As the day draws near for the US Supreme Court to insist on nationwide approval for gay marriage, a watershed in modern thought has been reached. For although the Supreme Court is not the arbiter of morality, its decisions generally signal a deep level of cultural acceptance. Of course, in American practice, the court represents the apex of legal/forensic imagination. Its decision will signal the bankruptcy of the forensic model for continuing Christian thought. When questions of sexual behavior are placed before the legal model, Christians are simply unable to make a persuasive case for much of anything. It is at least true, that the culture has become completely deaf to the sounds of Christian thought spoken in legal grammar.
Of course, the consequences of this will likely be long-lasting. For it is Christianity, in a certain form, that taught the culture to think with a legal imagination. Therefore, it’s not likely that the culture will listen to gainsaying Christians on the topic, regardless of how they frame the conversation. And the consequences reach far beyond sexual matters.
The same legal imagination seems increasingly mute in the face of other pressing questions: euthanasia, abortion, gender management, genetic manipulation and conception, etc. We are quickly reaching a place where the will to act becomes the right to act.
For the Church, the most immediate question is not how to regain a culture that it has now lost, but how to speak to the Church whose members have been nurtured in a failed legal/forensic imagination. For what seems obvious to the Supreme Court will likely seem obvious to teenage Christians as well (and many others). Christians are hardly counter-cultural revolutionaries (despite all of our protests to the contrary). The culture in which we live is, whether we want to admit it or not, of our own making.
Sexual morality and other related social issues have been addressed in a moral framework that is essentially forensic, grounded either within a legal reading of Scripture or in natural law. Scripture no longer holds a place of central authority within Western culture and natural law arguments have been lost in a constant battle of science and counter-science. Everything seems to have been swallowed by a popular acceptance of radical Nominalism: anything can be whatever we want it to be. The wanting is the thing.
But sexual relationships (and all relationships) lose the possibility of well-being in a world where whatever we want is, in fact, the case. For relationship is inherently about the Other, and if the Other is simply what I want, then the Other serves only as an extension of the ego.
When Christ speaks about marriage, He pointedly moves past the arrangements of the Mosaic Law and reverts to Genesis: “From the beginning it was not so…” (Matt. 19:8). He elevates the creation story to the controlling position. It is there that we most clearly see the role of the Other. They are male and female, specifically like and unlike one another. And the man without the woman is “not good.” Rather, he is “alone.”
But this also becomes the ground of union, that state of being that best describes salvation. “She is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh.” The complementarity is not simply opposition, ego on ego, but a unique ontological relationship admitting of union without the loss of otherness. It is, in its complete expression, the model of personhood.
And this is the “union” that the Church blesses in the sacrament of marriage. It is not simply two people, but male and female, in a union that is possible on every level. Biology is not made inferior to psychology. The modern project has reduced sexual existence to mere identity, a vehicle for the ego. Ovum and sperm have been objectified, becoming simple biological materials to be manipulated in a lab.
According to Christian understanding, in human existence, the personal is also capable of bearing the tragic, ground that is foreign to Modernity, its eradication being the goal of every Modern project. Boundaries are tragic for the ego – they say “no” to its unfettered demands. The “tragic” is viewed as any undesirable event or result in Modernity. It is viewed as suffering and is to be avoided, controlled and minimized.
Classical Christianity understands that the Cross is the way of life and that its paradox turns the tragic inside-out. For the Cross is not an unfortunate requirement, something God is forced to do in order to rescue sinful man. The tragedy of the Cross is also the pattern of healing, wholeness, well-being and eternal life. It is the revelation of true personhood.
All of the arguments regarding new definitions of marriage, aggressive reproductive technologies, gender re-definitions, etc., are made within a model that views any and all suffering as both tragic, needless and unacceptable if at all possible of alleviation. Such a line of reasoning was inevitably on a collision course with an ethic originally rooted in the Cross. The Christian view of personhood is an invitation to voluntary suffering and self-sacrifice. Nothing could be less modern.
The Church’s sacramental life exists solely for the purpose of salvation. It does not exist to bless or facilitate the interests of the State (or of the ego). The sexual models that are finding approval within the culture (and by the State) are not in accordance with the path of personhood revealed in the Christian Tradition. There are and will be many varying models of Christianity that will agree to serve the self-defined interests of the State. But these represent “another gospel,” a radical rejection and re-imagining of the Christian Tradition.
In public conversations, the traditional account of Christianity is going to come up short: the Modern promise of no suffering will always get more votes than the tragedy of the Cross. But the Cross must first be re-preached to the Christian people – they have listened long and well to Modern promises and have, to a large extent, modified their own understanding of the gospel in its light.
The irony, of course, is that the Modern drive in the name of compassion and the alleviation of suffering, is something that was first taught by the Church. And now the Church will seem to be arguing against it. Of course, the supreme irony is the Cross itself, which has always seemed like foolishness and weakness, and will continue to be despised by the builders of our Brave New World.
Comments
252 responses to “Sex and the Moral Imagination”
TLO,
Perhaps there’s something to be said about how promoters of homosexuality often address the issue of “rights” (in intercourse with anyone we desire), while prohibiting any portrayal of homosexuality as deviant – which is a cunning tactic to politicize what has historically been an ethical issue. But this does not reverse the anatomical evidence; (the natural manner in which new life is created)… for instance, if someone wanted to walk down the street with his hands instead of his feet, (some people are born with such capabilities) could he compel all to concede that the anatomical evidence suggests that this is not an abnormality? The testimony of our lives indicates that we walk with our feet and not with our hands. The same applies for the choice of homosexuality.
Homosexuality, according to Orthodox spiritual tradition, as expressed in the New Testament (St Paul) and the teaching of the saints, is what the Church terms a “passion”. Therefore one who began his/her life as gay or turned to homosexuality at some other time, when progressing in holiness, purifying the heart from the passions, they always cease to be gay. We have no homosexual saints who were sanctified through homosexuality (as married saints are sanctified through marriage), if this had ever been so, the Fathers would not have concealed it, nor thought – along with the apostle Paul – that homosexuality is another one of the passions that separates man from God.
We certainly have saints who were once gay (as we have saints who were sexually immoral, lewd or prisoners of various other, non-carnal passions) but took the titanic struggle against their passions –whatever they were- and by the grace of the Holy Spirit defeated them and became holy.
They are those who “castrated themselves for the kingdom of heaven” ( Matt. 19, 12).
If homosexuality is derived from biological causes and is produced by society is still debatable in the opinion of completely impartial science. Either way however, it cannot be converted to a non-passionate state. One can be violent, for instance, due to a biological cause (eg because the body produces far more adrenaline and testosterone than it should) , but this does not mean that for him aggression “is okay” and that this needn’t be fought against in order to be cured of the passion.
We hope to be saved, not because of our ” virtue”, but because of the love and mercy of God, which we ask for every day in our prayers, repenting and fighting, with His help, against our passions.
But if instead, we are trying to convince others (and ourselves) that our passions “are ok” and not sinful, we are probably hypocrites and our salvation in danger far more.
It must be clarified that we all need repentance, each for different reasons; everyone has to face their own passions, and not t accept them, but to fight hard. A heterosexual may have to face many passions associated with sex – and marriage can not always heal these, because they might feel the need of adultery, or intercourse with multiple sexual partners or an irresistible urge towards pedophilia, incest, bestiality and many others.
All these passions are not “okay” and ‘straight’ is not necessarily more virtuous or closer to God than gay. Both can be saved because of the love of Christ, and with the struggle against sin, assisted by divine grace…
TLO et al,
Agreeing with what Dino and Fr Stephen above have posted, it is important to add that all the spiritual/theological dimension has to be distinguished from the issue regarding civil rights, freedoms, and responsibilities afforded to those of homosexual practice.
Something easily overlooked and often conflated.
TLO, science that does not contradict the anthropological and ontological understanding of the Orthodox Church can be a useful tool. However, science or more precisely metaphysical scientism can be, and often is, used to promote and gratify passions that are unholy, e.g. that God does not exist or is unnecessary.
You can not use a supposedly allegorical reading of Holy Scripture to refute on of Scripture’s central tenets–that God created man in His image and likeness and that He created us male and female as a central part of that creation.
Allegorical reading of Scripture actually deepens those realities and, in addition, places God at the very heart of everything we do and know: either running toward Him or away from Him we are always contingent on Him for our life and being.
It is His life that is the creative and motive force that the physicists who specialize in sub-atomic particles are seeing at work constantly welling up into visibility and form. The music of the spheres resonating from the smallest particles to fill the entire cosmos.
Because of entropy and the machinations of the evil one, much is out of harmony and appears to be ‘natural’ to those who only see the physical. In the beginning and in the end, it is not so but only because Jesus Christ incarnated and subjected Himself to that entropy for a little while becoming hungry and thirsty and tired and suffering as we do (but without sin) even unto His death on the Cross, which trampled down the death that the evil one wants so much to sow and inflict on us, to trap us in.
You are correct that Orthodoxy is not at odds with science, but all too often what is called science is at odds with the revealed truth of the Orthodox Church.
Dino and Fr Stephen,
I appreciate the clear expositions of moral issues related to homosexuality. What troubles me, however, is that we have been reading and talking about ontological issues, and it sounds as though the church’s position as explained here is mostly forensic, if I understand both terms. Possibly I’m not clear on ontology. I’ve not tried using tat concept since university days, when we argued about existence vs essence, and so forth. But here’s my question:
If they didn’t choose to be gay, or were not brainwashed or seduced by ‘the culture,’ might it not be possible to say that such an impulse, attraction, outlook is part of their being, in the same way that “straight” attraction is part of their being? I understand that there will be no marrying, etc. in heaven, but surely the conceot of humans “being’” i.e., existing at all, includes sexual attraction. If this is true, wouldn’t it be correct to say tht the rules against expression of that being, however bizarre those expressions seem, are forensic, or “merely” moral? That is, they offend a community’s sense of appropriate behavior, but they might not offend God, who is responsible for and loves all creation, all being.
This type of expression is not in the same category as walking on your hands, nor is it simple friendship. The attraction of male to female is both instinctive and, within the Christian community, deeply blessed. And it is called rightly “love,” not friendship. Could not a gay couple be as blessed with love for each other, and complete each other in a similar way, without challenging either the creation-and-fall story or giving free rein to the passions?
Robert, while you are correct it is equally important to recognize that civil rights and civil freedoms and civil responsibilities are not to be made equal to or superior to the spiritual realities and the path of salvation.
Something can be a ‘legal right’ and still be spiritually deadly.
The whole construct of the civil social contract is an artificial one designed to replace obedience to God as the primary path to real freedom.
As Bishop Basil once said in a homily on the ‘right to life’: We have no right to life, life is a gift from God alone.
When the priest intones “thine own of thine own we offer unto Thee on behalf of all and for all…” we are offering that life and all that it is back to Him “for the life of the world”
I frankly don’t care what the state does, nor what the law says. God commands that I love Him and that I love my neighbor as He loves me. On this is based all the law and the prophets.
When the state says that two people of the same gender can marry, OK, that is a law, but it clearly leads to death and what is worse, as counterfeit money devalues good money; counterfeit marriage devalues real marriage.
albert, it is important to realize that all of us are out of whack in our being as it now stands and we can only be restored by the sacramental and ascetical life of the Church as we participate in God’s grace and mercy.
All sexuality is distorted. Now there is a continuum in that some sexuality does not do as much violence to us and to the manner in which we were created male and female as some other types (see the list in Dino’s post for some examples of the greater violence). But if our sexuality were not still out of whack, celibacy would not be needed–and it is.
The desire for conjugal union is first and foremost a desire for a fecund and life-giving union with God. Only as male-female is conjugal affection even possible, as Fr. Stephen explained. The rest are simply carnal passions no matter how deeply they seem to reside in us or how ‘natural’ they seem to us.
If you read the early chapters of Genesis, contemplating on the mystery of the male-female synergy, it may become more clear for you. That’s how I began to learn it and pretty much every time I go back to those chapters, I learn more.
Hi Michael,
Never implied or meant to say that civil rights are equal or superior to theology. It is precisely this type of ranking which leads to conflation. Each are very important and for different purposes.
There is absolutely no need to denigrate civil rights in the name of theology. It is a false a opposition.
Do you wish to deny the freedom of speech to a non-Christian?
Does a non-Christian’s unbelief and practice”devalue” the truth of our faith? I think not, and neither does civil marriage “devalue” the Christian holy sacrament of matrimony.
It is in fact utterly ontological Albert. It’s why the union of Man and Woman are likened to Christ and the Church, not the “Church and the Church” (woman & woman) or “Christ and Christ” (man & man). It does not work ontologically (far more than “morally”), just like a full day in the Church’s understanding, say the Holy day of Pascha, includes a Saturday evening and a Sunday morning.
How we are born (if it was a matter of this) does not change this ontology in any way. Eg: I might not be able to get married because of how I am born for many (other) reasons, just like I might not be able to become a priest, say because I was born with a missing finger – none of this changes anything though… It’s certainly not moralistic though.
Civil law, often expressed as “rights” in our culture, are primarily a reflection of the moment. As I have written in some detail, the culture is not an evolution of rights, or a progress towards a greater day, etc. This is simply the rhetoric of modernity, frequently gainsaid by any reasonable consideration of reality. “Progress” is “branding” and little more.
And when the current “progress” is put in place, complete with gay marriages, people will discover that they are no happier and fulfilled than they were before. In time, we may even begin to see what “gay marriage” is really like. Is it a stable form?
I personally think that matters of property, inheritance, pension, etc., are matters that are easily dealt with in civil law without using marriage as the vehicle.
What we are not discussing at present is the utter decay of the traditional, stable family. The sexual revolution has played a major part in this decay, as have certain economic decisions, as well as other legal developments. We are already reaping the whirlwind of a society whose dysfunction beggars description. Of course, in dysfunctional societies, it is the weakest and most vulnerable who are the first and most serious victims.
Our current lives have been bought at the most staggering unimaginable price. Abortion is certainly part of the mix of the sexual revolution. The 60 million lives of the unborn – 1 out of every 3 children conceived since 1973) in the US alone are a terrible price for the convenience of “choice.” Of the other 2/3’s who have survived, there is a legacy of dysfunctionality. The nightmare of instability and social rot have no excuse other than “we chose it.” It’s a sad tale for our children and our childrens’ children.
The man-woman bodily union is offered to God – undeniably as something entropically destined to die (since we do eventually both die)- yet He gives it back to us as eternally blessed – as Holy Matrimony- without which our salvation is doubtful: as in Cana, here too, H2O is turned into wine. In the same way we offer bread and wine during the Liturgy, (that is destined to go off) and He gives it back to us as His Body and Blood, without which we have no eternal life in us as Christ says. It is all very ontological. We could never offer urine and faeces for any type of blessing, and we -even more so- cannot offer a man-man (or woman-woman) bodily “union” either, for any type of transformative blessing. Now as to why does it look so much like our salvation of necessity is dependant on ‘marriage’? Why does Christ start his ministry in Cana with marriage? Can we not escape marriage? No, we cannot. Even the ‘mystical marriage’ of monasticism is a ‘marriage’ (the prayers of monastic tonsure tremendously resemble those of marriage combined with baptism – and baptism already tremendously resembles a ‘marriage’). God is only where “two or three” are together in His name and, patristically, ‘two’ here refers to marriage, ‘three’ to monasticism. Both are a marriage.
The story (creation, etc.) is not a controlling moral story. It is an explaining story. It describes something quite real (hence ontological – really truly existing). But in the new accounts of human “union,” we want to make the body of no real consequence or importance.
We are not disembodied. We are not minds who happen to inhabit a body. We are a body. The hands and feet analogy is, in fact, quite apt (it’s the first time I’ve heard it, surprisingly). One of the tragedies of homosexuality is the dysphoria that exists between mind and body and the social relationship that is appropriate to the body. It is indeed tragic.
But under the new view, we are not even allowed to ask, “What’s wrong?” We are told that nothing is wrong. With this comes a relativizing of the body – it’s simply something I use however I want – it has no “nature.” There is nothing obvious about the body. All that is natural and obvious is what I, in the recesses of my mind, decide is natural and obvious.
The absurdities of this can easily be pressed with analogy upon analogy – but they cannot be pressed because they are not allowed. And they are not allowed because they are considered “immoral,” i.e. a form of hate speech, etc.
There need be no hate nor ill will involved in any of this. I am not the enemy of anyone, regardless of how they experience their sexuality. None of this is about what offends man or God. It’s not a moralistic issue. But it is an issue of speaking the truth and in speaking the truth to move towards truth as it is in Christ – and through Him – union with God.
It’s s an old pagan view of the body, rehashed for “modern” presentation. A false anthropology vigorously opposed by the Church Fathers over the centuries. Nothing new under the sun.
We have to do some rehashing ourselves. 🙂
Robert, I did not make myself clear, I’m sorry.
It is just that the whole construct of “rights” is increasingly problematic to me–artificial and empty.
It is interesting that in our world the totally made up “rights” to abortion and same sex “marriage” trump both Constitutional rights of free exercise of religion and speech.
Modern rights are simply used by the state as an excuse to be tyrannical and capricious.
I don’t believe I have a free speech right. I certainly don’t have a right to be married or to expect that the world will not hate me because I follow Christ.
If my priest or my bishop told me to stop posting on blogs I would do it. My personal will is immaterial. The marriage I have is an undeserved gift that I almost messed up by exercising my own will. The state that has denied God will always persecute Christians despite promises to the contrary–already happening.
The state can do what it wants. However when state power is used to promote ideas and acts that mock God, there will be consequences. By promoting counterfeit marriage they are defacto devaluing and mocking Christian marriage. That will continue to destabilize the family making less meaningful in the culture if not in fact.
I don’t expect you to agree. You have a perspective I do not share. It is possible you are right. I won’t argue as which one of is right has no bearing on our salvation.
Robert,
The beginning of an Orthodox Christian marriage ceremony begins with: “Blessed is the Kingdom of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit”. As I have been taught, a marriage is a part of the Kingdom of God – and further, it is God together with the husband and the wife that make up a marriage.
So, civil marriage, which is merely a contract that is recognized by the state, is absolutely nothing like an Orthodox Christian marriage. The two cannot and should not be compared.
Father Stephen and all –
About the notion of rights…I was listening, just yesterday in fact, to a homily of +Geronda Athanasios Mitilinaios, who, back in 1982, had this to say about rights (and please, forgive my rough translation):
There is a difference between a philosophical ethic, especially when it’s tied to the state, and a Christian ethic. The philosophical ethic accentuates duties (to the state) and rights and many so-called (Western) Christian nations have adopted it and made it their own. They have become a people/nations who neglect and forget their duties and demand their rights – and use every possible means of protecting their rights and self-interests. Demanding rights while neglecting duties is yet another sign of the evil one at work.
And then, remarkably, he finishes this part by saying: And we, the faithful, in imitation of the saints, should not fight back.
I think that many of us should re-adopt the language – and action/non-action – of the Christian ethic and make it our own; we have only the Kingdom of God itself to gain.
In Christ,
Eleftheria
Hi Eleftheria,
Yes, wholeheartedly agreed regarding Christian marriage vs. civil marriage. In no way does the world’s (re)definition of marriage have a bearing on the meaning and understanding of Christian marriage.
Christian marriage is underpinned by Christian anthropology which in turn derives its meaning from Christian theology (understood properly in the context of the fullness of Holy Tradition).
Eleftheria,
Father Athanasius’ words on rights and duties reminded me of Father Georgios’ (Abbot of Gregoriou) who, when asked by a genuinely impressed communist visitor (a famous personality in Greece) to come “out” (from Athos) to the world and actively preach to all, his instant response to the communist was (more or less) that:
Interesting discussion Roberts (and to respond to both):
“In a “pluralistic” (read: humanistic, secular, materialistic and relativistic) society like the one being foisted upon us, none need agree with anyone else, for these concepts have no real meaning. Each is simply a matter of taste–and power. “
I think “pluralistic” is not what “ humanistic, secular, materialistic and relativistic” means or necessarily implies. As you say, a certain morality is being “foisted upon us”, thus it is not pluralistic – it is as hegemonic as any other society. Modern western society is putting the lie to the belief that a certain kind of liberalism was going to be “tolerant” or “pluralistic”.
“The implied assumption here is that plurality and society are mutual exclusive, as antithetical. “
I think they largely are, due to “the fall” and human nature’s current state. Folks just are not that “tolerant” and thus they continually foster their morality/theology on their neighbor. “society” implies a certain unity of underlying morality. Our western society is in a rapid transition from one morality (loosely the “protestant consensus”) into another (“modernism”). Thus Christians are in for a real persecution in the future.
“There is absolutely no need to denigrate civil rights in the name of theology. It is a false a opposition. “
No, but one has to realize that a “civil right” is a relative concept based on an underlying theology/metaphysic/morality/anthropology. That is why the “New Moralists” do not recognize the rights of unborn children, or the rights of Christians (or any one else who does not agree with them), etc.
As I re-read the recent comments (Thank you, Eletheria, Dino, Robert, and others), I keep saying to myself, “Exactly.” I couldn’t agree more–
except when I start thinking about a dear gay friend, alone, no family, no ”companion” at the end of a long life torn apart by years of self-reproach mixed with sadness at being alienated from his childhood religious community–many of whose prayers he says by heart, especially now that he is homebound and confined to a wheelchair– because he had eventually accepted what he understood was his true self. He loves hearing me tell about the “pearl of great price,” Eastern Christianity in the West, that I found late in life, but he knows that he would not be welcomed there unless he renounces that self that he struggled so long to come to terms with.
So for him, as we’ll as for me (because I want to share that pearl, not only with him but with my family and friends–all of whom grew up in the same tradition that he and I did), it is not a question of rights, nor of marriage, but of simple recognition of every individual’s dignity–the very name of a church group my friend attended until a local religious authority said no more of that–and search for God. I do not understand yet why it is not possible to even consider that homosexual “orientation,” a popular term that he thinks implies choice and so does not use it to apply to himself, is not sinful, but the result of an accident of nature.
albert, a desire to be sexually intimate with a member of the same sex is not, in and of itself, sinful–merely a disordered affection and a temptation to sin. As Gregory Manning has testified, one of the many consequences of that disorder is loneliness. It is an emptiness that can only be filled by God.
All of us live to some degree or another with a disordered nature, estrangement and loneliness. We do better when we don’t act on our disorders but rather seek the grace of Jesus Christ to re-order us, transform us and transcend the disorder that leads to death. Put our disorders continue nonetheless. However if we begin to identify as our disorder such as: “I am an angry man.” That makes transformation and healing more difficult. If I approach it rather as I am a man who is troubled by anger, fear and shame I have something I can work with.
It is a shame that your friend was cast out of his religious community. He was a scapegoat I suspect. Scapegoating is a pernicious disease and sin that far exceeds the sins it “casts out”. It is demonically destructive because Jesus Christ took on all of our sins. Scapegoating’s evil twin, however, is acceptance of disordered states to create the appearance of harmony. Our political and social culture has created a false dichotomy that says if you don’t accept everyone as they are, you are evil. The Church accepts everyone, but places each of us on a path of repentance. That is the distinction.
It speaks well of you that you visit him and pray with him. But know that the Church rejects no one who seeks the truth of Christ. Now, specific parishes and people may in ignorance, fear and anger reject some, but not the Church. All are called to repentance, forgiveness and healing. For those who have been deeply wounded by the transgressions of others, as you friend has likely been, such a path can be quite difficult–more difficult than it would otherwise have been. It will take a lot of patience, empathy and kindness.
Everything can work for good to those who love God, even our disorders which may be encoded in our genes to some extent. But genetics incline, they do not compel when it comes to behavior.
Albert,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and the deep compassion you have for your friend. I found one phrase very interesting in your description….’what he accepted and understood as his true self’.
One of the many delusions I persist in is the ‘mistaken belief’ that I can find what is true about myself without God. My true self is a discovery that God reveals to me; not something that I can declare unto God. Paradoxically, I find myself when I stop looking for myself and seek first Him with no reservations or conditions. The false self is borne and persists in my separation and isolation from Him.
When I place anything above Him, it is truly my idol. And this idol will never help me discover what is true and real just persuade me that my fantasy is truth.
There is no greater truth than each of us is one of God’s kids that He unceasingly loves and cherishes. He wishes us all to return Home as we let go of all that separates us from Him. Especially, the mistaken beliefs that what is most true of ourselves can ever be uncovered without Him.
My thoughts and prayers are with you both
Fr. Stephen – There are no words to express my utter dismay at your response.
My heart is broken. I am weeping bitterly, as if I had lost something dear to me. And I have.
Albert,
I was going to respond, but after reading and agreeing to what Michael and Robert just wrote I do not see much point.
Keeping one’s faith alone when confronted with your friend’s tragedy is something that deserves great merit…
TLO,
forgive me, but I am afraid your last comment made no sense to me.
could you perhaps explain what you mean?
TLO,
I’m not certain as to what is the cause of your dismay. What I have described in my response is the inherent tragedy of homosexuality. I fully recognize that it’s not experienced as a “choice.” It’s an affliction and doubtless a cause of suffering. I think that there is much in human sexuality, including hetero, that is equally disordered and is an affliction and a cause of suffering. In truth, I think there’s a whole lot of things about the human condition that are disordered and a cause of suffering.
Christianity doesn’t exist to rearrange the world in a way that makes our inherent suffering disappear. It is a way of life in which we can not only bear that suffering but conquer death and hell through it. And there must be constant compassion, kindness and mercy towards everyone, because everyone suffers.
TLO,
I think like a pastor when I think as a theologian. And these issues are not theoretical for me – I’ve lived with them and pastored through them. If someone comes to me with SS attraction – the question isn’t, “How can I help them have a fairly happy life?” It is for them, as for anyone else, “How do I help them find salvation?” And that is not some forensic thing, but real union with Christ and movement towards the Kingdom.
It is always the case for me as a priest, that someone’s salvation will inevitably require suffering. Mine does, yours does, theirs does. Which suffering and why? How much and why? How to support someone so that the suffering they bear is, in fact, necessary and salvific?
These are terrible questions. But they are the right questions. And there aren’t any other questions that are worth asking. I’m not being asked to solve society’s problems, but to midwife souls into the Kingdom of God. My thoughts in answer to your question are in that context. For what it’s worth.
“Christianity doesn’t exist to rearrange the world in a way that makes our inherent suffering disappear. It is a way of life in which we can not only bear that suffering but conquer death and hell through it.”
As you said earlier the Cross will always get less votes than alleviation of suffering. The new anthropology has the capability to understand this (perhaps?), but truly “believes” in their new identity, thus they believe the Church is crucifying them unjustly. Identity comes before and defines the right application of right and wrong, suffering, etc. Thus, it believes that the Church is promoting “senseless suffering”.
Perhaps that is to say that the new anthropology puts conditions on God, that is to say “you are not your own” becomes “you are this new identity, and God works from there”…just thoughts…
Christopher, the new identity anthropology is not really all that new and is a fundamental denial of God.
Indeed Michael, the ‘brave new world’ that the ‘new anthropology’ would promote is merely the ’emperor’s new clothes’ on the ancient “serpentine promise”
Father Stephen,
Could you comment on the difference between identity as an alcoholic and identity as a homosexual? It seems that the suggestion has been made that once an alcholoic always an alcoholic, but is this not true with homosexuality? Not to answer my own question, but does the difference have to do with embracing the struggle vs denying the struggle exists? Could there not be a group that holds each other accountable in the struggle against sexual passions much like AA? It seems that a language does not exist in our culture that differentiates between the types of homosexuality that people struggle. Could one not say as a Christian that once a homosexual always homosexual, yet not making this an identity but a cross that must be carried and bore? However the language of our culture does not allow for this distinction.
ajt,
I would have to give it some thought.
Michael and Dino,
You are of course correct. What is different I think, whereas classical Epicureanism admitted a distant God(s) (similar to a “prime mover”) today’s Neo-Epicureanism admits only the self (externalized as “science” and the like), so the self referential identity is king.
The “science” aspect is key I think, because for the modern Orthodox Christian, to question what is an actual sentimental concept but thought of as that semi-god “science” is to to be a throw back, a “fundamentalist”, a neanderthal, etc. etc. Thus, the tosh sentimental shout downs. Does the modern Orthodox Christian have the tools to make anthropological distinctions between modernism and Christian accounts of Man? I am assuming of course that the modernist “christian”, let alone a modernist, does not…
ajt,
I think something might be said here about how a person who truly advances in the spiritual life [beyond that point where the vision of their sinfullness becomes – through Grace – clear to their spiritual eyes] discovers far greater problems than the crude carnal ones -unimaginably more refined- namely, spiritual pride, and that becomes the ultimate “once a prideaholic always a prideaholic” issue that overshadows everyting elsefor the spiritual fighter and is clearly recognised as the root of any and all problems…
Dino,
I guess my primary concern is the way in which our culture is embracing everything sexualized in a way that is clearly outside the norm…especially heterosexuality (50 shades et al.) And it seems like the church is unsure of how to speak to the culture in a way that communicates love, compassion, and also truth. I feel like an attitude that you seem to suggest dismisses the reality of our current situation as a society. Yes perhaps homosexuality is not a condition of those “advanced in the spiriual life”, but many are not even approaching the way, truth, and life because the church has been communicating her message without humility. In other words, it may be that those in the church need to deal with their pride, before we can find a language that expresses truth in love.
Clearly the cultures behavior is expressing its deep longing for fulfilliment that only God can provide. But we need to find a way as a church to communicate the truth without harming the psyche. Perhaps a methodology such as AA would be beneficial.
ajt,
I suppose in a way one can say:
“And it seems like the church is unsure of how to speak to the culture in a way that communicates love, compassion, and also truth”
if one supposes that:
“feel like an attitude that you seem to suggest dismisses the reality of our current situation as a society.”
means certain things: that the Church (and thus by extension the Truth) has to in some sense “compromise”, because as you say the “reality of our current situation” is what it is, namely a “reality”, something real – not to be denied and not really questioned on it’s own terms because it has a power and reality all of its own – it is indeed a new reality, a new truth, a new understanding that we did not have before…
Except…that the new anthropology, the new reality, the “current situation of society” is not really new and is not really truthful and is does not present a ‘new truth’ of man. It is indeed one of the many false versions of man, just dressed up with new words such as “science” and the like.
I personally don’t buy into the idea that the Church is not speaking with Love, Compassion, and Truth. It is the ‘new man’ that rejects God (and thus Love, Compassion, and Truth), but that is not the fault of Love, Compassion, and Truth. As evidence of this Google “Fears of the Modern World. Archimandrite Irenei” and listen to Archimandrite Irenei speak to a group of young people about fear (directly related I think to the anthropological “issues”) and the Church’s response.
ajt,
I have been involved in this question for the entire 35 years of ordained ministry and have never seen anything but love and kindness extended by the Church to those of whatever sexual orientation. Of course, I’ve not been part of a fundamentalist or mean-spirited Church. But both Catholic and Orthodox are extremely careful when they speak on these matters. But no matter how we speak, we are vilified and demonized by those who want us to say something different. I think there can and will be a wide variety of ministries helping in these struggles – as there always have been. This is not anything new. What’s new is our present social context.
I hesitated to broach the subject at all on the blog, but I thought that in this series of articles it was perhaps required. But I also knew that it would disturb and disappoint some, for which I truly grieve. But I’m not sure how to say any of this better or more clearly.
Ajt to modern ears any thing except the unqualified acceptance of the homosexual identity is considered prideful hate speech.
The Church has to preach and do our best to live the Gospel. Then those who have ears to hear will hear.
Personally I find nothing arrogant in the teachings of the Church. The problem comes when they ate confused the forensic moralism of so many or worse the demonic sadism of the Phelps klan .
In its simplest terms the message of the Church is: “Repent for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand” followed by “Father forgive them for they know not what they do”.
The arrogance is in the refusal to acknowledge the need for repentance or to accept the forgiveness.
Well said, Michael.
Thank you, Father, for broaching this very tender issue. I found this post tremendously helpful and appreciate both the compassion and the clarity offered in both post and comments. The sanity of what you are saying is difficult for many to hear correctly in the current context. I fear folks like TLO, so damaged by the demonic sadism and forensic moralism of fundamentalism of which Michael speaks, just cannot, because of those wounds, hear your straightforward yet loving expression of the truth for what it is. That grieves me, too. It seems to me only God can heal those wounds, and I pray He will.
Karen says:
“. I fear folks like TLO, so damaged by the demonic sadism and forensic moralism of fundamentalism of which Michael speaks, just cannot, because of those wounds, hear your straightforward yet loving expression of the truth for what it is.”
Reminds me that “life has many changes”, something I recently read in the life of the Greek Elder, Fr. Epiphanios Theodoropolos:
“Someone thought that the Elder had treated him unjustly. He did not want to accept his explanations for anything. So he went to the Elder, full of anger, and showered him with a storm of accusations and curses. As he peeled an apple, the Elder listened to him silently till the end. As soon as the angry one finished cursing, the Elder offered him a piece, telling him, ‘Would you like, my child, a little apple?’
“A second shower of cursing: ‘Not from you, hypocrite!’
“The person got up abruptly to leave. Then the Elder stopped him and told him: ‘I will only tell you one word. Life has many changes. If you ever end up in need and think that I might be able to help you, don’t hesitate to knock on my door, fearing that I will remember these things you told me today. I have already forgotten them. Go with God’s blessing, my child!’
“Sure enough, a few years later, the person knocked on the Elder’s door—a plain shipwreck of life. Not only was he then aided and supported, but, crushed and humble, he also became a frequent visitor of the Elder’s confessional.”
Source: http://www.pravmir.com/resentment-and-forgiveness/#ixzz3SQCF5DJe
“I hesitated to broach the subject at all on the blog, but I thought that in this series of articles it was perhaps required. ”
Interesting that you say that, Father. I’m reading Sarah Coakley’s “God, Sexuality and the Self,” the first of her forthcoming series on systematic theology, and the major thesis of the book is that there is a direct, organic link between how we understand the Trinity, and how we understand matters of all desire/sexuality. This is particularly true since the ontological end of eros is theosis, union with the Holy Trinity.
All that to say that it appears that the two issues are not distantly related, but rather completely wrapped up in one another. So it doesn’t surprise me that you were drawn to this topic, even if it is not a topic you would choose otherwise. It seems to me that the Orthodox understanding of the Holy Trinity has much to offer… and that the issue of the filioque might not be so picayune.
I’m reading this discussion with great interest, with the hopes of better being able to communicate in love with my GLBTQ friends. Thank you all for your insights.
How is it possible to have GLBTQ friends when we speak of them as “the enemy”, the “modern man” etc?
“I hesitated to broach the subject at all on this blog” I too am glad you didn’t. This is an important topic for most Christians who want answers and understand their faith. But it seems to me that on the one hand we are tempted to dismiss it all, retreat to our ghettos and refuse to engage with the present context – while on the other hand we expect unbelievers to accept Christian theology and practice. What are we thinking?
Why the hesitancy to broach this important subject? Why this thread of doom and gloom in the comments above – where’s our faith in the Lord?
Robert,
Hesitated, because I know how hard this is for some, including some folks whom I love very dearly. Who likes causing pain, even if it’s because you’re speaking the truth?
Second, because many people have very dark passions (anger, bitterness, etc.) surrounding this topic and can get very nasty…which keeps me busy removing inappropriate comments, etc. You get to see the better stuff. I see the darkness as well. It is indeed an important topic. It is something that you must be taught. But it is speaking in the face of an adamantine cultural delusion at present (I think). Which means saying an effective word is very hard. And there’s little use in saying a word that is not effective.
I think there are many things that need greater clarity. Male and female relations – heck, simply what male and female actually means in Orthodox anthropology – is also important and made difficult by the cloudy confusion of our present cultural demons.
TLO’s reaction – which I would be interested in hearing him actually flesh out – is a case in point of things that make me hesitant. I heard pain in his reaction. And that’s a great sadness for me. It’s going to get a lot worse, I think.
Thank you for the responses. These are difficult matters primarily because of the current cultural climate. Perhaps its just me who finds it difficult to explain an ontological process of healing in the context of human sexuality in a 10 second snippet when all the other person really wants to know is “what do you believe about homosexuality”. I lament the day when I will need to proclaim the orthodox view on this matter but without proper context. Lord have mercy on me the sinner.
Thank you Fr Stephen, the pastoral aspect is crucial, you are absolutely right and I can see why that would give you pause.
Because of this, I think too that we have to be very careful casting this topic in culture-war terms. The cataclysmic rhetoric stokes the passions and does little in fostering empathy and clarity of mind.
I’ve hesitated about commenting. I appreciate Fr. Stephen’s writing on his blog and more recently in his book. They’ve been immensely helpful to me for more than a few years now as I muddle along my journey of faith and life. I don’t particularly want to muddy the water on this post. But it’s a topic that’s been increasingly niggling at me as I’ve read such discussions among Christians in recent years.
It’s this. Most of these discussions focus on sexual identity (or perhaps try to frame it in terms of sexual behavior), but wherever someone places themselves in that discussion, the unspoken assumption often seems to be that human gender/sex is binary. In this post, Fr. Stephen even refers to the biological distinction of male and female.
But that’s simply not true. Science reveals a very different picture of the human sexes and it’s one that forms a spectrum. One could, perhaps, say that “most” people are clearly and unambiguously what we would define as male or female, but many do not. The more we know about genetics and biology and the better studies we construct, the more we are finding how much a spectrum it really is. It’s certainly more common than we once imagined and may encompass as much as 1% of the human population.
Nature has published a good article that I think explains it well in lay terms. It includes a good chart outlining all the variation. (Including a link may land my comment in the spam filter, but hopefully Fr. Stephen will rescue it if it does.)
http://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943
Now, that’s not to say that most intersex individuals don’t identify their gender as either male or female. Some don’t. That’s true. But many do identify as either male or female.
But it’s not a gender identity that can be unambiguously tied to biology.
When a theological anthropology begins with the assumption that humanity can be divided into binary male/female categories, it’s building on a flawed foundation. And if its core anthropology is incorrect, that certainly casts doubt on the edifice built upon it.
Ironically, the flawed anthropology of most of Western Christianity (original sin, total depravity, etc.) was something I similarly never accepted. I have normally found that question treated as a matter of grave import in Orthodoxy. If Christ fully assumed our humanity and that which is not assumed is not saved, then it matters that we understand what it means to be human.
Now, I’m certainly not an expert in this area. I’m an IT guy. Nor would I say any of my family are experts. But my father is a geneticist. My aunt is a geneticist and anatomist. My mother is an educator, psychologist, and art therapist. Discussions on science like this has been part of the air I breathe my whole life. I can work my way through academic papers and grasp a fair amount of the content. And I’ve done a smidgen of undergraduate work in this specific topic area. So while definitely not an expert, I’m reasonably conversant for a lay person.
Of course, things quickly get even more complicated as you move up from the purely physical, chromosonal, and genetic into the realm of neuroscience and the brain, a field in many ways still very much developing. Lots of interesting things appear to happen during development (largely but not entirely in utero) that combine with our physical sex characteristics to at least help shape gender and sexual identity.
Anyway, it’s certainly a question in my mind and may be a question others have considered as well. I thought I would at least raise it.
Thanks,
Scott
Scott (et al),
funnily enough, as soon as Christ mentions: “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female”, (Matthew 19:4) He acknowledges the 1% (or more) by saying, “For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb”(Matthew 19:12)
That is not the issue I believe. The issue is something similar to what happened in the ancient days of idolatry. Back then when one would dare speak against the idols/gods they would be thrown into the fiery furnace, the colosseum or stoned. Now when you speak against the passions (and I am not just talking about the genital expression of SS attraction here, it could even be something against gluttony or in favour of chastity), you will be similarly persecuted by those who feel like “you speak against our gods!”
Scott,
Good points and thoughts. My two cents worth – it is absolutely pertinent to acknowledge the differences between the discipline of theology and the physical sciences, chiefly the methods of acquiring knowledge (epistemology), the limits of their respective domains, and the differences in their intended purposes. What this means in regards to the issue of anthropology is that theology explains humanity from the perspective of the fall from Eden and the eschatological restoration that is to come. Scientific anthropology, however, merely observes the current state of humanity. You see, then, theological anthropology is not confined to how things are currently, but draws from what was before (humanity before the fall, as mankind was intended to be), is now (current state of decay, fragmentation, entropy etc), and what humanity will be – humanity’s teleos (a purpose and end for which the hard sciences fall silent).
This all to say that traditional Christian anthropology is not built on a false binary, it describes the perfect binary as it was divinely created. It doesn’t end there of course, as this binary is revealed to be conditional, and not an end in itself, relativized in and by Christ (“there is neither male nor female…”).
There’s a tension, not a conflict or contradiction, but a tension between science and theology. This tension resides in the difference between what is now and what will be. We should not resolve this tension, for if we do so we will collapse theology into “the now”, and all we be left with is the kingdom of man. As it is we are looking for the Kingdom of God, the blessed eschaton.
I find it interesting that a culture who in most things insists on creating false binaries in this manner refuses to recognize any boundaries.
Perhaps it is as Malcolm Muggeridge said that sex is the sacrament for the materialist.
Perhaps it is the false eschatology of materialism (which includes false beginnings).
In any case we are all effected by it.
As Robert said we must not collapse theology into what things and creatures are like now (or how our darkened perception believes them to be).
If there were not confusion on matters of sex it would be a miracle.
I am encouraged by one of today’s readings (Julian cal.) –
“Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. ”
Although I’m not clear whom (in our discussion) the 2nd sentence might refer to, I am inspired and hopeful when I read the final one. Now I am off to liturgy to listen and join in with all.
Thank you for addressing this subject, Fr. Stephen, and for addressing the comments here with love, thoughtfulness and respect.
I cannot convey with words the profound sorrow I felt in my heart as I held my young son — watched him crawl and walk and became involved with his education through getting my teaching degree — and realized that our culture (Western, primarily American, but we’ve lived in Europe too) will not encourage male friendships has it has in the past. Thinking of the friendship described by David and Jonathan in the Bible and the type of friendship that causes and encourages boys to love to be around one another and do things together.
Thanks be to God that we came to Orthodox worship when he was 5 years old, leaving the Anglican communion. I am still saddened by the cultural shift that you describe and address so well here, but I have been blessed by the prayers and the worship of God in Spirit and in Truth, and I know my son and all my family is blessed by this also.
Scott,
If I may, I’d like to offer a few thoughts my friends and I have been throwing around within our ongoing conversation on sex/gender and Trinitarianism, which has touched on the topic of intersex, albeit briefly. While we do not claim dogma for our thoughts, we are hoping that they might be a theologoumenon helpful to some:
Firstly, there are three aspects of sexuality within the person: physical sex, psychological gender and spiritual gender. All sex/gender serves the purpose of theophany; that is, to reveal to us the living nature of the Holy Trinity. For a simplified example, our differences in sex/gender show us that unity in difference is possible without dissolution or separation.
Physical sex serves this purpose of theophany, as well as procreation. Intersexuality in physical sex, however, shows us that our identities need not be wrapped up in this sexuality as the defining characteristics of our selves. Intersexuality exists, and intersex people are not, by any stretch of the imagination, deficit in humanity. An interesting observation, however, is that while intersex people show a wide variety of androgynous combinations, none of the intersex expressions are neuter, or completely devoid of physical sex (though there is varied level of ambiguity in personal experience). As was said before, Christ Himself said that some are born eunuchs— affirming that while their physical experience is different, they are not “other” than explicitly sexed humanity.
Spiritual gender, according to such thinkers as Paul Evdokimov, is iconic for us of Christ and the Holy Spirit. Masculine spirituality somehow has an affinity with the Second Person of the Trinity: the Logos, and feminine spirituality somehow has an affinity with the Third Person of the Trinity: the Holy Spirit. This is not to say that the Spirit is female, or that the Logos is male (though, of course Christ is male). The Trinity is not sexed, and the concept of the homoousious persons shows us that no person of the Trinity is “less God” than another. Fully God of fully God, the love of the Trinity does not subordinate one to another in itself. All this to say that neither masculine nor feminine spirituality is superior. Aside from that, St. Paul tells us that this is a great mystery. (I would love to read the thoughts of a spiritually mature person who has lived with intersexuality; I feel that this may be very illuminating to the experience of spiritual gender.)
It is the realm of psychological gender that appears to cause much of our societal consternation. But what if human psychology is the realm by which we show that female and male are one in essence? What if psychological traits are not divisible into masculine psychological characteristics or feminine psychological characteristics? What if my feminine psychology is merely the psychology of a human being that has been informed by the physical experience of being a woman, and the spiritual experience that I am just at the beginning of? We are all capable of sharing this psychological realm, whether we be male, female, or ambiguous– and it need not terrify us, spiritually. Perhaps there is some psychological gender that is innate; however, it is easily demonstrated that much of psychological gender is cultured (and not necessarily for the benefit of people, either).
Anyway, just a few thoughts. Please forgive me if they are just confusing, or hurtful to anyone– no hurt is intended by any stretch of the imagination.
Tess,
I am not sure, but, I am thinking that your desire to read the thoughts of a spiritually mature person who has lived with intersexuality is like wanting to see the chargrilled fish you’re eating swim. These persons enter a spiritual and bodily sobriety that transposes their will to the heavens, where there is no male or female. The thoughts of a spiritually mature intellect are of necessity above and beyond what is endemic to their body which also been spiritually nourished.
I could use a very long list of examples but I will use Theoliptos, Metropolitan of Philadelphia from the Philokalia (italics mine):
“When the intellect turns away from external things and concentrates on what is within, it is restored to itself; it is united, that is to say, to the principle/logos of its own consciousness, and through this principle naturally inherent in its own substance it devotes itself entirely to prayer. By means of prayer it ascends with all its loving power and affection to the knowledge of God. Then sensual desire vanishes, every pleasure-inciting sense becomes inert , and the delectable things of earth cease to have any attraction. For once the soul has put behind it all that pertains and is endemic to the body , it pursues the beauty of Christ alone, engaging in works of devotion and of mental purity.
My priest in his sermon this morning indirectly addressed the new anthropology/moralism that the culture is embracing. He has on one other occasion that I can think of recently. He rather had to today because our local paper this week decided to run a propaganda piece (I don’t know what else to call it) about a local “transgendered” person on the front page. I don’t read the local paper but it turns out just about everyone else in our little mission church does. It is of course a minor scandal because this is a small south western city filled mostly with rather “traditional” RC families. The paper (i.e. it’s owners/editors) was simply exercising it’s moralistic muscles.
Discussing it with my priest after the service I learned his reluctance to address these issues more directly comes from the fact that we have had several (now formal) inquirers tell him flat out that they reject the Church’s anthropology concerning abortion and homosexualism. His timidity is thus understandable, though I am not at all convinced that it is the right response or is sustainable.
My sister’s (perhaps she will post more detail her self) 8 year old was invited to a classmates birthday party this week. Upon arrival at the little girl’s house she learned (along with her little boy of course) that the girl has “two mommies”. One of the mommies is pregnant.
That’s just two examples from this week. Those who promote a somewhat ill defined “pastoral approach”, what would you have our priest/and our little mission church do? How would you have my sister counsel her son?
As my priest said today, there is “allot of junk out there” on what it means to be a human being and what it means to live a Christian life. I will say it again that I believe ours is a time that calls for clarity (dare I say “moral” clarity). One need look no further than some of the comments on this thread to come to that conclusion.
When thinking about my young children, I can’t say I am at all confident that they will hear what they need to hear in a few years time. They certainly are not hearing it today (not that they are of an age that it matters yet – though my oldest is rapidly approaching this important time). I sense a bit of “walking on eggshells” around these matters that simply will not do at all…
Scott,
Thanks for the article link. First, we are doubtless more complex than we’ve imagined. Of course, in the case of the intersex, we see some ambiguity, though we don’t see a “third thing.” There is still just x and y, only it’s messy in some. Yes we are “binary” (we don’t have x,y, and z), only some are more binary than others. 🙂
We are not in the position of trying to design a new sexuality for human beings (much less new genders). In the world of deconstruction, that is precisely what is going on. That is the construction of a New Man, part of the project of Modernity.
These “binaries” are not only part of our genetics, they are part of the very depths of our psychology. cf. Jungian type stuff.
But what is of concern for me, and the Church, is salvation and the fulness of Personhood (in the language of the Elder Sophrony). This, as is the thrust of the article, is found in kenosis, self-emptying, not in self-definition and self-assertion.
My own observation over the years of pastoral work and reading is that human beings are “sexual.” We like sex. The object(s) of our desire is, in fact, rather malleable and not entirely stable. It has been suggested that the bulk of the population is probably bi-sexual if we are talking about what they would potentially find pleasurable. We have to add to that the even wider variations that historically include animals and other fetishes.
I don’t think we can assume anything biological about this wide proclivity, only that people are very complex when it comes to sexuality. The Church, following the pattern of Divine teaching, directs this proclivity only in the direction of chastity, and of a rightly-lived union between a man and a woman. And I stress “rightly-lived” because the energies of our sexual expression are among the most destructive and shaming energies that we possess, as well as creative and life-giving.
What we do not have, however, is a no-holds barred married sex is always good, etc., teaching. That is simply not part of the Tradition. Even married sex has its downside. None of this is about puritanical guilt – but about ontological realities.
What we clearly have at present is a culture that is being consumed by sex with very disastrous results. At the very time we are being consumed with an epidemic of porn (just to use an example), an epidemic of unwed pregnancies, an epidemic of abortion and disease, the break-up of the family ( shall I go on?), at this very time and moment in our history – it is being suggested that the Tradition has got it all wrong and that Modernity (and “science”) should be trusted to get it right.
It is so reminiscent of the long string of failed “we now know” schemes that have destroyed our modern world. And this challenge has very, very serious political power and money behind it. This is not a cultural change – this is a revolution.
The Tradition has a proven record of producing saints – holiness and love of a transcendental sort. I still see no science that suggests any of the Tradition is wrong.
Christopher,
I felt similarly dismayed when it was announced the new governor of Oregon is “bi.” And she’s married, to a man. So what does that mean? Does it mean that she regularly commits adultery? If not, then why do I need to know that she has this disordered passion? I’m very tired of the politics of sex – it’s “in your face” approach. I want to go to Church and pray.
Tonight, I have a radio interview for Ancient Faith Radio. I need to get my mind right.
Once again Father I simply would like to express my deeply heartfelt thanks for your ministry. May the Lord keep blessing it!
Father, her bisexuality does not denote bisexual activity, as neither heterosexuality denotes promiscuity.
Robert,
granted, but it still sounds no different to a person who has discovered they are attracted by a certain rare sexual practice (one other’s would not normally conceive of -unless they are steeped deep in experimental pornography) labelling themselves as so-and-so-sexual… what is the true motive behind such a self-description?
Dino,
Thank you for the quote, it is quite beautiful. As I’ve read in numerous places recently, all desire is desire for God, and only when it is thus rightly ordered can it be fulfilled.
However, intersexuality cannot be truly transcended until the resurrection— it is a biological condition— a condition of the physical expression of sex/gender. So I would have to disagree with the assessment that a spiritually mature intersex person would be like a swimming charbroiled fish (though the imagery made me smile).
I’m curious, do you believe that we cease having sex/gender in the eschaton? It seems to me that you would question the idea of spiritual gender at all.
Dino: the motive is votes. Pure and simple.
Dino – votes, self-identity, freedom of conscience – what does it ultimately matter? What is it to us, why do we care?
“votes, self-identity, freedom of conscience – what does it ultimately matter? What is it to us, why do we care?”
Some reasons I believe Orthodox Christians should care:
1) According to anecdotal (priests experiences with their flock, etc.) and more rigorous research by Terry Mattingly and others, about half of Orthodox parishioners over 30 believe in the “new anthropology”, and about 80 percent of those under 30 believe in it. This false spirituality and understanding obviously has ramifications for their salvation.
2) Even if we somehow justify leaving our non Orthodox neighbor (let alone our Orthodox ones) to their own devices and say to our selves “Love does not require us to be concerned with their delusions, we can only think of ourselves” many of us have children, and so have to find a way to navigate through the delusion and do our best to give the foundation (of Truth) that Love demands we give them. How do we do this? What do we say to our child who just met their classmates “two mommies”?
3) The new anthropology is of course part of the project of Modernism, which believes in the perfectibility (or at least the progressive improvement) of man, the idea that man can “evolve” into things new, take on new “identities” (sexual/gender and otherwise), as well as the radical equality of individuals, etc. etc. All this of course is a different theology, a different “story” of man, creation, sin and salvation, etc. than the Christian one. We have to live and preach (as we our commanded by our Lord to do) in such a environment.
Christopher,
It is irrelevant – Oregon’s governor’s self ID does not hinder our teaching and living the Gospel. It can be used to demonstrate a conflict with Tradition – but why be so bothered or threatened by it?
Ah, but the Oregon’s governors delusion is not a single instance, or even a minority view. it is now a majority view. It is even a very common view among “average” Orthodox believers, perhaps even a majority one. In my state, the persecution has begun (very small so far true) of traditional Christians (all protestant so far I believe). My own sister now has to counsel her son about this delusion at an age that is far from ideal. Priests and bishops have to figure out a way to preach and counter this delusion. This is not an “theoretical” threat – the threat is real and real damage is being caused here and now and is all around us (e.g. the list Fr. Stephen has above which includes a “pornified” culture, abortion, etc. etc.). Our neighbors are not mere occasions for a teachable moment, we should be concerned about their salvation and our part in it (as small or as large as God would have it). The world being what it is, Orthodox believers have to find a way to live in the world and not be of it.
I appears to me that you think this is all theoretical, or some passioned reaction to the latest demonic turn of the world. It certainly can be those things (a passioned reaction) but there is of course substance to it as well, and that is what concerns us – and we are right to be concerned…
Hi Christopher,
My apologies – something went wrong in posting my last response, likely an iPhone issue. It posted only a short part of my response and only the beginning of the first paragraph. Anyways, thank you for your response.
The bottomline: Christians are not told to approve of SS, but to recognize as fellow humans their equal civil rights, protections and responsibilities. It’s the same rights and protections we extend to drunkards, wife-swapping heteros, greedy bankers and idol worshipers (without, btw, requiring approval of their fruit-of-the-flesh lifestyles) – and it makes no sense to single out SS to deprive them of equal taxation, visitation rights, social security benefits, civil marriage, and so forth.
My father, a southerner born in 1895, was part of a generation who did not approve of inter-racial marriage. His “scientific” justification for this view was the old saw “Birds of a feather flock together”. My mother, somewhat younger than he, but also a southerner (and a geneticist) responded “Yes, dear, birds of a feather do indeed flock together BUT, birds don’t fall in love”. My mother understood what science does not: genes account for why “birds of a feather flock together” but genetics (and science) cannot account for human affection. To strive for a scientific explanation for what is called same-sex attraction you have to answer one simple question: Why? What is the end result of such an attraction? Even if we leave “love” out of the equation, heterosexuals can be said to be attracted to each other for the purpose of reproducing the species and thus keep it going. The same can be said of the animal kingdom at large. In other words, there’s a functional reason “birds of a feather flock together”. This is evolutionary theory, yes? So what is the functional purpose of SSA? I’m SSA, and I’d like to know, because if evolutionary theory is to be believed, without any functional purpose I will die off. If I am a product of nature and not nurture then I’m stuck with this and the best I can hope for is that society will unconditionally accept me, indeed, “celebrate” me which will “empower” me to do what? I’ll tell you what: it will empower me to be comfortable in my misery. Or maybe science will find some kind of genetic “cure”, but when will that be? And if it were possible to “tweak” the gene of love could we then tweak everyone’s genes so that everyone loved everyone? Could they tweak my genes so that I would love God with all my heart and soul and mind (if I ticked that box on the menu)? Orthodox Lent begins tomorrow. Will science be able to flip some genetic switch which will allow me to immediately begin to feel the “joy-creating sorrow” St. John Climacus talks about?
Every one misses the point. As an Orthodox Christian I would normally quote from our vast treasury of God-inspired wisdom but this time I’m going to quote Hannibal Lecter when he said to Clarice: “First principles, Clarice. Simplicity. Read Marcus Aurelius. Of each particular thing ask: What is it in itself? What is its nature?” The nature of SSA is about the quest for intimate affection and completion. Yes, sex is part of it but sex for sex sake quickly becomes meaningless. This is the same for all humans. The difference is that our quest for affection and completion is directed at others who are also SSA but our efforts fail over and over and over again because no other male can complete us and the affection that he can offer just isn’t fulfilling; something’s missing. And so we move onto the next man, and the next. No mere mortal can fix this! Science cannot fix this! This is about human affection and a very powerful form of human love which, even in its un-broken state is beyond the reach of mere mortal ingenuity. If you rely on science and the human intellect alone to provide the answer you will wait in vain. As much as it grates on science and rationalists this is a realm from which they will always be excluded because the origin and provenance of all love is as uncontainable as its Author and it is to the source of this love, the Uncontainable One, that we must turn. Don’t be afraid. Ignore the World. Its words vanish the moment they are spoken. The Man your heart truly seeks knows your heart better than you know it yourself and the words He will speak in your heart, if you will just listen, will last forever. Such Comfort and Peace!
Tess,
your question is significant:
“I’m curious, do you believe that we cease having sex/gender in the eschaton? It seems to me that you would question the idea of spiritual gender at all.”
Christian anthropology is the key question at our times – equivalent to what Christian Theology or Ecclesiology was in the past…
The onotological knowledge of this cannot be based on the fallen rationality we perceive through our own fallen rationality. Only the deified saints could truly give us these answers – which is why I went with St Theoliptos’ quote. I could have used the very similar last page of St Silouan’s book or St Paul, or even our Lord’s words about gender in the Kingdom of Heaven.
Gender perception relates to ‘how we relate’ and the language becomes very ‘relative’…. If I spoke to Saint Syncleteca or Amma Sara, I think I would be astounded by their magisterial manliness, while if I, or any creature spoke to God they would always feel like a “creation”, a feminine, creaturely quality.
In Greek this is sometimes helped by the fact that some of the very words such as: creation, earth, sea, Church, love, thankfulness, eucharist, eternity, humanity/anthropotis etc are all feminine whereas God, heaven, sky, time, man/anthropos, sun are masculine.
Maybe others more concerned with this matter know better than me though.
Robert,
I think that the secularized compartmentalization of the divine -as evidenced in the practically atheist “world” – will always sit most uncomfortably with the belief of a genuine Christian who unceasingly perceives the sacramentality of all that exists. The only solution is of Ceasar’s to Ceasar but it is a sad compromise nonetheless. It is one of the great appeals for monasticism in fact – always has been.
Tess,
my answer to ““I’m curious, do you believe that we cease having sex/gender in the eschaton?” is not sufficient an answer but it can only be that “are we not called to freedom” in the eschata? would it not include even this?
Robert when I read and here the “rights” logic I heart weeps. It so devalues man and creation. It is based on Deism. It denies the sacred and ignores the poison that my sin is for you.
As Dino alludes the sacramental reality of God with us is so much more. IMO if we are “bound” to respect the right if sinners to sin what is the point? We are bound only to God.
Even on the rights and contract level are not some always excluded from the ability to contract for certain thingGod. Of course they are.
The rights mentality is simply capricious moralism. It is a clear expression of the false anthropology. It is the paradigm of both revolution and tyranny and drips with blood.
As a Christian I am commanded to love and forgive and demonstrate mercy and pray without regard to the person or for myself so when the agents of the state exercise their right to eliminate the hateful Christians: I am called to pray for them and forgive them.
Forgive me.
Robert when I read and here the “rights” logic my heart weeps. It so devalues man and creation. It is based on Deism. It denies the sacred and ignores the poison that my sin is for you.
As Dino alludes the sacramental reality of God with us is so much more. IMO if we are “bound” to respect the right if sinners to sin what is the point? We are bound only to God.
Even on the rights and contract level are not some always excluded from the ability to contract for certain thingGod. Of course they are.
The rights mentality is simply capricious moralism. It is a clear expression of the false anthropology. It is the paradigm of both revolution and tyranny and drips with blood.
As a Christian I am commanded to love and forgive and demonstrate mercy and pray without regard to the person or for myself so when the agents of the state exercise their right to eliminate the hateful Christians: I am called to pray for them and forgive them.
Forgive me.
Gregory Manning, Thank you for your reflection. Very helpful. I think i have been mixing Robert’s position–which I have long accepted–with a natural sympathy for the sufferings of an outsider who is sincere in his search for meaning. Your explanation helps me to examine those views separately without devaluing my friend.
Sorry for the duplicate.
” it makes no sense to single out SS to deprive them of equal taxation, visitation rights, social security benefits, civil marriage, and so forth.”
This is a list (there are others like it) of pseudo problems for which “gay marriage” is the solution. In other words, it is political propaganda. For example, I work in medicine, where the alleged visitation rights “problem” was actually solved in the 70’s and 80’s. It was a response to the more widespread breakdown of the family and change in medical ethics. This fact of course goes against the hagiography Aids movement and their claims of this being their victory.
If these “problems” had or have any substance, it is in the mundane level of contract law. Now, the moralists of the new anthropology do not speak of these things on that level – they use the much more grandiose concepts of “discrimination”, “civil rights”, etc. In other words, they want full moral (and even ontological) acceptance. Which is why I find it quite astounding that some Orthodox Christians think that they will stop at the coming supreme court ruling, or mere “civil unions”, etc. Apparently, more Orthodox Christians buy into the canard of “pluralism” than I realized.
On the wider topic of the new anthropology and the normative moral Tradition, I really don’t get those Orthodox who struggle with this. I mean, if you are going to wiring your hands over basic Orthodox dogma, why even bother being Orthodox? There is a plethora of “progressive” churches out there who quite explicitly and consciously accept and preach the new anthropology and the new moralism. Stay tuned, for they will be active participants of a persecution coming to a time near you…
Christopher/Michael,
You can’t have it both ways – complain about the rights of Christians whilst refusing to acknowledge the same rights of others.
You make the rights of Christians sacrosanct, but when you speak of the rights of others you make these rights to be mere “moralism” part of a “project” and other derogatory language.
Christopher, I am surprised at your surprise. Even St John Chrysostom opined that the majority of Christians in his time were as a millstone around the neck of the Church. Add to that and most of the proponents of the new anthropology are of the opinion that if the Church doesn’t agree, the Church needs to change.
There are even hints of that on this thread.
The Church will endure and those who are faithful will too.
I pray for the strength to do so and for others as well. So far there are still more than two.
I rejoice in that.
Robert I do not in fact seek my rights. I don’t expect rights because such things to the extent that they exist at all are defined solely by the state. They have always been a cultural delusion. At best the state decides whose rights will prevail over other competing rights (the foundation of contract law)
I claim no right to life. Anybody can take any time they want–especially the state. As they thought they did to Jesus.
I have no right to liberty as the only freedom is in obedience to God.
I unequivocably have no right to happiness as I am called to the joyful suffering of the Cross.
Even less do I have a right to property. What I have is a gift from God and I have no call on it at all.
Even in the most oppressive state I can always rejoice in God my savior…and I am commanded to preach the Gospel that sin and death have been overcome.
Expecting much less demanding not only life but a particular kind of life is insane arrogance. Which as I said drips with blood.
Even at the best of times the state will think itself higher than the Church and conflict will arise.
I am thankful for the state’s forbearance but I realize what that is and have realized that for a long time.
I pray that I will also be able to rejoice when the forbearance ends to the glory of God.
End it will of course in the name of rights and fairness.
Render unto Caesar….
He does not have the authority to define man. Neither does the vain imaginings of so-called science that seeks to storm and tear down the gates of paradise.
Such folks always forget: Christ is Risen!
Lord, have mercy.
Michael,
All good and well for you. That is a choice you make, and your freedom to do so. But it doesn’t give you the right to deprive others to make a different choice.
We must realise that the notion of true ‘apostasy’ has to do with, predominantly, baptised Orthodox apostatizing; calling a sin not a sin is innate in modern anthropology (and even when no sin is practised is more dangerous than a done but potentially repent-able sin) and trying to amalgamate that with Orthodoxy must be alerted as heresy. There’s already one self-proclaimed gay Orthodox …‘priest’ I know of around – who has concocted a “gay marriage as a sacrament” (!) – I know this because he has a “gay and orthodox” site [where after “first and second admonition” (Titus 3:10) I had to terminate further commenting, a few years back] –he is spreading the poison of “repentance –necessary for all sin- is unnecessary for homosexuality” (…!) under the banner of Orthodoxy… I do therefore understand Christopher’s apprehensions concerning the upbringing of the Orthodox children in a world that is promoting an anti-Christian anthropology.
Christopher, i can see where you are going with this. A week ago I might have dismissed your concerns as overblown. Today, however, after reading a Feb. 20 column in the Washington Post entitled “I’m gay. And I want my kid to be gay, too,” I’m at a loss. Safe though uncomfortable in my conservative Midwestern city, where troublesome racial issues blur other concerns, I have never been confronted with “the gay agenda.” This article brought me up short. I can only hope that it represents the outliers, and not the future majority. I am listening more thoughtfully now to what I once wrote off as shrill voices.
Dino,
No one is demanding we approve of SS, and no is forcing us to apostasize.
“You can’t have it both ways – complain about the rights of Christians whilst refusing to acknowledge the same rights of others. ”
This is perhaps THE great lie of our age. This lie is an attempt to claim that the sky is green while the grass is blue. Pure and simple. The agenda of the left is in no way interested in pluralism or the rights of anyone. They are simply interested in forcing their beliefs on all. But, as has been true for decades, often the best political move is to take what you’re doing, and then to accuse the other side of doing it. This is precisely what the left is doing on this issue (as well as on many others). They are the totally intolerant ones, while having the audacity to claim that Christians are intolerant.
In our secular society, I, a Christian, am perfectly and totally willing to allow my LGBT friends to live as they please and to have the same “rights” from the govt as I do. I am also perfectly fine with an LGBT owned bakery or florist to refuse to do business with Christians. They own the business, it’s totally up to them to choose to do business with who they please. Of course, as we’ve seen, they are the ones who are not willing to extend this same courtesy to me. I’m being tolerant, they are not.
Game, set, match. Please stop with the lie.
@Robert
That what is required of us that we not “deny rights” to someone? My approval? Even my kids don’t ask for that anymore.
If I were an autocrat, and everyone everywhere were dependent on my approval for any behavior whatsoever, I could see the merit for the kind of grenades you are lobbing, but in American government the responsibility is more diffuse.
“No one is demanding we approve of SS…”
Wow, not sure what world you live in. In the world I live in, we have court cases in Oregon and Colorado (bakers), New Mexico (photographer) and Wash DC (florist) that disagree with your statement.
For yet another example of where this is going (persecution) and the lie of “tolerance” and “equal rights”, look at what happened in San Antonio, TX last year (I may have mentioned this before so forgive if I repeat). My sister-in -aw who is an “urban minister” in inner city San Antonio (and can be described as a natural “liberal” politically and culturally – with provisos – she also does some good work in her role) is the one who originally told me about this. The city council put forward a non discrimination policy that included “sexual orientation” and did NOT exclude churches. Now, the African American community and their representatives on the council objected, as they still have a rather “traditional” christianity (majority are northern baptists if I am not mistaken). Their fellow political allies (all on the “left”) tried to shame them into supporting the law, because it is after all about “civil rights” and were they not the benefit of the civil rights movement in the last generation? To their credit they rejected these arguments.
Not that it was enough, the city was still going to pass the law! Only when the state AG explained that such a law would not make it past the Texas Supreme court, given its current make up, did the city council back down. They did not back down out of any commitment to “equal rights” or “pluralism” (religious, moral, or otherwise) or “tolerance”, they only backed down because they simply did not have the raw political power (yet) to enforce their morality unto the churches. When they do have the power, no one should be under any delusion as to what they are going to do with it – they have already explicitly signaled their intentions.
Notice this is not San Francisco, or Seattle, or New York. This is San Antonio Texas which is otherwise a rather “conservative” military town smack dab in the middle of “Christian America”. Our society is much further along this road than many realize…
Albert mentions:
” “I’m gay. And I want my kid to be gay, too,” ”
The title says it all does it not. Under the New Anthropology, man is an ever moving, ever evolving plasticity. The direction of this “change” is of course assumed to be good, because man is not regressing, he is “progressing”, thus the New Man looks upon his creations, and they are very good. If I can “choose/affirm” my “sexual identity”, then it is of course simply another step in this logic to “my choice is good”, and if my choice is good then the next step is I want my procreation (the irony of course of “gay” procreation is largely lost) to affirm my choices, my morality also.
To such a people, it will be “hate speech” if a Christian (or a Jew, or a Muhammadan, or anyone else) questions this morality, but it is a nature good if he wants to encourage his children to be “gay”…
It occurs to me that Chesterton has some things to say about this evolving/moving/plastic man in “The Everlasting Man”. We need a modern Chesterton to write the follow up. It will have to begin with his dictum “I do not believe in being dehumanized in order to study humanity”
Robert,
Please forgive me pulling you up on your comment that no one is demanding we approve of SS. There’s certainly a real problem of this now. What was a voluntary tutorial for a teacher, for example, in a school, is now legally compulsory. I am not talking maths here… Sex education (which teachers cannot avoid anymore in many countries) is legally required to include SS genital practices and the teachers express approval of these (they avoid this anymore) or they lose their job as “discriminators”. They cannot use the ‘belief card’ anymore. I think there isn’t much of a need to add more examples to the list that others have already provided of such cases where we are indeed being “demanded to approve of SS”. Do you really not see that?
the ‘pluralism’ of this type that characterizes modern secular man clearly prohibits any faith to declare the “fullness of truth” and claim to be the only “way” (John 14:6) of salvation…
Proclaiming such an absolute Truth is “not allowed” and brands the proclaimer a “fundamentalist”. The ‘preaching’ of true Christianity as ‘not another religion’, not ‘another way’ to the same (syncretistic) God of all the man-made religions, but as a direct revelation of God Himself – made man-, calling all other religions “thieves and robbers” (John 10:8) is something inconveniently ‘absolute’ – a threat to all pluralistically accepted notions.
‘Pluralism’, unfortunately, is obliged to malign the uniquely singular, unparalleled, apocalyptic revelations of Christ (all His “I am’s…”), ‘relativism’ advocates the dispute of all ideologies except for its own. (It’s “intolerance in the name of tolerance”)
However, Christ’s absolute claims only allow for one of two positions, (a third is mathematically impossible in honesty):
1) you either accept that He is what He says He is (the True God, the only Way, the Truth, the Light, the Resurrection and the Life – Whom you are commanded to love above all and to the point of total sacrifice),
or
2) you are stuck -unable to explain away his historical existence, since describing Him as something any less than what He Himself claims (as, for instance, a great ‘Philosopher’, a ‘Prophet’, a ‘Mystic’ etc. etc…) axiomatically doesn’t stand to reason: it automatically makes Him the greatest and most demanding liar in existence…
So, in order to avoid going down this unavoidable dead-end, the modern pluralist -hell-bent on never accepting position (1) along with its inevitable consequences- circumvents this disquieting stalemate and alleviates his conscience through the all-pervasive vehicle of constant distraction. Distraction, is welcomed and all counter arguments to this simple logic always merely distract from what our Lord has not (thankfully) left open to us.
correction:
…”is legally required to include SS genital practices and the teachers express approval of these (they cannot avoid this anymore)”…
Dino,
1.) Teachers are not required to make a moral judgment/approval of sexual practices, in fact they are instructed to refrain from doing so.
2.) “the ‘pluralism’ of this type that characterizes modern secular man clearly prohibits any faith to declare the “fullness of truth” and claim to be the only “way” This is a non-sequitur – the free speech right of Christians is not diminished/impeded by granting free speech to non-Christians. You have the freedom to believe and preach that Christianity is the one true religion. I do, and I teach it, in school, privately, and I publish this in writing as well. Our freedom is not restricted whatsoever.
You are failing to make the distinction between cultural and religious pluralism, conflating the two.
Dino and others,
I think it is approriate, when discussing this topic, to distinguish between sincere Christians as a general group and those who profess no religion. (I woud not presume to speak for Jews and Muslims, even though they probaby experience a similar inner conflict.) And so the statement “All who came before me are thieves and robbers” is not the same as branding many who came after Him with those (more likely even in the scriptural context) metaphorical terms.
If sincere Christians interpret their faith differently, what good does it do to insult them? Jesus insulted hypocrites, but not sinners, and certainly not his own followers, however confused or uncomprehending they were. He taught in parables and in positives. That’s a better way to win “hearts and minds.”
With regard to the larger issue of “the culture” we find ourselves in, I am pleased that all beliefs are welcome, even if it means that some (ours, but also many others’) are met with rejection, pressure to change, or suffering. That sounds like what has happened throughout history. It is what we signed up for. It doesn’t mean we should lie down, but I am not sure that we should fight either. Christopher’s concern is with his children, and so is mine. But none of us will protect them from dangerous ideas unless we live out our own beautiful and true ones–which are never successfully imposed, either on children or on a culture.
Robert,
your distinction between cultural and religious pluralism is solid rationally in some contexts but not in others.
Besides you can argue, as Albert did, that Christians may benefit greatly from pluralism in some contexts (e.g. in an otherwise religiously hostile country). I am thinking of (and therefore mentioned apostasy earlier) traditionally Christian, Orthodox even countries which makes the other side of this (very recent) development of enforced pluralism a problem.
I assure you, as did others above, that the -still nascent- persecution and -already flagrant- mockery is very, very real and also relatively recent. The distinction between cultural and religious pluralism makes little difference to this vey real experience.
Meaning: the -still nascent- persecution and -already flagrant- mockery of those who refuse to accept, advocate and promote homosexuality as another option for all
Robert,
That you mention that teachers “are not required to make a moral judgment/approval of sexual practices, in fact they are instructed to refrain from doing so”, demonstrates, to me, the quintessence of secularisation (thinking about countries where -traditionally- teachers were co-responsible for the right moral formation of youth).
To advise against the “conflation” of religious and cultural pluralism seems to me, in a sense, the essence of secularisation – “compartmentalising the faith”, as Met Jonah describes it in the intro to “Every Where Present” by Father Stephen.
Albert, when you say:
“If sincere Christians interpret their faith differently, what good does it do to insult them?”
I think you are talking about how I distinguished some christians “modern” or “progressive” christians. I do that not as an insult (though I know for a fact that they can take it that way) but to make an important distinction. Due to historical, cultural, and theological factors the term “christian” is very very elastic – many groups term themselves as such, all of which are to varying degrees different than the Orthodox Church. In context of a discussion of “modernism” and the New Man, there are “christians” who are in fact modernists in every way, they simply are “christian” in only a nominal and “nostalgic” sense. Some of them are hardly even really deists.
Because they claim the term one has to in discussion refer to it, but again they are not Christian in any recognizable sense – they don’t hold any basic Christian beliefs at all. I try to get around this by capatilization, etc.
I think it is important to be honest and recognize this, and not simply be cowered by their sensitivities. I don’t think they would be so sensitive to these distinctions if they themselves did not know in some way how far they have wondered from the Faith.
Personally, I wish those of us who are actually Christian in any meaningful sense (i.e. Classical Christians, including Orthodox and RC’s and the “conservative” or “faithful” protestants) would “take back” the term, use it somewhat less loosely and honestly – but again this is difficult due to a number of factors.
I was having an discussion along these lines with a relative of mine about 6 months ago. I asked him “ok, would you say that Unitarian Universalists are “christian”? He said “yes”. I grew up a Unitarian Universalist, and I would (as the majority of my fellow UU’s) would have been quite insulted by calling me a “christian”! Of course, we UU’s had become “self conscious” modernists and were quite aware of the foundation of our philosophy, whereas your average “modernist” christian really does conflate his modernism with the Truth of Christ…
Micheal,
Thanks for the St. John’s “milestones” reminder!
Dino, we disagree on that point. Distinguishing cultural pluralism from religious pluralism does not amount to compartmentalization. I subscribe to the former, but deny the latter.
Albert, well put! “none of us will protect them from dangerous ideas unless we live out our own beautiful and true ones–which are never successfully imposed, either on children or on a culture.” Imposition fails, whether by us, or by the Modern Project.
All the best, and thank you for the discussion.
I don’t disagree in a place like the USA or UK, Robert, but somewhere like Greece, culture and religion have never been separated in any of their manifestations (until these outside influences started bearing fruit).
Also note that the more traditional cultural pluralism of a traditional Orthodox country is motivated by its religious (Christian) “phronema”, whereas modern cultural pluralism (like religious pluralism) has a syncretistic relativism at its core based on post enlightenment humanism. I clarify this because we are obviously still discussing something markedly non-traditional: the acceptance of homosexuality as “ok” rather that as a “passion”
Robert, big of you to so condescendingly grant me rights especially since they have no meaning. Neither you nor I have the power or authority to deny anyone anything. Nor do I have the desire too.
Accepting homosexuality as equivalent to male- female interrelationships is bad for any culture or community, but is has nothing to do with rights.
You are taking positions on premises that I don’t accept and have nothing to do with the Church in any case. Believe me I understand them quite well. I just don’t accept them.
What the state does it does. If the state wields its power in accord with God then it will rule better.
If not it rules badly.
Freedom is in obedeiance to God: personally or corporately.
Since you seem intent on falsly accusing me of beliefs I do not have and have explicitly repudiated, I have to assume you have no interest in what I am attempting to say.
God bless you.
Father’s original post on this topic was wonderful and probably needful as well, as were most of the earlier comments, but…
Am I alone in feeling that this conversation has grown tedious?
Forgive me…for everything.
Thank you Michael, and God bless you.
Brian, yes it has become tedious.
Robert et al,
This particular tangent is indeed somewhat tedious and parsing of the various pluralisms while discussing the main topic can seem utterly beside the pressing point. As Father Stephen firmly elucidated, human sexuality is complex, yet the Church sees a person (a potential repetition of Christ) differently, with understandable implications on sexuality. Her anthropology is the Truth, whereas the anthropology of the secular outlook is to one degree or another deluded. Often conceitedly so. The Church speaks of chastity and marriage in strict terms, with obvious repercussions on the interpretation of SSA. The interfacing language with a world which sees man as something entirely different to this view might, at times, need pastoral, creative, discerning application to invite effectively – that’s something evidently acknowledged…
But some of your commenting –irrespective of its good intention- has the potential to be perceived as little more than brushing off the concrete scenarios, and attempting to depreciate the overall rationale of those who commented having cited these, often from their personal experience, therefore counterproductively derailing this conversation or making it somewhat tedious.
to clarify: concrete scenarios cited refers to instances mentioned by commenters of “demanding we approve of SSA”