What is church/the church?

When we say, "Let's go to church", what does that mean?  Generally speaking, from its context, it is easy enough to know what someone basically means when they say "go to church". But what does it mean in depth?  If the church is not the building, then it’s a misnomer to "go". But surely the church is more than simply a mental concept. And it cannot simply be the gathering of like-minded people. Merely claiming to be something is not grounds for actually being it.  One cannot appeal to Matt 18:15-20. This passage, in its context, is talking about church discipline, not the worship service. Then there is 1 John 3:15, where the church is identified as the pillar and foundation of the truth. That kind of designation is hard to nail down if one is going to identify the church as an ambiguous "everyone who loves Jesus". The over whelming variety of doctrines throughout the Protestant world makes this kind of designation practically impossible.

I believe this leaves only two options. One, the church, when defined as "anyone who loves God", requires an incredibly narrow and shallow articulation of truth, so that the only thing necessary for being part of the Church is narrow mental consent. Or two, the church is an objective, definable entity with a life and practice of which one should partake.  There are no other options.

The historic church, that is, the Eastern Orthodox Church, sees, understands and promotes itself as the church that has lived and moved and breathed as "the Church" defined by Jesus and the apostles and animated by the Holy Spirit. I would agree.
The church then is that visible body that embraces and lives out the faith as handed down by the apostles and their successors, led by the Holy Spirit, as a body not as individuals, striving towards eternal life by working out their salvation with fear and trembling. And being part of that church does not end at death. Since Christ's victory over death at the resurrection, death is now merely temporary disembodiment. The final judgment will bring with it eternal embodiment either with God as the collective bride of Christ or apart from God as the unfaithful servant.

It is not legitimate to base ones faith and belief on personally interpreted Scripture, independent of the historic Church. If someone finds themselves believing something contrary to that which the church has always believed or taught, they should seriously consider why. And give serious consideration as to likelihood of being wrong. Because the church, as the body of Christ, is the bride of Christ. No one else is. And to be out of communion with the body of Christ is to be as the branch that has been cut off.

          Far too many see the religious life in strictly subjective terms. But we cannot ignore the objective reality of Church life. To do so would be similar to claiming love for your spouse while not living with or growing with her.

Romance

I am not thinking of the googly eyed teen crush kind of silliness. The romance that is currently plaguing my mind is that of memories where one only remembers the nice, fun things, forgets the unpleasant or completely rewrites an event in a positive light.
     This is something that we all do, usually unconsciously. I think that simply being aware of this tendency can help us keep some things a little straighter. Numerous tests have revealed that human memory is selective and unreliable. We tend to remember the things that are most important to us or that have most deeply affected us on some non superficial level.

One thing I try to do is write lots of things down. This frees up my mind from having to remember many trivial things. Like a grocery list.
But this should also make us realize that the way we remember a conversation or argument may not exactly be accurate, especially for those who spend more time formulating their next argument instead of listening to the other person.
            So what consideration do we give this?  Argue less, listen more, and give others the benefit of the doubt.

It's not magic, part two

     In response to a question regarding my definition of magic, I performed a little research and came across multiple definitions, from pagan, Wiccan, Christian, and Islamic sources that all were in agreement with the definition I gave.  Below are links to these sources, if you are interested.

http://www.llewellyn.com/encyclopedia/article/109

http://qntm.org/what

http://www.crosswalk.com/faith/spiritual-life/magical-confusion.html

http://www.thewhitegoddess.co.uk/an_introduction_to_paganism/what_is_magick.asp

http://www.al-islam.org/180-questions-about-islam-vol-2-various-issues-makarim-shirazi/41-what-magic-and-how-does-islam-view

     To go a little further in my discussion and thoughts on magic, attempting to manipulate a situation that would be normally outside of our realm of influence, through the use of ritual, is magic.  My argument is that manipulation of that sort is not that which is done by the Christian church.  The whole point of the Christian life is relationship with God.  We should never seek to manipulate God.  It is no different than the way we would treat any other person.  Manipulation is not love.

Really Beautiful Women

Now be honest with yourself. What were you thinking when you read this title?  Cheerleaders?  Hollywood actresses?  Porn stars?

How we define beauty exposes a lot about us. There are many things that are directed by, controlled by, and we articulate by, our definition of beauty. George Santayana wrote "A Sense of Beauty", which is considered an important contribution to the philosophical discussion of beauty. Graham Harmon has further defined beauty. But they are both coming from wrong presuppositions. To argue whether beauty is subjective or objective is starting from a wrong foundation. To talk about external appearance, on whether ones opinion on that is subjective or objective, is remarkably vacuous. This would be similar to discussing the beauty of the paper bag that holds a diamond.

I cannot even to begin to explain just how shallow and empty it is to place value on external appearance. Why focus on something that is fleeting, certainly no more than 40 years, when ones soul will last forever. We ignore the health of the eternal soul, to enrich the body that fades so quickly.  With that in mind, I'll end with a photo which sums up true beauty.

Bodily Functions

One would think that an adult would have some grasp on what constitutes good manners. Obviously manners are to some degree culturally defined and driven, but each culture does have those boundaries.

To sit down at a meal or in casual company, there are certain things one does not expect to experience. Common courtesy should be common but it seems that far too many people didn't learn that which ought to be common. Maybe it’s just me but flatulence, belching, chewing with the mouth open, gulping, snorting and scratching seem best left to the bathroom. Personally, nothing destroys the calm of a meal quicker than one of these.
Again, and it seems like I constantly return to this theme, its about love for neighbor. Shouldn't we be attentive enough to these small things to give consideration to those around us?

The Why of What

Why do we love, like, show interest in, or spend time doing things?  The answer for some of these things is very easy. We go to work so we can support ourselves and our family. We eat because we are hungry and we sleep because we are tired. But what about everything else?  Why do we watch movies, listen to music, involve ourselves in sports, either watching or playing, eat dessert, have sex, drink wine, socialize, go to church, read books, learn things or go on vacation?

One could write or talk for a long time on each of these subjects, but i am going to approach this from a different angle. This will not be a talk on which of these things are acceptable and which are not. That is much too Protestant. Instead i am going to suggest a single possible motivation behind them all.

The motivation behind these things may simply be distraction. We very well could be doing different actions, either sinful or not, as a way of distracting ourselves. One thing the early church fathers talk about is silence. Learning to sit alone, for a lengthy period of time and do nothing. Simply sitting in silence and examining what is in ourselves. Eventually, they say, we will discover that we are empty shells.  This sort of practice should reveal that without God have and are nothing. It is only then that we can really learn to throw ourselves on the mercy of God and find solace in him alone.

We may find that all of these other things, good and bad, merely distract us from that which is ultimately important, understanding our relationship with God and how bad off we are apart from him.