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?