Taking action

When we are moved to act, what is that which generated the need to act? Either external or internal doesn’t matter, what does matter is source of the move to act. Are we moved to act because of an emotional response or an academic response? In other words, have we thought about how we respond or are we simply acting from a state of passion?
It really does come down to this either / or situation.  Upon what is our response grounded?  As an Orthodox Christian, I believe that a response ought to be built upon that which is true, not that which is felt in the moment.  And this sort of thing doesn't just happen.  One must exercise or practice this response.  When spoken poorly to, when lashed out against, when criticized or mocked, how do we respond?  We must stop and think about what is the right thing to do, not merely respond, because a response like that will merely be based on flesh.  Of course, when one practices responding according to faith, eventually our immediate response will be based on faith,  But this we must practice and think through.

That which we call reality

It has been in my mind to a larger degree, as of late, that our reality is far greater than those things we take in via our senses. The Christian worldview is made up of much more than simply physical behavior. To be a faithful Christian, we must learn to direct our thoughts and our actions by our spirit's leadership rather than that of our flesh. Of course, this is completely contrary to the average American way. It seems that our direction, almost from day one, is physical comfort and ease. In other words, what can we do to make ourselves more comfortable and find more free time.
Alternatively, the Christian ought to approach life as an opportunity to learn self control and to learn to love others. This really points to the primacy of the spiritual over the physical. When we focus on making ourselves comfortable and on being entertained, we are giving in to the leadership of our flesh. The reality of life after life after death cannot be ignored.
The pattern of our life, following birth, is three-fold. We start with our initial life on earth, the typical "go to school, get a job, get married, raise kids, retire and then die." Second is life after death, the period of time that most people (errantly) think of as eternity. But this disembodied state is very temporary and very unnatural. Third, is life after life after death. This is what we actually need to think of as eternity. When time finally comes to an end, all men will be given new resurrected bodies (remember, Jesus took the power of death when he resurrected and ultimately death is to be destroyed). Upon receiving our new bodies, we will pass through the final judgement. From this point forward is eternal life, either enjoying the immediate presence of God, as God is everywhere and in all things OR we spend our eternal life hating being in God's eternal presence. And this is the point of this blog.
If we spend our short time here on Earth focused on pleasing and entertaining ourselves, ignoring the spiritual side of reality, we will spend our eternity unprepared for the presence of God. Alternatively, if we see beyond the tiny sliver of reality we think of "it", and embrace an approach that realizes the spiritual and the physical, we will be prepared to enjoy an eternity rather than a mere century (at most).
Reality, for the Christian, is about using this time on earth, preparing our souls for eternity. If we have limited ourselves to comfort and entertainment, we have believed the lie sold to us by the world.
And we really ought to be better than that.

Don't confuse

In a recent conversation with an acquaintance, the term 'love' came up. I immediately responded with, "Love is not an emotion", with which he wholeheartedly disagreed. But alas, as is often the case, people don't think through and carefully articulate their terminology.
The way one may feel about love is an emotion. But love itself is an action and a state of mind. If we are faithfully following Christ's command to love our neighbor, we do so regardless of how we feel about him. Our feelings, in this case, are irrelevant. We love because it's the right thing to do. And no one dislikes love, giving or receiving.
But there are two other terms here to consider. One, "like", is completely an emotional response. We may hear a beautiful piece of music and because it emotionally moves us, we like it. We may really like to be with a particular person, because of the feelings we have when we are with them. That's all fine and good, but it not love. It is a focus on ourselves.
Two, "romance", is closer related to love, but still distinct from it. You may feel madly "in love" with someone, but it is really just an amplified "liking" of them. And if our marriage is built on romance, it is doomed to fail, for romance is fickle.
Our marriage shouldn't be built on liking someone either. For sure, we should like the person to whom we are married. But that will fluctuate as well, depending on our mood, on their mood, depending on the weather, or even depending on how our day went. But none of those things have any bearing on our love for someone else.
We love others because it is right and because it is a manifestation of who we are, as Christians. Jesus said it, let them know you by your love (John 13:35).

The Dynamic Life

Ok, I admit it, the title is a redundancy, in case you picked up on that.  Life, by definition, is dynamic.  In other words, our life is always full of life, active and moving.  Even for the couch potato, the assembly line worker and the elderly in the nursing home.  Of course, these are stereotypes, but a stereotype is a stereotype because it is built on the reality of the picture. 
So the title "The Dynamic Life" does not necessarily mean the "productive life" or "the positive life", but simply that life is ever changing, never static. As we go through our days, we are doing something, both physically and mentally.  We are either growing and improving or growing and diminishing.  There is no such thing as a static human being. 
So the question is, "Which one are you?"  In our day and age, there are so many possibilities for growth and improvement. But at the same time, there are so many opportunities for distraction and loss.  We can put in our eight hours a day of work and then waste the rest of our time in distractions and entertainments.  In this case, we are diminishing, as we are not using the mind and/or body that God has given us.  Or we could be using the rest of our time for the improvement of our minds, our bodies or the improvement of others.  Granted, there is the fourth option of our efforts going toward the diminishing of others, and unfortunately, this is common.
So where are we at?  A slow decline into mediocrity and waste or are we growing and improving.  We only have so much time, considering that most of us have to work and sleep, which is 2/3's of our day.  What do we do with the other eight hours?

The view of ancestral superiority

In a paper that I recently read, "The Perils of Omnisignificance: Language and Reason in Mesopotamian Hermeneutics " by Eckhart Frahm, the concept of appealing to the distant past as the repository of truth is found in first millenium BC Mesopotamia. The question that came to my mind, upon discovering this, is that of "why".  Why did the Mesopotamian philosophers, of that day, come to embrace the concept of ancient superior? Why did they believe that the past held the truth?  For the Orthodox Christian, we look to the first century truth as the fountain of truth, simply because it was the first century believers, who had been taught by Christ, living and learning directly under his leadership.
Of course, the Orthodox church does not limit itself to only what is found in the first century.  As the church has continued to grow and mature, our beliefs have not changed, but have been clarified over the centuries.  As we have come to cultural situations where explanation is necessary, the church has promoted learning and understanding, and giving energy to the clarification of doctrine.
But the original question, "Why did the ancient Mesopotamian philosophers look to the further past for truth?" remains to be understood, at least by me.  What was their thinking and their presuppositions built upon?  What did they know about their ancestors and philosophical/intellectual predecessors, that we do not?  To whom where they appealing?  To whom did they intellectually submit?
The time frame for this paper is first millenium Mesopotamia.  This would make these peoples contemporary with King David in Israel.  This would make these people the descendants, 500 years past, of Abraham, who came from Mesopotamia.  I do not, at this time, have an answer, but the idea of coming to an understanding of what drove ancient philosophers to embrace the hermeneutic they did, is fascinating.  

Speaking in categories

As is obvious, if one watches the news and current events, there are massive categorical disruptions taking place.  Women are beginning to respond to the sexism that has been so prominent in history, different races are beginning to speak out and act out against the horrible abuses that take place based on race.  The category of gender is being questioned, re-defined and re-formed.

It recently occurred to me that the practice we have of categorizing people is really just a form of stereotyping.  One cannot say that all women are weak, that all Asians are computer whizzes, that all Native Americans are alcoholics or that all homosexuals are flamboyant imitations of Liberace. To do this type of categorizing is simply not accurate.  I suspect that much of this practice comes from, of all unexpected places, the idea of “big”. We live in a big country, we live in big houses, we drive big cars, we go to big churches, we go to big malls, etc, etc. But if we look at every single one of these items, they are all malformed and twisted in some sense.  Big, almost always, results in deformation and abuse. The use of big typically results in anonymity and loss of accountability. And this is the root problem.

When anonymity and lack of accountability become the norm, there is a tragic disconnect that takes place in people.  No longer are we dealing with John, Jim, Mary or Sally, we are dealing with nameless faces, nameless numbers and statistics.  We begin dealing and thinking in terms of categories: white, black, Asian, straight, gay, etc., etc. And when our interactions lose personality, we have nothing to love, as one does not love a category, but an individual.  

Because love is what it is all about.  Jesus summed up the entire point of life as love of God and love of neighbor. There is nothing else needed.  

Understanding Perspective

From the moment we are born and every following moment of our existence, our subjective understanding of reality consists of receiving and interpreting sensory input.  The problem is not the hardware, our five senses all work correctly and accurately (with birth defects being the obvious exception). The hardware is fine, but the interpretation process is where the problem lies. 99.9% of the time, we work on the assumption that our five layers of sensory input are the sum total of reality.

But Eastern thought and quantum thought tell us differently. Even within the Christian world, while we do admit to the reality of God, his interaction with mankind and the prospect of eternity, these concepts are still held at arm’s length as “future” or, at best, an emotional accessory.  The immediate reality upon which everyone works, is that of the financial here and now, retirement included. We work to buy things, to invest, to provide for our families, to prepare for retirement, and to enjoy the physical here and now. It simply is the framework within which everyone works and thinks.

So, what do we do when we come to realize that the physical here and now only accounts for 5% of reality?  According to Eastern thought, all mankind is connected, i.e., the sin of anyone person adversely affects the whole of humanity, in a metaphysical way.  We see when we meet someone and get an uneasy feeling, or, adversely, when we immediately “connect” with someone we meet.

The overall question here is responding to reality.  When we move past the shallowness and distractedness of a mere temporal reality and begin to see life holistically, the result is disturbing.  We find ourselves out of sync with the rest of society. The bright and shiny things of pop culture take on a paper cut-out feel. That which so easily distracted us in the past, now only leaves us empty.  Like a child learning to walk, we need to grow up and learn to live as genuine human beings.