The foundation of things

In a conversation I recently had with my oldest son (20 years), we discussed the problem with the Harry Potter stories.  Initially, he was under the impression that I argued that the problem was simply the presence and promotion of magic.  But this is far too simplistic and shallow.
As I explained, the problem is in the foundation.  A comparison was made with the Percy Jackson stories.  For those who don't know, Harry Potter stories take place in a magical, hidden world in and through modern day London.  Harry is a young man who initially doesn't know that he is a magician.   He is brought to Hogwarts, a school for magic. 
The Percy Jackson stories, on the other hand, are about a young man who is half human, half god, as in Greek mythology, but takes place in modern day America.
Here is how I perceive these two stories.  The Jackson stories are written as fiction, with a foundation which no one embraces as true, with a story that is clearly make believe.
The Potter stories on the other hand, are built upon the foundation of modern day witchcraft.  JK Rowling, the author, blatantly admits having carefully and thoroughly referenced books on witchcraft from which to build her stories.  The storyline is then created upon this foundation.
I hope you can see the problem here.  The Potter stories are built upon a foundation of supposed truth.  The Jackson stories are not.  The Potter stories present the worldview of magic as valid, noteworthy and beneficial.  It presents reality as built upon impersonal power, that can be used for good or for evil. 
The problem with Potter is the worldview that is presented.  The fact is that interest in witchcraft among the young has greatly increased, while interest in the religious beliefs of Greek mythology has not.
This is about foundations.  The silliness of the Harry Potter stories are only silly when understood as completely fictitious.  Unfortunately, the author and much of the audience don't see it this way.  Therefore the danger of falsehood does exist.
Then there is the whole question of bad influence.  But that is a whole other argument.

Thoughts on behavior

Very recently, Fr. Thomas Hopko passed away.  Someone has started circulating a collection of his writings called "The fifty five maxims."  I have had the opportunity to read through these and while they come across as possibly helpful and beneficial, I have to consider them from an Orthodox, historical perspective.
Regardless of background, education or intent, ones prior religious beliefs and convictions will have a direct effect upon ones Orthodoxy.  In other words, everyone that is Orthodox today carries religious baggage from their previous faith.  This is because many of these beliefs are presuppositions, that is, beliefs that are held unquestioningly and sometimes even unconsciously.
So in reading through these fifty five maxims, we have to ask, are these historic Orthodox or are these evangelical?

I say "evangelical" simply because Hopko was born in the United States.  Now it may very well be that his thoughts and presuppositions are entirely Orthodox.  But at the same time, it very well could be that some of his thinking has been influenced by the culture and persons around him.  We should never drop our guard and believe that simply because someone is Orthodox, that everything that they say will be in perfect line with the historic faith.  Fr. Thomas was an incredible individual that accomplished great things for promoting and forwarding the Orthodox faith in America.  

So in considering his "Fifty Five Maxims," we should be attentive to what is being said.

May God have mercy upon us.

The sign of the cross

The practice of the sign of the cross has been an important standard in the history of the church since the very beginning.  Though the specific form has slightly changed over time (size and location), the meaning and purpose has not changed.
When I began my journey into Orthodoxy, the practice of the sign of the cross was never an issue for me.  The concept was a simple one.  The cross, a historical symbol representing the love of God through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, is taken on and applied to one's self.  We make the sign of the cross because we are Christians.  The cross is central to our understanding of who we are and what we believe.  As someone once said to me, disparagingly, "It's just an ancient gang symbol."  If it was possible, I would have reached through the email and punched them in the head for saying such a thing.  Making a profession of the Trinity and a profession of the two natures of Christ are not "a gang symbol."  These are doctrines and beliefs that many, many people have debated, struggled and even died for.
So the sign of the cross is important.  It is a profession of our faith, a profession of who we are and with whom we are connected. 

The right thing

It seems that most situations provide us with a few options from which to choose.  There is the right thing to do, there is the convenient thing to do and there is the pragmatic thing to do.  Obviously, there is also the wrong thing to do, but most people don't argue in favor of that. 
I would suggest that most people will respond, thinking that they are doing the best thing, based upon their worldview.  This means that everyone has beliefs about life stemming from their childhood, from education, from culture and from environment.  Most of these beliefs move us and direct us without our even thinking about it.
The curious thing about this is the way in which we too often judge others for their responses to situations, when really they are doing what they believe to be best.  Really, our best response upon seeing or experiencing someone else's actions is to assume the best.  We ought to assume that we don't have all the details, and that their response is the best response, for them, in this particular context.
But for ourselves, we need to be much more critical.  We ought to question everything we do and judge it by the light of Christ. Are we responding in love?  Are we responding out of selflessness?  Have we thought through what would be the best response?
Usually, the pragmatic response is one in which we judge the outcome to be most to our benefit.  The convenient response would be the one that would be easiest and the least imposing.  But the right response should be the response of love to God and/or neighbor.  It would not take into account how the response would effect us.  The right response may be a major imposition upon us and our lifestyle.  It may be uncomfortable. But the right response is the response of love.  It puts others first and looks to eternity for the lasting fruit.
Ultimately, the right answer is the life of faith in Christ. Anything else is a cheap, shallow imitation.

Right to the point

When it comes down to it, when someone truly understands what Eastern Orthodoxy fully claims, the response will be either love or hate.  One will hear the claim and respond with fully embracing the church as the body of Christ, or one will hear it and hate it as a lie and deception.
There is no middle ground.  There is no attitude of indifference.
I guess the question is, how faithfully are we living out the faith, so that those around us receive an accurate picture?

Fullness and surrounded

Growing up in the Assembly of God church and my subsequent fifteen years in Calvinist circles exposed me to the concept of praying for others.  Now that I am part of the Orthodox church, the idea of prayer has taken on greater and deeper meaning.  Not only do we sinful people pray for one another, we also ask the departed saints to pray for us as well.  And this seems to be a great problem for Protestants.  For some reason, Protestants, in general, are very contrary to the doctrine of praying to the saints. I'm sure much of it comes from not understanding what exactly is occurring, as all as a general ignorance of church history.
We all believe that prayer, especially the prayers of the righteous, are effective.  And we also all believe in life after death, i.e. that the righteous departed are not gone or sleeping somewhere, but are very much alive.  When we think of these things in connection with the two millennia long practice of imploring the departed saints for prayer, rejection of such an idea makes no sense.
We are surrounded by a huge cloud of witnesses.  We have multitudes of godly people, alive and departed, praying for us and wanting to pray for us.  The fullness of our faith demands more than doctrines pulled out of the air or from our rational imaginations.  The life of the church is life in Christ.

Appearance

The thought occurred to me today that regardless of what I think, regardless of what I want or believe to be right, culture will judge and categorize me in the way that they want to.  Our appearance or actions take place within a cultural context.  This means that the prevailing culture gets to define what things mean.  In the case of the American, unfortunately, that definition is controlled by vanity and worldliness.  This should drive us to respond in a way that points those seeing us towards Christ and away from us.  The struggle is in determining what that looks like.  This takes wisdom.  And for this wisdom we need to gain guidance from the church fathers and from our immediate priest. 
We can't control how people think but we can control what we say and do and this can lead others to Christ.