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.