The blood of the divine in the veins of mortals

We need to really do our best to understand what is happening when we partake of the Eucharist.  A faithful approach to understanding any doctrine of the church includes an articulate and honest assessment of the relationship between God and his people, throughout old covenant history.
When we begin to seek an understanding of what is actually occurring during the celebration of the Eucharist, we need to see the Eucharist as part of the covenant relationship between God and his people. 
Going back to the Abrahamic covenant, we can see that the sign of circumcision was not simply a nice memorial to remind the Jews of who they were.  The sign of circumcision literally made the receiver of the covenant sign a part of the people of God.  Literally, actually, truly, genuinely a part of God's people.
When we look at the sacrificial system given by God to his people during the Mosaic covenant, the blood that was spilled in the context of the sacrifice for the covering of sins was not simply a nice picture to remind the Jews how God had forgiven them.  That spilled blood literally covered their sins.  Literally, actually, truly, genuinely covered their sins.
So when we come to the celebration of the Eucharist, now, in the New Covenant, we are partaking of the literal body and blood of Jesus Christ. Literally, actually, truly, genuinely the body and blood of Christ, not a nice little picture to remind us of Jesus' sacrifice.
The mistake we do not want to make comes in one of two categories.  One, that the partaking of the Eucharist is simply a memorial, a non-sacramental reminder of Jesus' death (baptistic theology) or two, that the Eucharist is understood as a scientifically verifiable physical change in material, the bread and wine physically transform into flesh and blood (Roman Catholic theology).
The historic and Orthodox understanding of the Eucharistic recognizes the literal change of the elements into the sacramental flesh and blood.  This is a literal change in a sacramental manner.
It's not a pretend reminder but it is also not a scientific ontological change.  It is something far greater that we can label and understand as sacro-covenantal.

Why would we kill?

I recently watched a movie, a Hollywood telling of the story of the lost boys of Sudan.  It was sad, but at the same time, moving.  The people of that nation has long been in a civil war, with almost unimaginable killing.  One scene showed small children in hiding, while soldiers went through their village killing anyone they could find, men, women and children.  To me, this is incomprehensible.  On what reasonable grounds could there be justification for shooting anyone.
While the reality of man's fallen, sinful nature is ever before us, that reality is not justification for sin.  It explains it, but does not justify it.
The civil war in Sudan is, apparently, based on religious and tribal differences.  That is about all I know of those details.  There is also the reality of racism.  If someone is raised to believe that one of another race is subhuman, killing them is of no consequence.  If someone is raised to believe that one of another race is basically on the same level as vermin, then killing them is a service to mankind.  If someone has something that we want, such as land or resources, then killing them provides the means for taking it.
I hope it is obvious that all of these reasons are based on faulty worldviews.  All men are made in the image of God.  No one should be killed, executed or otherwise killed unless they are guilty of murder.
The answer is really very simple.  God calls us to love one another and treat others as we would be treated.  Everything else is secondary.

Considering Job, 2

In my first post, I emphasized the importance of comprehending the time in which Job lived.  His life, during the time of Abraham, communicated to us that he was not living contemporaneous with an identified people of God.  In other words, Job's life was lived in pre-Abraham covenant. This means that God had not yet identified and set apart a people special to him.  All men were knowledgeable of and responsible to obey, God. 
The description we receive of Job, with his large family and large estate, shows us that he was living under God's blessing, for obedience.  We see in the book that Job is identified as a righteous man. So what happened?
It's important to note that we see the free wills acting in this historical sequence.  We see God's freewill, we see Jobs, and we see the devils.  It's also important to note that the devil needed to get permission from God to attack Job.  This in itself shows us that Job was living under God's blessing for obedience.
As a means of testing Jobs character, God allows the devil to harm Job's possessions, his family and his health, but he is not allowed to kill him.  The attack on possessions shows us that Job had been faithful to God and was enjoying God's covenantal blessing.  But it also shows us that God's blessing upon men was limited to things physical.  The devil attacks Job in these ways but does not take his life.  In all of this, thus far, Job responds rightly.
The book then moves into the monologue section, where Job's wife and friends all give their opinion as to why these bad things are happening to Job.  They all get it wrong.
In my next post, we'll consider why.

Resolutions

As we approach the end of the year 2015, people will be moved, driven or motivated to make a new years resolution.  Losing weight, eating less dessert, exercising more, spending less time online, etc, etc.  I recently heard a song with a line that said, "I won't waste another day." 
The question that comes to mind in situations such as these is that of the underlying belief.  If we are motivated to make a resolution, why?  The most reasonable answer would be that one believes the thing being resolved is important.  But I would strongly suggest that the thing being labeled as important needs to be analyzed and questioned.  Is it actually important and does it fit with the worldview you claim to embrace?  In other words, is the way that you are living or want to live, consistent with what you say you believe?
To be even more pointed, do your works and actions agree with your religious beliefs?  This is not a question that is easy to answer.  We tend to be blind to much in our own lives.  This is probably a question you should ask a close confidant or your father confessor.
But be ready to act on the answer you receive.  It may be difficult.

The meaning in the words

I recently came across the phrase, "she is the world to me."  And this struck me as having two distinct but opposite meanings.  First, this could mean that this particular female is very important to the point of taking on the value of the entire world, in a word, invaluable.
Or second, this could mean that this particular female is "the world" meaning "all that is contrary to godliness".  In other words, she is the thing that draws one away from all that is good and right. 
I'm not sure what to do with this observation, other than to point out the realization that words can take on various meanings and those meanings are typically defined by the one using them.
We need to be careful in this.

Early church fathers

Over the centuries, many documents, letters and sermons have been written and preserved from which we can gain insight into the beliefs and understanding of early Christians.  I am beginning a study of volume one of the Ante-Nicene Fathers.  From this reading I hope to gain one of two things.  Either some further text that will help me understand scripture better, or show me how errors were present, even in the first/second century church, thus validating the exclusion of these texts from the Bible.
Let's see how this goes....

The forest and the trees

We have all heard the phrase, "you can't see the forest for the trees". And whether or not the one speaking the phrase understands it or not, the question is that of perspective.  When we look at a particular situation in our lives or even just our lives in general, what is it that, one, draws our immediate attention and two, what forms or controls the worldview that directs our thinking?
We must learn to recognize our presuppositions in order to recognize, understand and root out our faulty thinking.  From thinking comes actions. One can critique others for too much thinking or for placing too much emphasis on verbal articulation. But these things come from a desire to think, speak and do what is pleasing to God.
Learning to see the big picture without sacrificing the ability to see and understand the details is very valuable.
All of this is tied together in this: words and actions have meaning and that meaning is found in the immediate and wide context of the situation. Learning to see the details and interpret them in the broader picture will provide the greatest understanding. And understanding is what it is all about.  If we do not understand someone, we cannot respond to them in any helpful manner.  If we do not understand someone that we claim to love, I would argue that we don't really love them.  How can you love what you don't know?
One could offer a multitude of examples about the value of understanding.  Imagine driving in a foreign country, stopping for directions and receiving instructions in a language you do not know.  Imagine having your doctor give a medical explanation of your physical malady using only post doctoral terminology.
I've heard many times about the value of listening, but this of course presupposes understanding.  It is only when we have understanding that we can truly listen and when we truly listen can we truly respond.  And is only when we truly love that we can respond rightly.