Distraction

If one steps back and observes, one will see a commonality with all men, regardless of race, age or economic state. That point of commonality is "distraction". Of course, there are always exceptions, but in general, all men will have something to which they focus their attention, which draws them away from thoughts of eternity and immortality. Some men know and understand these concepts, but delivered choose to look elsewhere. Sometimes briefly, sometimes lengthy.
Other men have been raised from childhood to never think on these things and have developed into creatures of distraction, moving from one distraction to the next, never settling to focus on depth. On one hand, it could be argued that their state is not of their own doing, that they were raised from day one, to seek after the shallow it even the inane. But on the other hand, all men were created in the image of God and created to commune with him. Without excuse, all men are creatures of free will, inherently moved to sell out God.
I am not arguing that this distraction is necessarily bad. It, like any other option before us, can be used to help us or harm us. We must be mature and responsible and handled this freedom wisely. One could possibly relegated it to the same category as sleep. A necessity but only to be used as necessary.
And again, as I've said many times before, this must be attended to for ourselves and not others. What are we doing with our time? With what are we distracted? And for how long and how often? Do we use distraction to refresh and prepare for another round of progress? Or do we use distraction, over and over, to avoid reality? Ask yourself and be honest.

Born this way

One of the arguments of the “alternative lifestyle” crowd is, “We were born this way.”  In essence, the argument is built on the idea that one is born with certain passions/desires/preferences in regards to sexuality, therefore we ought to follow this path.  But is this really a valid pursuit?  Is this the way we ought to handle the passions or desires we have?  Is it valid to argue that these desires exist therein, therefore we ought to fulfill them?
What if our desires include pedophilia, bestiality or cannibalism?  Obviously, I am choosing extreme and/or perverse categories, intentionally.  One can include any desire one wants and the argument remains the same.  Does the simple existence/presence of a desire automatically legitimize that passion?  Does the possibility of a moral standard have any say?  We can offer arguments as to why it would be wrong to simply give into the passions of bestiality or cannibalism and most would agree.  But why do we agree with these arguments, based on particular foundational arguments, but not others?
It comes down to what we hold as foundational or authoritative.  For the Christian, the Bible and the teaching of the historic Christian faith has always identified LGBTQ as sin.  Can one really look to personal preference for foundational truth?  If we reduce truth to individual preference, we have gutted truth of any authority or legitimacy.

What works

In a strictly practical approach to analyzing life, we can simply ask, “What works?”  In other words, we can look at a variety of lifestyles, life choices and worldviews and ask if any of these “work”.  But in order to answer the question, we have to know what “works” means.  I would guess that most haven’t given thought to the criteria they use to determine if a particular lifestyle or worldview is successful.  Can we say the man who chooses homelessness as a lifestyle is successful?  We can if his goal was to be free of financial responsibility  and material ownership.  Can we say the pansexual is successful?  We can if his or her goal is to satisfy the sexual drive at any cost.  Can we say the business man is successful?  We can if earning their first million by 30 and ten million by 35 and they do so, at whatever cost.
But if we shift the goals of these life choice one space to the right, we would have to say that they have all miserably failed.  What really is at stake here is determining how we define success and upon what ground that definition is built.  Are we willing to define "success" upon our own thinking?  Are we willing to build our entire life and influence the lives of those around us, simply because we think we are doing the right thing, based on our own wisdom? 

Taking action

When we are moved to act, what is that which generated the need to act? Either external or internal doesn’t matter, what does matter is source of the move to act. Are we moved to act because of an emotional response or an academic response? In other words, have we thought about how we respond or are we simply acting from a state of passion?
It really does come down to this either / or situation.  Upon what is our response grounded?  As an Orthodox Christian, I believe that a response ought to be built upon that which is true, not that which is felt in the moment.  And this sort of thing doesn't just happen.  One must exercise or practice this response.  When spoken poorly to, when lashed out against, when criticized or mocked, how do we respond?  We must stop and think about what is the right thing to do, not merely respond, because a response like that will merely be based on flesh.  Of course, when one practices responding according to faith, eventually our immediate response will be based on faith,  But this we must practice and think through.

That which we call reality

It has been in my mind to a larger degree, as of late, that our reality is far greater than those things we take in via our senses. The Christian worldview is made up of much more than simply physical behavior. To be a faithful Christian, we must learn to direct our thoughts and our actions by our spirit's leadership rather than that of our flesh. Of course, this is completely contrary to the average American way. It seems that our direction, almost from day one, is physical comfort and ease. In other words, what can we do to make ourselves more comfortable and find more free time.
Alternatively, the Christian ought to approach life as an opportunity to learn self control and to learn to love others. This really points to the primacy of the spiritual over the physical. When we focus on making ourselves comfortable and on being entertained, we are giving in to the leadership of our flesh. The reality of life after life after death cannot be ignored.
The pattern of our life, following birth, is three-fold. We start with our initial life on earth, the typical "go to school, get a job, get married, raise kids, retire and then die." Second is life after death, the period of time that most people (errantly) think of as eternity. But this disembodied state is very temporary and very unnatural. Third, is life after life after death. This is what we actually need to think of as eternity. When time finally comes to an end, all men will be given new resurrected bodies (remember, Jesus took the power of death when he resurrected and ultimately death is to be destroyed). Upon receiving our new bodies, we will pass through the final judgement. From this point forward is eternal life, either enjoying the immediate presence of God, as God is everywhere and in all things OR we spend our eternal life hating being in God's eternal presence. And this is the point of this blog.
If we spend our short time here on Earth focused on pleasing and entertaining ourselves, ignoring the spiritual side of reality, we will spend our eternity unprepared for the presence of God. Alternatively, if we see beyond the tiny sliver of reality we think of "it", and embrace an approach that realizes the spiritual and the physical, we will be prepared to enjoy an eternity rather than a mere century (at most).
Reality, for the Christian, is about using this time on earth, preparing our souls for eternity. If we have limited ourselves to comfort and entertainment, we have believed the lie sold to us by the world.
And we really ought to be better than that.

Don't confuse

In a recent conversation with an acquaintance, the term 'love' came up. I immediately responded with, "Love is not an emotion", with which he wholeheartedly disagreed. But alas, as is often the case, people don't think through and carefully articulate their terminology.
The way one may feel about love is an emotion. But love itself is an action and a state of mind. If we are faithfully following Christ's command to love our neighbor, we do so regardless of how we feel about him. Our feelings, in this case, are irrelevant. We love because it's the right thing to do. And no one dislikes love, giving or receiving.
But there are two other terms here to consider. One, "like", is completely an emotional response. We may hear a beautiful piece of music and because it emotionally moves us, we like it. We may really like to be with a particular person, because of the feelings we have when we are with them. That's all fine and good, but it not love. It is a focus on ourselves.
Two, "romance", is closer related to love, but still distinct from it. You may feel madly "in love" with someone, but it is really just an amplified "liking" of them. And if our marriage is built on romance, it is doomed to fail, for romance is fickle.
Our marriage shouldn't be built on liking someone either. For sure, we should like the person to whom we are married. But that will fluctuate as well, depending on our mood, on their mood, depending on the weather, or even depending on how our day went. But none of those things have any bearing on our love for someone else.
We love others because it is right and because it is a manifestation of who we are, as Christians. Jesus said it, let them know you by your love (John 13:35).

The Dynamic Life

Ok, I admit it, the title is a redundancy, in case you picked up on that.  Life, by definition, is dynamic.  In other words, our life is always full of life, active and moving.  Even for the couch potato, the assembly line worker and the elderly in the nursing home.  Of course, these are stereotypes, but a stereotype is a stereotype because it is built on the reality of the picture. 
So the title "The Dynamic Life" does not necessarily mean the "productive life" or "the positive life", but simply that life is ever changing, never static. As we go through our days, we are doing something, both physically and mentally.  We are either growing and improving or growing and diminishing.  There is no such thing as a static human being. 
So the question is, "Which one are you?"  In our day and age, there are so many possibilities for growth and improvement. But at the same time, there are so many opportunities for distraction and loss.  We can put in our eight hours a day of work and then waste the rest of our time in distractions and entertainments.  In this case, we are diminishing, as we are not using the mind and/or body that God has given us.  Or we could be using the rest of our time for the improvement of our minds, our bodies or the improvement of others.  Granted, there is the fourth option of our efforts going toward the diminishing of others, and unfortunately, this is common.
So where are we at?  A slow decline into mediocrity and waste or are we growing and improving.  We only have so much time, considering that most of us have to work and sleep, which is 2/3's of our day.  What do we do with the other eight hours?

The view of ancestral superiority

In a paper that I recently read, "The Perils of Omnisignificance: Language and Reason in Mesopotamian Hermeneutics " by Eckhart Frahm, the concept of appealing to the distant past as the repository of truth is found in first millenium BC Mesopotamia. The question that came to my mind, upon discovering this, is that of "why".  Why did the Mesopotamian philosophers, of that day, come to embrace the concept of ancient superior? Why did they believe that the past held the truth?  For the Orthodox Christian, we look to the first century truth as the fountain of truth, simply because it was the first century believers, who had been taught by Christ, living and learning directly under his leadership.
Of course, the Orthodox church does not limit itself to only what is found in the first century.  As the church has continued to grow and mature, our beliefs have not changed, but have been clarified over the centuries.  As we have come to cultural situations where explanation is necessary, the church has promoted learning and understanding, and giving energy to the clarification of doctrine.
But the original question, "Why did the ancient Mesopotamian philosophers look to the further past for truth?" remains to be understood, at least by me.  What was their thinking and their presuppositions built upon?  What did they know about their ancestors and philosophical/intellectual predecessors, that we do not?  To whom where they appealing?  To whom did they intellectually submit?
The time frame for this paper is first millenium Mesopotamia.  This would make these peoples contemporary with King David in Israel.  This would make these people the descendants, 500 years past, of Abraham, who came from Mesopotamia.  I do not, at this time, have an answer, but the idea of coming to an understanding of what drove ancient philosophers to embrace the hermeneutic they did, is fascinating.  

Speaking in categories

As is obvious, if one watches the news and current events, there are massive categorical disruptions taking place.  Women are beginning to respond to the sexism that has been so prominent in history, different races are beginning to speak out and act out against the horrible abuses that take place based on race.  The category of gender is being questioned, re-defined and re-formed.

It recently occurred to me that the practice we have of categorizing people is really just a form of stereotyping.  One cannot say that all women are weak, that all Asians are computer whizzes, that all Native Americans are alcoholics or that all homosexuals are flamboyant imitations of Liberace. To do this type of categorizing is simply not accurate.  I suspect that much of this practice comes from, of all unexpected places, the idea of “big”. We live in a big country, we live in big houses, we drive big cars, we go to big churches, we go to big malls, etc, etc. But if we look at every single one of these items, they are all malformed and twisted in some sense.  Big, almost always, results in deformation and abuse. The use of big typically results in anonymity and loss of accountability. And this is the root problem.

When anonymity and lack of accountability become the norm, there is a tragic disconnect that takes place in people.  No longer are we dealing with John, Jim, Mary or Sally, we are dealing with nameless faces, nameless numbers and statistics.  We begin dealing and thinking in terms of categories: white, black, Asian, straight, gay, etc., etc. And when our interactions lose personality, we have nothing to love, as one does not love a category, but an individual.  

Because love is what it is all about.  Jesus summed up the entire point of life as love of God and love of neighbor. There is nothing else needed.  

Understanding Perspective

From the moment we are born and every following moment of our existence, our subjective understanding of reality consists of receiving and interpreting sensory input.  The problem is not the hardware, our five senses all work correctly and accurately (with birth defects being the obvious exception). The hardware is fine, but the interpretation process is where the problem lies. 99.9% of the time, we work on the assumption that our five layers of sensory input are the sum total of reality.

But Eastern thought and quantum thought tell us differently. Even within the Christian world, while we do admit to the reality of God, his interaction with mankind and the prospect of eternity, these concepts are still held at arm’s length as “future” or, at best, an emotional accessory.  The immediate reality upon which everyone works, is that of the financial here and now, retirement included. We work to buy things, to invest, to provide for our families, to prepare for retirement, and to enjoy the physical here and now. It simply is the framework within which everyone works and thinks.

So, what do we do when we come to realize that the physical here and now only accounts for 5% of reality?  According to Eastern thought, all mankind is connected, i.e., the sin of anyone person adversely affects the whole of humanity, in a metaphysical way.  We see when we meet someone and get an uneasy feeling, or, adversely, when we immediately “connect” with someone we meet.

The overall question here is responding to reality.  When we move past the shallowness and distractedness of a mere temporal reality and begin to see life holistically, the result is disturbing.  We find ourselves out of sync with the rest of society. The bright and shiny things of pop culture take on a paper cut-out feel. That which so easily distracted us in the past, now only leaves us empty.  Like a child learning to walk, we need to grow up and learn to live as genuine human beings.

Finding happiness

There seems to be a variety of ways that people find personal happiness (definitionally speaking).  Either through substances (food, alcohol, cannabis, etc.), through sex, or through distraction. The odd thing about using distraction is that WHAT that thing is that one is using to distract is irrelevant.  The mere fact that some “thing” is being used for a purpose other than its created purpose, automatically makes it an abuse. It can even be a “good” thing, i.e., exercise, learning, philanthropy. But the mere fact that it, as a tool, is being used to distract our thinking away from those things that are real or valuable, ruins it.

How does one find happiness?  It is even possible? Better yet, is it even valid to make finding happiness a goal for one’s life?  The church teaches us that this life was given for repentance. In other words, we are born, without our consent, into a family we didn’t choose, into a culture we didn’t choose, and into a period of time we did not choose.  We are born with sinful inclinations and with a soul that is a “son of Adam.” The mere fact that we are born human automatically makes us needy. But being blinded by sin, distracted by the bright, shiny things of the culture in which we live, raised by parents who are distracted and sinful as well, our potential for holiness is limited.

We can only find true happiness in holiness.   Sure, we may find titillation and entertainment in the world around us, but this is fleeting and very short lived.  The law of diminishing returns is a painful reality. We see it especially brightly in substance abuse. We will find no true happiness in things, in distractions, or even in people.  There is nothing wrong with any of these things, especially people, as God created man to be in communion. Ultimately with Him, but nearly just as much so, with other men. But our sinfulness, and the sinfulness of others, makes us selfish and mean.  Our fallen nature ruins everything. Especially our ability to see and embrace true happiness.

So finding happiness takes place when we do not seek it.  Finding happiness comes when we think of life as boot camp, a time for training and a time for hard work.  Like the carrot in front of the donkey, we will never reach the carrot if the carrot is what we seek. If we learn to look past those “bright, shiny things” that are constantly in our view, to the true end goal.  We will find true joy during the journey and true happiness at its end.

Don’t confuse the two.

Love for the other

We must not love, simply for the benefit of ourselves but instead we must love for the benefit of the other. The Christian life is defined as love of God and love of neighbor. But why? We love others because God loves us first. God loves us first, not because we were loveable or because we deserved love but because perfection is defined as love. God is love. To love unconditionally is easy when one loves for the other. To love that which is lovely and loveable is easy and intuitive. But to love in order to build up and restore the other is what we should be. This kind of love should define the Christian.

We love for the other because love is the only thing that will restore that which is damaged and distorted. Without love, we are nothing.

Distraction

When you distract yourself enough, it’s easy to stay content.  When you are distracted, you don’t spend time considering eternal life, suffering, or the vanity of life.  I suppose this is why the ascetics speak of the Orthodox life as being one of a “bright sadness.” We are constantly weighed down with grief over sin, grief over failure, grief over suffering (our own and that of others) and the general inability to really do anything about any of it.  But at the same time, we can look forward to an eternity free of sin and suffering.

This is not a selfish perspective.  In most cases, there is very little we can do to relieve suffering.  Certainly, we must do what we can, but there is nothing wrong with recognizing our weakness and inability but at the same time looking forward to a time when that suffering has ceased.

The framework of worldview

Any idea or concept can only make sense or “works” within the culture/context/worldview in which it is conceived or fabricated.  Of course, a “foreign” idea will most likely be irrational, ridiculous or just “stupid” outside of its home worldview. So, it should come as no surprise that the world will “hate”, “find irrational” or reject the ideas, concepts and practices of the Christian worldview, as these things are completely foreign to worldly thinking.

But this does not necessarily mean that truth cannot be found outside of the Christian worldview.  Because people are almost always inconsistent within their embraced beliefs or practices, they will, inevitably believe or practice something that actually originates from within Christianity, as all men are made in the image of God and therefore will, in some senses, be drawn toward truth.

Those things, of which people are personally concerned, they will remain concerned with, even after becoming a Christian. The content stays the same, but the framework changes.  The form of the concern may change and the answer for the concern may change, but the concern remains.

But this does not take into account the problem of inconsistency.  Because no one is ever perfectly consistent in their beliefs, one may embrace a belief or practice that is inconsistent with their own stated beliefs, simply because they have not thought through the foundations or implications of such a belief.  This is why it is so important to ask questions.  If there is a belief or practice within the framework of your beliefs (Protestant, Evangelical, Orthodox, Roman Catholic or otherwise), that you don't understand or doesn't seem to make sense, ask the question.  It very well could be that you have uncovered an inconsistency within  that system or within yourself.  Find the answer and adjust your beliefs accordingly.

On a personal note, I have found that the beliefs and practices of Eastern Orthodoxy is the only system that can stand under any and all scrutiny.

Sacrifice

One can come to understand what is important in someone’s life by observing the sacrifices that they make. This is similar to the act of observing how one spends one’s time and one’s money but it is looking from the reverse perspective. We can look at the stellar successes of many people and cannot but feel envy (to some degree, not necessarily sinful) for that success. But we must understand that someone made great sacrifices, some of them simply wrong to make, in order to gain that success. Whether they be moral sacrifices, financial sacrifices, or otherwise, sacrifices were made.

The question is, what sacrifices should we be willing to make to achieve our goals? Do we sacrifice our conscience? Do we sacrifice the other-centeredness to which we, as Christians, are called? Do we neglect the health of our souls? Do we neglect or ignore eternity to make gains in the here and now? Do we think that we can squeak by on almost borderline morality?
One can speak of narcissism here or Machiavellianism or just simply selfishness, but these are really all just fancy terms for self-centeredness. It is so important and so valuable, I believe to try to always approach a thought, an idea, a situation, anything really, into which we make contact, from an objective, non-emotional perspective, at least to start.  If we can step away from the "fun", "fulfillment:" or "satisfaction" that great wealth can bring, and look at the price paid for achieving that level of financial gain, we will usually see that the price paid was too high.  Too many sacrifices were made, usually at someone else's expense. It is when we can think of success in this framework that we will begin to have a balanced view of the entire picture.
Sure it may be temporally satisfying, but at what price?

Missteps along the way

My thinking has been going along these lines.  Step one, Jesus taught the disciples how to live a life that is faithful to man’s original created state, love of God and love of neighbor.  Step two, the disciples/apostles took this faith and began to spread it around the known world, for the next fifty years or so, establishing churches and teaching the new followers of Jesus, what he taught them. This teaching was written down, in what we know to be the epistles.  

Step three, that which the apostles taught continued to transmitted, orally and in written form.  As the centuries progressed, dogma was clarified and explored, for further depth and further understanding.  Those directions taken, that did not follow the apostolic teaching, was identified and rejected. One example of this is seen in the various ecumenical councils of the 4th through 8th centuries.  The church was not creating doctrine, but clarifying what the church had always believed.

So what happened next?

Somehow we moved from an authoritative yet organic church life to what we see today.  A fragmented, broken and schismatic collection of people calling themselves “Christians” yet varying drastically from one another.  They cannot all be right. Only one can be right or they can all be wrong.

What is the right response to our current socio-theological state?  There is only one body of Christ. How can there be three (or four depending on how finely you define it) branches of Christianity?  How can there be thousands of denominations within one or two of those branches? It seems to me that at some point, a definitive definition of Christianity must be formulated that clearly identifies what defines Christianity.  The end result will be that one of these branches will take that title and the remainder will need to choose something else.

Let’s call a spade a spade.

Biased pursuit of truth

  We look for answers to the questions we have.  We look where we think we will find. But it seems that we don’t even know how to ask the right questions.  It’s easy to claim to understand and embrace the platitudes of faith, but do we really? Does anyone live the platitudes, or are they just like us, trying to live out what only seems like a platitude?

    We cannot even know what others are thinking or living, because all are either simply trying to live out the structure of a faith that they might not even understand.  Or they may be lying about what they really are.

But then again, we very well too may be lying, even to ourselves.  The first step to resolving this, at least in our own thinking, is to recognize what we may be doing, give consideration to the observations of others about us and honestly assess these observations.

Boredom

Boredom is a sin, so say the church fathers. This is because when we allow ourselves to become bored, we are saying that we have nothing of value upon which to expend our time and energy. But this is nonsense. The is always something productive to do. There are always prayers to be prayed. There are always sins to confess. There are always neighbors to love. There is always something to learn.
A bored attitude comes from a heart wallowing in and controlled by the passions. It is a heart that needs to be entertained and titillated. Instead, our hearts should be filled to overflowing with love for God and love for our neighbor. When we think of others, rather than ourselves, we will never be bored. When we are striving after holiness, we will always recognize some way of improving our life or the life of someone else.
We must learn to look being our own comfort and entertainment.

About the form of the person

As I sit here listening to the band “Iron and Wine”, a current folk/shoe-gazing artist, I hear songs about gentle living in the countryside, long walks in the woods, keeping animals, simple country romance.  I previously this day was listening to Denzel Curry, a Broward county rapper, lamenting the injustices of race relations and inner city violence. Neither of these worldviews are familiar ground to me. I live in middle class white America, small town, Protestant Dutch world.  

In all of this I have to wonder why.  Three very different worlds, all in America, all having a shallow similarity, in that they all function, to some degree, upon a Christian worldview.  The folk singer sounds content, yet somewhat sad. The rapper sounds angry, yet badly wanting to make things right. And my cultural situation is that of indifference, not on my part, but within the culture itself.  All that seems to be considered is that of personal contentment and “keeping up appearances.”

It strikes me that these people are what they are because of the families into which they were born and the race into which they were born, the economic status and the point in history.  All of which were imposed upon them. Also, the people that raised them, the choices made by those people and the choices made for themselves (based upon the worldview with which they were inculcated in their youth).

I wonder how many people stay where they are, simply because it is all they know, and it is all they can comprehend to be.  We can look at something else, outside ourselves, outside our life experience and think that possibly it is superior/inferior to our current state, but it may not be.  Or it may be in our best interest to consider that which is different than our experience and adjust our reality.

My point is this.  We all live in and function based upon what we know.  But what we know is built upon genetics, upbringing and our immediate culture.  We should not limit ourselves to these things though. We need to learn to look around, ask questions about why we do what we do and try to understand the situations of others, without judgment.

Most important

One can speak of pursuing only that which is most important.  But it is never that simple. Every decision that we make in life will, inevitably, lead toward that which is most important, or away from it.  But like a road through the mountains, that path is seldom straight. When we say “x” is most important, this does not mean that “y” and “z” are NOT important, but that other things are simply less important.  Also, this does not mean that “y” and “z” can simply be ignored, at any expense.

Within Eastern Orthodoxy, they say that there is only one path to eternal life, not two, as some suggest, when considering either the married path or the monastic path.  These are one path with different emphases. When one chooses the married path, one is automatically taking on the responsibilities of things “not-spiritual” (which really is a misnomer, for God uses all things for our spiritual growth, we just need to learn to see that).  

So ultimately, yes, the one most important thing is our sanctification, but the path of sanctification is typically not what we may think it is.  To use a metaphor, one does not become a good runner by studying it, but by practicing it, often, and it often is very uncomfortable or even painful.  To the same end, our sanctification will be uncomfortable, confusing and even painful, but when we learn to trust God for leading us down that path, at least we won’t fall into despondency.

I, of all people, need to hear this truth  more than anyone.

Thrill of the kill

How is it considered normal or healthy to enjoy killing anything?  i.e., hunting for sport. I can understand someone hunting out of necessity.  This was probably far more common in the past, at least in the United States. Someone lived out in the deep woods and had to grow, hunt down or prepare their food. If you failed to gather or kill enough, you simply went hungry or even died of hunger. Or worse yet, you watched your family die of hunger. But that really is not the case any longer. No one "needs" to hunt in order to survive.  
And it cannot be argued that hunting is less expensive than buying groceries. I suppose that someone could argue that literal "wildlife" hunting/poaching is less expensive, if one is not picky about what one eats. But typically, the hunting that takes place is the "take one week of work off, pack up all the hunting/camping/hiking gear, buy a hunting license and ammunition" type of hunting. Which is not an inexpensive endeavor.
But to enjoy killing? Simply for the thrill of the kill? "Hey, look at that beautiful animal!  Let's kill it and hang its head on our wall."  Personally, that sort of mentality seems antithetical to the Christian faith. Man didn't eat meat until after the Great Flood. The animal sacrifice that took place in Old Testament, during the Old Covenant, was a direct result of and temporary covering for, sin.
I don't understand the enjoyment of taking the life of something else.

Deciding

When one deeply examines the world of philosophical debate, it simply comes down to faith.  Yes, one can argue about a myriad of philosophical details, but beneath all of one’s philosophy is faith. Eventually, digging down deep enough and asking the right questions, we believe something or some things that we do not prove nor do we seek a proof, we simply believe them.  Some things (probably many things) are embraced at the presuppositional level and thus, not questioned.

What do we do with this?  The first thought, for me anyway, in response to this, is to recognize the futility of debate and argumentation.  If someone holds to view contrary to our own and they are someone who has worked through the many philosophical questions that plague certain people, then arguing those philosophical beliefs will lead to nowhere, as there are presuppositions underlying those beliefs, that need to be addressed first.

My second thought has to do with learning to think presuppositionally.  We must learn to think down deep. In other words, we have to learn to ask the questions that lie beneath and behind the philosophical argumentation that so often takes place.  We need to learn to identify and find the rationale for those questions, so that, when interacting with others, we can construct and direct conversation to a fruitful conclusion.  

In short, we must decide to believe.  The questions that lie at the bottom of who we are, do not have answers constructed from fine, logical argumentation.  We decide to believe. This is where prayer comes in. We can argue all we want (but shouldn’t) about philosophy. But it won’t go anywhere.  We must, instead, lead to the deep questions, with no answers, and then pray that God would reveal himself and the futility of life without God, to those with whom we interact.  

Only prayer can change a man’s heart.

Preparation

Most people follow some sort of general cyclical pattern in their lives.  I'm thinking of a yearly pattern. We have our basic holidays and summer vacations.  We have birthdays, weekends and schooling schedule.  And without fail, we plan for these things.  Most people do not simply "wing it", when they go on vacation.  They make not necessarily make a list of specific plans, down to the miniscule details, but they do plan.  Airplane tickets, hotel reservations, car rental, possibly some key places to visit.
But what about eternity?  We plan our schooling, we plan our vocations, we plan our retirements, but practically speaking, this is really only about about a 50 year period.  What about eternity?  What planning are we doing to be prepared for eternity?  Does sitting in a pew, once a week constitute preparation?  Does our thoughts about eternity or even simply things spiritual take place only on Sunday morning, for about 45 minutes?  And even at that, how often do we sit though a feel good sermon that we typically don't even "hear" anyways?
We plan an exercise regimen.  We plan a vacation.  We plan a retirement financial approach?  But do we plan for eternity?
Do we even have any idea what it means to prepare ourselves for eternity?  We have a basic understanding of what it means to be in shape, to exercise, to have a healthy heart, but do we have any idea what it means to have a healthy soul?  Do we do ANYTHING to feed/care for/ prepare our souls?
Or are we simply focused on the here and now?

Too hard?

The subject of “being too hard”on your kids, in regards to religious practice, seems to come up quite often.  There are many examples of this taking place, always with really bad results. A few notable names come to mind, such as Maynard Keenan (from the band Tool) and GG Allin (from the band, The Murder Junkies).  Both of these men were raised in very strict religious homes and both men reacted strongly in rebellion against that religiosity that was foisted upon them.

I have to wonder what exactly is taking place.  On the surface, the child is raised in a situation that stifles, controls and suppresses them, rather than challenging, maturing and loving them.  Everyone has a different personality and to force religion, something that is supposed to fulfill, upon them, in a manner that drives them away is, in my opinion, about the worst action one can take.

So my question is this? What does it mean to be "too hard" on your kids? Scripture does speak of this when it says, "Fathers do not exasperate your children." (Ephesians 6:4). One of the biggest problems with this passage is the way that it is handled, according to personal interpretation. In the world of Protestantism/Evangelicalism, one can interpret Scripture in whatever way one seeks fit. I can guarantee that no father guilty of being too hard on his children even sees himself that way. 

In order to keep this practical, we can say two things. One, never make the faith a matter of grief, animosity or disdain. Going to church or church related events should not be a pain point for kids. If it is, we are doing something wrong. This is not to say that church/religion should be fun and games. But it is our responsibility to make our faith real to our kids.

It really comes down to love. If we are loving God and loving neighbor
 (ie, our kids), like we should a relationship of open communication should 
be natural. Yes, children will rebel and want to define things for themselves. 
But that is a progression that should take place. Our kids must embrace
 faith for themselves and not simply mimic us. And this may mean a different 
path to come into a faith for themselves.

What to do

It is the feeling of helplessness that is so bothersome.  The older I become, the more I realize just how powerless I am and how little I know.  As an idealistic youth and young man, the world was black and white.  What the pastor said in his weekly sermons were true and defensible. But now, as I have reached middle age, life is much more complex, every incomprehensible at times.  Sure, there is black and white, but the gray area in the middle continues to grow.  Circumstances change everything.
What then are we to do, when we are essentially powerless to really make any difference in the world around us?  Governments are corrupt, sex drives everything, people have become objects to be used and thrown away.  Abortion is common, abuse is common, euthanasia is common, neglect of reality and a focus on the temporal rules the day.
As I've mentioned in a previous post, the physical world around us, that everyone focuses on, to the neglect of the other 90% of reality, is painful to live in.  There is so much wrong, so much messed up, so much going the complete wrong direction, that I have to ask, "What to do?"
We cannot become fatalists, for we truly believe that prayer makes a difference.  We cannot simply stop caring, for we have loved ones that need us and that we need.  As Jesus said, "the poor you will always have with you."  So we have to get used to the idea of the persistent nature of evil and suffering.  As long as we are on this side of the final judgment, life is suffering.
The only answer I can offer, the only answer the church has to offer, is that of prayer and repentance. We pray for those in need and we strive after holiness, repenting as we go.

Maturation

One of the responsibilities of the parent is to help and guide their children to grow and mature.  Obviously, the physical aspect of maturation is unavoidable. Children do grow, under normal circumstances, into adulthood. But what about the mental, the emotional and the psychological?  These things do not simply happen, environment and genetics are both influential in these maturation processes.

One aspect, particularly interesting to me, is the psychological part in connection with entertainment.  The things (at a very foundational level) that we, as parents/adults, find interesting and entertaining, will be passed on to our children.  If we love sports, most likely our children will as well. If we love the outdoors/hiking/camping/exercise, most likely that will influence and direct our children into the same interests.  While the influence we have upon our children in this regard is not necessarily a one-to-one, the basic categorical influence is, I believe, unavoidable. So if we as adults like watching movies, of any particular genre, while it is probably unavoidable that our children will enjoy watching movies as well, what is not necessarily true is the genre they choose as their preference.  This is where deliberate training comes into play.

So what happens when our interests and entertainments are childish?  Are we not then hindering/handicapping our children? So the important thing to see here is not so much our attention to what we direct our children into, but our deliberate training in how to think about their preferences.  Whatever our interests, our children will follow, but we must be attentive to the fact that their own sinful inclinations may take those interests into areas and genres that we never would have considered.

We must lead our children, not by trying to control them or keep them blind to reality, but by raising them up to think clearly about what it is they are doing and why they are doing it.  Maturation is about freedom and handling it with wisdom. If we try to control our children, with rules and regulations, they will only rebel. If we train them to understand reality, they can think rightly about their own thoughts and actions and through our prayers and the sacraments of the church, live rightly.

Productivity

I was about to make a comment, to one of my children, about being productive, when the thought struck me.  Why do we always think of productivity in regards to things temporal/physical/monetary?  When one stops and considers to what the term actually refers, it simply is about producing.  And producing something that one considers valuable.  So clearly, an underlying definition is being exposed herein.
When we have accomplished our day and have been "productive", it means that we have produced that which we intended or hoped to produce.  Whether it be widgets or sales figures or a trailer full of crop x, y, z.  But what about things spiritual? Do we ever think of a visit to a monastery as "productive"?  Do we every finish our Lenten fast (or any fast for that matter) and looking back, consider the time "productive"?  I would think that we probably do not.
But in this I think we are exposing a serious flaw in our hearts and minds.
When we look at the length of our physical life, in comparison to the eternity that stretches out before us, it is almost nil. But the time that we do have, as free will agents of 80 to 100 years, the time is very important.  For this short time we have in our struggle against sin, is the only time we have to form our souls, to seek after holiness and to fight against sin.
So really, we have a tiny sliver of time to prepare ourselves for eternity.  And that is something that we really must strive in and be productive.

A controversial comparison

A probably controversial comparison came to mind yesterday.  Something was said, I believe it was in a homily by my priest, regarding the apostle Paul.  For some reason i thought of Paul, when he was on trial before the ruler Festus and Festus made a comment about "Paul's much learning driving him mad." (Acts 26:24)  Clearly, Festus was not referring to Paul as a madman/lunatic, for Paul was speaking clearly, articulately and somewhat convincingly.  It may actually be difficult to know exactly to what Festus was referring, but it was his impression that Paul was losing contact with what most would consider normalcy and normal understanding of things.
This next led me to think of Jesus' words to his disciples, warning them that the world would hate them because of Jesus.  I believe there may be a small connection between how the world will perceive the way that a believer thinks, in comparison to a "regular" person.
The second person that then came to mind, in regards to being considered insane, was Alistair Crowley, the famous British occultist from the mid 1900's.  This man, clearly, was on the opposite end of the spectrum, from the Apostle Paul.  Crowley certainly had his share of learning, but his was not an education in godliness and love, but rather literally, the opposite.  Crowley spent his inherited fortune and literal lifetime inventing and discovering every form of magic and perversion known to man.  In the end, Crowley became a babbling madman, literally.  The later audio recordings of him reveal a literal blithering idiot, completely incoherent.
So what is the difference? Paul was called a madman, due to his cogent, coherent, moving intelligence, even though it was contrary to "normal" thought.  Crowley was considered a madman because he literally appeared to be insane.  Literally incoherent and irrational.
This is a good example of love of God and love of neighbor moving one man to life and beauty, while the pursuit of lust, power and debauchery led another man to insanity.
I'm not exactly sure what the value of this thought experiment is, but it came together in a somewhat intriguing fashion.  I'd love to hear your comments/thoughts.

The actual depth of reality

My son presented a truly interesting concept to me the other day, in the form of an article.  The article  was written by a professor at some university in Southern California.  The idea was basic, what we see as reality is actually an illusion.  As would be expected, I was somewhat suspect, even after reading the article.  But in a brief conversation with my son sometime thereafter, my son explained the idea, in better terminology.
The idea is this.  Just like when we look at our computer monitor and see a collection of icons, which are links to files, the icon itself it not the thing itself, but instead a representation of the file. Our physical eye cannot see the file, which in reality is a string of 0's and 1's, which, when properly interpreted and understood, can communicate a wide variety of things, things far beyond the little icon on the computer monitor.
So too is it with physical reality.  When we look at, hear, smell and feel the world around us, we are actually only seeing a very shallow, one-sided representation of reality.  The perceptions we take in with our senses are limited and we are incapable of "seeing/hearing/smelling/tasting/feeling" complete reality.  The senses are not designed to and simply cannot grasp reality as a whole.
The end result of the conversation between my son and I took the basic concept of the original article, refined it and, in my opinion, vastly improved it.  The author's original concept called the physical a mere illusion.  My son and I, in contrast, defined the physical as not illusion, but only one aspect of reality, a very small part, to be more precise.  The spiritual/emotional aspect makes up much more of reality that the mere physical.
In a conversation I had with one of my younger sons, I took a very tangible example of just how real this concept is.  It is said, in physiology, that the body we have at one point, is completely replaced with new cells, within a seven year time period.  What it is then that defines who we are? Certainly not the mere physical, for within seven years, it is something different.
Ruminate on that for awhile.  It truly is mind-blowing.

Thoughts on philanthropy

In response to Bill Gates’ recent comments on forcing higher taxes on the wealthy, I believe a different approach is in order.  I know of very few who have been more philanthropic than the Gates Foundation. No one can accuse Gates of being stingy. But his latest comments on making higher taxes for the wealthy is wrong headed.  Philanthropy is a good thing, but one cannot be forced to be philanthropic. Forced philanthropy is nothing less than higher taxes, i.e., taxes. Being forced to do anything is nothing to be proud of.

I would like to be able to say that the problems in the world, related to poverty and suffering could easily be addressed, in light of the extreme wealth of a fairly large number of people.  But yet, here we are, a fairly large number of extremely wealthy people and the extreme poverty, suffering and starvation of so many people still exists. What is the answer?

Somehow some people seem to have the idea that if someone is extremely wealthy, they ought to pay more taxes so as to help offset the imbalance of need versus excess.  But this is really just another way of promoting communism. The redistribution of wealth is a communist idea, that has failed, over and over again. The question ought to be, “Why should someone, who through a variety of means, has extreme wealth, be forced to give that money away?”  Now it very well could be that someone with extreme wealth should be philanthropic (I believe there is substantial biblical support for such an idea), but the government under which that person lives should NOT take their money by force. Stealing is stealing, even when it has a politically correct label.

But ultimately the problem is corruption.  It can practically be said that those with extreme wealth and extreme power take advantage of these tools and do not do what they ought.  At the same time, those of us with a moderate income, or even borderly poverty ought to be doing what we can as well. Generosity is not required only of the wealthy.  Everyone struggles with selfishness, to some degree. Apparently it is easier to see in the wealthy. Corruption in politics, too, brings about suffering for the poor and weak.  So the answer is not further corruption/abuse at the hands of government (i.e., higher taxes for some).

It ought to be the case that all of us have compassion on those in need and address those needs with their money and power.  Jesus told us that we would always have the poor with us, but that does not mean that we do nothing about it. As St John Chrysostom said, “if you have two coats, one you have stolen from your brother who has none.” In other words, we should never relish our excess at the expense of someone else’s suffering or want.

The issue is obviously an extremely complex one, that will not be answered in a simplistic manner.  Forcing higher taxes is simply further corruption and abuse. Simply throwing more money out will not fix the problem either, as the corruption that currently exists will un-do or redirect that money to wrong places.  

Why Nature?

Is there any sort of psychological connection between the apparent obsession with outdoorsy/wilderness/hiking/exercise with the apparent cultural slide into paganism? I have to admit that I have never thought along these lines today, but today, after hearing co-workers speak about hiking for the 1000th time, I really began to wonder.

Obviously, this connection, if it does exist, is not a conscious one.  I can guarantee that those persons who love this return to nature mentality, are not doing so because they are raging pagans, of any stripe. But when we look at the history of cultures, when we look at the progress of the people of Israel, directed by the hand of God and when we look at the growth and development of the church, none of these go in the direction of “natural-back-to-earth-back-to-nature”.

The argument of “I find God in nature, therefore I don’t need to go to church,” simply does not work.  It is not a historical position, it does not flow from the historical church. The kingdom of God is within us and the people of God are found in the Orthodox church.  This is not to argue that God does not move amongst other gatherings of people. As the Orthodox church says, “We can say where God is, but we will not say where God is not.”

So what is the ground for my original question?  I have to wonder why the common mentality of a culture that is moving away from God, from Christianity and from holiness is heading toward “the wild outdoors”.  Is it a draw toward un-civilization? Is it a move towards that which is unstructured, spontaneous and whimsical? It certainly seems to place an emphasis upon the physical, rather than the spiritual.

I must close with one more comment.  Paul does tell us that while exercising the physical body has some value, the pursuit of holiness has value for all areas of life, both physical and spiritual.

Speaking in silence

While silence certainly has its place in a person’s life, according to the Orthodox church, as human beings, we are created for communication and interaction.  While it is true that we are to emulate Christ, in every aspect of our lives, communication is one key area that is often overlooked, in this regard. Jesus told many stories to communicate the truths of a right relationship with God.  So on one hand, we can say, with certainty, we must learn to communicate, in the most effective ways possible, so as to remove all possible means of misunderstanding and mis-speaking. Another way of saying this is that we do not communicate by silence, we communicate with words.  God spoke to a sinful world by means of word. We, now, as his body, should do the same. It is when a heart has been changed, has learned to drive away the distractions of the world and listen for silence that one is ready to begin to hear God in the silence.

At the same time, we can say that we are to seek after silence as we strive after theosis.  We pray out loud in order to learn to pray inward in order to learn to pray in silence. In other words, we learn to be quiet so as to hear the voice of God, speaking in silence and guiding us by his Holy Spirit.

So what is speaking in silence?  It is speaking out loud, in love, to those around us, not expecting them to simply know what we mean.  But it is speaking, with a passion for, a love for and a goal of silence, so that we are led by the Spirit of God.

Authority and Labels

When we start with the Old Testament, we are introduced to the concept of "only God".  There is nothing else, literally nothing.  There is no created thing. But then God speaks and there is light, there is earth, there land and water, creatures, plant life and man.  When God forms man and breathes life into him, he names him.  This is the concept I would like to focus on.
God speaks as one with authority.  In naming Adam, he is declaring that he is an authority over him and gives him an appropriate name.  When God sees that it is not good for man to be alone, he brings all the animals to man and has man name them.  From this we can see (and it is said outright later on) that man has authority over all the animals and all creation. In naming the animals, man is declaring his authority over them.
Later on, when God speaks to Jacob, he re-names him.  In doing so, he is giving Jacob a new identity. Later still, when the angel speaks to Mary, he does not give her the option of naming her yet-to-be-born Son, instead God names him.
Now, moving into our personal lives, we can apply this concept to our actions as well.  As parents, we name our children.  By extension, we begin using nick names and pet names for those we love.  But, in a negative sense, we do the same when we become angry and use unkind monikers for others.  In this sense, we are taking a role for ourselves that is not ours.  We do not have the right to re-name others, especially when those names are unkind or degrading.
Considering this from a psychological perspective, there is a large number of labels that are often applied to a variety of mental "disorders".  These labels have the same effect upon people as actual re-naming.  The power of suggestion is a great one, actually and literally moving someone into a mental perspective.  If someone is diagnosed with dementia, sociopathy, autism spectrum or anything else of the like, they are being re-named, and we as Christians do not seem to even question such an act.
What is taking place when this happens and how does it affect us?  Are we simply embracing what is being said and believing it?  Of course, an actual medical diagnosis is different from a psychological labeling. One is a description of what is physically true, while the other is often merely a description of thought processes and behaviors, from typically a secular perspective.
We dare not allow the world to have authority over us and define us, especially when that definition is contrary to who we are in Christ.  If you need medicine, take it.  But don't simply swallow what secular thinking says about your habits, thoughts and behaviors.

Communication

This subject is a fairly common theme in my own thinking and around my home in general. Personally, I deliberately try to limit my communication to the use of literals and not slang or figures of speech. I believe that if one pays attention to the way words are used, and in what context, they will notice that the more professional and academic the communication is, the less slang and figures of speech will be present.
For me, and apparently this is unusual, I find figures of speech or slang to be far more open to misinterpretation and misunderstanding than literal speak. Mainly, I believe, due to the subjectivity and inherent ambiguity of it. It almost seems by definition that slang or figures of speech are artistic and subjective. In the same way that a piece of music or a painting can be excellent or poor, based solely on preference, so too can speech be broadly interpreted i.e., understood in a variety of ways and vaguely articulated.
But really, is that the goal of speech? Or does communication, by definition, aim for the transference of meaning with a specific goal in mind?

Short sighted

There is a reason that the early church fathers, the monastics and our priests speak of the overarching importance of humility.  It is easy to compare one self to others, especially when one can cherry pick those to whom comparison is made.  It is easy to criticize and condemn others.  But it is much more difficult to only compare ourselves to those above and beyond us.  This is one of the reasons that having a spiritual mentor is so valuable.  We find someone that is spiritually superior to us and then we emulate them and hear their instruction.
But to really hear, we must first recognize and acknowledge our lack. This means we identify where we are ignorant, immoral and weak.
This is about humility.
But even besides all of this is recognizing our short sightedness.  As temporal and distracted mankind, we cannot see further than the moment.  We cannot even accurately remember the past.  Science has shown us over and over again just how faultily and romantic we remember past events.  And the further back we go, the less accurate these memories become.
Looking forward is even worse, for we cannot see past the "right now".  We might think that we can plan for the future, but we do not even know if we will be breathing tomorrow.  We cannot even rightly interpret the events of what is taking place right now.  Sure, we can see these events, but we cannot know how they will affect us tomorrow, or next week, next month or next year.
Something we see as terrible or troubling might every well be the exact thing we need to become more holy in our future.
We must have faith that God is working all things for our good.

Interpreting Scripture

Biblical interpretation or technically speaking, hermeneutics, is a powerful field within the Christian faith. It is also a very serious one. To take into one's hand, the word of God, and explain it, is a very serious matter, that should not be taken lightly. This is, after all, THE word of God, upon which men are to build their lives and hearts.

There have been many books written about the subject, each one purporting to be a faithful methodology. Some are extremely academic works, written by and for the educated and others are simple, straightforward efforts by simple, straightforward men.

On one hand, it could be argued that any passage of Scripture could be interpreted in any way the interpreter sees fit, as long as it draws the listener to God. But it could also be argued that the text must be faithfully interpreted according to word meaning, literary form and context, taking into account historical context, author's intent, and the culture of the original audience.

Ultimately, I believe that any interpretation or commentary on the text of Scripture should not be arbitrary. The reader must have a sound reason for any interpretive position. “Why” and “on what grounds” is any meaning applied to a text. Scripture is not wax, to be molded as one sees fit. The original author meant something by the words he used and the original audience would have, most likely, understood what the author meant. These should be a starting point, at the very least.

And remember, the Bible warns about being a teacher. It's a great responsibility. We must not project upon the text, our own opinions or ideas. The explanation of the text ought to be built from the text itself (and its context), not upon our whims, ideas or preferences. Our goal should be to explain the text, not define the text.

The state of eternity

1 Tim 4:10 - For to this end we toil and strive,2 because we have our hope set on the living God, qwho is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.

What does Paul mean by this?  “... who is the Savior of all people, especially those who believe.” We just read in the previous verses that Jesus paid the ransom for all men (1 Timothy 2:6).  Here we read that He is the savior of all men. When we read of the final judgment, the sequence is this: Jesus returns, all men are raised from the dead and given perfected bodies, all men are judged according to what they did or did not do, all men then receive the fruit of their time on earth.  If they spent their time loving God, loving neighbor and forming their souls to mirror Jesus Christ, they will glory in the immediate presence of God. But if they spent their time feeding their passions and desires, the holiness of God will be unbearable to them, it will be their hell.

Hell is self made and freely chosen.  If you choose to reject/ignore God during your time on earth, why do you think you would have any desire to be in his holy presence for eternity?  But since God is everywhere and fills all things, you cannot escape the presence of God. Your eternity will be spent in his presence. If you form your soul to love godliness and seek after it, while you are here on earth, your eternity will be glorious.  But if you spend your time seeking temporal pleasure and fulfilling your passions and desires, your eternity will be wretched, as you will be immersed in the holy presence of God, inescapably.