PETA

After being prompted to read "Carnal Knowledge", a short story by JC Boyle, a few thoughts on activism have come to mind. Simply being passionate about something is not good or bad, in and of itself.

Activism is driven by the strong belief that something is really bad and something must be done to change that, even criminal activity, if necessary.

Animal rights, veganism, PETA and all activities in that category post an interesting conundrum in my mind. I really like animals and don't understand the interest anyone has in hunting. Finding enjoyment in killing just doesn't make sense to me. But at the same time I enjoy eating beef, pork, chicken, etc. And I don't have a problem with killing an animal so as to have meat to eat.

So the issue is that, in agreement with PETA, I believe that animals should be treated ethically. The problem comes in how ethical is defined. Clearly, my Christian faith directs my worldview, which includes eating meat, but it also includes rightfully handling all of God's creation.

So again, the question is, "Where do the proponents of PETA gain their authority to define ethics?"

What's Important

Do the things with which we are involved actually deserve the level of importance we give them?  Health and exercise, animal rights, the environment, personal rights and liberties, and entertainment, these are things to which many people devote their time and energy. The question is not, "Are they important?" but "Have we balanced all the variables in our lives rightly?"  The only way to answer this is to identify the foundational things in our life and then see if we are faithful to those, or do we merely pay these lip service because of surrounding culture or family tradition?

One could probably say that what one actually believes can be seen in how one lives, not in what one says.

The Value of the Mundane

Someone said to me the other day, "It’s good that Jim met Alena, she has brought some excitement into his mundane life."

The presupposition here is that a mundane life is a bad thing. Too often, the mindset in America is for the necessity of excitement. We always want to be entertained, to be titillated, to be distracted. And that is a problem.  We have far too much to accomplish, our souls are in need of more help than we realize, there are far too many people with real needs, for us to be distracting ourselves with novelties and innovations.

When we can get ourselves into a routine for the necessary and everyday things, we then can focus on the things that are eternally important.

We need to learn to be satisfied with the mundane. We need to learn to focus on and love the eternal and not be content with temporal distractions. Unfortunately, in this country, we are fighting against the flow. We have a big learning curve ahead of us.

Being on time

There are some things that I really find irksome. Being late is one of them. How is it that someone can arrive at work on time every day, usually pretty early.  Or someone can make it to a movie on time.  But someone has no qualms at all about arriving 15 or 20 minutes late to church, every week?  Especially when that someone is single or newly married or having one child or having only older children?

I'm really drawing a blank in terms of legitimate reasons. It must come down to the belief that it’s not really that important. But that really chafes me.  Of course there are times when things happen and we cannot help being late, and we shouldn't beat ourselves up because of these. But these should be the rare occurrence.

May I offer some suggestions?  Go to bed earlier.  Get up earlier.  Set out your clothes the night before.  Women, wear a head covering so you don't have to spend so much time on your hair.  Fulfill the precommunion prayers sometime before the service so as to get in the right frame of mind.

For I can think of nothing more important than being allowed to come into God's presence.

Things of Interest

Why do we like the things we like?  There are a myriad of things that pique and hold our interest, for hours, days, years, or a lifetime. Why?

It cannot be mere excellence, for there are many things that are excellently done, that we do not find interesting. And on the flip side, we unfortunately like things that are not excellent.

One thought I do have in this regard is "acquired taste".  About the time I turned 40 years old, out of necessity, I began drinking coffee. My job demanded that I stay awake at very unusual hours. I didn't like it, but needed it. In the past six months or so I have begun somewhat liking the taste. In this instance, at least, I have acquired a taste.

What about other things?  Another area would be style of music. Why do we like baroque, for example, but not Romanian folk music?  Is it a learned taste?  Are we genetically predisposed to some things?

To take it further, what happens when we acquire a taste that is sinful?  An extreme example would be heroin. I've heard that once addicted, one cannot ever stop craving it.  What is going on there?  Are our likes and dislikes strictly physiological?  Is there some sort of chemical transformation going on that is forming us and making us who we are, even on a psychological level?

In light of these questions, we need to consider the power of the Holy Spirit over sin, our freewill and our responsibility to control and direct our flesh, not allowing our passions to rule us. As part of the body of Christ, we can do nothing else.

Honoring Jesus

There are many denominations, pseudo-Christian groups and cults that claim to rightly interpret Scripture and love God, while at the same time reject the divinity and/or person of Christ. The foundational problem underlying this is in John 5:22-23:

 “For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son, that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.”

As Orthodox, we read and interpret this passage in the same manner (so we claim) as the apostles; i.e. that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, the third person of the Trinity and needs to be honored as such. To not recognize him as such is dishonoring to him and thus dishonoring to the Father. But of course it is not that simple. These other groups don't interpret the passage this way and therefore don't believe they are dishonoring the Father or Jesus.

There are a couple of ways to approach this. One could intellectualize and argue and claim academic superiority. This wouldn't solve the problem though, it only moves it back a step. In offering an interpretation of Scripture, one is presupposing something or someone as an authority. The question is "Who?". One could even appeal to common sense or reason as the grounds for a particular interpretation. But to be part of a small group that is claiming this, makes the position "not" common. One can appeal to tradition, but that claim must be substantiated. Is it actually tradition, or was it simply invented somewhere along the way?

Again, this sort of thing ultimately reduces to final authority. To whom are we appealing and do they actually have true authority?

In this verse, at least, the question is far more than an intellectual exercise. We are ultimately talking about our thoughts and responses to God the Father and God the Son.