Football?

While I am typically not one to every speak of football, a funny illustration came to mind, pointing out the irony of American culture. 
From my understanding, if a city wants to form a football team and join the NFL, a huge amount of paperwork and money is needed to do so.  One does not simply hire a handful large men in tight pants and pads and call it NFL.
If this is true, how sad is it that if any Tom, Dick or Harry wants to call themselves Reverend and start a church, in America, they are totally free to do so. 
I guess that shows what our culture believes to be more important.

No longer physical

It has been my understanding that under the Old Covenant, because death had power over men, God used the realm of the physical to give out blessings or curses.  For example, under the Mosaic Covenant, one was blessed for obedience with long life, many children, freedom and peace in one's own homeland and health.  Good used these things because that was the only realm in which man functioned.  For man, under the power of death, going to the grave meant separation from God.  There was no heaven to look forward to.
But now, and ever since Jesus Christ defeated death and took away its power, we no longer are confined to the mediocre realm of physical blessing.  Jesus' work freed us from the power of death, providing the means for us to live in obedience and look forward to eternal life in the immediate presence of God.
This does not, even in the least suggest that we earn eternal life.  Jesus already earned that.  We, in response to Jesus' work are to strive to love God and love neighbor, however that manifests itself in each individual life.
The contrast is an important one.  Under the Old Covenant, there was only physical blessing or physical curse.  Death meant separation from God.  Now, under the New Covenant, we should not be limiting our thoughts to the physical.  No longer is it the case that long life and many children are blessings for obedience, just as much as a short life and barrenness are no longer curses for disobedience.  Since death has been defeated, our focus is on preparing for eternity by sanctification, loving God and loving neighbor. 
When we under go some sort of hardship, we should look upon it as a means to aid our sanctification.  When we receive some sort of temporal blessing, we should see it as a test of our faith.  What will we do with our lives when things are easy? 
Applying this framework to our lives puts a radical spin on how we think and live, at least it ought to.  Try a thought experiment:  think through all the possible avenues in your live to which this could apply.  What would your life look like?

A wasted life of regret

How do we go about communicating to someone that if they continue on the path they are on, they will end in some form, at worst, of destruction, or at best, regret for lost and wasted time?  Distractions, amusements, alternate realities, self centeredness, and play are, or can be, the things that we spend much time upon, but accomplish nothing.  And by "accomplish nothing", I mean nothing of eternal or even temporal value.  Distracting ourselves into oblivion.  At the end of any period of time, what will be the answer when we ask, "What do I now have that I didn't have before I started this?"

Big o, little o, what begins with o

Despite all appearances, this is not a Dr. Seuss story.  I find it troubling that all branches of Christendom (Protestant, Roman Catholic and Orthodox) believe themselves to be orthodox.  Of the hundreds (or more) of denominations that exist, with a wide array of beliefs, all of these groups consider themselves orthodox.  How does this fit into reality?
The answer can only be one of three options.  One, only one group is right, two, none of these groups are right, and three, all of the doctrinal distinctions don't really matter.  From what I can ascertain, these are the only options.  All of these groups claim orthodoxy, usually based upon their interpretation of the Bible.  But again, someone or maybe all may be wrong in their interpretive endeavors.  All of them cannot be correct.  This point is even stronger when one considers the exclusive claims made by some of these groups.
We could continually reduce and simplify the basic claims until they find a point of unity.  But doing so would reduce the system of Christianity to almost an  unrecognizable monster.  And I think doing so would change the very essence and distinctiveness of the Christian faith.  I don't believe that anyone would want this.
What is the point of all of this?  I'm not sure.  But it is troublesome and thought provoking.  And it doesn't paint a very helpful picture for those outside of Christianity either.

Clothes

Clothes should be a reminder that the blood of Christ is a necessary covering for man.  What do I mean by this?
In the Garden of Eden, prior to the fall into sin, man did not need clothes.  In that sense he was naked.  But he was not actually naked, he was clothed with the glory of God, and unashamed.  When Adam and Eve sinned, they lost that glory and in response, tried to make their own clothes.  In this we see that it is unnatural for man to be uncovered.  God, in an act of mercy, provided clothes for them, in the form of animal sacrifice.  Some sort of animals needed to die in order to provide a covering.  This image points forward to the sacrificial system of the Old Covenant.
Jesus' work of death and resurrection fulfilled the need for animal sacrifice.  But that does not mean that man can now be naked.  Our wearing of clothing is a reminder to us that we need to be covered because of our sin.  God has provided the perfect covering in Jesus Christ.  It is not right at any point in time for man to be uncovered, either pre fall, during the Old Covenant or during our present day. 
I would suggest that the current trend toward nakedness, just like the same trend throughout time (Greece, Rome, etc.) points to man's rejection of Jesus Christ.  If a man thinks that he is okay, then there is no need for a covering.  If a man thinks that he is not sinful or in need of God's provision, he will tend towards nakedness.
An interesting side note, one of the OT curses for sin is baldness, ie, an uncovering of the head.  In other words, when someone rejected God's rule, God showed this rejection in a visible manner.  Kinda makes you wonder about the popularity of shaved heads today....

Even briefly

Something my wife said to me the other day really stimulated some thoughts.  She said, "If someone honestly looks at it, the Protestant world is terribly fragmented and self-centered."  She hit on two very poignant topics.  First, fragmentation.  Protestantism, by definition, is about protest and division.  When someone disagrees with the church he or she is in, they can voice a protest and/or leave.  To be honest, when Martin Luther began to voice his concerns with the Roman Catholic Church, he had no intention of leaving.  But after being excommunicated, Luther and those that followed were all about division.  Even Luther and Calvin, the foundation of the Protestant Reformation, did not agree and did not like each other. 
Calvin left the Roman Catholic church and began preaching in Switzerland.  The Anabaptist movement took the mentality even further and rejected everything the Roman Catholic church taught, including the sacraments.  History has shown a horrific fragmentation ever since.
The second point brought up by my wife is closely tied to the first.  The self-centered nature of Protestantism stems from divisiveness.  If YOU don't like what your church is doing, leave and create something with which you agree.  The very foundation of this is self.  The historic church has always strove for unification.  Of course there has been strife and disharmony in the church, but these problems are always addressed and worked out.  Questions, attacks and hostility have been faced and answered (the ecumenical councils). 
What is the whole point of this?  There is the body of Christ (in every sense of the word) and it is not seen in division and self-centeredness.  The love of God is in his saints.  Humility, obedience and holiness will only come about when we learn to understand what it truly means to be the body of Christ.

Presuppositions, part three

There remains (at least in this context) one more thing to address and consider, that of your own presuppositions.  Are you in agreement with the beliefs and practices of the Orthodox church?  Then I have to assume that you are already baptized into Christ in the church.  If you are not, then you need to ask yourself what particular points you oppose, and why.
There are many, many doctrinal points that can bog down this sort of consideration.  And as much as I love a robust doctrinal discussion, that sort of thing will only muddy the process.  Differing doctrines can be sorted out later, once the foundation has been examined and corrected, if necessary.
A good understanding of church history will aid much in this consideration.  Where we started, how we have progressed and grown and where we currently are will help establish our understanding of the claims of the Orthodox church. 
Obviously, the Roman Catholic church is the closest to the Orthodox church, but still far from being in unity with us.  The churches of the Reformation are another step removed and that much further from communion.  In most cases, simple ignorance of us and church history greatly complicates matters.  The evangelical church of another step further away, and the quasi-Christian groups, another step further.
So what am I saying about all of this?  No matter where you are, you must ask yourself why you are there, what exactly you are in disagreement about with the Orthodox church and if you are willing to consider all of it and if not, why not? 
Some may respond that there is no need to give consideration to the Orthodox church, that there are better things upon which to spend ones time.  But a statement as such reveals some terrible presuppositions.  Someone cannot disregard the Orthodox church with indifference.  The claims we make and the history we hold demands a response.  An informed person will either love or reject Orthodoxy.  I've seen both.  One will hear the claims, learn the history and respond with love or rejection.  One cannot respond with, "That belief is okay if it works for you.  But it is not where I am at.  We are still both faithful Christians."  This position is not possible when speaking from an informed position.
So what will you do?  We claim to be the one, holy apostolic church.  What do you believe and why?