Covenants identity and details

One of the arguments that modern evangelicals post against covenant theology is that of identity.  They say,  "God called the Israelites his people. He would not leave them just in order to embrace a different bunch of sinners."
But then it occurred to me. God didn't leave the Israelites, they left him.  There is a  regular pattern in covenant theology.  Each time the current leader of the covenant dies, the rest of the people fall into horrible sin.  Judgment them upon falls, God raises up a new leader,  leads  some of the people through that judgment, and gives more details of his covenant.
This is exactly what has happened with Jesus Christ.  Jesus took the identity of Israel upon himself,  suffered the judgment for Israel's horrible sin,  but God raised him up and lead the few faithful Israelites through that judgment.
He has now given them/us the New Covenant.  God didn't turn his back on the Jews.  He provided a way for them to pass through the judgment against the Old Covenant unfaithful.  Those that listened and followed the new covenant head came into new life and the New Covenant.  Those that didn't turned away from his offer of salvation.

Consideration of worldview

I would like to try to combine a few thoughts that have been plaguing me as of late, of which I have written here.  Some groups within the Christian fold claim that no one can be genuinely happy unless they are a Christian.  And that if someone claims otherwise, they are simply lying because they do not want anything to do with God.
But I have a hard time with that.  I know a pretty wide range of people, many of whom are not Christians, and they seem to project an image of happiness or contentedness.  Maybe it is all a facade, but it would impossible to prove.  Here are my thoughts.
When a child is growing up, his parents communicate to him, both consciously and unconsciously, that things are important, what things are to be sought after and what things are not important.  The child then begins to think on his own, and in most cases, will follow in the path that his parents have started for him.  If he grows and is successful, according to the standards that have been set for him, by his parents and his culture, he will have a sense of accomplishment and contentedness.  Sometimes, upon achieving that goal, or at least hovering around that goal, if some level of spirituality is not included, the child will realize a sense of something missing and will seek out that missing spirituality.
But here is the hard part.  When a child achieves the success that parents and culture have set for him and there is included a sliver of morality/spirituality, there is a fuller sense of accomplishment and therefore no need to seek anything further.  They have achieved what they were raised to achieve.
But this level of temporal accomplishment is far from what the historic church has always held as valuable. Being comfortable, wealthy, healthy and distracted is possibly the greatest foe to achieving holiness.  But if that goal of holiness has never been communicated, but something else, with a sheen or morality is in its place, that holiness will not be pursued or understood as valuable.
This is why the modern form of American Evangelicalism is failing in America.  No need is seen for pursuing holiness, when happiness is already present, when the pre defined goal has already been achieved and the shallow, relatively ignorant and short sighted religiosity is incapable of answering the attacks of critics.
It is easy to stay distracted when the world is at our fingertips, when we are comfortable and when the goal that has been fed to us our entire lives is already in hand.  The church needs to respond.

Interpretive Framework

Protestants handle the Bible just like Muslims handle the Qoran, like Buddhists handle the Book of the Dead and Hindus handle the Bhagavad Gita.  As if all we have is a collection of letters from a now practically absent God, who will return at some unknown future time, to judge us all for what was written.

The Orthodox Church handles the Bible as one aspect of how God communicates to us.  We now serve a living, present, active God, who leads his objective church, by his Holy Spirit.  The Church recognized, canonized, and interprets the Bible.  It is handled and understood properly only within the framework of the church. 

This is why the Protestant world is fragmented.  There is no final authority to whom appeal is made in understanding Scripture.  It has all been reduced to private interpretation.

Learning to Balance

1) information in the world around us

2) acting on that information from a Christian foundation

3) offering prayers on that information

4) understanding that most things are beyond our control

5) understanding that all things are ours to pray about

Religious Freedom

I have been reading about the large scale resurgence of Orthodoxy in Russia.  Technically, Russia has been an officially Christian Orthodox nation since AD 988, when the government embraced Orthodoxy as the national religion.  With the exception of the small blip of soviet atheism beginning around 1920, Russia has been Christian.  Since the fall of communism, there has been a massive building process currently taking place.  In Moscow, currently, there is an official plan to build 200 Orthodox churches.

But some people are complaining.  The claim is that the government is showing favoritism to the Orthodox, at the expense to the religious minorities in the country.  But I have to ask, “would you expect anything different?”  The country is historically Orthodox.  There are currently no laws in place that forbid any citizen from believing and practicing a different faith.  But there are laws that limit the activity by those practicing other faiths.  Why would it be otherwise?

One important thing to remember in this regard is that Russia is not the US.  Russia was not built upon the supposed religious freedom of Protestantism.  We cannot judge the Russian nation by Protestant standards or ideas.  The nation of Russia is Christian Orthodox.  The depth of that religious practice in its people is not a discussion topic at this point.  I am talking about the official religious status and the structure of the culture.

Should not a nation be free to choose its own religious path and/or be free to practice that faith without interference from other foreign religious influence? No one seems to complain that Saudi Arabia is officially Muslim, or that India is officially Hindu or that Thailand is officially Buddhist, or even China’s official atheism.  All of these places have official positions of religious tolerance, but practically speaking, differing religious practice is difficult.  But it is a situation that one would expect, especially in a nation that takes its religious faith seriously.  Perceived truth ought to be embraced and practiced truth.

I would suggest that “political correctedness” has taken control.  We need to strive to be Orthodox, not culturally PC.  There may be a difference.

Instruction

In the Protestant world, particularly within Calvinism, the standard approach is to learn as much as you can.  It is a very academic world, built around knowledge and understanding.
But the historic Orthodox world is quite different.  This is not to say that Orthodoxy is anti-intellectual, far from it.  The historic church contains some very brilliant minds.  In Orthodoxy, the emphasis/goal is theosis. In short, we are to become a much like God as is humanly possible. So this means we must strive after purity and holiness.
With that in mind, the idea of obedience comes to mind.  Two things here: The Orthodox faith is very organic and we do not lose our individuality when we become part of the church.
Very high on our list of things to seek, is a spiritual father.  This is someone who has been a faithful, mature Christian for a long time and has much wisdom.  When we find that spiritual father, his wisdom and instruction is for us. We cannot, safely, take the specific instruction from another father and apply it to ourselves, indiscriminately.  Specific wisdom is for specific people at specific times.
In short, we no longer live under law, by which we follow a set of rules.  We are now under grace, filled with the Holy Spirit. God has given us godly examples we are to emulate and learn from.
Find a spiritual father and learn to obey.

Seeing but not believing

In my multiple interactions with atheists,  I often become frustrated at their varied responses, which really summarize down to one thing,  "give me some verifiable proof, so that then I will believe."
But it just occurred to me (literally). When we read in the gospel accounts of Jesus' resurrection, in three different responses we see a common theme.  When Mary saw Jesus at the tomb,  when the disciples saw Jesus on the road to Emmaus, and when Thomas was told of first hand accounts of Jesus' resurrection,  none of them believed upon "seeing" Jesus.  It wasn't until they interacted with him, that they recognized him.
It will be the same with atheists.  No matter how strong or passionate our explanations and arguments, they will not believe.  Atheists need to interact.  The atheist needs to seek out and interact with God before they will believe.
Let us pray that they have that opportunity before they pass into eternity.