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.