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.

Finding Meaning

It has always struck me as so odd, how so many people can embrace a worldview that is not built around God.  For myself, and my apparently unusual way of thinking, a world without God cannot have ultimate meaning.  Sure, one could self-identify an ethical worldview based simply on preference and gut motivation, but ultimately there is no foundation or authority, for this construct is self-defined and arbitrary.  This only leaves emptiness.

This ultimately leaves one with no actual definition of right and wrong.  Sure, again, one can define these for oneself, but again, it is without foundation and arbitrary.  This feels empty.

In dialogs with atheists, a declaration is usually made regarding how horrified they are to find that the only thing keeping Christians from committing horrible acts of cruelty and crime is the fabrication of an imaginary god.  Of course, this is a pathetic strawman and a diversion from the point of the discussion.  No one is arguing that the existence of God is the only thing keeping us from crime and terror.  The question is, “what do you use to justify any moral code?”  If one has no foundation upon which to build an ethical system, then any ethical system embraced is completely arbitrary and indefensible.  Anyone could come along at anytime and simply say, “that might work for you, but since you simply made it up, I do not have to follow it.”

And also, in the instance that an ethical system is constructed by an atheist that looks very similar to Christian ethics, that is good, but it still does not hold the atheist by any authority, for it was self defined.  One could change a self fabricated ethical system and no one could argue against doing so.

Atheists may have good and fine ethical systems, but they have no authority or foundation for such.