Emotions

Somewhere along the line, someone started the thread that I don't have any emotions or feelings. But, to get right to the point,  I do.
I have spent the last 35 years of my life seeking understanding.  And one thing, among many, that I have learned, it's that emotions/feelings are a tool. Imagine a carpenter that used his hammer in every situation.  He would be a poor carpenter and many things would be damaged.  He needs to use that tool properly.  Just because he doesn't use it in every situation does not mean he doesn't have a hammer.
Emotions are a tool.  They should not be the driving force in our lives. They should not be the controlling factor.  Often times they interfere and cloud judgment.  People under the sway of anger often times do foolish things.  People under the sway of lust often act foolishly.  People controlled by sadness will sometimes act irreversibly foolish.
But then there is love. Love is not an emotion, it is not something that sweeps you off your feet.  It should be the controlling factor in our lives.  In all things we do, if we are motivated by love, we cannot go wrong.  This cannot be said about emotions.
My belief: emotions are a tool, to be used at appropriate times, but should never control us, we are to control them.
Surely, I am not perfect in this execution, but I believe I an on the right track, in a world controlled by emotions.

Typology, the butterfly effect and the hermeneutics of history

This is a really big picture concept. As you may have picked up from my various writings, the use of typology as a hermeneutical foundation is a regular practice for me.  The really encouraging part about this is (as I found out fairly recently), typology is the regular interpretive methodology of the early church fathers.  This is good news, as it is a tool that I have been steeped in for quite some time.  I must give a big thank you to Dr. Peter Leithart and Rev. James Jordan, for their methodological guidance.

Over the past while, the concept of the butterfly effect has come up, in a variety of situations and conversations.  If you are not familiar with the idea, it goes like this.  Any singular event in history may, without our realizing or understanding it, have a considerable impact on future events.  For example, as the name suggests, the beating of the wings of a butterfly, on the other side of the world, may directly impact the temperatures in Phoenix, Arizona.  

I have been thinking about this in theological/philosophical/hermeneutical ways.  If we consider that everything that is said or done, will, to some degree, affect everything else, the way we approach life should be radically different.  Of course, the ramifications of such a philosophy are overwhelming.  There is an entire spiritual realm, that some claim to be aware of, but that 99.9% of men really know next to nothing about.  The church teaches that the sins that one of us does, has a direct impact on those around us.  In spiritual terms, it very well could be that when we sin, we open ourselves and those in communion with us, up to further demonic influence.  In allowing sin a measure of influence upon us, we may be exposing or making vulnerable some aspect of our spiritual life.  The strands between us and all of those in our lives may very well be tied to one another in a way that our spiritual actions directly influence all others.

And even just in a simple physical manner, sin has ramifications.  If we allow sin into our lives and it begins to form our thinking in a particular way, that sin will begin to direct how we think, speak and act.  This, of course, will have an obvious impact on others.  

Now, if we take this concept and extend it over the entire course of human history, the possibilities are truly frightening.  It very well could be that the sins that we allow into our lives, become part of our makeup, which then is passed down as a weakness to our descendants.  Have you ever wondered why some races of people often appear to tend to be a certain way?  Like having a short temper, or externally vain, or inclined to alcoholism?  I might suggest that these supposed tendencies are actually long lived, deeply rooted, very ancient sins.  Sins that have literally become part of our genetic makeup.  

In terms of typology, the picture becomes even more amazing.  The use of typology is really an acknowledgement that God, not chance, is the author of history.  When we begin to obtain a grasp of all the inner weavings of typology all throughout the Old and New Testaments, the picture is truly stunning.  Since God did all of that, through the first 10,000 years (give or take) of history, why would we think that it is still not taking place?  Why would think that God suddenly becomes like the watchmaker, who only starts the machine and then steps back to let it run?

Of course, this picture is much, much too large to even begin to wrap our understanding around.  But the concept is intriguing.  Imagine that everything that happens, every event that we freely involve ourselves in or choose to ignore, are actually part of a very large story that is intricately intertwined with everything else.  

For me, this is exciting.  To try to learn as much as I can, to find the pieces, try to fit them together and gain understanding about how things are, why things are and how I fit in, to make it all really good.  We should never approach life in a fatalistic manner.  Instead we must approach life like a grand symphony of which we can be a part.  Some are the first chair violins, some are the guy on the triangle, that has three notes in the whole movement, but those three notes are important to a beautiful whole.  And the amazing thing is that we will never know exactly how wide or deep or long lasting our part may be.  What we choose to do tomorrow may change the life of someone else forever, in a really amazing way.

Since we serve a God of love, we cannot even begin to imagine just how beautiful and amazing this work of art actually is.  But we can know that we are a part.

Play your part well.

The value of articulation

I was driving to Rite Aid the other night and a discussion took place in my head,  an imaginary one, of course.  At this point I don't exactly remember the details of that discussion, but the overall thought was on articulation. When we are speaking, the point, at least it should be, is that we are trying to communicate something.  This may not seem like an amazing revelation, but you would be amazed at how many people do not give much regard about being articulate.  It makes perfect sense that when communicating, we should use the most accurate, succinct and appropriate words.  This means a couple of things.  First, we need a vocabulary.  The larger the vocabulary, the more accurate we can be.  Second, and this follows from the first point, we need understanding.  Not simply of what words mean, but how others use and understand words.  If we have a perfect grasp of English, but our listener has a second grade education level, our communication attempts may be in vain, if we do not understand the limitations of our listener.  Third, and this follows from the second, we need to know how and when to speak.  This involves understanding the circumstances in which we speak.  Understanding the time required to adequately communicate our message and the mentality/personality of our listener are both vital.  If we do not have enough time to communicate or if our listener is not interested, for whatever reason, we are wasting our time.

Finally, we need to learn how to listen, knowing our speaker and understanding the context in which they speak and think.  We cannot presume logic, clarity and coherence.  It very well could be that the one to whom we are listening finds a great challenge in simply trying to articulate their thoughts.

This is the biggest challenge, as frustration may quickly follow, on the part of the speaker or the listener.

But it comes down to this.  Articulation is an incredible tool with the potential for wonderful results.  Work at it.

Old Vs New part two

An additional thought that I have had, in this regard, has to do with identity.  Since the resurrection and ascension, the question of identity has been a hot one.  From the time that God called Abram out of Ur and formed "the people of God", the people of God have had a semi-ethnic identity, that is, those born of the line of Abraham, have been identified as God's chosen people.  And this was an accurate label, up until the resurrection.
But then things changed.  As I pointed out in my previous post, during the Old Covenant, all things were physical/temporal.  Because death had the final say over man, all the details of the covenant between God and his people were physical/temporal.  Because man, regardless of how godly he lived, could not look forward to an eternity of blessing in the immediate presence of God, God structured the covenant around things physical.  But the Old Covenant, with all of its physicality, was fulfilled in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  Not only did he perfectly fulfill all that the covenant required (as both God and man), he also took away the power of death.
Simply stated, the physical nature of the relationship between God and man has been fulfilled and faded away.  No longer do we live in a particular land, following an external, bloody sacrificial system, with physical curses for disobedience or physical blessings for obedience.  We now, as followers of Jesus Christ, the new head of the New Covenant, look forward to an eternity of blessing with God.  What this means, and what is the real point of this post, is that those persons who are born of the line of Abraham, no longer hold a special place in the sight of God.  That Old Covenant way of thinking about things has passed away. Now, those who are the people of God, are those who have been baptized into Christ.  In doing so, they have put away the physical nature of reality, they are no longer under bondage to death, they are no longer descendants of the first Adam, but are now new creatures in the second Adam, Jesus Christ.
We must think of the Jews, no longer as special because of their physical lineage, but as another people that need to be baptized into Christ.  No better, no worse.

Unity

I just read an interesting thought.  Patriarch Bartholomew, in the new book,  "Bartholomew- Apostle and Visionary", states lack of unity among Christians is dishonorable to God and shameful to us. .. but unity does not have to mean parity among denominations or confessional adjustment.  Nor does it entail acquiescence to doctrinal relativism or resignation to denominational minimalism.
The practice of unity between all the branches of Christianity is a very important goal.  But what would it look like?

Theological clarification

The fourth century brought about  ecumenical councils that sought to clarify and articulate key theological doctrines.  So often people want to interpret these events as doctrines imposed on believers, top down. This is not the case, at all. 
One really important point to remember is this.  Just like today, the fourth century had those who were faithful to the faith as it had been believed and taught by the apostles. But it also had those who wanted to philosophize, to scholaticize and to filter the faith through worldly standards.  In short, the ecumenical councils were a response to theological deviations from the historic faith.
We are very much in the same position today.  Since the schism of the church of Rome, the rise of the enlightenment and the appearance of the Protestant Reformation, many deviations from the historic faith have arisen.  It is the responsibility of the faithful to explain, articulate and defend the historic faith. 
The truth must be told and defended.  People need to hear the gospel, the good news of the apostolic faith.
And like the ecumenical councils of the past, it will be deep,  complex and articulate.  And that's okay.

Old vs New part one

Over the years, I have moved through a few different views regarding the applicability of the law of God, in the life of the Christian.  As a youth, I grew up with old testament law not even being considered.  As I became a Calvinist,  a variety of views were considered and worked through, with my landing in the theonomic camp,  via the teaching of Dr. Greg Bahnsen. Now, having come into Orthodoxy, oddly enough,  I have come to a much more covenantal position.
The main point underlying covenant theology is recognizing the covenant changing work of Jesus Christ. Jesus' life, death and resurrection fulfilled everything of the old covenant and establish the new.  But, for some reason, adherents of covenant theology seem to want to hold onto much of the legal aspects of the old covenant. But why?
I understand, historically, the church had held that all of the old covenant had been fulfilled and faded away, as we see in Hebrews 8:13. And this makes perfect sense.  In the time prior to the incarnation,  all interaction between God and man was temporal and physical.  When man was obedient, he received physical blessings,  long life, peace in the land, health, wealth and many children.  When man was disobedient, the opposite occurred,  short life, war, disease and barrenness. Even the manner of life was dictated in physical terms, a law written on stone. And it had to be this way, for death had possession of man and control over him.  Man could not look forward to an eternity in heaven.  Heaven wad closed to him.
But now, Jesus' work had destroyed the power of death, so the entire structure has been changed.  We no longer have a physical temple, physical blessings or curses and no longer a law written on stone. Now we have the Holy Spirit, leading us, filling us and working on our hearts. We are no longer directed by law but by love. Our motivation is no longer that of obedience in order to avoid curse, but a response of love for the redemptive work already done by Jesus.  We don't seek after holiness in order to gain eternal life, we seek a life of holiness because we have already been saved and now we can form our souls to actually be like Christ, the form we were made to be.

Fat and happy

This is not so much about being overweight and in a good mood but instead about contenting one self with the mediocre or easy, content with the pursuit and enjoyment of comfort.
I'm sure you are at least familiar with the evangelistic technique of going door to door.  This is seen often, even stereotypically, in the Mormons and Jehovahs Witnesses, but there are Baptists and some others that use this as well. Typically, one canvasses a neighborhood, systematically going door to door,  trying to preach the gospel to whomever will listen.  My thought here is not so much a critique of this methodology (though there is much here to critique), my thought has more to do with the listener.  If the guy who answers the door is not interested or is "fat and happy", he simply will not listen.  One may as well be selling freezers to an Eskimo. You are offering something he sees no use for.
This is all about perception, self perception and standards.  When we present the gospel to someone, we are typically speaking from our interpretation of reality, not that of our listener. And most likely, some very foundational, even presuppositional, items will differ between us. And until those items are addressed,  our words will fall on deaf ears.
If someone is of the opinion that this life is all there is, spending ones times praying and studying the Bible really makes no sense.  If someone is basically content and/or limited to the temporal,  speaking of eternity is nonsense.
A really horrible, but technically accurate metaphor works here.  To go into battle with the expectation to win,  one must know ones enemy.  The general who knows his combatant inside and out will have a far better chance of defeating him. Understanding our neighbor, and even better, understanding and loving our neighbor, will put us in a position where we can speak intelligently and effectively with him. To know his needs (personally his) is to know his cure.

Responding to America

It is very easy to respond to news we hear of goings-on in America, without really thinking about the many presuppositions and worldviews that are behind those events. 
I want to start with who America is, who she claims to be and if those two scenarios are compatible.
Having spent the last twenty years as a homeschooling parent, I have read and heard many arguments about how America is or at least originally was, a Christian nation.  And in my Protestant years pretty much believed that line.  But having stepped out of that camp, many questions have been raised and observations have been made from a different perspective.
Obviously, how one defines "Christian" is foundational.  In the past, I argued that anyone who called themself a Christian, was one. Simply on the grounds of profession.  But I was wrong.  With a few extreme exceptions, according to Scripture and church tradition, a Christian is one who has been baptized in the name of the Trinity and is part of the church.
So with that definition in mind, what does it mean for a nation to be Christian?  A nation cannot be baptized but a nation can be part of the church.  Being in the church is about community.  Being in the church is literally vital for life.  In the same way that we eat, sleep and breathe,  and do so, so as to physically live, so too we must worship in communion with the church, repent of and confess our sins and partake of the sacraments, in the church.  It literally is as vital for our spiritual life.
America, sadly so, is not there and arguably never has been.  The few references to God in our founding documents means nothing in the face of the lack of structured ecclesiology.  Horribly present though is the concept of rugged individualism.  As we read in Genesis, it is not good for man to be alone.  The fact that America was founded on the rebellion against king and rebellion against church, does not bode well.
In short,  the American bloodline is rebellion. For as educated and articulate as our founding fathers were, they were tragically wrong in this regard.
So going back to my original statement,  how do we respond to America? By realizing that she stems from a long line of rebellion and seems to take pride in that.  Our position needs to be that of humility and submitting to the God established authority in our lives. The only time that rebellion is allowable is in the face of sin. Obey God first and all other authority after that.
We respond to America by confessing our own sins first and then praying for those around us, understanding who they and from where they stem.

Couple more photos

Here are a few more photos:

Christian Leaders

Below is a photo of President Putin, in church, lighting a prayer candle, with a child.  This is a regular practice in the Orthodox church.  You'll notice that there don't appear to be secret service like men standing near. Just a child, a teen, an old lady and a two priests.  I don't know how frequently President Putin attends the Divine Liturgy, but I do know that Patriarch Kirill is an adviser to the president.
I know I've never seen Obama in an Orthodox service and Obama certainly does not have an Orthodox worldview.
What can we expect from Trump? I guess we have to wait and see.

Starting off level

One thing that I have noticed, during my time answering questions on Quora, is the foundational error of presumption.  People will critique the Christian worldview as foolish, ridiculous and fantastical.  They will say things like,  "People who believe in 7 day creation have serious mental problems, they should probably be committed."
Despite just being rude and arrogant, they are making one, of many, logical errors.  Imagine if one argued that Beethoven's symphonies were garbage because they were too musical. You couldn't even really give a response or even discuss it.  The best response would be simply to walk away, feeling only pity.
One cannot critique Beethoven this way because the foundation for the criticism is wrong headed. 
Secular philosophers make the same mistake.  In judging the bible as ridiculous or fantasy,  the critic is starting from the premise that God is not whom he says he is.
If God is whom he claims to be,  then a literal interpretation of creation makes perfect sense.  It is not unbelievable.  If God is who the bible says he is, then reading the bible as actual history is not at all unreasonable.
So it really comes down to one thing.  Who do we believe God is?  Is he the Triune God who created and sustains all things? Who took on human flesh and saved man so as to restore a relationship of love and communion?
Or is he a figment of someone's imagination, a mere opiate for the masses?  A means to control a bunch of mindless pathetic sheep, who cannot think for themselves.
That is the question that needs to be answered first.  Then we can begin to engage the skeptic.  Otherwise none of it will progress at all.
A foundation must be solid, otherwise the building will fail.