Why?

I'm sure we have all had to interact with the annoying child who is constantly asking "why?"  Instead of a natural curiousity that is seeking satiation, the child is simply being childish.  We, on the other hand, ought to be asking "why?" often, typically of ourselves.  There are so many things that we do, simply out of habit or convenience, to which we never give a second thought.  So ask yourself, "Why?"
We can probably classify our actions into categories.  Things we do out of necessity, eat and sleep are two examples.  Of course, these two things can be done in the wrong way.  We may eat simply because we feel like eating, which is, simply put, gluttony.  We may sleep because we are lazy, or because we are bored.  There are also things we do out of preference.  Our desires and passions move us to "do" things.  This is where the "why" question comes into place.  Why do we spend 20-30 thousand dollars on a car?  Probably out of our desire to be comfortable.  Why do we spend 300 thousand dollars on a house?  Probably out of a desire to be comfortable or to fit a particular appearance.
But these are things we ought to ask ourselves.  Why do we dress the way we do?  Why do we eat the way we do?  Why are we entertained by the things by which we are entertained?  Why do we choose the friends we do? All of these questions have answers and, unfortunately, as Americans, many of them have the same answer, we desire to be comfortable, which, again unfortunately, reveals a serious problem with selfishness.  Ask the questions.

Philosophical Baggage

Any time we make a shift in our beliefs, we will, inevitably bring with us, residual philosophical beliefs. To my mind, this is negative. We ought, as living, thinking human beings, to strive for consistency and coherence in our worldview.  Any kind of radical shift or change in our belief system ought to include a comprehensive analysis of what we previously believed in comparison to what we currently believe.

Unfortunately, many do not make this effort.  Instead, they carry into the new system, previous beliefs.  This results in two things. One, in communicating their new belief, they impose false beliefs onto their hearers.  Two, this is intellectual dishonesty. One cannot claim to believe, for instance, in election (as in Calvinism) and yet claim to be an Orthodox Christian.  These two are diametrically opposed.

It is, in my opinion, extremely important to know and understand exactly what it is that you believe and to be cognizant of beliefs from one’s past.  At a bare minimum, one can become part of a belief collective, and claim adherence to that systems beliefs. At the same time, one can also admit to embracing some aspects of that same system on “faith”.  In other words, you do not have to have a perfect understanding of each tenet in order to be faithful. But you must be aware of what you actually do believe.

Acknowledging passions

Imagine you were born in 2002.  You are male but you find yourself being attracted to other guys.  The culture at large will tell you that this is all fine and normal, you merely are oriented that way.  But at the same time, the Orthodox church is telling you that homosexuality is a sin and that one should never follow their passions, simply because they are “natural”.
This is the difference with the Orthodox church in comparison to the Evangelical/ Protestant world. The latter will tell you that homosexuality is a sinful perversion and you need to not do it.  That you need to be cured. Orthodoxy, on the other hand, will tell you that it is simply a passion that some people have, not much different that any other sexual passion. It’s mere presence means nothing. Natural or unnatural, as Christians we simply do not excuse away the passions we have a “natural” and then indulge. No, we fight against our passions and our soul tells our flesh what to do, not vice-versa.
The question here is not one of natural or unnatural, perverse or normal, but of who is in charge, one of to whom you are listening and following. When we think and act, these things are done according to the leadership of something. When we think or act, are we following the whims of our flesh, i.e., we "feel" like doing it. On the other hand, the Orthodox church would tell us, we ought to live in a way that is preparing us for an eternity of holiness. We can look back at the saints of historic Christianity and those things that the church has always believed and practiced, and align ourselves with this. We do not follow and practice something based on our feelings, but on what the church has identified as holy. We do not follow our passions, we follow the direction of the Holy Spirit. But this is not a personal, interpretive thing. It is a corporate, defined, articulate path of light and holiness.
Whatever our sins, whatever our inclinations are, are irrelevant. If our desires or inclinations are leading us away from holiness, we must fight against them. For our very life depends upon it.

Reactions and responses

All of our actions and words are responses to the situations in which we find ourselves.  An undesirable situation will elicit some sort of action on our part, the more disagreeable, the more aggressive the response.  So, when we see someone acting in some sort of desperate or extreme manner, we must realize that whatever it is they are going through, it is not according to their wishes or desires. Should we not have mercy on that person, regardless of rightness or wrongness of the action?

Judging others

When we observe the things people do or have done, we need to remember that these are fruit. Another way of saying this is that everything we do or say is the consequence of our experiences and beliefs, even unrecognized. Experiences, thoughts, and things learned will influence and direct our actions and choices.  So instead of seeing someone and judging them, especially if they are different than us or different from what we find acceptable, we ought to ask the question (to ourselves), “What has influenced and motivated them to embrace such action?”

Far too often, we know little to nothing of people and therefore we have no ground upon which to stand in judging another.  It is not our place to judge someone, especially since we do not know them in any depth. Better, instead, is to assume the best and love that person anyway.

The problem with experience

Do we dare appeal to experience to define and concretize our belief?  Do we dare appeal to experience to define the foundation of our reality?  What then when someone appeals to an experience that promotes that which is contrary to our own belief?  Answer: we must appeal to the concrete and objective teachings of the church, not our experience within that structure.
We cannot claim to appeal to experience and then when someone else appeals to a differing experience then appeal to the objective teaching of the church.  We also cannot appeal to “relationship” for our relationship with God is unlike any other relationship.  We speak to him, he does not speak in return in the way that any other relation would.  He speaks through the liturgy, through the Bible, and through the sacraments.  We may “feel” something when we are involved in private prayer, but this cannot be appealed to as authoritative or validating, for our feelings may not be what they seem.
As natural and as easy as it may be to live by, be encouraged by and enjoy an experience, we cannot look to experience for a foundation.  Our only foundation is the objective body of Christ, as seen, touched, tasted, smelled and heard in the local church.

Choosing hell, part 2

If you choose to live a lifestyle that moves you away from God and what he considers holy and good, you are free to choose to do that. He won’t stop you.  But at the end of time, when you enter eternity, you cannot complain that you do not get to spend eternity in his presence, for you have spent your lifetime rejecting exactly that.

What church?

What defines a “Christian” church?  There are foundational doctrines and secondary ones.  I think all would agree that the secondary ones are not part of this consideration.  First, who decides what is foundational?  There are multiple thousands of “Christian” denominations in the US right now, many of them solo with no oversight other than the single person that created them.  The common mentality seems to be that anyone can take the label “Christian” upon themselves which in turn gives them the right to interpret the Bible for themselves.
When we give a definition of “church”, from where are we sourcing that definition?  In Protestant and Evangelical circles, the claim is that the definition comes from the Bible. Yet there are multiple definitions, all with the same claim of origin.  But only one can be right, or they are all wrong. This circles back around to the practice of personal interpretation.

This is one strength of the Orthodox church.  We can look back and say, "this is what the church has always believed and always practiced. This is how the church has always worshiped."  In short, we can say, the church is what the body of Christ has always believed the church to be.

Being bothered

How often, when out among other people, or when alone but thinking about previous situations wherein we interacted with others, are we bothered or annoyed by that interaction? Unfortunately, this happens far too often. I speak from experience. In our interactions with others, we tend to compare the reality of the current situation with what we believe the situation ought to be. In other words, other people's words or actions do not meet up with our expectations or preferences.
But what is really going on here? I would venture to argue that we are setting ourselves up as judges of others. We are taking our interpretation of reality and are judging the actions of others by that interpretation. But are we right in doing so? Is it our place to judge anyone? I would argue, no.
The first thing that we must acknowledge is our own limitations. We know so little. We have so little actual experience and besides knowing very little about others, we hardly know ourselves. In other words, our knowledge base is far too small to adequately assess the actions or intentions of others.
Sure, we may guess as to others motivations, based on previous interaction with them, and often we may be correct but this still does not justify our self appointed role as judge.
And honestly speaking, most times that we judge, condemn or speak ill of others, we do so simply because they are inconveniencing us. We don't like what they are doing because it puts us at a disadvantage or forces us to change our plans. In short, we are selfish. And the worse part is, that in being selfish, we are asserting that our plans and desires are best. But considering our own limitations, this is highly unlikely.
It really comes down to loving God and loving neighbor. Do we trust God to work out all things according to his will or are we determined to manipulate reality according to our own desires, regardless of how this affects others?

***EXCITING NEWS***

I have finally published my novel, "Pants: A novel". It is available on Amazon, here:"Pants: A novel"
Tell you friends, tell your neighbors, tell your family.  Buy it and leave reviews on Amazon.
I appreciate your patronage and continued support.

Malformed prayer

When we pray, there are many preconceived ideas about what is taking place. And I would argue, at least in the Western world, wrong preconceptions. Typically, when we pray, we are asking for things. Not necessarily bad things, selfish things or even physical things, but we are asking God to do or provide something that we think would be good or beneficial.  Does this not presuppose that we think we know what would be best or possibly good?

One needs to step back and honestly assess our position.  Almost all of us have been alive for less than 100 years, yet somehow, especially those of the 18-25 year range, seem to think that we know best.  Honestly, our exposure to reality, our experience with ourselves and with others and the volume of our knowledge is incredibly small.  When we honestly think about how small, insignificant and uninformed we actually are, how could we dare to think that we know best about anything?

The Orthodox position on prayer (the historical position) is radically different than what the Evangelical/Protestant world promotes.  Prayer is not an appeal to a divine Santa Claus. Prayer is not a casual chat with a buddy.  Prayer is learning to silence our ever busy, distracted minds and "listen" for the direction of the Holy Spirit.  It is bringing our mind into our hearts and simply listening. Ultimately, it is an appeal to God to have mercy on us.

We are so distracted, so temporally minded, so earthly, that we cannot even think straight, not to mention even pray "straight".  The "Jesus Prayer" has been a foundational standard for the Christian world for many centuries, some would argue even from the beginning of the church.  This is the place to start to learn how to pray.

Judging others

When we hear someone speak and we disagree with what is being said, we are saying, in essence, that the speaker is wrong.  It is our responsibility, as Christians, who ought always to  strive to love our neighbor, to understand the source of that error (either his in speaking or our mistake in hearing him) and respond appropriately.  We must never attack, belittle or demean someone else for an error, logical, presuppositional or otherwise, for what we perceive as an error in the speaker, may be an error in our hearing/understanding. 

This is especially true when we are hearing someone speak from a different worldview.  In this case, there are surely presuppositional differences, of which, neither we nor they may be aware.  Humility is the key, as one should always be growing in understanding, therefore one will be wrong at various times.  As we grow in understanding, we ought to grow in humility, for we ought to be repeatedly seeing our errors.

Choosing Hell

In the garden of Eden, man was sinless, sin had no place, had no power and was merely a concept, unrealized.  Yet when man sinned, death took control and as an act of mercy, God allowed man to live for only a certain length of time and then be committed to the grave.  We understand this to be an act of mercy, for if man was to live forever, he would literally be in hell.  For he would continue living in the immediate presence of God, yet unable to die, would continue under the domination of sin with no means for escape. 
As we move forward in time, Jesus has come, died and risen from the grave, having defeated death.  Man now can live in the presence of God, free from the domination of sin and death is defeated, yet to be destroyed.  When death is finally destroyed, those men who have used their time on earth to refine themselves, to fight against sin and to strive for holiness, they will be preparing themselves for a glorious eternity.  But those men who waste their time, do not fight against the influence of sin and enter eternity, embodied, yet not striving after holiness, will endure a literal hell, for eternity.  This state will be the state in which man would have been, had God not introduced the mercy of death.  But at this point in time, death will have been destroyed, and those men who have not taken advantage of the resurrection of Christ, of the church as a hospital and of the power and direction of the Holy Spirit to prepare for an eternity with Christ, will suffer an eternity in eternal life, yet despising the very glory of God, who fills all things.