An Argument for the City

In our current age, there has developed a strong push towards environmentalism. The kind of mentality that argues for a return to nature, for the equal treatment of animals (or even for the superiority of animals), and a deprecation of technology.

It must be first recognized that a discussion such as this must be held in a proper context and balance. We must not fall into the error of only seeing a dichotomy. We must not argue for nature or for the city. This would be false. There is in fact a middle ground.

The first place to begin is with the concept of stewardship. God has given us this universe to take care of and develop. It started in a garden that was already beautified and man's responsibility was to extend that work over the entire planet. It is interesting to note that man was originally placed in a garden and history ends with man worshipping God in a city.

The original structure of creation was threefold. There was the world abroad, there was the land of Eden and there was the Garden of Eden. With man's sin of rebellion, he was cast out of the garden and into the land. With Cain's sin of murder, he was cast out of the land of Eden and into the world abroad.  With the global sin of mankind during the time of Noah, all men except for Noah and his family were removed from the world. At this point in history, mankind started over and began working back toward the garden. Noah was placed back into the world after the flood, then with Noah/Joshua, God's people were placed back into the land (Israel), and then finally, with the construction of the temple (which was designed to look like a garden on the inside), man was allowed back into the garden. But this structure was symbolic. The incarnation of Jesus Christ brought the reality and fulfillment of these symbols. Now that Jesus has defeated sin and death by his life, death and resurrection, we, as a redeemed, cleansed and sanctifying people, can again take up the responsibility of ordering and structuring the universe. Allow me to make this very clear. Our goal is not to return to a garden state. That has already been accomplished by Jesus' work. Jesus fulfilled the requirements of the law, reopening the Holy of Holies. Jesus has provided access to the garden.

Our job now is to take that garden and turn it into a God glorifying city. This may take a very long time, possibly thousands of years. This is one reason why I believe that the second coming probably won't happen for a very long time.

So we have the first argument of Adam's job of taking dominion over the earth. He failed at this by his sin of rebellion, giving power over to Satan. Satan of course did the reverse and led man into death spiral of chaos and confusion. We see this in the barbarism, cannibalism and destruction of man over all of history.

It has not been until the spread of the gospel through missionary activity that the trend toward chaos has begun to reverse. This is certainly not to argue that our efforts have been flawless. Man's sinful nature has caused many problems all over the earth including missionary work as well. But this was due to sinful or misguided or erroneous thinking and action on man's part, not because of fault with the gospel.

The second argument is seen in the development of Israel, the Old Covenant people of God. The pattern that they developed was not a return to primitivism and nature, but a development of the land around them into advanced culture and civilization. They came into the Promised Land and began taking it over, destroying what was evil and redeeming all the rest.
This is the pattern that we are to follow as well. Jesus Christ, as the archetype Joshua, has led us into the Promised Land (not any one particular nation but the world as a whole).  Jesus has defeated sin and death and given us the power and responsibility of cleansing sin in ourselves, thus purifying our world as well. We have the responsibility of maturing our world.

The third argument is about community. As the people of God, our faith is not "just Jesus and me".  Instead, we are part of the body of Christ, each an important part in the whole of the body. We are to worship, repent and grow together as part of a whole. We can only fully do this by being part of a city, with regular interaction in the body of Christ. This kind of interaction is, I argue, very difficult, if not nearly impossible to do in a widely dispersed agrarian or primitive culture. To take Paul's argument in a slightly different direction, when we are focused on the things of the world (the time consuming labor of farm work and/or manufacturing everything yourself), the high majority of our time is spent in earthly labor.

An argument for the city consists of a closely-knit neighborhood built around the church as the body of Christ, involving and revolving around one another in community. Specialization allows for a more efficient use of time and energy as we strive to grow in personal godliness and help one another to grow in our faith.

Ultimately, this is about growth and maturity, not just as persons, but also as the body of Christ. Just as Adam was created perfect, he was immature and needed to grow up, so too we as the body of Christ have already been perfected in Christ but still need to grow and mature. One way in which this manifests itself is in the physical realm. As man, we were created body and soul. As Christians we reject the idea of our spirit trapped in the prison house of the body. The sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit, in addition to enlightening our darkened souls and purifying the stain of sin, will also sanctify and cleanse the world around us. What this means is a move toward civilization and culture, not primitivism.

What is the Church?

When we speak of the church, are we talking about the local church, that is, a particular congregation, or the universal church, that is, all local congregations, over all time, in all places?  When we say "all", in this regard, who is included in this?  Do we include all those who call themselves Christians?  Do we only include those who meet specific doctrinal criteria?  Do we only include those who are actually in communion with a particular ecclesial body?

To what authority do we appeal to make his definition?  Much of the problem stems from the Protestant Reformation and the framework of thinking that has been constructed since then. The option to think and act independently of an ecclesial authority must be questioned. Is there any other "body" which allows for independent action?  Certainly not any organic body. If you remove your spleen, it will not survive and function on its own. This is a valid analogy, as Paul compares the body of Christ to the human body. If nothing in the human body can survive outside of its body and independent of it, why would we think any different of the body of Christ?

The question then leads to how we define church. This has been a problem since the Protestant Reformation. With Luther and Calvin's decisive break from the organized church (albeit the Roman Catholic church, who themselves are out of communion with the historic church), they set a precedent that has exploded into many thousands of denominations, each answering for itself the multitude of doctrinal, ecclesiastical and practical answers.

The Orthodox Church would argue that church would be defined in a very practical, historic sense, that is, the church is those who are in communion with the practicing apostolic faith. Of course, that faith is found in the Orthodox Church and no where else. This is not to say that, in some mysterious sense, there are no Christians outside of the Orthodox Church, in the same way that there were odd exceptions under the Old Covenant. For example, Naaman did not take on the mark of covenantal inclusion i.e., circumcision, yet he was still a follower of YHWH. But this ought to be seen as an unusual and rare situation. In today’s context, are there Christians outside of the Orthodox Church?  Absolutely!  But I have to ask, why would someone choose that position?  Why would someone prefer to stay on the practical "outside" of daily communion with God and his people?

So what is "the Church"?  It is the body of Christ, as manifested by the Eastern Orthodox Church. If you profess the name of Christ, then you ought to be there as well.

The Right Kind of Military

Here is a good photo of what a soldier should be:

What is the point?

It is becoming more and more clear to me all the time that we need to ask ourselves one question and then live out the answer as consistently as we can. That question is, "What is the reason we are alive?"  Or said another way, "What is the point of our life?"

We can give the easy Protestant answer of, "To glorify God and enjoy him forever", but the self-centered nature of that answer and its vagueness don't really guide us anywhere.

The Orthodox answer is much more difficult to do, thus a more comprehensive and foundational means are required. We recognize our fallen nature, our tendency toward sin and the corruption of our darkened souls, thus we see the need to make life a continual movement of confession and repentance. We by no means see our sinfulness in its entirety. That would be too much for any man.

So what is the point of our life?  What is the reason we are alive?  Each of us has to answer that question, be honest with our answer and change our thinking if need be. As Christians, we ought to have the standard of Scripture within Holy Tradition. If we find ourselves thinking or acting contrary to that truth, we really must change.  If we feel we cannot, then we must seek help from someone older and wiser, probably a priest or a monk. Others will see in us things that we cannot see. We need to give these observations consideration.

           So what is the point of our lives?  Let it be holiness as defined by the Church and then act on it.

Most Holy Theotokos, Mother of God

There is a prayer in the Orthodox Church that goes,  "most holy Theotokos, save us!" Many people misunderstand this and really don't like this prayer. This prayer goes all the way back to the 9th century and has always been an appeal to someone very, very godly to pray for us.

I approach this in two ways. First, simply because this is a foundational and long standing prayer in the historic church makes it sound. The belief that the Holy Spirit is leading the Church and that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth assures me that prayers such as this are truth. And even in general, that our prayers to reposed saints are truth as well.

Second, the book of James (5:16) speaks of "the prayers of a righteous man avail much." This means that when godly people pray, their prayers are effective.  Nothing is said here about people ceasing to pray after they die. In fact, upon death, the righteous are then in the immediate presence of God. I can think of no better place to be in order for ones prayers to be heard, received and answered.

As we go through our days and nights during this life, we don't (or at least shouldn't) fail to ask our family and friends to pray for us. Why then wouldn't we ask the saints to pray for us?

The Lives of the Saints

In our day-to-day lives, we are exposed to a myriad of personalities. We work with people, interact with people at the bank, at the grocery, at church and at school. All of these people affect us in some way or another. Imagine if the grocery checker is really grumpy, we will respond to that person in some manner, either rightly or wrongly. And that interaction may affect the rest of our day.

Its sad to say, but most of the people with whom we interact, many of them very nice, are not a godly influence. God has given us the means to deal with situation.

Over the many centuries since the resurrection of Jesus Christ, there have been those people who have completely devoted themselves to serving God. Their lives reflect a love for God and a love for neighbor that is nothing short of amazing. Over time, these people have been recognized as saints. Some explanation is needed so as to rightly understand how this term is to be understood. By the term "saint", we don't mean that they are better than others in some sort of ontological sense. The Orthodox Church does not have a mechanical process for canonization. When someone is officially declared a saint, it is recognition of sainthood, already embraced and believed by a very large number of believers in a number of locations, typically over a long period of time. Sainthood is typically attributed to someone because of their love and wisdom. People will have been flocking to this person during their lifetime for direction and guidance and then after their repose, to their grave, for prayer. Biographies are frequently written about these saints and are widely read.

Thus, the point of this article. As Christians, we ought to be looking to the life example of the saints, for direction in our own lives. We can learn from and imitate these saints, many times those nearly contemporary, by reading their biographies. We are so quick to fill our heads with pop culture news. This is a tragedy that darkens our souls and distracts us from the light and life of the Church. Let us be more familiar with the lives of St Seraphim of Sarov, St Xenia of Petersburg, St Innocent of Alaska or St John Maximovitch rather than with Miley Cyrus or Paul Walker.