The Organic Nature of Reality

The reality and objectivity of Jesus' incarnation, death and resurrection doesn't seem to garner enough attention with the Protestant/Evangelical/Roman/Orthodox world.  For sure, these branches talk about Jesus and his work, but the objectivity does not seem to be embraced as it should. 
When we read in the gospels and the epistles that Jesus died to save the world or that God loves all men and sent his son to die for the sins of the world, we need to understand what is being said here.  The question should come to mind, "Did Jesus succeed in what he set out to do?"  Of course we will say yes, but how that "yes" is defined differs between branches.  The Calvinists will argue that Jesus' saving work only applies to "the elect", while the Evangelical/Roman world will argue that Jesus' work was comprehensive, the actual application only pertains to those who choose to embrace it.  But the Orthodox world sees it differently.
Far too often, the dichotomy of "universalism" or "unconditional election" is given as the only two options, but this is false.  If we take the words of the gospels literally, we would have to say, "Yes, Jesus died for all men", but that does not mean that all men will be saved.
To cut to the main point here, Jesus' work was not about a legal transaction or a fee paid to an angry God.  God is love, not a bank ledger or an angry judge. Man's problem was not about paying a fee, but about being in bondage to sin and death.  Jesus' death and resurrection was about defeating the power of sin and death and freeing man from that bondage.  Now that ALL men are free from that bondage, it is now each man's responsibility to make use of the tools that God has given us through the church by the power of the Holy Spirit, to transform his soul into the image of Christ. The Orthodox church calls this theosis.
So really what it comes to is two things.  First, Jesus actually accomplished all that he set out to do, he defeated the power of sin and death for all men. Second, man too has responsibility to transform his soul by the power of the Holy Spirit.  This two fold responsibility has always been the situation/relationship between God and man.
This is not a matter of man "earning" his salvation.  Jesus did that already, free and clear.  It is a matter of someone formerly in bondage, now freed, using the tools to transform himself into what he was created to be, that is, in perfect, loving communion with God.

Sin is sin

The title seems to be one of those things that kind of goes without saying, but I do have a specific point herein.  When we read the newspaper, when we hear from someone else about this or that "sin" or "crime", we really shouldn't be surprised.  People sin, people commit crimes and, unfortunately, doing so is typical.  Our fallen nature has turned us into selfish creatures.  And even worse, we are quick to judge and condemn others for their sins and crimes, but we are also quick to excuse or explain away our own sins.
When we hear of someone else's sins, our first response should not be "oh, what a horrible person", but rather, "oh yeah, I have sins in my own life that are uncomfortably similar to that." If we would only have as much grace and forgiveness with others that we would like to have for ourselves.

Needs

I typically don’t understand other people very well and I don’t understand emotions, in myself or in others.  Granted, from a logical perspective, I can understand why certain events or situations can cause duress and grief in someone (myself included), but emotionally, not so much. 

That being said, I do understand that people have needs (myself included) and I’ve come to realize that those needs, when not met, can cause horrible things to happen.   “Not seeing the forest for the trees”, “blind to oneself”, “one cannot watch oneself from the outside”, these sayings and more go a long-ways to explain what takes place.  When any one particular need is not met, one, through self-blindness will reach out, sometimes in very bizarre and destructive ways, in an attempt to fulfill those needs. 

The big question, in my mind at least, is what does one do to alleviate/avoid these situations, especially when seeing or understanding these needs does not come naturally?  And secondly, how does one respond “after the fact”?  What does one do when damage has already been done, when personality has already been formed, when decisions have been made that cannot be undone? 

Speaking retrospectively really is not that helpful, but can be for other situations. So to recognize and avoid the problem, the first step would be to ask the question, “What are the needs?”  I cannot even begin to articulate just how difficult this process can be (or typically is).  Learning to ask the question (to one’s self) and then knowing how to take care of the needs of that person, all the while doing so in a loving, non-invasive, non-derogatory manner.  Maybe this is simple and straightforward for some people, but certainly not for me.  

Ask the question, “What is the need?”

Not arbitrary

I’m not talking about some arbitrary religious rules, fabricated by tired, bitter old men, who are only looking to impose and control.  I am talking about short term and long term reality.  You may not like the boundaries that are identified by the Church as non-negotiable.  You may argue that you have the right to love whomever you wish, to put whatever you wish into your own body and to live in any way that you see fit as long as it does not interfere with anyone else, but it simply does not work that way.

Reality, as it is, is corporate, spiritual and physical.  It simply is not valid to argue that you having sex with someone else is simply a physical act between two consenting adults.  Yes, it is physical and consensual, but it is much more than that.  There is a spiritual side to people that is very real and tangible.  

This is not meant to be an argument or a proof.  I’m not interested in having a debate and to prove myself right and you wrong.  I want you to understand what Christianity is, the claims that it is making and what is expected of you in this physical/spiritual reality in which we live. You can reject the claims and authority of the Church, but doing so is akin to rejecting the power and authority of gravity.  The end result will not be beneficial.  

You need to learn the difference between getting what you want and getting what is best.  Hopefully, the two eventually become the same thing, i.e., you transform yourself into the person that is seeking the best possible results in every situation.  The reality of this growth and development process is, I believe, why we have families and a father figure.  As a child is growing up, he has an immense amount of learning to achieve. Having someone in authority over you, directing you in the way that is most advantageous is to your benefit.  By the time you become 18 years old, you should be in a position to continue the path upon which your parents have started you.  You still have authority over you (the Church and the police), but these are incidental.  In other words, you should already be moving in the right direction, with a need for occasional correction and advice.  

Every decision that is made should be built upon what we have learned is good and right and true, not upon what we feel like doing at the moment. This brings us back to the first line of this post.  The boundaries that define reality for us are not arbitrary.  The decisions we make will be motivated by the boundaries we have learned and embraced. Don’t throw away what is real, in order to grasp and revel in what is false and destructive.  Anything that is outside the boundaries of good and true will only lead to death.

Maxims, platitudes and pithy sayings

I've been thinking about these short little sayings that some people like to use and speak with authority.  Even those found in Scripture. These are problematic.  Obviously, the intent of the original author and the actual meaning of these texts are probably good (certainly good if found in Scripture), but that is not the issue here.  The issue is interpretation.
In many cases, when someone uses one of these, there is a level of personal interpretation taking place.  For example, "Fear God and love man." To use this phrase toward someone who has grown up in a physically abusive home will most likely result in them associating fear of God with fear of an abusive father.  Not a good thing.  The two word phrase "Fear God" is far too terse to adequately communicate what one actually means.
Maxims, platitudes and pithy sayings are fine and good, if one has the time to clarify and explain what exactly is meant.  But then at that point, the whole "value" of brevity is lost.  What can be said in a few words, if needing to be explained, then cannot be said in a few words.  Learning to speak openly, directly and clearly is where real interactive value is.  Someone will remember our words if not too short or too long and if spoken in love.
Terse or long winded, if we speak in love we can go a long ways.

Telling a good story

When we read the gospels, a large percentage of Jesus’ teaching is done via story.  Jesus tells a good story to communicate a truth that is helpful to his listeners.  I think it is valuable to see this potential everywhere.  One relatively difficult aspect of this learning to see/hear the story as a means to learn, as a tool for gaining further or deeper understanding. 

One only needs to look at Hollywood to see that storytelling is a huge industry, that is very popular.  Unfortunately, a very large portion of the stories that are told are absolute garbage, but the reality of what is taking place should not be ignored.  

We know from history that storytelling is widely loved.  We should recognize the value of this tool and learn to glean from the stories that we hear, what is valuable and what is not.  We should not simply sit back and allow the author to pour his version of reality into our heads without questioning and analyzing what is going in.  It is our responsibility as adults and as Christians to be fully aware and critical of this. 

So the point?  Learn to think, learn to analyze, learn to be critical.  Every book we read and every movie we see is telling a story.  Is the story true, in regards to the worldview that is being promoted?  Is the story beneficial?  Does it provide something for us to grow in, in understanding, in knowledge, in wisdom?  Can we take, even the simplest or rudimentary storyline and extract something valuable?  Or do we simply waste our time being mindlessly entertained, gaining nothing from our spent two hours?  Make good use of your time, even your "off" time.  We actually have very little.

They call me.... Tim?

All humor aside (as well as references to Monty Python), the concept of naming is a powerful one.  Essentially, to name something is to show authority over it.  This is why God named Adam and Eve, why Adam named all of the animals and why Adam and Eve named their children. When God called Abram out of Ur, he renamed him Abraham.  When God called Jacob and sent him, he re-named him Israel.  From a biblical perspective, we can see what naming is doing.
But this leads me to another thought.  When we look at the world today, or at least the world of 150 years ago, civilized people had "Christian" names.  When someone of a non-European culture came into contact with Europeans and embraced the culture, they often took a "Christian" name, because having a name connects one to the foundation of that culture.
We are seeing the reverse taking place in our culture today.  As America and other European countries move away from Christian foundations, the names that are being embraced is following suit.  We are seeing an influx of non-Christian names, that is, names that do not come from a Christian culture.  The names that are taken or given are communicating a cultural foundation, or at least a deliberate move away from a Christian one.
This is not to argue that people with names from traditionally non-Christian cultures cannot be Christian. The Christian faith is not about any one particular culture or race.  Jesus Christ sacrificed himself for all men, not just white Europeans.
As a closing note, it is interesting that when someone is baptized into the Eastern Orthodox church, they are given a new name, the name of a saint, someone recognized as being particularly holy.  This is a great connection to have and to regularly bring to mind.

Defining normal

I recently came across a blog focusing on "Normal Christianity".  While I didn't read the blog, it did trigger some thoughts in my thinking.  What comes to mind when you think of normal Christianity, or  as I would prefer "normal Orthodoxy"?  You first have to define what is meant by "Orthodoxy" and then define what you mean by "normal".  And then one would need to articulate the means and "rules" of how those definitions were determined.  In essence, what authority does one use to define the rules for defining those terms.  In short, what constitutes reality.
Oof, that is a handful (or a headful to be more precise).
To answer these questions, at least for the Christian, one needs to explain and articulate how we read the Bible the way that we do and who we look to for interpretive direction.  Obviously, if you asked an Evangelical, a Protestant,  a Roman Catholic or an Eastern Orthodox Christian what consists "normal" Christianity, you would receive pretty radically different answers.  Why?  Because how they interpret and what they recognize as authority in things spiritual, are different.
So then, what about you?  I, being Eastern Orthodox, look to the historic church and what it has always believed through these last twenty centuries, as authoritative.  The Calvinist will look to a logical, systematized handling of Scripture for their interpretive efforts.  The Roman Catholic will do a combination of logical, systematized interpretation, historical Roman Catholic tradition and papal decree.  The Protestant/Evangelical world will use a wide variety of interpretive tools/imagination in handling text or making doctrinal proclamations.
So defining normal does not come down to "common sense" or "just read the text", but religious authority.  And understanding what that means and the how that authority possesses the authority it does is the pinnacle of importance.

The superiority of ignorance

Good heavens, what would possess me to name a blog "that"?  It occurred to me, after reading another blog by Fr. Michael Gillis (see here), that there are several things in the Christian life that focus on and are built around ignorance, but in a good way.  Let me explain.
There are three tools that the church provides for us (among others) that really emphasize this idea of ignorance.  The first, almsgiving, is, contrary to the name, not just about giving money, but about giving mercy.  When we are merciful, we are being like God, for God is the ultimate example of mercy.  But when we are merciful, it needs to be done in secret. We do not want to be like the Pharisees who blew trumpets and drew attention to themselves, when they gave money to the poor. The glory that they received in doing so was the extent of the blessing they would receive for doing so.
When we give (mercy or money or whatever), we do, so that we draw no attention to ourselves, or, if attention is unavoidable, we downplay it without making a big scene.
The second, prayer, too should be done in secret.  As Jesus says in Matthew 6, when we pray, we are to go into secret and our Father will see us and our hearts.  This, as opposed to making a flamboyant scene, showing off how "eloquently" we can pray.  This sort of thing exposes a heart that is vain.  But of course, this does not exclude corporate prayer, which is, by definition, done in the presence of and with, others.  Again, the idea is to draw close to God and learn to focus our attention on him, without putting any emphasis upon ourselves.
The third, fasting, should be done without boasting.  The Bible is very clear about not making a show of ourselves when we fast.  We should not dress poorly, put on a miserable face and look pathetic.  Instead, we are to "in first century speak" put oil on our faces and appear happy.  We should not give off the appearance of "poor us, look how much we are suffering."
All three of these tools are not ends unto themselves, they are to be used to draw us closer to God, to make us more like God and learn to put our spiritual man in charge of our physical man.
All of these are done to the ignorance of others, as the goal is not to boost ourselves in others sight, but to grow in holiness.

Translation and meaning

I am currently reading a text dedicated to Thomas Lambdin, a pioneer in translating ancient Semitic texts.  As I have been reading the various articles, dedicated to various aspects of translation, linguistics and philology, an interesting thought has come to mind. 
One of the main responsibilities of the translator is to communicate meaning to the reader.  The challenge is to take the words, from a different language, and find an equivalent meaning in the reader's language, that will communicate what the author intended.  One of the biggest areas of struggle is that of culture.  When the translator is attempting to communicate the author's original intent, the presumption is made that he actually understands the author.  But this is probably too great of an assumption.
Consider just how broad a field of understanding is included in the author of any age or of any culture.  There is the language itself, the culture in which the language has developed, the idioms, figures of speech, slang, etc. that the author, even unconsciously, intimately understands, which the translator does not, in fact, cannot.  Serious, long term work must be done, on the part of the translator, to get himself to a position in which he genuinely understands from where the author is coming.  This means massive work in history, language, culture, to name a few categories.
It was at this point that an interesting perspective came to mind.  One can see how massive an undertaking it is to adequately translate an ancient text, simply on the grounds of the multiple fields of knowledge.  But consider a different approach.  The level of work required for someone of the second century to translate something from the first century is actually quite minimal, especially if the author and the translator are from the same culture.
Now reproduce this work multiple times.  B translates A, and then C translates B, and then D translates C, etc, etc. 
My point is this.  The Protestant world has put huge time and effort to create fresh, new, academic translations of the Bible and then from these translations have sought to understand Jesus, the apostles, and the first century Church in new ways.
But this falls into the problems of the multi-generational translator.  What if instead, as the Orthodox church has done, we allow the natural progression of tradition, handed down A to B to C to D, to direct our understanding of apostolic faith? 
In short, I am suggesting that many have erred in trying to reach back too far and have over-extended human capabilities, in trying to create new, fresh understanding.  Instead, we should rely upon the tradition of the church, as it has held, protected, taught and passed down its beliefs and practices since the first century.

Presidents

Another interesting thing I just learned, our last four presidents, upon visiting Israel, visited and honored the wailing wall, wearing the yarmulke.  Where did President Putin visit?  He visited the Holy Sepulchure, the empty tomb of Jesus Christ, kneeling and in prayer. 
I think that says a lot about where the hearts of our leaders are.

Revelation

The Book of Revelation, the last book in the New Testament.  Scary stuff, right? It should not be.  The very first words in the book are this, “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servant the things that must soon take place.” 

First things first.  The book is meant to reveal (it is a revelation).  So it is meant to communicate, to tell a story, to inform, not confuse.  If I gave you a text from from the 1930’s that explained organic chemistry, unless you had already received some instruction in that regard, you wouldn’t consider the book inexplicable or a mystery.  You would understand that you simply did not possess the tools for rightly understanding it.

This is a similar situation with the book of Revelation.  We need to remember that this book was written in the first century, prior to the fall of Jerusalem, in the Mediterranean.  Different century, different culture, different language, different genre.  We have all read fiction, we have all read history, we have all read biographies, but the book of Revelation is none of these things, yet has many things in common with these.  Thus our tendency to impose upon the text some of the restraints and structures common to these other genres.  But this is a misleading and often dangerous approach.

The book of  revelation is apocalyptic, but it is not about the end of the physical world, as we know it.  With the exception of the last chapter or so, the book of Revelation has already taken place.  Obviously, in this short blog format, I cannot go into detail to explain much of this.  One thing that has helped me understand what is actually taking place is to think of the book of Revelation as the book of Daniel, part two.  In the book of Daniel (one of the last books, chronologically, in the Old Testament, the same symbolism and apocalypticism is used.  But the main difference is that Daniel ends with the command to close up the book and leave it a mystery.  We should think of the book of Revelation as the opening up of, and the explanation of, the book of Daniel.  It is very much so that Revelation picks up where Daniel leaves off, but then reveals what Daniel kept hidden.

Ultimately, the book of Revelation is about the end of the Old Covenant.  It tells the story of Jesus' coming, ministry, death, resurrection and defeat of sin and death.  It closes up and finishes off the Old Covenant and leads mankind into the New Covenant.

There is so much in the book that people do not understand (myself included) simply because we are 21st century Americans.

For further reading, I would recommend: "The Vindication of Jesus Christ: A Brief Readers Guide to Revelation" and "Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating of the book of Revelation".

Race?

One thing that is really valuable and poignant about the occasionally occurring discussion about the “color/race” of Jesus is the reality of what the New Covenant actually brought into being.  Prior to Jesus' life, death and resurrection, the question of race was the main point.  During the Old Covenant, if someone wanted to be part of the people of God, one had to be a child of Abraham.  Technically speaking, to be a child of Abraham meant to be communally acknowledged as part of the people of Israel, i.e., circumcised, following the law, etc.) 

But with the institution of the New Covenant and the passing of the Old Covenant, it is no longer about being Jewish, its about having faith in Jesus as the Messiah and being part of the Christian church.  So, if someone wants to argue that Jesus was black, it’s really irrelevant. (But he was not white, yellow or red either.  Because he is Jewish, he is light brown.) 

It doesn’t matter what color your skin is, it doesn’t matter what country you come from.  What matters is faith in the Triune God and community in the church.  And the church is everywhere.

Thoughts on eternity

I don't really spend much time thinking about heaven.  That may come as a surprise, but it really shouldn't.  Looking through the Bible, one does not see much of anything in terms of details when it comes to heaven.  In other words, we simply know little to nothing of its details.
First things first.  Heaven is not an eternal, disembodied state of clouds and harps.  While I'm pretty sure that no one actually thinks of heaven as "flying around on clouds playing harps", I am convinced that this imagery holds the imaginations of many people as containing some seeds of truth. 
When God created Adam and Eve, it is interesting to notice the details of how that took place.  God formed man from the dust of the earth, breathed into him and THEN he became a living being.  What this means is that existing in a bodiless state is unnatural for man.  Being bodiless is not what we were meant for.  While I am uncertain of the feasibility or possibility of astral projection, I do know that such a feat would be unnatural.  Man was not made to exist outside of his body.  (This also touches on another subject, that of the relationship between body and spirit, but that will have to be for another time.)
Second, that being said, the Bible and the historic church are not silent, either, in this regard.  We do know SOME things about eternity, and we should take great solace in that we do know. We know that at the final judgment, all men will be resurrected (i.e., brought back together with their physical bodies) and will stand before God and give answer for the lives they led.  They will not be punished for sins, for Jesus already died for the sins of all men.  This is, surely, not to say that all men will enjoy eternity in bliss with God.  No, some will be separated from him, by their own choice.  They will have formed their souls, so as to want nothing to do with God, for eternity.
After the final judgment and after the separation of the righteous from the unrighteous, the righteous will inherit the earth.  In other words, we will get earth back.  We will live forever, in a physical/spiritual reality.  And even more importantly, we will live forever, free from the horrendous assaults of sin.
That is what we do know.  We will be free from the power of sin and the power of death.  We will be in perfect communion with God and with those around us. 
We dare not speculate on anything else.  The simple fact that this blessed state to which we look forward, is beyond anything we have even remotely experienced.  It will be completely "other".  Any fabrication of our imagination will completely miss the point and, most likely, be structured by our passions and our fleshly weakness.
All we have known, up to this point in our lives, is the wretched, ever present, influence of sin. 
To know that we will be free from sin, for eternity, should be enough to motivate us to prepare for that, in whatever way we should.

Say something

You never know what impact your words may have.  This is especially true for persons in potentially influential positions, i.e., bosses, politicians, musicians/artists, actors, etc.  The more influential or potentially influential your position may be, the greater responsibility one has and the greater judgment one will face for one’s words.   

When speaking, one has an opportunity, that may be the only opportunity to influence.  If we can say some words, even if not “exactly” right, these words may be the words someone else needs to hear to move in the right direction.  

But of course, there are those who respond poorly no matter what is said.  Others’ response is not our responsibility, as long as we are acting and speaking, in love. 

Rock-n-roll

Communication of worldview is inevitable.  It very well may be that one cannot understand, fathom or make sense of what is being communicated.  One very well may not understand one’s own worldview, i.e., not even understand what one is communicating.  But communication takes place in everything we do.   

I bring this up due to my recent exposure to the band “The Swans”.  I have heard their name over the years but never listened to their music.  It occurred to me that when someone makes “music” like the Swans, they are not doing so in order to make excellent music that communicates excellence.  They are doing so, in my opinion, to communicate their worldview, deliberately.  Music like the Swans, the Sex Pistols, GG Allin, Napalm Death, etc., etc. is not made in order to be good music. It is made to challenge, to provoke and to indulge. 

I think this is important to realize when listening to this category of entertainment.  Some may be entertained by this sort of thing, but musically, it becomes boring quite quickly and is simply vulgar.  Sure, they may be challenging the status quo, they may be pointing out and articulating some things that are wrong with our society, but I think that there are better ways to achieve these goals. 

This music is provocative, ugly, violent and aggressive.  But that is the goal.  But it is not meant to be long lasting, good music.  We need to seek out the motivation of the artist in order to be responsible and have understanding of what is taking place. 

When it comes down to it, this is really an examination of rock-n-roll.  Rock-n-roll was started as a medium for rebellion.  Rock bands do what they do (at least the ones who are not in it for the money), the idea is to create a new form of music that is contrary (and really) the opposite of what is currently popular.  The idea is to push the boundaries, to break the barriers, to fight against that which is currently acceptable. 

I really don't have an end goal in all of this but only to say that any kind of involvement, on our part, in any form of entertainment or art ought to be done with understanding.

Sin and Age, practically speaking

I had an additional thought, in this regard.  As I alluded to near the end of the previous post, a sinless life is an impossibility for us, as we are all fallen children of Adam.  As an incredible blessing, we, when are baptized into the name of the Trinity, we become children of God.
Practically speaking, what this means, is that from birth to the time of our baptism, we are building up and increasing our sin.  The life, death and resurrection of Christ, cleanses us from that sin.  Unfortunately though, we continue to sin after that and need continued forgiveness.  We receive this through confession and repentance.
Because we do not start out sinless and because we continually add to the list of sins in our life, everything we think, say and do is, unfortunately, tainted by sin.  So regardless of how we would "like" to be, "like" to think and "like" to speak, all of our words, thoughts and actions are influenced by sin.  So we must approach life with this in the forefront of our minds.  This means that we should never be lax or trustworthy of our thoughts, words or actions.  We need to be our own worst critic.
This is where having a spiritual father is so valuable.  When we have someone who is older, wiser and godlier than we, our direction is better and our motivations will be in check.  As someone once said, "A man that has himself as his own leader, has a leader who is a fool."

Age, sin and a possible worldview

I have three different thoughts/concepts that I would like to examine and eventually possibly bring together into a unified concept/explanation. I had never thought of these three concepts tying together as I have now come to see them.  They are:
1) Giving honor and respect to the elderly.
2) Thinking through why our culture has an obsession with youth.
3) The destructive effects of sin upon man.

The first thought, that of honoring the elderly is a age old concept that is common in most cultures.  The idea is that we honor and respect the elderly is a good idea, but I began to wonder why it is held in high regard.  So first, why is the idea of honoring the elderly embraced?  We do not honor them, simply because they are old.  We do not honor and respect only certain elderly persons, but all.  So what is it?  I believe the idea is that, as elderly, they have worked through life, they have "put in their time" and, hopefully, have come to a place of wisdom and have some life lessons that could be passed on to us, to our benefit and to the benefit of culture at large.  We honor them because they have earned it.  But really, even behind that, is even though old, decrepit and no longer contributing in some sort of temporally productive way, they are still people created in the image of God, therefore they are worthy of our love and respect.
The second point, that of our cultures obsession with youth, either "being it" or pursuing it even into our old age, is a curious one.  Some of this obsession comes from fear.  The fear that we will grow old, decrepit, lacking value in the eyes of the general populace and no longer "beautiful" by the standards of the world.  But then a new thought came to mind in this regard.  What if the desire for youth is that, but is also something else.  What if the desire for youth comes from a natural (and right) desire for life?  When we look back at the time prior to our fall into sin, death was unknown.  Adam and Eve did not suffer the slow decline into old age and death.  If the power of death was unknown, Adam and Eve would not have know the decline that comes with the progression towards death.  People die because the body wears out and fails.  If man had not fallen into sin, that decline would be unknown.
So the thought is this.  What if obsession we have with youth is, in some small part, a longing for the life of "life before sin".  To be honest, I personally find the idea not very likely, as most people downplay or outright ignore sin.  But the seed of the idea, a small bit of knowing that reality could be buried somewhere within us and may be coming out in this obsession, even if it is smothered in the vanity and foolishness of American culture.
The third point, that of the destructive effects of sin upon us, is closely tied to the previous two points.  As Scripture tells us, sin brings death.  We see the ever approaching finality of death in the first fruits of old age.  Our bodies wear out, decline and eventually fail.  This physical failure is inevitable and is the fruit of sin in our lives.
So how am I suggesting that we tie these three together?  Our respecting of the elderly comes from two things, the presumption that they ought to be honored and respected because they have attained a level of maturity and wisdom that is very, very beneficial for us as individuals and for the culture at large.  Secondly, they are to be respected because they are created in the image of God.  But they are not to be respected or emulated simply because they are old, as the decline that accompanies old age is a fruit of sin.
What if our desire for youth actually stems from a desire for life that is free from the effects of sin?  What if we love youth because it represents, not simply beauty and physical fitness, but a life prior to the effects of sin?  One has to wonder what a life free from sin would look like after 100 years.
The destructive fruit of sin is death.  That fruit manifests itself, initially, in slow decline. It is because of sin that death eventually.  Sin is always destructive.
My conclusion then, though unattainable, and most likely not even really a factor of any significance in our thinking, is that man was made for life, that death is unnatural and we know it, deep within us.  Our love for sin, for selfishness and for the temporary, destroys our ability to live a life that God made us for.
But even if we can never attain a life untouched by sin, in this life, we can know that eternal life can be ours because of what Jesus Christ accomplished and purchased for us.
A life free from sin was lost forever, at least on this planet in this physical life, once Adam fell into sin.  But a new life, a life given to us in baptism, can be lived free from the ultimate fruit of sin.  Death eventually will be destroyed.  We then need to recognize that life and pursue it. 

A good question

In the gospel of Luke we read the following story,

Luke 18:18-27
18 A certain ruler asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
19 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. 20 You know the commandments: ‘You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.’”
21 “All these I have kept since I was a boy,” he said.
22 When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
23 When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was very wealthy. 24 Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! 25 Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
26 Those who heard this asked, “Who then can be saved?”
27 Jesus replied, “What is impossible with man is possible with God.”

The first thing to notice here is the mindset of the man asking the question.  I think it is pretty clear from the question that this man knew who he was.  Think about the word "inherit".  Being one who inherits something only happens by powers outside of self.  In other words, you don't decide to be an inheritor.  This man asks this question, using these words because he knew that he was part of the people of God.  He could ask this question because of his covenant status.  Because he was a Jew, he knew that he was in a position to obtain an inheritance.  At this point in history, anyone outside of the Abrahamic Covenant, that is, the covenant that God had with the descendants of Abraham, could not ask this question.  You have to be part of a family (either by birth or by adoption) to inherit from that family.
The other thing to see from this question is the responsibility of those in covenant with God.  Simply asking the question "what do I have to do", more than implies that something is required of this man in order to gain his inheritance.  This is not a situation of the long lost relative, completely out of relationship, showing up and taking what is his.  In every single instance of God creating a covenantal relationship with man, both God and man have responsibilities in that relationship.
Man has to do things.  We see this kind of talk, over and over again throughout the gospels.  Jesus understood this, the apostles understood this and the masses of Jews understood this.  But to clarify.  Having responsibilities in the covenant is not the same thing as earning a position in the covenant.
For the Jew, if one was born into one of the twelve tribes of Israel and was circumcised, that was it.  He was in.  But he still had responsibilities to keep in order to be faithful.
So too for the follower of God today.  If one is born into a Christian family and is baptized, that is it.  He is in.  But one has responsibilities to keep in order to be faithful.  This is not about earning one's salvation or entrance into heaven.  If you are part of the body of Christ, you have already received the free gift of eternal life.  You can look forward to eternity in the blessed presence of God for eternity.  But this is not a "once saved, always saved" situation.  You still must show yourself faithful. You must strive after holiness, strive after an imitation of Christ, and fight against the influence of the world, the flesh and the devil.  You have responsibilities.
To go back to the text in Luke, the really sad part of this story is just how poorly the questioner understood what he was supposed to be doing.  This man believed that he was following the commands of God, yet Jesus shows him, in the first commandment, how he was not keeping the law.  The first commandment, "You shall have no other gods before me," in this case, money, the man failed to keep.  Jesus knew his heart, he knew the man loved cash more than he loved God.  And the man confirmed Jesus' understanding by walking away sad.
We are called to love God and love neighbor.  Will we walk away sad too?

A Life Worthy

This line comes from Ephesian 4:1-7, in which Paul is addressing the church in Ephesus.  What does it mean to live a life worthy of the calling they have received?  Contrary to what modern American mentality may tell us, a life worthy of the calling we have received is summed up as one humble, gentle, patient and bearing with one another in love. 
The first three descriptors are pretty straight forward, but certainly not easy.  But the fourth point is the tough one.  We are to bear with one another in love.  To "bear with" one another is not simply a matter of "putting up" with one another, as if we have to simply hunker down and put up with those persons we find difficult.  To bear with one another, in this context, is about actually bearing the burdens of those we love.  This means that we take their troubles upon ourselves and carry the load for them.  Big difference.
When you step back and look at all four, the first three preface and prepare one for the fourth.  In order to bear someone else's burdens, we must be humble, gentle and patient.  Think about the mentality that one must have in order to bear someone else's burdens.
Of interesting note, the list given in Galatians 5:22 describes the fruit of the Spirit as fruit, that is, the result of being filled with the Holy Spirit.  And this includes patience.  So when we are living a life, led and filled by the Spirit, the fruit will be patience, and then when we are patient we will be prepared to bear with one another. 
A life worthy of the calling we have received is one that is about growth. We come into the church, we embrace the Christian life, we are filled with the Holy Spirit, we exhibit the fruit of the Spirit and then we are prepared to love those around us.

About Food

Being the odd thinker that I am, the question of food as celebration comes to mind. Why do we, when we celebrate something, use food as the focal point?  Especially in light of the way that food is handled and addressed, historically, within the Orthodox church.
It is also interesting to note that when the church has an official feast day, that feast does not include a huge, fancy meal.  Instead it centers around the Eucharist in the Divine Liturgy.  Yes, food, but not gluttony.
Much of this difference in approach comes from the foundation of religious belief.  It seems that the Protestant work ethic and the fruit of that approach results in a "material blessing as proof of good work and godly blessing."  The Orthodox mindset, to the contrary, the focus is on, yes, we work hard, but the fruit of that blessing is not more stuff for us to enjoy and be comforted by, but instead gives us more opportunity to care for the poor.
With these contrasting worldviews in mind, the differing approach to food is seen.  If simple material blessing (including successful crops) is seen as indicative of God's blessing, then it makes perfect sense to celebrate that blessing by enjoying the fruit.  But if, as the Orthodox worldview would teach, the focus of the Christian should be on personal holiness and loving neighbor, then no matter the situation, either abundant temporal success or extreme poverty, the Christian can celebrate (be thankful for) that situation, and does so by celebrating the only reason for that situation, that is, the death and resurrection of Christ.
So, i'll ask the question.  What does the way we handle food say about our beliefs?  Do we, practically speaking, put our focus on temporal blessing or on the death and resurrection of Christ?  Do we look forward to an eternity in the blessed presence of God, or are we distracted by the many temporal comforts that surround us every day?
And don't say both.  Because, as Jesus said, one cannot serve both God and mammon.

The brain

I watched "Concussion" last night.  This is a true story about Dr. Bennet Omalu, a pathologist from Pittsburgh who discovered CTE, chronic traumatic encephalopathy.  Basically, he discovered the terrible trauma put upon the brain by playing multiple years of aggressive football.  The movie painted a pretty grim picture of just how dangerous a game football is.
As I pondered the movie, it occurred to me how well built our brains actually are.  I began thinking about the multiple situations involving the brain, involving disease, disorder or trauma.  In every situation, that I can think of, anytime someone has these issues, the psychological results are always negative.  The "voices" that people hear are always negative or confusing.  They never hear voices that tell them to do good things, to help people, or things that build them up and encourage them.
This is curious and cannot be coincidental.  I believe that when God designed our brains, he built them in such a way that they have defenses built in. When disease, disorder or trauma occurs, we lose those defenses, in one way or another, and become susceptible to outside influence.  Essentially, these things open us up to demonic attack.
These are preliminary thoughts.  We'll see if this develops any further.

The "what"

Libraries could be filled with books that speak of the "why people do what they do" and doing so probably would not accomplish much.  But I would like to focus on the "what" we do.  What are we doing?
When you break down your day and look at how you spend your minutes, what do you see?  From a strictly practical position, we spend our time making money and trying to be comfortable.  And that really bothers me.  It bothers me that I profess to be an Orthodox Christian, yet the majority of my time is spent earning money to buy things (necessary and not) and care for my earthly needs. 
Comparatively speaking, way, way more time is spent on creature needs and comforts than on things spiritual.  And if we really believe what the Bible and the church tells us about life and eternity, our behavior makes no sense.
The way we are acting makes about as much sense as counting all the peas on your plate before you eat your dinner.  Why do we spend so much time on the things of this very short time on earth, when we have, literally, eternity to spend after our 100 years here?  How does it make any sense to focus on money and comfort for this tiny bit of time and, by default, basically ignore those things that will prepare us for eternity?
One answer to this, and it is a very practical one, is that we are extremely short sighted.  We can only see the "right here/right now".  This is not wrong per se.  It really is just what we are.  Tiny humans with very limited sight.  But what we do have is faith.  We have faith in what God has told us, or at least we should.  But yet, somehow, we only focus on what makes us comfortable.
We have grown into a nation that ignores eternity, strives after comfort and love our individual selves.  The focus in America has been wrong from the beginning. But this is not a rant against the USA.  Most nations have this issue, but in different forms.  It has become so "normal", that we can see nothing else.
What do we have to do to reverse this worldview?  How can we turn it around so that we focus on our spiritual health and only deal with the physical when we absolutely must?

Fool?

The homily this Sunday morning was based on Luke 12:16-21, the parable of the rich man with a plentiful harvest.  In summary, the story was about a very wealthy farmer who had a very successful harvest season, so much so that he decided to tear down his current barns and rebuild bigger ones to hold the unusually bountiful harvest.

Interestingly, God responded with derision.  God calls the farmer a fool because of his long term plans.  The farmer, instead of responding in love to his neighbor and share his bountiful harvest, decides to invest in bigger barns and enjoy the excess in overly comfortable living.  Basically God says, you are a fool for thinking that that you will live long and selfishly enjoy all of your temporal blessings.  

The really interesting final point is seen in verse 21.  Here we read, “So is he who lays up treasure for himself and is not rich toward God.”  God states that the man who invests and focuses on temporal riches but ignores one’s health and relationship with God is a fool.  

So the question is, “are we living according to this passage?”  Do we live with a focus on things spiritual, rather than things temporal.  Obviously, because we are not monastics, we cannot completely ignore the needs of the temporal realm.  This is not to suggest that monastics have no involvement in physical things. One thing that is definitely required in the monastic world is hard work. The monk is required to be productive.  He must, by all legal means, produce something so as to provide for himself.  This means, using historical examples, weave baskets, gardening, produce wooden religious items (crosses, icons, etc.) or making prayer bracelets that can be sold.  But the focus, for the monastic is simply that of a good use of time and providing for one’s actual needs.

We, in the world, have those requirements as well, but we also have the needs of spouses, children, jobs, churches, mortgages, etc.  But, I would argue, even with these additional responsibilities, we still can, and must, follow the direction of this parable.  So are we?

This is probably one of the most difficult messages that we, as Americans, can hear. In our day, wealth, comfort, ease, technology and culture are in perfect opposition to this passage.  Everything in American culture, from the very beginning, has been about rugged individualism, prosperity and comfort.  These are goals that have been in place and have been the singular motivation factors in our culture.  This will be a difficult path to change and re-direct.

So what then does it mean to be “rich toward God”?  If we take the parallel that is given us in the parable, blessings come not only from our hard work, but also from the hand of God.  Just as a bountiful harvest comes from our hard work and the blessing of God via good weather, a bountiful spiritual life comes from our hard work and the love of God via the sacraments, the church and confession.  

I really believe the point of this parallel is not to drive us away from hard work, but to learn how to balance hard work in things temporal and things spiritual.  It is sheer folly to focus simply on things temporal to the neglect of things spiritual.  Both require hard work from us and from God.  But simply because God blesses our temporal hard work, does not mean that we are doing what we should be doing.  In the parable, the farmer does enjoy a bountiful harvest, but this does not mean that the farmer was doing what the was supposed to be doing.  The farmer did his hard work, God gave his blessings on that work, but the farmer did not respond rightly to that blessing.

What then does this mean for our spiritual effort and the blessings we see therein?  We are responsible to put effort into that work and God is responsible to put his hand into it as well, as he sees fit.  But it is our responsibility to respond rightly to those blessings.  

This probably means humility.