The foundation of things

In a conversation I recently had with my oldest son (20 years), we discussed the problem with the Harry Potter stories.  Initially, he was under the impression that I argued that the problem was simply the presence and promotion of magic.  But this is far too simplistic and shallow.
As I explained, the problem is in the foundation.  A comparison was made with the Percy Jackson stories.  For those who don't know, Harry Potter stories take place in a magical, hidden world in and through modern day London.  Harry is a young man who initially doesn't know that he is a magician.   He is brought to Hogwarts, a school for magic. 
The Percy Jackson stories, on the other hand, are about a young man who is half human, half god, as in Greek mythology, but takes place in modern day America.
Here is how I perceive these two stories.  The Jackson stories are written as fiction, with a foundation which no one embraces as true, with a story that is clearly make believe.
The Potter stories on the other hand, are built upon the foundation of modern day witchcraft.  JK Rowling, the author, blatantly admits having carefully and thoroughly referenced books on witchcraft from which to build her stories.  The storyline is then created upon this foundation.
I hope you can see the problem here.  The Potter stories are built upon a foundation of supposed truth.  The Jackson stories are not.  The Potter stories present the worldview of magic as valid, noteworthy and beneficial.  It presents reality as built upon impersonal power, that can be used for good or for evil. 
The problem with Potter is the worldview that is presented.  The fact is that interest in witchcraft among the young has greatly increased, while interest in the religious beliefs of Greek mythology has not.
This is about foundations.  The silliness of the Harry Potter stories are only silly when understood as completely fictitious.  Unfortunately, the author and much of the audience don't see it this way.  Therefore the danger of falsehood does exist.
Then there is the whole question of bad influence.  But that is a whole other argument.

Thoughts on behavior

Very recently, Fr. Thomas Hopko passed away.  Someone has started circulating a collection of his writings called "The fifty five maxims."  I have had the opportunity to read through these and while they come across as possibly helpful and beneficial, I have to consider them from an Orthodox, historical perspective.
Regardless of background, education or intent, ones prior religious beliefs and convictions will have a direct effect upon ones Orthodoxy.  In other words, everyone that is Orthodox today carries religious baggage from their previous faith.  This is because many of these beliefs are presuppositions, that is, beliefs that are held unquestioningly and sometimes even unconsciously.
So in reading through these fifty five maxims, we have to ask, are these historic Orthodox or are these evangelical?

I say "evangelical" simply because Hopko was born in the United States.  Now it may very well be that his thoughts and presuppositions are entirely Orthodox.  But at the same time, it very well could be that some of his thinking has been influenced by the culture and persons around him.  We should never drop our guard and believe that simply because someone is Orthodox, that everything that they say will be in perfect line with the historic faith.  Fr. Thomas was an incredible individual that accomplished great things for promoting and forwarding the Orthodox faith in America.  

So in considering his "Fifty Five Maxims," we should be attentive to what is being said.

May God have mercy upon us.

The sign of the cross

The practice of the sign of the cross has been an important standard in the history of the church since the very beginning.  Though the specific form has slightly changed over time (size and location), the meaning and purpose has not changed.
When I began my journey into Orthodoxy, the practice of the sign of the cross was never an issue for me.  The concept was a simple one.  The cross, a historical symbol representing the love of God through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, is taken on and applied to one's self.  We make the sign of the cross because we are Christians.  The cross is central to our understanding of who we are and what we believe.  As someone once said to me, disparagingly, "It's just an ancient gang symbol."  If it was possible, I would have reached through the email and punched them in the head for saying such a thing.  Making a profession of the Trinity and a profession of the two natures of Christ are not "a gang symbol."  These are doctrines and beliefs that many, many people have debated, struggled and even died for.
So the sign of the cross is important.  It is a profession of our faith, a profession of who we are and with whom we are connected. 

The right thing

It seems that most situations provide us with a few options from which to choose.  There is the right thing to do, there is the convenient thing to do and there is the pragmatic thing to do.  Obviously, there is also the wrong thing to do, but most people don't argue in favor of that. 
I would suggest that most people will respond, thinking that they are doing the best thing, based upon their worldview.  This means that everyone has beliefs about life stemming from their childhood, from education, from culture and from environment.  Most of these beliefs move us and direct us without our even thinking about it.
The curious thing about this is the way in which we too often judge others for their responses to situations, when really they are doing what they believe to be best.  Really, our best response upon seeing or experiencing someone else's actions is to assume the best.  We ought to assume that we don't have all the details, and that their response is the best response, for them, in this particular context.
But for ourselves, we need to be much more critical.  We ought to question everything we do and judge it by the light of Christ. Are we responding in love?  Are we responding out of selflessness?  Have we thought through what would be the best response?
Usually, the pragmatic response is one in which we judge the outcome to be most to our benefit.  The convenient response would be the one that would be easiest and the least imposing.  But the right response should be the response of love to God and/or neighbor.  It would not take into account how the response would effect us.  The right response may be a major imposition upon us and our lifestyle.  It may be uncomfortable. But the right response is the response of love.  It puts others first and looks to eternity for the lasting fruit.
Ultimately, the right answer is the life of faith in Christ. Anything else is a cheap, shallow imitation.

Right to the point

When it comes down to it, when someone truly understands what Eastern Orthodoxy fully claims, the response will be either love or hate.  One will hear the claim and respond with fully embracing the church as the body of Christ, or one will hear it and hate it as a lie and deception.
There is no middle ground.  There is no attitude of indifference.
I guess the question is, how faithfully are we living out the faith, so that those around us receive an accurate picture?

Fullness and surrounded

Growing up in the Assembly of God church and my subsequent fifteen years in Calvinist circles exposed me to the concept of praying for others.  Now that I am part of the Orthodox church, the idea of prayer has taken on greater and deeper meaning.  Not only do we sinful people pray for one another, we also ask the departed saints to pray for us as well.  And this seems to be a great problem for Protestants.  For some reason, Protestants, in general, are very contrary to the doctrine of praying to the saints. I'm sure much of it comes from not understanding what exactly is occurring, as all as a general ignorance of church history.
We all believe that prayer, especially the prayers of the righteous, are effective.  And we also all believe in life after death, i.e. that the righteous departed are not gone or sleeping somewhere, but are very much alive.  When we think of these things in connection with the two millennia long practice of imploring the departed saints for prayer, rejection of such an idea makes no sense.
We are surrounded by a huge cloud of witnesses.  We have multitudes of godly people, alive and departed, praying for us and wanting to pray for us.  The fullness of our faith demands more than doctrines pulled out of the air or from our rational imaginations.  The life of the church is life in Christ.

Appearance

The thought occurred to me today that regardless of what I think, regardless of what I want or believe to be right, culture will judge and categorize me in the way that they want to.  Our appearance or actions take place within a cultural context.  This means that the prevailing culture gets to define what things mean.  In the case of the American, unfortunately, that definition is controlled by vanity and worldliness.  This should drive us to respond in a way that points those seeing us towards Christ and away from us.  The struggle is in determining what that looks like.  This takes wisdom.  And for this wisdom we need to gain guidance from the church fathers and from our immediate priest. 
We can't control how people think but we can control what we say and do and this can lead others to Christ.

The trouble with Protestantism

The first problem, slightly tongue in cheek, is seen in the name.  Anything ending in "ism" is automatically suspect.  But seriously, the suffix "ism" suggests a man made thought process.  And really, when you look at it, the entire Protestant movement, regardless of branch, is about a new interpretation of text.
The problem is much harder to nail down though.  Because the genre is so incredibly large and diverse, the categorization and identification will be difficult.  I think what it really comes down to is the ultimate rejection of authority.  Every single emergence of a new branch of Protestantism is because of a disagreement over the text of Scripture or a practice supposedly derived from Scripture.  Any and every branch of Protestantism lacks any real authority and the quasi authorities that are in place are always questioned.  What this means is that no one is an actual authority.  Protestants, almost by definition, appeal to Scripture as the final authority.  The problem with this is the seemingly endless malleability of the text.  And without an authority to say, "yes, it means this, no, it doesn't mean that," the possibilities are endless and there are almost no brakes on the situation.
So having no one to whom to appeal, the Protestant fragmentation continues.  At some point, the term "Christian" will almost be void of any concrete meaning.
I would encourage all Protestants to consider who is the objective authority in their life and then give consideration to the Eastern Orthodox church.  The faith of the church goes back to, and rests upon, the apostolic tradition as given by Jesus Christ.

The trouble with Rome

It comes down to humility.  From the very beginning, the bishop of Rome, whom we know as the pope, has always held the position of leader among equals. 
From very early on, the church of Jesus Christ has been made up of five patriarchates: Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, Constantinople and Alexandria.  The problem developed over many centuries and finally came to a head in 1054 when the pope demanded that he take the title of Christ's vicar on earth.  In other words, he wanted authority over everyone.  He wanted all the other patriarchs to submit to him.  But their response was no, it has never been that way, that idea is an innovation and contrary to what Jesus and the apostles handed down to us.
At that point in time, the pope excommunicated the patriarch of Constantinople and the patriarch reciprocated.  There has been a rift between Rome and the other patriarchates ever since.
What it comes down to is this, the pope needs to admit the error and accept a position of equality with the other patriarchs.
But then all of the doctrinal innovations that have developed in the Roman church since then would need to be corrected.  And that would be a really big job.

A summary statement on the church

I often times marvel at what a radically different paradigm the Orthodox church operates than does the Protestant world.  The way we think about God, man, sin, the fallen nature, repentance, redemption, sanctification, eternity, etc. are all vastly different.
With this in mind, I thought I would create a summary of where we are coming from.  This is definitely not an argument, just a brief summary and also not exhaustive.
Since Christians are always interested in worship, I thought I would focus on the nature of church.
Christianity started in Jerusalem.  Jesus completed his work on the cross then, resurrecting, met his disciples and blessed them to carry on his work.  The church was centered in Jerusalem then moved outward to Antioch, through Asia Minor, then Rome and further outward.  This is all detailed in the book of Acts.
Churches were started and led by the apostles and those appointed by them.  This has been happening since that time.  An apostolic line has been drawn down through the ages, throughout all nations, all of the time handed down, all led, directed and protected by the Holy Spirit. 
The important point to see here is that the concept of church, and, more importantly, the objectivity of the church, is a temporal, physical reality.  The church is not just an idea.  It's not just an ambiguous, vaguely defined, inarticulate gathering of people who in some way call themselves followers of Jesus Christ. The church is a concrete reality, in space and time, held together and protected by the Holy Spirit.  This objective reality of "church" is what Jesus started and is what the apostles have handed down to us.  The church is what it always has been, the gathering of God's people, worshipping the Trinity through the Divine Liturgy by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
The church is the Eastern Orthodox Church.

The perception of evil

It can be argued pretty persuasively that we should not dwell upon, think about or enjoy the thought of evil things.  Scripture tells us to not even talk about the evil things that people go in secret.
But what about when evil is portrayed in a way that truly presents it as evil.  My point is this, so often, Hollywood will present evil as fun, beautiful, exciting, thrilling and advantageous.  But it is none of these things.  We should not be entertained by evil.   But what about when evil is shown as evil?
If there any way that this sort of presentation can be good or helpful?  What if it stimulates our thinking to growth and clarity?

The degeneration of theatre

It is interesting that as a culture matures and grows "comfortable", that which is considered art degenerated into nonsense or depravity.  I would guess that this comes from that which people are seeking.  Most art comes from a culture that has had too much free time and too much money.  This mentality leads to boredom and thus the need to push the boundaries.  This leads to the need to shock or alarm. 
This sort of thing has been seen in ancient Rome, ancient Greece and Europe.  We are beginning to see it in the United States as well.  Unfortunately, like the proverbial frog in a kettle, we grow accustomed to it far too easy.  The Christian response is to step back, remove the emotional attachment and critique it for what it actually is, not for what we want it to be.
We need to learn to think like the church.

The foundation

I was just reminded, again, of the very foundation for the Christian faith, that is, love. Love for God and love for neighbor.  It seems that everyone knows this, as it is a well known passage from Scripture.  But how much do we really think about it?
Do we take the time to critique all of (or any of) our thoughts, words and actions?  Have we taken the time to wonder about and think through what we do, say or think and how those things may affect or influence our neighbor? 
How we spend our time.  How we spend our money.  How we dress.  How we speak.  What we laugh at.  How we drive.  What entertains us.  These examples can be multiplied many times over.
So the question stands, have we given any regard to how all of these things, and many more, display our love for God and neighbor?

Interpreting events

How often do we make plans but then something happens that prevents us from fulfilling those plans?  We then respond with, "Oh, God must not have wanted me to do that."  But in thinking so, we are not thinking clearly and the assumptions we are making are many and faulty.
To be in the midst of a situation and then comment on the unforeseen events that may have brought about that event is an extremely audacious claim.  We are so small.  Our understanding is so limited and finite.  Yet we claim to know what God is doing or not doing.
A better response would be no response at all.  Instead we should plan an event with the thought of "God willing."  We should center our thinking around the idea that just as we have a free will by which we can choose or not choose to do something, so too does God.  We ought to approach all of our actions and plans with the idea of seeing God's will.  "If God wills it, I will do such and such."  In other words, we should seek to do what would be pleasing to God.  Not what is pleasing to our selfish and short- sighted whims.
It is not the case that God will impose his desire upon us, contrary to our desires.  Wouldn't you rather form your own will to be in line with God's?

Could do, should do

This is a dichotomy that everyone has but rarely considers.  In almost every situation, we have a choice to make, what we "could do" (of which the options are many) and what we "should do" (which is usually one, but sometimes a few).
The way we answer this mostly depends upon the worldview we have lived out, thus far.  It won't be based upon what we profess, because we are typically hypocritical.  It won't be based upon what we were taught as children, because we have often gone a different direction.
So, just food for thought, the next time there is a decision to be made, step back and analyze the situation, and decide who's influence will direct your decision.

The real history of pirates

A somewhat sad analogy occurred to me the other day.  If a police officer or military personnel needed your vehicle, they could legally take it, for professional use.  But if anyone else did so, it would be theft and punishable, an act of piracy.
A type of piracy has been going on for almost 2000 years now.  Every time someone who is not part of the historic church but claims to be so, is in essence stealing an identity.
Many of the seven ecumenical councils were held in response to various groups trying to redefine Christianity and take the name "Christian".
The Roman Catholics did this, officially in 1054.  The Protestants in Germany and Switzerland did so as well around 1550.  Again, the Anglicans around 1650.  The Mormons did so as well in the late 1800's.  In each of these cases, these groups rejected the historic Orthodox church and tried to exist independently.  This is similar to a severed limb trying to live apart from its body.  An appendage cut off from the rest of the body, is not the body.
A point of clarity is very important here.  This situation is about organizations and groups, not the individuals therein. As Orthodox Christians, we must never judge anyone or claim to know their heart. Only God is the judge.  What we can do though is identify the boundaries of the body of Christ.  The Orthodox church has the historic faith, we have the teaching of the apostles,  we have the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
So we can play the part of the pirate and steal an identity. Or we can embrace the faith once delivered to the saints and be part of the body of Christ.  Why would we do otherwise?

Thoughts on eternity

Most, if not all, religions have some sort of concept of the afterlife.  The idea of judgment and eternal life or eternal suffering dates as far back as ancient Egypt circa 3000 BC.
One thing I find particularly interesting in this is the manner in which Western Christianity has developed its doctrine of heaven and hell.  Largely under the influence of Dante's Inferno and the theological gymnastics of speculative thinkers, the doctrine of hell has morphed into something totally foreign to historic Christianity.
Historically and biblically speaking, our vision of hell is radically foreign than the modern vision.  To the average US citizen, hell is the kingdom of Satan, where he rules over a legion of demons, in a fiery domain, surrounded by suffering human souls. But this is not the case.  Satan and the demons are already defeated foes.  They roam about seeking whom they may deceive and ensnare. But Satan has no power or authority to harm anyone, but only that which God allows him or we allow him.  Hell is that place where the wicked wait for the final judgment.  There is no power or authority there for anyone, just suffering.
Essentially, hell is chosen.  Think of our life as a time that we use to prepare and shape our souls for eternity.  All of those things that we freely choose to do will shape us into the form we will hold for eternity.  If we spend a lifetime pursuing pleasure, gratification, selfish and and distraction, we are in essence ignoring God.  If we spend a lifetime ignoring God, why would we want to spend an eternity with him?  Regardless of what you may think now, when the time comes, your desire will not be for God.  If you don't desire to love him now, you won't love him in eternity.
In short, you would be choosing hell.

Stealing moments

All of us have only so much time to live.  None of us know when we will die.  All people typically spend their time on the things they believe to be most important.  At least that is what we are led to believe.  If we stop and actually pay attention to, or document how, we actually spend our time, we may be surprised.
Think of your daily life in terms of moments.  We spend a certain amount of time sleeping.  We spend time beautifying ourselves by diet, by exercise, by hair, make up and clothes.  We spend time working.  We spend time on the internet, in theatres, listening to music and reading.  We spend time watching tv or going to church.  Some spend time in prayer.
With all that in mind, think of it.  How much time is wasted and could be used in something productive.  Spending fifteen minutes a day studying a language would make someone fairly proficient in a year's time.  Watching one less hour a day of tv would free up over 350 hours a year.  A class at the local community college requires about fifty hours for a five credit class.  This means that one could acquire a full education in less time than one spends watching tv.
And how about money?  If someone brought two less lattes a week, in one year time, one would save over $500.  That could feed a lot of starving children.  These kinds of numbers could easily be multiplied with money spent on music, movies, clothes, or makeup.
My main point is self examination.  We must be willing to step back and consider what we are doing and why.  Have we become comfortable? Have we become lazy?  Have we become self centered and selfish?
It's easy to become distracted and complacent.  Step back and take a look.

About Orthodoxy

I recently had a very brief dialogue with a highly respected and highly educated Protestant minister. I had asked him about his thoughts on Eastern Orthodoxy and he responded.  It was gracious of him to do so, as he is a very busy and productive gentleman.
His response was this.  While I appreciate the EO validation of worship, its their Platonism, works righteousness and low view of Scripture that makes their views less than orthodox.
There are so many problems with his response that I hardly know where to begin. First off, I am disappointed that someone of his stature, education and experience would make such definitional mistakes.  Who is he to define what is orthodox?  The EO church has 2000 years of history and ecumenical councils supporting its views (not to mention Scripture). This gentleman has 500 years of vascillating Calvinism to rest upon.  I don't know where he gets his ideas about EO promoting world righteousness. He may be confusing salvation by works with the responsibility of living out ones faith.  The EO church fully embraces the teaching that we are saved by grace alone. But it is also fully aware that we need to work out our salvation by fear and trembling.  We do not rest on the error of once saved, always saved.
As far as Platonism goes, recognizing the distinction between soul and body and leading the body by forcing it to submit to the guidance of the church through the power of the Holy Spirit is not Platonism.
And regarding Scripture, it's not a low view but a balanced view that recognizes that Scripture is interpreted by the historic Orthodox church and not the whims of individuals.  Scripture is to be understood in the circle of tradition.  We had church and practice long before we had the Canon.
So to my Protestant minister friend, whom I highly appreciate and respect, I'm sorry but you missed the boat on this one. I wish we could dialogue more on this.  Your life in pursuit of truth and holiness will only find fulfillment in the one true, holy and apostolic church.  God bless you George.

Thoughts on sin

I've spoken in the past about how easy it is to see other people's sins but not our own.  This is one of the points made in a prayer we make during Lent.  We pray that God would help us see our own sin and help us not to judge our brother.
One thing has come to light on this regard.  How often do we look at someone else's sins and think, "How can they be so blind so as to do that sin?"  Of course, when we look at ourselves, we are much more gracious, merciful and compassionate.  We can offer many explanations and reasons for why we sin and how the sins we do are really not that bad.  Of course, such sophistry is nonsense.  All sin is bad and ought to be hated.
But back to the question.  How is it that some people do sins x,y and z and somehow excuse or justify it, when someone else, often times very similar in class and culture, sees that sin as horrible and ridiculous?  I believe it has to do with environment and genetics.  When we grow up in a family where certain sins are coddled or excused, we learn to do the same thing.  We, as fallen men in a fallen culture, from fallen peoples, have genetic predispositions toward certain sins.  (One example that I know of is the weakness towards alcohol among the American natives.)
Of course, neither of these are excuses for sin, but understanding them help us to respond better. 
So we should recognize that the sins we see as so obviously wrong, someone else, for complex reasons, does not see it that way. 
This all goes back to our tendency to judge others and go easy on ourselves.  We go easy because we know the details of our own lives.  Really this comes down to community.  When we spend time with and genuinely get to know others, it is natural to have compassion on them.  It's easy to chastise and judge the other guy, whom we do not know.
It's becoming more and more clear that community is incredibly valuable.

Thoughts on suffering

I recently watched a few short videos on the terrible hunger and suffering currently going on in Ethiopia and the Sudan.  Heart wrenching, devastating suffering of children is completely unacceptable when something can be done about it.
I had a couple of thoughts on this.  First, my academic side.  The videos bothered me on two aspects.  The obvious, of course, is seen in the mere fact of children being born and living long enough to suffer and die by starvation.  The second, seemingly cold and distant, is that the videos were a bald attack of emotional manipulation.  Yes, absolutely, we should be greatly grieved by the suffering of children.  But the emotional manipulation that is used to make someone sad, I believe, is wrong.  We should be sad, not because the music and the camera angles move our emotions, but because these people, all of them made in the image of God, are suffering for no good reason.
As Christian's, we should be grieved and saddened by the mere facts of the situation, not by the emotional manipulation of the art.
My other thought is that this terrible situation can be undone and reversed by intervention.  It is great that so many people want to help by sending food and money.  But this is a very short term band aid. The problem is a combination of government corruption, military abuse and Islam.  The Islamic worldview is apathetic because it is nihilistic.  Human life doesn't matter because Allah is arbitrary.  He chooses some to paradise and others to damnation, merely based on his arbitrary will. The easy answer is that those who are born into poverty and suffering, obviously are going to feel Allah's wrath.  Therefore nothing needs to be or should be done about it.
The equally maddening thing is that the US could easily intervene and help all of these people by military power, but there is no economic reason for them to do so, so nothing is done.
As Christians, if we can help in some way, we should.  And no matter what. we should pray. And this is not a last resort, but a powerful act of faith.