Covenant.  This was really the same covenant as the Adamic, but with some more details.

Mankind spread and multiplied and also continued to sin.  The story continues up to the time of Abraham, when God called him out of Ur to a promised land.  Most theologians believe that Job lived just prior to Abraham's appearance.

The other thing to consider is that as Job was not in "covenant" with God in a Jewish/Abrahamic manner, Job could not appeal to any special covenantal privileges.  But at the same time, obviously Job has some knowledge of God and some sort of relationship/understanding of God.  We see this in his words and responses to his situation.  

All that being said, the main point is this: we cannot think of Job in modern day, post resurrectional reality.  The world and God's interaction with it, at Job's time, was radically different than it is today.

Fleeing

I wish I could have been there.  During the third century, when Christianity was legalized, large numbers of people started coming into the church.  As this began, the unwritten requirements of the faith, i.e., that what the average Christian was expected to be, began to ease, considerably.
In response to this, a substantial number of holy men and women began to flee to the desert.  In summary their thought was this: Christianity is becoming watered down.  Christianity is being popular and easy.  It is not supposed to be.  Our life should be a hard struggle against temptation and sin. 
I wish I could have been there to see and understand what exactly they were seeing and saying.  What exactly was their argument?
I have to wonder if we are in the same place, here in America, but we are to lazy and sinful to see it and respond?

Halloween

This whole Halloween thing really bothers me.  Throughout time, as the gospel has spread to different lands and cultures, the church will step in and take over the holidays of the surrounding pagan culture. This is true of Christmas and Easter.  But for some reason, this was not done with Halloween.
Argue all you want, Halloween is all about death and evil.  You look at the decorations, the costumes and the celebration.  The message is clear.
Unfortunately, some Protestant organizations have tried to supply alternatives to Halloween but have failed miserably.  They call them "Harvest Festivals" and then go on to give out candy, dress up and have fun houses.  This is not even remotely close to what the church has historically done.  The modern day efforts are merely Halloween in a different dress. A pathetic moralization of a pagan holiday.
Something different needs to be done or we need to drop the whole thing all together.  I would suggest something that actually celebrates life and beauty.  Incidentally, October 31 is the name day for Saints Cosmas and Damien, two unmercenary saints.  Our celebration then could be centered on honoring them and their self sacrificial work of helping and healing others.  We really need to put some thought into this.
Taking dominion of the world should be a comprehensive effort.

The first of sinners

I think an explanation is in order.  In a prayer just before we partake of the Eucharist in the Divine Liturgy, we label ourselves "the chief of sinners".  Some jurisdictions use the phrase, "the first of sinners".  This phase always came across to me as somewhat odd and possibly a statement of false humility.  I am far from being an exceptionally godly person, but at the same time there are others far more wicked than I. 
But it finally occurred to me that I misunderstood the point of that phrase.  Instead of identifying depth or breadth of sin, we are instead being called to see our own sins first, we are the "first" of sinners. 
One of the huge things I have learned since coming into the Orthodox church is that of being non judgmental.  As a former Calvinist, one of the things that we taught, albeit subconsciously, is to identify, label and attack others for THEIR sins. The problem with this is that it is really easy to see other people's sins and condemn them for them, as foolish and ridiculous.  Of course it's easy to do so, these are not the sins with which we struggle.
The Orthodox faith, on the other hand, calls us to look at own own sins and weaknesses first, address them, deal with them and conquer them, then we can move on to help others.
We need to see our own sins first.  It is when we have conquered them that we will have the wisdom and humility to help others conquer their own sins, if they want help.
The overall point here?  We have plenty of sins of our own.  We need to identify and deal with them first.  And this will take far longer than we can imagine.

Football?

While I am typically not one to every speak of football, a funny illustration came to mind, pointing out the irony of American culture. 
From my understanding, if a city wants to form a football team and join the NFL, a huge amount of paperwork and money is needed to do so.  One does not simply hire a handful large men in tight pants and pads and call it NFL.
If this is true, how sad is it that if any Tom, Dick or Harry wants to call themselves Reverend and start a church, in America, they are totally free to do so. 
I guess that shows what our culture believes to be more important.

No longer physical

It has been my understanding that under the Old Covenant, because death had power over men, God used the realm of the physical to give out blessings or curses.  For example, under the Mosaic Covenant, one was blessed for obedience with long life, many children, freedom and peace in one's own homeland and health.  Good used these things because that was the only realm in which man functioned.  For man, under the power of death, going to the grave meant separation from God.  There was no heaven to look forward to.
But now, and ever since Jesus Christ defeated death and took away its power, we no longer are confined to the mediocre realm of physical blessing.  Jesus' work freed us from the power of death, providing the means for us to live in obedience and look forward to eternal life in the immediate presence of God.
This does not, even in the least suggest that we earn eternal life.  Jesus already earned that.  We, in response to Jesus' work are to strive to love God and love neighbor, however that manifests itself in each individual life.
The contrast is an important one.  Under the Old Covenant, there was only physical blessing or physical curse.  Death meant separation from God.  Now, under the New Covenant, we should not be limiting our thoughts to the physical.  No longer is it the case that long life and many children are blessings for obedience, just as much as a short life and barrenness are no longer curses for disobedience.  Since death has been defeated, our focus is on preparing for eternity by sanctification, loving God and loving neighbor. 
When we under go some sort of hardship, we should look upon it as a means to aid our sanctification.  When we receive some sort of temporal blessing, we should see it as a test of our faith.  What will we do with our lives when things are easy? 
Applying this framework to our lives puts a radical spin on how we think and live, at least it ought to.  Try a thought experiment:  think through all the possible avenues in your live to which this could apply.  What would your life look like?

A wasted life of regret

How do we go about communicating to someone that if they continue on the path they are on, they will end in some form, at worst, of destruction, or at best, regret for lost and wasted time?  Distractions, amusements, alternate realities, self centeredness, and play are, or can be, the things that we spend much time upon, but accomplish nothing.  And by "accomplish nothing", I mean nothing of eternal or even temporal value.  Distracting ourselves into oblivion.  At the end of any period of time, what will be the answer when we ask, "What do I now have that I didn't have before I started this?"

Big o, little o, what begins with o

Despite all appearances, this is not a Dr. Seuss story.  I find it troubling that all branches of Christendom (Protestant, Roman Catholic and Orthodox) believe themselves to be orthodox.  Of the hundreds (or more) of denominations that exist, with a wide array of beliefs, all of these groups consider themselves orthodox.  How does this fit into reality?
The answer can only be one of three options.  One, only one group is right, two, none of these groups are right, and three, all of the doctrinal distinctions don't really matter.  From what I can ascertain, these are the only options.  All of these groups claim orthodoxy, usually based upon their interpretation of the Bible.  But again, someone or maybe all may be wrong in their interpretive endeavors.  All of them cannot be correct.  This point is even stronger when one considers the exclusive claims made by some of these groups.
We could continually reduce and simplify the basic claims until they find a point of unity.  But doing so would reduce the system of Christianity to almost an  unrecognizable monster.  And I think doing so would change the very essence and distinctiveness of the Christian faith.  I don't believe that anyone would want this.
What is the point of all of this?  I'm not sure.  But it is troublesome and thought provoking.  And it doesn't paint a very helpful picture for those outside of Christianity either.

Clothes

Clothes should be a reminder that the blood of Christ is a necessary covering for man.  What do I mean by this?
In the Garden of Eden, prior to the fall into sin, man did not need clothes.  In that sense he was naked.  But he was not actually naked, he was clothed with the glory of God, and unashamed.  When Adam and Eve sinned, they lost that glory and in response, tried to make their own clothes.  In this we see that it is unnatural for man to be uncovered.  God, in an act of mercy, provided clothes for them, in the form of animal sacrifice.  Some sort of animals needed to die in order to provide a covering.  This image points forward to the sacrificial system of the Old Covenant.
Jesus' work of death and resurrection fulfilled the need for animal sacrifice.  But that does not mean that man can now be naked.  Our wearing of clothing is a reminder to us that we need to be covered because of our sin.  God has provided the perfect covering in Jesus Christ.  It is not right at any point in time for man to be uncovered, either pre fall, during the Old Covenant or during our present day. 
I would suggest that the current trend toward nakedness, just like the same trend throughout time (Greece, Rome, etc.) points to man's rejection of Jesus Christ.  If a man thinks that he is okay, then there is no need for a covering.  If a man thinks that he is not sinful or in need of God's provision, he will tend towards nakedness.
An interesting side note, one of the OT curses for sin is baldness, ie, an uncovering of the head.  In other words, when someone rejected God's rule, God showed this rejection in a visible manner.  Kinda makes you wonder about the popularity of shaved heads today....

Even briefly

Something my wife said to me the other day really stimulated some thoughts.  She said, "If someone honestly looks at it, the Protestant world is terribly fragmented and self-centered."  She hit on two very poignant topics.  First, fragmentation.  Protestantism, by definition, is about protest and division.  When someone disagrees with the church he or she is in, they can voice a protest and/or leave.  To be honest, when Martin Luther began to voice his concerns with the Roman Catholic Church, he had no intention of leaving.  But after being excommunicated, Luther and those that followed were all about division.  Even Luther and Calvin, the foundation of the Protestant Reformation, did not agree and did not like each other. 
Calvin left the Roman Catholic church and began preaching in Switzerland.  The Anabaptist movement took the mentality even further and rejected everything the Roman Catholic church taught, including the sacraments.  History has shown a horrific fragmentation ever since.
The second point brought up by my wife is closely tied to the first.  The self-centered nature of Protestantism stems from divisiveness.  If YOU don't like what your church is doing, leave and create something with which you agree.  The very foundation of this is self.  The historic church has always strove for unification.  Of course there has been strife and disharmony in the church, but these problems are always addressed and worked out.  Questions, attacks and hostility have been faced and answered (the ecumenical councils). 
What is the whole point of this?  There is the body of Christ (in every sense of the word) and it is not seen in division and self-centeredness.  The love of God is in his saints.  Humility, obedience and holiness will only come about when we learn to understand what it truly means to be the body of Christ.

Presuppositions, part three

There remains (at least in this context) one more thing to address and consider, that of your own presuppositions.  Are you in agreement with the beliefs and practices of the Orthodox church?  Then I have to assume that you are already baptized into Christ in the church.  If you are not, then you need to ask yourself what particular points you oppose, and why.
There are many, many doctrinal points that can bog down this sort of consideration.  And as much as I love a robust doctrinal discussion, that sort of thing will only muddy the process.  Differing doctrines can be sorted out later, once the foundation has been examined and corrected, if necessary.
A good understanding of church history will aid much in this consideration.  Where we started, how we have progressed and grown and where we currently are will help establish our understanding of the claims of the Orthodox church. 
Obviously, the Roman Catholic church is the closest to the Orthodox church, but still far from being in unity with us.  The churches of the Reformation are another step removed and that much further from communion.  In most cases, simple ignorance of us and church history greatly complicates matters.  The evangelical church of another step further away, and the quasi-Christian groups, another step further.
So what am I saying about all of this?  No matter where you are, you must ask yourself why you are there, what exactly you are in disagreement about with the Orthodox church and if you are willing to consider all of it and if not, why not? 
Some may respond that there is no need to give consideration to the Orthodox church, that there are better things upon which to spend ones time.  But a statement as such reveals some terrible presuppositions.  Someone cannot disregard the Orthodox church with indifference.  The claims we make and the history we hold demands a response.  An informed person will either love or reject Orthodoxy.  I've seen both.  One will hear the claims, learn the history and respond with love or rejection.  One cannot respond with, "That belief is okay if it works for you.  But it is not where I am at.  We are still both faithful Christians."  This position is not possible when speaking from an informed position.
So what will you do?  We claim to be the one, holy apostolic church.  What do you believe and why?

Presuppositions, part two

In summary of my last post, here is where we stand.  The four remaining patriarchates have remained in unity and have continued believing and teaching what was originally given by Jesus Christ and his apostles. The Roman Catholic church and their children (all Protestants) have separated themselves from the unity of the church and have suffered error and confusion.
This is by no means to suggest that all of the men in church history inside of the Orthodox church have been flawless, sinless and perfect.  In some cases, very far from that.  But the church as a whole, in its actual Faith and practice, is the body of Christ, and as such are being led by the Holy Spirit ever onward and upward.
The Orthodox church believes that they are the body of Christ, led by the Holy Spirit, and the location of the sacraments.  As we say in the church, "We know where the Holy Spirit is, but we will not say where he is not."  The Orthodox church, by being an unbroken chain of belief and practice all the way back to the apostles, is the holy church.
These are the presuppositions that we hold.  One, a faithful, consistent line of apostolic faith and practice.  Two, the one place where the sacraments are given and lived out.  Three, the place and communion of the Holy Spirit, as promised by Jesus Christ.
Hopefully at this point, our position is clear.  One may argue with the conclusions that are drawn, but one cannot argue with history.  The church has grown and developed as it has, and errors and heresy have been identified and rooted out, as time has progressed.  If one holds to the promises that Jesus made, that the Holy Spirit had been given to the church, never to be taken away. And two, we also must believe that Jesus' words about the gates of hell never prevailing against the church, to be true as well.   We then must identify who that church is.  One cannot argue from silence, meaning that an argument cannot be built and appealed to, based on what was not said.  We have the Word of God and we have the practices of the church.  To these we appeal.

Presuppositions, part one

I have a point that I would like to make but it is going to require several steps.  When anyone believes a particular piece of information, whether it is objective or subjective, that belief has presuppositions that underlie and support it.  The actual validity of that belief is actually irrelevant because of the unquestioned presuppositions.  My argument is a simple one.  Learn to recognize and then question/analyze those presuppositions.
My goal then in this posting is to build a foundation that shows the validity of, in fact, necessity of, the historic Orthodox faith.  I plan to do so by beginning with a short history lesson.  I hope that an objective approach and handling of history can be achieved.
After Jesus accomplished his work on the cross and rose from the dead, he encouraged and directed his apostles in spreading the Christian faith.  This was to be done by the preaching of the gospel and the establishing of churches, unified and in harmony with the gospel as given by Jesus Christ.  This the apostles did, very successfully.
I know history well enough to understand that as churches developed and grew, disharmony and heresy grew as well.  This was addressed by the written gospels, the epistles and the actual visitation of the apostles and their successors to the ever growing body of churches.  Eventually, the need arose for ecumenical councils.  These councils were not called to announce Christian doctrine but to respond to heretical teaching by clarifying what the church had always believed and taught.
One major problem that began relatively soon and then grew into epic proportions was the isolation of the churches in the west ie., Rome, and their erroneous belief in the singular superiority of the Roman bishop, the pope.
This belief came to a head in 1054 with the Great Schism.  This one event set a precedent and started a manner of thinking that plagues us to this day.  When Rome broke communion with the four other patriarchates, a level of grace was lost and error began creeping in.  A certain German monk eventually responded to the corruption and seeking a very necessary correction sought reformation.  It didn't happen and Martin Luther was kicked out of the Roman Catholic church.  This began the Protestant Reformation.  The problem was, Luther merely continued the faulty thinking that Rome began in 1054.  Separation from the unity of the church only leads to death. (to be continued...)

Passions and motivations

A troubling thought had been plaguing my mind as of late.  It has occurred to me as I read through history, that the most creative minds are those that have gone through some sort of trouble/disturbance/grief or a mind that has sunk into some sort of depravity.
What are we to say then about this? What does it say about our definition of good music or good art, if these things are coming from depraved or twisted minds and hearts?  What is it about our thinking, our hearts and our desires, that the fuel that feeds an "excellent", creative spirit (as we would define it) is evil?
We must ask the question, what is underlying and motivating someone to create any form of art.  And even deeper, does that motivation have any bearing on our appreciation of that art?  A tormented soul may create some extremely passionate music.  But may it be the case that "enjoyment" of that art is somewhat perverse.
I really don't have an answer for this, but the idea is starting to bother me.

"But what about the pub?"

The title of this blog is merely an example of a mistake this is made far too often.  Too often people will not do something or condemn/reject something, on the grounds that it might be abused.  "You shouldn't drink alcohol because you might get drunk."  "You shouldn't eat dessert because you might be guilty of gluttony."  "You shouldn't read book x,y or z because it might lead you into sinful thoughts."  The examples could be multiplied but it is safe to say that all of these miss the point.
We don't live under the Old Covenant any longer. In other words, Christians don't operate under the law, we live by love.  Love for God and love for neighbor.  Because that one principle is to lead our every thought, word and deed, we cannot rightly function by a black and white set of external rules.  This is about maturity.  In the same way that a child grows up to the freedom yet responsibility of adulthood, so too the people of God have grown up from being children in the desert to the maturity of the Promised Land.
We have spiritual fathers and mothers and the pattern of the historic church, but our underlying, motivating force is love.  If we honestly assess everything we think, say and do by the criteria of love, we can't go wrong.  But when we do go wrong, we can know that God has forgiven us, we have the church to help us back into our feet and the sacraments of grace to help us grow.
As the Beatles said, "All you need is love."  They were very right, but in a way they didn't understand.

Appearance, for better or for worse

I think I've written in this before but the thought comes to mind again.  Every day, we all make choices about our appearance.  The choices are driven by a variety of factors, including current culture, upbringing, religious faith and peers.  Many times these choices are not thought through but automatically moved.
The issue here then is that of motivation.  Why are we appearing the way we do?  What motivates us?  Are these motivations in accordance with what we claim to believe?  Is there a difference between what we are trying to communicate with how we appear versus what culture reads from our appearance?
As an Orthodox Christian, I think that our appearance should communicate humility and love towards others.  It should communicate an emphasis on eternity not the temporal world.  We should not be influenced by immoral culture.
Give it some thought.

A covenant approach to the Sabbath

I'm one for trying to find the simplest answer to a problem/issue.  Of course, the pursuit of the answer to any question will be built upon certain presuppositions and beliefs.  Mine, as you would probably guess, will be built upon the historic Christian faith, at least that is my goal.
Over the many years of my involvement in Calvinism, I experienced and was involved in debates over the place and structure of the Sabbath.  In other words, how should Christians today view or live out the Sabbath. 
It seems to me that most Protestants overlook, ignore or redefine the status of Old Covenant law.  The New Testament is very clear on what happened to the power and authority of the Old Covenant once Jesus rose from the dead.  With Jesus' resurrection, we are no longer under old covenant rule.  Simply stated, we no longer are required to follow the Sabbath.  If we were, we would not work on Saturdays.  There are a wide variety of opinions, beliefs and practices concerning this and there is no need to go into detail but suffice to say, they all miss this important point.  We no longer live under Old Covenant law. 
So what does this then mean?  Again, appealing to historical church practice and belief, Sunday is the Lord's day and the day we set aside for communion with him, as the Church.  Instead of working for six days and then having a day of rest, we begin our week by communing with God and then go into the world to live out that faith and work out our salvation.
This is an important aspect to the difference between Old Covenant law and New Covenant "law".  The first is written in stone, ie the ten commandments, the second is written on our hearts by the filling of the Holy Spirit.  The first is very legal and rigid, the second, very organic and loving.  Our relationship with God and man is now built on love, not external obedience.
In setting aside the first day of the week for organic, community communion, we are identifying our need for and the importance of, sanctification.  We grow and are purified by the grace of God in the Holy Spirit by the sacraments.  The good that we do throughout our lives is because of what happens in the life of the church.
No longer is the Sabbath a day when we cannot work.  Instead it's a day when we can commune with God and his church.

Historical observation

In a brief conversation today, the idea of cultural depravity came to mind, my mind at least.  It occurred to me that in this sense, history has been repeating itself. 
It seems that there are a handful of fruits and labors that go hand in hand. Any student of history can articulate what happens to a society when long term success results from the people's hard work. The pattern seems to go like this: the first generation works very hard, makes incredible sacrifices and builds for themselves a solid financial foundation.  The second generation follows suit and makes even greater successes. With each subsequent generation, more success means more money, more comfort and more free time. It is in this kind of situation that the old saying really rings true, "Idle hands are the devils work."  When a class of people arises that has an abundance of money and free time, corruption and perversion ALWAYS follow.  Look at ancient Rome, ancient Greece, middle ages Europe, multiple instances of the papacy, pre-Soviet Russia and our modern day America and the story is always the same.
An abundance of money leads to an abundance of free time leads to an abundance of desire for entertainment, which leads to perversion, depravity and ugliness.  A survey of what various cultures find entertaining and are willing to pay to watch only reinforces this observation.
What do we do with this?

Easy mediocrity

I think one of the largest issues in American thought is that of mediocrity.  The thing that makes mediocrity so appealing is its ease and acceptability.  The predominant mentality in our current culture is the importance and necessity of entertainment.  Most people work the forty hour week and then demand a steady stream of entertainment, in whatever form.
The problem with this kind of mindset is the resultant quick and easy form that entertainment takes.
People have worked their forty hours and subsequently desire an easy, unchallenging and effortless distraction.  In a world of supply and demand, the end result is pop culture.  This is automatically defined as mediocrity.  Obviously, there are exceptions to this, but in general, people want an easy distraction that can be consumed and then thrown away, only to be replaced by the next thing, moments later.
We see this mentality coming into nearly every area of life.  And this is a tragedy.  We don't see architecture, art, music, films, etc etc of excellence any more.  Instead we are immersed in the trite, the inane, the over commercialized and the disposable.
It's a sad thing to realize that you have settled for the mediocre.  Give it a thought.

Specifying that which is inarticulate

One of the "problems" that i see with American thought I'd that of "cult of personality".  Obviously, there are some truly wonderful, godly, admirable people out there will we should seek out for advice and guidance.  The problem though lies in the manner in which we obtain this guidance.
It is one thing to speak with someone, one on one, someone who knows you, understands you and your situation, and can guide you accordingly.  This is the true nature of the spiritual father.  But the current state of technology gives us the ability to obtain via print, audio and internet, the guidance of wise men and women, without the very important aspect of personal interaction.  This means that the advice cannot be specifically for us.
On top of that, we also don't have the specific context of how or why the advice was given.
Ultimately, this comes down to specific, context formed advice received in a general context and personally applied.  This is dangerous and probably not wise.
I would think, and i may be wrong but i would think that we would be far better off receiving guidance from someone wise who knows us personally and can direct us according to our specific situation.

A consideration of the casual

The term "casual", while being subjective in nature, is, nonetheless, defined by the culture in which it is understood or considered.  That is to say, the term may have different meanings depending upon the time or place it is used.  What is casual at any one particular time or place may not be casual in another.
While this is true, this does not remove the concept of appropriate.  The term "appropriate" too is context defined.  This leads to my point.  When is casual attire appropriate? 
As we stand in church, even a brief glance around reveals that many people believe that casual is appropriate.  I am not talking about the visitor.  I am not talking about the newly converted.  What does our insistence that flip flops, Hawaiian shirts and tank tops are acceptable in church, tell us about our view of God?
We can all think of situations where one particular outfit would be appropriate but not in another.  Why is this?  Are we concerned about communicating the wrong message to others?  Are we concerned about insulting or offending those in authority?  What does casual then say about how we view God and communion with him?
There is nothing more important or special than our relationship with God.  Imagine going out to an anniversary dinner with our spouse but we haven't showered or changed out of our work clothes.  Imagine becoming intimate under those same circumstances.  It is unthinkable.  The Divine Liturgy is the closest, most intimate moment we have with God.  Do we approach it so casually?
The opposite side of this thought is no better though.  We ought not approach the Liturgy with vanity either.  We partake of the body and blood of Christ humbly and with fear, not with thoughts of our own glory and excellence.  We ought never "dress to impress" at church either.
The short of it is this.  We come before God realizing that we are entering the very presence of God himself, to commune with him, something the faithful longed for, prior to the death and resurrection of Jesus.  We have nothing to give him but our love.  Our sins make us repulsive, but the grace of God makes us clean.  Our fancy dress won't impress him, but our lack of attention and our casual demeanor may offend him.
It's worth considering.

The Six Realities

Read through the chart below:

I think we can divide up all of time in this manner.  Doing so gives us a better understanding of the time frame in which we are currently living.  When we understand reality, we can then respond and live in a way that is faithful to what is real, not to what we want to be real.
Obviously, we are currently living under the New Covenant.  What is true about the power of death and our responsibilities is different than the reality of the Old Covenant or the pre-fall state.  This takes some thinking and prayer to faithfully live this out.

On the other hand

I previously wrote on common misconceptions of hell.  On the flip side of this are common misconceptions of heaven.  There are two parts to this problem that I want to address.  First, the interesting part of one's ideas about heaven reveal where ones heart lies.  In other words, the way one wishes heaven to be shows what they truly value.  I once had an acquaintance make the comment that for him heaven would be sunny weather and a swimming pool full of beer. I didn't even bother commenting or arguing with him.  Here on the other hand, is a good place to comment on this.  What is the problem with this vision of heaven?  For one, God has been left completely out of the picture.  Scripture and church tradition teaches us that being in God's immediate presence IS heaven.  Any other view is fantasy.  For the Christian, the prospect of drawing every closer into ever deepening relationship with God is the ultimate good.  THAT is eternity in heaven.
This leads us to my second point.
Second, heaven is temporary.  Heaven is the temporary resting place for Christians who have died.  This place is temporary because one, man was created body and soul.  This is the state in which we are supposed to exist.  Adam's fall into sin necessitates a time of body/soul separation.  At the end of time, at the final judgment, all men will be resurrected, be reunited to their united state, and be judged for all they have done.  This judgment can almost be viewed as a mere revealing of what is in the heart.
After this final judgment, those who have been preparing their souls to love God will spend eternity with him on a perfected earth.  Those who have rejected/ignored God, will be cast away from his immediate presence, ie, hell. 
Our heaven then?  We will live in perfected, sinless bodies, on a perfected, sinless earth, enjoying the immediate presence of God, forever.

"You're making him lose his focus!"

While the title may be a quote from "Monsters Inc.", the matter is a serious one.  It is so easy for us, living in an economically prosperous era and land, to get swept up in the distractions and trivialities of financial success.  It is very easy to justify, at least to ourselves, that being rich and comfortable is a good thing to pursue.
But it's not.
The only thing that really matters is holiness.  We have a very short life, here on earth, in which to learn to love God and love neighbor and form our souls after the image of Jesus Christ.  If we are spending all of our time and energy on getting rich and comfortable, we have lost our focus.
Our focus should be holiness not cash.  Even worse, many of us are distracted simply by the inane.  We throw away hours a day with stupid entertainment.  We accomplish nothing for the kingdom of God or our own holiness, simply because someone in Hollywood is doing one thing or the next.
What can we do, to daily remind ourselves not to lose our focus?

Unquestioned belief

It is curious how often we believe a particular idea, without giving it any thought.  The concept of the particularities of hell is one that comes to mind.
We often hear of hell as being a place of eternal torment for those who didn't "accept Jesus".  Or if one is from the Reformed camp, hell is for those not chosen or predestined into eternal life.  Either way hell is presented as place of punishment for those are to suffer under the wrath of God.  In the same vein, early American Presbyterian minister, Jonathan Edwards, delivered his famous serve, "Sinners in the hands of an angry God."  Just the title should make one shudder.
All of these illustrations are prime examples of un-thought-through beliefs.  They all contain the same foundation and it's not the Bible.  Several centuries ago, a Roman Catholic author wrote a famous trilogy entitled "The Divine Comedy." The three parts, translated into English are:  The Paradise, The Purgatory and The Inferno.  Contrary to practical use, the book was never intended to be a work of theology.  The books were written as a critique and social commentary on the political situations of the day.  Unfortunately, the religious world of the day and ever since, seem to have taken this poem as a literal or practically literal description of hell.  This is very unfortunate.  The poem by Dante describes hell as a place of demonic dominion, where Satan and his minions torture and abuse hapless humans, forever.  This, to be perfectly honest, is heresy.
The God of Scripture, the God of the Christian church and the God of history, all one God in the same, is a God of love and forgiveness.  God, in the person of Jesus Christ, took on human flesh, lived among us and died for us, removing the power of death so that we could come back into communion with the Triune God, the very thing for which we were created.  His resurrection finished his work, pointing toward the day when we too would rise from the dead, wholly perfected and immortal.
The point here is this.  The wrath of God against sin and death has been taken away by the work of Jesus Christ.  The gates of heaven are open to any who would come.  Access to this life is only through the work of Jesus Christ.  There is no other means of salvation.  Hell is for those who reject Jesus' work and do not want to be with God.  In other words, God wants to be in a loving relationship with every single person.  Hell will be that state of living forever in the presence of God and not wanting to be in that presence.  Remember, God is everywhere and he loves all men.  Those who reject him and his Son, will experience his love and presence and not want it.  They will have formed their hearts, minds and souls to not want God.  That is hell.
Satan will be destroyed, as we are told in the book of Revelation, but all men will live forever.  The state of mind in which they live will be up to them.  Will they work out their salvation, striving to love God more and more, preparing for an eternity of loving relationship with him, eternal joy?  Or will they live only for their own pleasure, ignoring God and forming their souls in contrast to Him?

Missionary work

The modern day practice of "missionary" work has been bothering me as of late.  Obviously, the spread of the gospel, at least in the first few centuries, occurred via the traveling missionary.  But the modern day missionary and his modus operandi seem radically different than the original model.
First, what many deem as missionary work is really just humanitarian aid.  Now, I have no problem with humanitarian aid, as long as it is actually helpful and labeled as such.  But don't go on a "mission" and never preach the gospel.
Second, much of what people call missionary work is terribly individualistic.  When we look back at what the apostles and their immediate successors did for missionary work, it was anything but individualistic.  They went out and started churches and then came back around one year later to make sure the church was growing right.  Nowadays, people want people to "make a decision" and "read their Bible."  But a person is not a believer without the body of Christ and the sacraments.
One may answer that they don't need to start a church in location x because there is already one there.  The obvious response to that circumstance is that there is then no need for missionaries in that location x.
If someone feels a great need to help spread the gospel in location x, then send money and support and prayers for location x.  And then work out your own salvation in the place God has put you.

Freewill and God's will

Allow God to keep you from sin.  We can't hardly blame God for not protecting us from sin when we are actively seeking after it or doing nothing to avoid it. 
In the morning, awaken with the first thought of thankfulness for God's mercy and grace toward us.  Thank him for not dealing with you as your sin deserves.  Think through your day and how you can avoid or successfully work through potentially sinful situations.  Then pray for God's help to keep you from sin.
Far too often we don't want to do the work ourselves.  We only want God to wave a magic wand.  It doesn't work that way.  As men created in the image of God, we have responsibilities and freedom to live.  Be responsible enough to handle that freedom.  The very state of your soul depends upon it.

Meant to know

I believe that it is part of our unfallen nature to know and to desire to know.  Ultimately, to know God.  Not just know about God but to know him personally and intimately, a deep, meaningful, close relationship.  In addition to that, I believe we are meant to know about creation and how to rightly use and enjoy it.
Because of sin, mankind has deviated in two ways.  First, we have learned how to use creation, but we use it in destructive and self destructive ways.  We harm the environment, we harm and drive to extinction creatures and we harm ourselves by the misuse of different substances.
Second, we allow ourselves to be distracted, either by others' discoveries or by the inventions of our own fantasies.  Picture the scene of the teenage boy spending hours and hours surfing the internet and playing video games.  This is not how it is supposed to be.  I won't go so far as to say that these things are inherently sinful, but they are dangerous and in need of careful handling.
We are meant to know.  This means we should first begin learning to know God.  This will take a lifetime.  We should also know other people and know about creation.  This means being active, productive and involved.  Ultimately, this means loving God and loving neighbor.

Is that in the Bible?

This question, though often coming from the best of intentions and concerns, is fraught with error and mistaken.  To ask this question, usually in response to a specific belief or practice, is based upon presuppositions about the Bible. So the place to begin is with an examination of what we believe about the Bible, specifically in regards to its purpose.
Instead of dividing the Bible into Old Testament and New Testament, we need to think in terms of, and divide by, Old Covenant and New Covenant.  We do this simply because Jesus' life, death and resurrection changes everything, literally everything.  The period of the Old Covenant is from the fall of Adam to the crucifixion.  The time of the New Covenant is from the resurrection of Jesus Christ to forever afterwards. 
With that in mind, we can begin to understand the purpose of Scripture.  All the history of the Old Covenant had been given to point us to the coming Christ.  We see how God has formed, directed and helped his people, Israel.  All of the external actions and events point forward to the coming messiah.  In the Gospels, we see the fruition of all that history come out in the life of Jesus.  He completes, fulfills and finishes all of it.  The epistles then, are direction and example of what that work looks like as it spreads out into the world.
This is one reason that the Orthodox Church holds the Gospels as so important.  Jesus' work is the ultimate act of love of God towards all men.
With that in mind, the Old Covenant time is not a place to look to for life example.  Neither are the gospels.  The one exception is this.  If we understand and embrace the Gospels as part of the Old Covenant, we can then rightly use and apply them in the right context.  One could almost say that the gospels take place in an overlap period between the covenants.
So to return to the original question, something being in or not in the Bible is a valid question only insofar as the specific topic being addressed is in the right context.  Is the topic about Jesus' work of saving mankind?  Then the question is valid.  Is the topic in regards to a certain worship practice, for example?  Then one would not expect to see it in Scripture.  There is much that Jesus, the apostles and Paul taught that was not written down.  The Bible is about Jesus and his work of saving mankind.  All other questions are answered in the Life of the church, that is, in the directing power of the Holy Spirit throughout all history.
So, is it in the Bible?  Maybe or maybe not.  But a better way to ask the question is, "Is this what the church has always practiced and believed?"  If no, then reject it.  If yes, then embrace it as a Holy Spirit inspired and directed part of life.  Live it first and then understand it later.

A consideration of religious history

I have been giving thought lately to the reasons for why the different churches worship and believe they way they do.  As I have argued in other contexts and discussions, it all has to do with foundations. 
Going all the way back to approximately the fourth century, as the Roman patriarch began to take Jesus' words of "on this rock I will build my church" as referring to Peter alone, instead of all the apostles, the church in the west began to deviate.  From this faulty position, the Roman Catholic church began to embrace errors and finally in the 11th century, broke away from the four other patriarchates.
Five centuries later, Martin Luther, seeing some of the errors of Roman Catholicism, sought after reform within the church.  They kicked him out.  From this position and from the belief that people in general needed to know and understand scripture, he began emphasizing sermons.
Luther still held onto the importance of the sacraments and we this see both of these emphases in Lutheran churches today.
Calvin took the thought of knowledge and understanding to the next level (he being a lawyer) and the Reformation church service began to be centered around knowledge.
The problem here is the focus on what one considers most important.  While it is true that people should know the Bible and understand their faith, it is not true that the worship service is to be built around that.
Again, these leaders deviated from what the church had always practiced, they re-defined for themselves the form of worship and fell into error.  From the beginning, the Divine Liturgy has been about relationship and communion with God, not about head knowledge.  Imagine going to bed with your wife and proceeding to spend the next hour reading about what your wife does each day in her interactions with your children.  Studying those things is perfectly fine, but not at that time.  That is the time for marital communion.
The only way we are going to grow in our relationship with God, grow in holiness and become sanctified is by right worship, repentance and partaking of the sacraments.  Other things, while important, are secondary.

Beauty, vanity, immodesty and lust

As you can see from the title, this sequence flows downward.  It all begins with how one defines beauty.  Of course, you should know by now, I insist that one must look to the church for such a definition.  If one starts from any other foundation, the whole thing will eventually get ugly (sinful).
We are all far too self centered and prone to sin to trust ourselves with defining reality.
To tie this in with a former post, beauty cannot be defined by old covenant standards.  Beauty is not about the outside, but the heart.  When one builds his or her life upon a foundation of love for God and neighbor, he or she will be beautiful.  The person who pours time and money into externals (ie, old covenant thinking) will end up with nothing. 

History and romanticism

You have probably heard it said that the victor writes the history book.  One can easily see the reality of that assessment.  But regardless of what the history books say, the influence and control of oral history or history believed that is based on ideological grounds, is even more important.
The image that one holds about any particular person will be controlled and directed by the romantic.  In other words, if one believes that person x is wonderful and godly, the reality of person x's struggles and sins will be overlooked, ignored, or even denied.  Or in other situations, if someone is seen as evil or corrupt, the good or noteworthy things that person has done will be ignored as well.  I find this troublesome.
We need to strive to be as honest and realistic as possible.  Anything else is wrong.

Reconcile

I was thinking about the Lord's response to the Pharisee's question about the greatest commandment.  He said first, love the Lord your God... and love your neighbor as yourself.  My next thought was simply that if someone actually lived this out, they, in turn, would be loved by those around them.  I mean really, who doesn't love someone who is a loving type of person.  But this is actually the opposite of what Jesus said would happen.  How do we understand this?
In Matthew we read that the world will hate us because of Christ.  One would have to suppose that this hatred is directed toward the one who is actively and faithfully following Christ.   Of course, this would mean that this person is loving God and loving neighbor.  I don't know about anyone else, but that one is really difficult for me to get my head around.  Think about someone you know, who is extremely nice, loving and friendly.  Can you imagine anyone hating that person?  Is it possible then that the personalities we create, in a form that we consider nice and loving, are coming from a completely wrong perspective?
I certainly do not have any answers on this, but I do know what the church says our lives should look like.  I also know that they path to eternal life, only through Christ, is a very difficult one.  Yet at the same time, that burden is a light one.

A whole new world

We read through the Old Testament and see story after story of how God has interacted with his people.  This is the story of the Old Covenant and from this story we can learn very much.  When we read the Gospels, again, we are reading about how God has interacted with his people, this time in the person of Jesus Christ, the second person of the Trinity.  This too is the story of the Old Covenant and from this story we can learn much.
But we now no longer live under the Old Covenant.  The epistles are very clear on this point (see Heb 8:13).  Under the OC, the people of God were limited to the temporal and physical due to domination of death.  Adam's fall into sin left man in bondage to death and cut off from access to heaven.  When someone died, during OC time, that was it.  He was left in a state of separation from God, waiting until the victory of Christ over death and a release from death.  This is why all of the blessings in the OC were of a temporal and physical nature.  Blessings of land, health, long life and many children were the means that God used.
But we are no longer in the Old Covenant.
In the epistles we see a radically different state of affairs.  No longer do the blessings from God focus on the things of the earth.  Celibacy is praised as better than marriage (ie, no children).  Asceticism is encouraged (self deprivation, not fatness and wealth).  A change of heart manifested in love for neighbor is the sign of godliness and obedience, not the external following of a law written in stone.
Our reading of the Old Testament is very valuable and helpful for our sanctification but can only be understood and applied to our lives when we rightly understand this extremely important distinction between the covenants.