Three things

One of the early church fathers (I don't know which one) commented that there are three things. One, our confession of our sin, two, the canon of repentance, and three, the mercy and grace of God.  The idea here is this.  When we recognize and understand our own sinfulness and then act upon it, the church as the body of Christ, has provided, through the power of the Holy Spirit, the means by which we can be cleansed of sin.  The sacrificial work of Jesus Christ is available and free to all who repent.  The means to do so has been provided by the Spirit-led Church.  And all of this is only possible because of the incredible mercy and grace of God.
It would seem that if someone would focus on, understand and strive after these three, everything else would fall into place.

American thought

After reading an article about polyphasic sleep (sleeping in many, short, power naps only) I began to wonder if the American, evangelical worldview/mindset has directed/controlled our thinking about sleep.  It is important to note that monastics, especially very holy spiritual guides, sleep very little. 
The effects of polyphasic sleep are curious.  In short, an enhanced level of creativity and productivity.  The negative side effect, obviously, is grumpiness.
But I have to wonder, is the negative side effect of this sleep due to its lack of proper focus, ie, devotion to, and pursuance of, holiness.  The monastics will live long, productive, holy lives, emanating a remarkable aura of love and grace.  They are anything but grumpy, surly or otherwise.  Would pursuit of this sort of lifestyle, performed under the guidance of a wise spiritual father, produce in us a combination of holiness and creativity/productivity?
The big question of how to make it work in our current culture remains.

The question of social

Maybe no one else thinks about this, but it really troubles me.  As me move through this post Christian time in evangelical America, it is becoming more and more difficult to direct ones children into acceptable social circles.  This is especially true when one is part of a smaller church.
If this is a question of balance, i.e. determining what level of secular social influence is acceptable, is this not similar to saying how much poison it is acceptable to feed your children?  Then there is the concerns on the opposite side of the argument.  What happens if we do not provide age appropriate social interaction?  I know people who say that by the time that they were teenagers, they could interact very well with adults but not with kids there own age.  In response, I would argue that being skilled in teenage social interaction is really only important (arguably) for one's years as a teenager.
But again, what is the optimum social interaction for our kids, with whom, what age group and what duration and frequency?  Children do need to be directed, as would anyone entering into new territory.  Being immature, easily persuaded and prone to sin, it is sheer lunacy to simply "let them find their own way."  Would you let your child, teenage or otherwise, navigate through a minefield on their own.   It would probably be safer than a public highschool, as landmines are not actively malicious.
We can probably think of ideal situations, but unfortunately, these ideals don't exist in real life.  So what do we do?  At the bare minimum, we must approach the situation informed and educated, having examined all the possibilities and having received input from older, wiser folks.  Ultimately, we must pray for our children.  For the intercessions of the saints will have remarkable influence and effect upon our situations.  The protection of guardian angels is real and valuable and the guidance of the Holy Spirit is life changing.  Don't miss out on the opportunities that exist.

Taking for granted

One really has to wonder.  We so often go into the presence of God and ask for forgiveness, we confess our sins, knowing full well that we are forgiven, that God loves us more than we love ourselves.  But how much do we take this incredible act of mercy from the love of God, for granted? 
What if, for example, in order to confess our sins and receive forgiveness, we had to perform some sort of taxing, painful or utterly detestable act?  Would we then think twice about sin?  Would we truly hesitate and even work really hard not to sin?
What does that then say about what we really think about our love of God?  Do we claim to love him and try to obey him only as it is convenient, only as it doesn't cost us much, if anything?
Personally, I believe that trend of, and the foundational mindset of, American evangelicalism leads to and encourages this.

The meaning of death

Under the Old Covenant, death meant "not life" (obviously), but it also meant separation from the blessings of God, separation from the Promised land and separation from the people of God.  For the Jew, this was a huge issue.  For the Old Covenant people of God, all of the blessings for obedience were physical, therefore going into death meant separation from all of that.  Death was the scary unknown and was the ultimate sign of covenantal disobedience.
But this is no longer the case.
Now that the Old Covenant has passed away, under the New Covenant, with death having been defeated, we no longer need fear death.  Our life can transpire in a wide variety of ways.  Long or short, healthy or sick, rich or poor.  The important and defining factor is that of love.  Did we strive to love God and love neighbor?  In our love for God, we seek to put away those things that draw us away from Him and embrace and practice those things that move us toward him and make us more like Christ.
The fact of physical death should be, in the mind of the Christian, a non issue.  We will physically die, but to do so is merely to pass from this short life into eternity with Christ.  And we also have eternal life, in a sinless eternity, in a physical, perfected body, forever in the presence of our loving God.  This is a win/win situation for us.  We learn to live out a short, physical life, striving after a loving relationship with God, only to pass into eternity and a blessed future, with that same loving God.  Death is irrelevant.

Asking the right question

Another thought came to mind this morning, as I was reading.  A statement was made about Duns Scotus and a particular question that he asked in regards to original sin and the necessity of the incarnation. Without going into that speculation, it struck me that even the way we ask questions should be questioned. Again, my thinking has so be influenced by the West, scholasticism and academia that this observation probably deserves some serious consideration.
It occurred to me that the easiest way to correct this, without an overwhelming amount of introspection, is simply to start paying attention to how and what kind of questions the early church fathers asked.  The next step would be to apply their methodology to my current day.

Misdirection

I find myself constantly returning to the same point.  We have been born and raised in America, the land of freedom and opportunity.  What this actually means is that we will sacrifice anything for our rugged individualism.  We live how we want, by the rules that we choose.  And this is perfectly contrary to the Christian faith.
The big question?  How do we change our thinking so as to be more like Christ?  This is a multigenerational practice that will only come about if we consciously strive after it.  And this can only happen in the context of the church.

ISIS vs Christ

Last night I watched an absolutely wonderful but at the same time, convicting, documentary on the scourge of ISIS in Egypt.  The film centered on the families of the twenty men from Egypt who were beheaded (martyred) by ISIS.
It was incredibly moving to see the response of these families, in fact of such hatred and barbarism.  Those killed were seen to be martyrs for Jesus Christ, not compromising their faith in the face of militant Islam.  It came down to a simple choice: convert to Islam or die.  These men didn't waver.
Here is the link to the documentary: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/isis-vs-christ/

Double knowledge

Something I have been learning, as of late, is something the church fathers, St. Gregory Palamas in particular, calls double knowledge.  Having now been introduced to the concept, it makes perfect sense.  The idea is this, there are two kinds of knowledge, the first, natural, that is, knowledge we gain by study and intellect.  The natural sciences, book learning, the scientific method, etc.  The second is knowledge of God.  This is not a mere knowledge about God, but a knowledge of/relationship with God.  It is not something that comes by study, but by prayer, repentance and the cleansing of the soul.  We draw into an ever deepening relationship with God by turning away from the vanity of the world, loving God more than ourselves and hating sin.
I cannot but marvel at the radical contrast between this way of living versus that of the Protestantism/Calvinism that I previously lived.  My previous reformation years, while I did learn much about thinking, learning, history and theology, all of those things do not lead to godliness.  This point cannot be emphasized enough.  All the natural/worldly knowledge in the universe will not lead to godliness.  We only grow in our relationship with God by cleansing our souls and seeking Him. 
At the same time, there is nothing wrong with book learning.  One only needs to look at my library to see that I believe that.  As the church fathers have said, education and knowledge are tools that we can use to reveal greater light of divine truth.  The two types of knowledge are not contrary to one another.  They are two completely different realities.  One is natural, the other is divine.
Having great intellectual prowess and education will mean nothing if we neglect the state of our souls.  But on the other hand, someone can have a first grade education but surpass the most educated among us by having developed a sanctified soul.  Purity of heart is infinitely more important than any knowledge of any created thing, conceptual, philosophical or natural.
As Paul tells us in 1st Corinthians, anything without love is merely a clanging cymbal.

Politics

Over the past little while, I have really lost interest in anything political.  It all seems like a huge waste of time, with so much deception and misguided attention. The common opinion that all politicians are liars may or may not be true, but the the perception is based on something.
Anyway, at the same time, the question of faithful, Christian politics had been plaguing my mind.  What would a truly Christian political system look like?  I can say that a faithful, Christian political system would not look like what we currently have in the US.  I would argue in the basis of the religious foundations of the US, that is, evangelical Protestantism.  As I mentioned in a tweet today, the typical American Protestant church is radically different that the historic Orthodox church.  Therefore, it stands to reason that a political system derived from a religious worldview contrary to the historic faith would be contrary to the historic faith.
Obviously, an educated, well thought out answer to this question will not simply roll off my tongue.  This will take a long bit of thought and reasoning.

Foundations

It occurred to me the other day, after having a conversion with someone holding differing views than myself, that I had been missing a vital key to fruitful dialog.  This person complained that, to them, it was bothersome that my side of the dialog always returned to theology.
My revelation?  That my discussions are always built upon and lead to theology, because "love of God" is my foundation.  I came to realize that if the person with whom I am speaking does not have the same foundation, the conversation will most likely fail.
So the point that I need to remember and articulate is that my discussion partner may have differing foundations than myself and I need to know and understand (or at least discover and help them articulate) what his foundation is.  From there I can then find a common ground and build.
The whole point of dialog is to gain understanding and communicate love.  To most efficiently do so, I must understand him and speak to him in a way he can appreciate.  To begin from a common point and then move forward, so as to move him in the right direction, avoiding the logical or practical errors that would lead to falsehood, is the ultimate goal.
The great thing about logic is that one can begin a conversation literally anywhere, move in the right direction and the dialog will eventually move into Orthodoxy.  All truth belongs to God, therefore all discussion of truth will lead to his church.  Our responsibility is to be able to see it, understand it and be able to use it in a manner that leads in love. 
To communicate truth in a way that exudes love is what it is all about.  Even if the partner in dialog rejects the truth and love of God, we have done our work in communicating the gospel in a God honoring manner.