Met. Joseph
For those interested in watching, it will be televised by C-SPAN and livestreamed by Lifesite.com
NOTE: Read Met. Joseph’s Pastoral Directive.
Source: LifeSite News
By Fr. Mark Hodges
ENGLEWOOD, NJ, April 16, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A national leader in the Orthodox Christian Church has encouraged all Orthodox Christians in the United States to attend the March for Marriage on April 25 in Washington, D.C.
Metropolitan Joseph of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese has issued an encyclical to approximately 268 churches in North America, asking all the faithful to join the demonstration in the nation’s capital supporting traditional marriage.
Metropolitan Joseph says that Orthodox participation in the march is needed “in order to dispel confusion which has been stirred up by our secular culture.” The Orthodox Church has always defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman and said that homosexual activity is a grave sin.
Starting at the National Mall in Washington, D.C., the March for Marriage is expected to gather tens of thousands of participants. The demonstration is timed to coincide with the U.S. Supreme Court hearing four new cases on same-sex “marriage.”
The Metropolitan’s encyclical conveyed a strong sense of urgency. “We are clearly on the cusp of a historic Supreme Court decision that could mark a powerful affirmation of marriage between one man and one woman – upon which all major civilizations have flourished – or, it can initiate a direction which the holy Orthodox Church can never embrace.”
The bishop made a direct connection between participating in this year’s March for Marriage and times in history when Christians have corrected society or changed culture for the better. “Throughout the history of our faith, our holy Fathers have led the Orthodox laity to gather in unison to preserve the faith against heresy from within, and against major threats upon societies from without.”
American Christians, he said, “are in a unique position” of living “in a nation governed as a democratic republic. We still benefit from religious freedoms that would allow us to voice with clarity the Gospel message of Christ’s love and the path to salvation.”
Legal observers agree that a ruling to redefine marriage would seriously impact religious freedom in the United States.
Metropolitan Joseph hoped that American Christians will make a strong showing at the annual event. “If we have several thousand attendees from the ranks of clergy, monastics, and laity at this peaceful rally, it would immediately be clear that the Orthodox Church is a leading voice for marriage in this nation,” the bishop wrote.
“We ask that you would make every effort to attend the rally, and encourage others to do likewise,” Metropolitan Joseph wrote in a special hierarchical letter addressed to Orthodox Christian faithful throughout the country. “A strong, vibrant, and clear message is needed from our Church…[for] the strengthening of family life. This is what our nation’s people need to see.”
Reaction to the Metropolitan’s strong stance has been positive. “Metropolitan Joseph is clearly emerging as the moral leader of Orthodox Christianity in America,” Fr. Johannes Jacobse, a priest in the Antiochian Orthodox Church and founder of the American Orthodoxy Institute, told LifeSiteNews. “This call to participate in the March for Marriage affirms that the Orthodox have a place in the public square.”
Fr Jacobse went on to explain the importance of defending marriage in our society. “The affirmation of traditional marriage is also the affirmation of the foundational building block of Western civilization,” he said. “If the family dies, Western culture dies.”
Metropolitan Joseph also praised the work of a group of priests and laity spearheading the Orthodox Christian role in the effort. The group, known as Crown Them With Glory, takes its name from a phrase in the Orthodox Church wedding ceremony.
It has set up a website with details on the march and explanatory articles on marriage and homosexuality. The group is also sponsoring a gathering at the end of the march, where hundreds of Orthodox Christians are expected to pray for the nation to reject gay “marriage.”
The March for Marriage is organized by the National Organization for Marriage, which seeks to communicate the necessity of defending marriage as an exclusive union between one man and one woman. April 25 will be the third annual March for Marriage in Washington, D.C., and is set to take place within days of when the Supreme Court is expected to hear oral arguments to decide the national legal status of homosexual “marriages.”
Fr. John Whiteford, a Russian Orthodox priest and member of the group Crown Them With Glory, urged, “Come out in support of marriage between one man and one woman, modeled from our Lord’s love for His Bride: the Church… Many priests believe it is time we had a national pan-Orthodox Christian movement… The Orthodox Church has preserved its timeless teachings on the sacrament of marriage, and, as a place of refuge, the Church offers healing through Christ for us all, boldly proclaiming a blessed path toward salvation.”
Fr. Stephen Freeman, a priest in the Orthodox Church in America, added, “This is the time for us to rise to the occasion. Amid such confusion over love, sexuality, gender roles, family life, we must make a reply for the sake of our children and our neighbor.”
“This is an emergency: a crisis,” he continued. “A response on our part is necessary and would be historic.”
He called a strong Orthodox Christian presence at the March “an opportunity to stand together in unity of voice as the Church: that is the stuff we were made for.”
It would seem that the GOAA is also taking a stand:
Archbishop Demetrios and Holy Eparchial Synod Join Faith Leaders, Reaffirming Commitment to Marriage and Religious Liberty
Apr 24, 2015
NEW YORK— A few days before the U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments on the rights of states to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, more than 30 religious leaders representing tens of millions of US citizens from diverse faith communities throughout the United States have reaffirmed their shared commitment to marriage and religious freedom. An open letter entitled “The Defense of Marriage and the Right of Religious Freedom: Reaffirming a Shared Witness” was issued to all in positions of public service on April 23.
Archbishop Demetrios of America, Chairman of the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of the USA, signed the open letter on behalf of the Holy Eparchial Synod. He was joined by other religious leaders, including Archbishop Joseph E. Kurtz of Louisville, Kentucky, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB); Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco, chairman of the USCCB Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage; and Metropolitan Tikhon (OCA).
“The Orthodox Church firmly believes that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman and that the protection of religious freedom helps advance a stable and free society. It is our hope and prayer that this letter will inspire others, especially those in public service, to embrace these principles,” said Archbishop Demetrios. “Unfortunately, while not all circumstances make it possible for children to be raised by both a loving mother and father, we uphold that marriage as the union of one man and one woman offers the optimal environment for the birth and raising of children. For this reason, we strongly feel that both Church and society ought to labor together to strengthen the unique bond between husband and wife.”
The religious leaders stressed the need for civility and mutual respect, writing, “Government should protect the rights of those with differing views of marriage to express their beliefs and convictions without fear of intimidation, marginalization or unwarranted charges that their values imply hostility, animosity, or hatred of others.”
The leaders close with a statement of their duty and love towards all: “In this and in all that we do, we are motivated by our duty to love God and neighbor. This love extends to all those who disagree with us on this issue. The well-being of men, women, and the children they conceive compels us to stand for marriage as between one man and one woman.”
The letter is available at: http://www.goarch.org/archdiocese/departments/ecumenical/marriage-and-religious-freedom. Other official Orthodox Christian statements on marriage and sexuality can be found at: http://assemblyofbishops.org/about/documents/2013-assembly-statement-on-marriage-and-sexuality and http://www.assemblyofbishops.org/news/scoba/2003-08-13-moral-crisis
Thank God!
Good, but not enough. As Fr Daniel said at the March, we pray at every Orthodox service for our BISHOPS to “divide the word of truth.” Our own faithful are in confusion on this issue, being so entrenched in the world as we are. We need our bishops to respond to this threat definitively, which they have not. To tell the truth that sodomy is evil, an act of hate and not of love, and that same sex attraction is a psychological and spiritual malady, not something just to endure and live with in celibacy. This is what they are bishops for: to protect the faithful under their pastoral care by rightly dividing the word of truth. There is no more important issue that our faithful need clear leadership on today. And yet, not a single Orthodox bishop was present at the March for Marriage –where we need our bishops’ leadership most! Homosexual sin is not just like any other sin, but is quite unique and abominable as a sin against creation (and God, of course) and ones own nature, and it needs deep pastoral care and love to overcome. Let’s redouble our efforts in praying for our bishops to be bishops!
The other elephant in the room is Internet pornography and addiction to it. For years, priests that I have known have all commented on how often pornography, and masturbation to it, come up in confession. Some argue that there is something homosexual about masturbation: it betrays a kind of narcissism, an inversion, that does not allow for the full development of creative love as in the case of marriage. If true, perhaps there is “another” homosexual problem as well — pornography and masturbation. Some may reject this characterization but, at the very least, it raises serious questions about how one can be psychologically or spiritually cleansed to undertake the difficult struggle towards theosis. Same-sex weddings are certainly a concern but what about porn-addicted clergy or laymen who are actively living a life of masturbation to pornography?
Same-sex weddings are certainly a concern but what about porn-addicted clergy or laymen who are actively living a life of masturbation to pornography?
As a formal computer professional, I have seen this addiction first hand. Every corporation/organization I worked for of course had a policy, and when men (I don’t recall a single female) would break said policy and “view porn” on their computers, I would always go and explain “look, there is NO privacy on computer networks – I can and do see EVERYTHING you do. I have to report this if it occurs again, don’t do it!”. This would work in the majority, but in a significant minority they simply could not help themselves. They would end up getting fired for multiple breaches.
This aspect, as every other aspect of the sexual revolution must be rejected. That said, the comparison of pornography to “gay marriage” is not perfect, because there is as yet not a movement trying to force pornography into the very definition of man, and into our Holy Rites and way of life. Well, that is not true exactly because it is a propaganda movement. Still, I have not yet heard that I as a Classical (Orthodox) Christian am a “bigot” because I do not accept porn as an “identity” and I have not heard of a Christian Photographer or Baker or Florist who has been prosecuted for refusing to participate in pornography.
That last sentence is revelatory is it not? That is how radical all this is – that “gay marriage” advocates want to force us into their unholy rites is eerily similar to a pornographer wanting to force us into his activity. How long before that happens? Sooner than we would like I suspect…
And yet, not a single Orthodox bishop was present at the March for Marriage
I thought you were being a bit over critical, but when you pointed this out, I think you might be right…
And only one local clergy that I saw-unless they were all somewhere else in the crowd. . . . . .
There were two local clergy, three if you count Fr. Gregory Mathewes-Green from Linthicum, MD. I was told there were some embarrassing things said by the speakrs at the first march in 2013, which explains the lack of local support. But there was nothing at this year’s march that should keep Orthodox Christians away.
Pdn BPM:
Nothing except charity and common sense.
Says he who was not there.
meaning local priest-
Here is the link to the GOAA statement:
http://www.goarch.org/news/marriageletr-04242015
Peter
Peter, I cannot tell you, how as a Greek-American, I was gratified to see this statement put out by GOArch. Both on its own merits as well as what it tells me about a possible internal struggle within the GOA synod over this issue. In addition, it sends out a signal to all the GOA Arida wannabes that such musings will find no purchase in that jurisdiction.
See you all there i hope!
The “emergency” and “crisis” that Fr. Stephen Freeman recognizes above is real and escalating here in Atlanta, in what used to be known as the “Bible Belt.”
Those asserting common sense and decency are being fired and intimidated. Their civil rights of religious liberty and free speech have been taken from them even by those who name the name of Christ.
Dr. Carole Hulslander, a pastor in a United Methodist church, was underhandedly forced out against the will of the congregation, due to her support of the moral teachings of the Holy Gospel. The congregation refused to accept the replacement pastor, and chose to abandon having services. Please listen to the interview about this and the manner in which it was done:
http://www.redstate.com/2015/04/24/the-culture-war-goes-to-church/
Charles Stanley, as so many have, tucked his tail between his legs and surrendered the battlefield, instead of using the opportunity to proclaim the Holy Gospel, declined an award on pressure by the new moralists.
http://thegavoice.com/anti-gay-baptist-preacher-declines-atlanta-jewish-groups-award-after-mounting-criticism/
The Atlanta Fire Chief, Kelvin Cochran, was fired because his book for men on sexual purity expressed the Christian teaching that homosexuality is opposed to the will of God for his creation.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/02/18/with-growing-national-support-for-his-cause-atlantas-former-fire-chief-sues-the-city-over-his-dismissal/
I am looking for ways to assist in their struggle. If anyone has an idea let me know as I seek to contact them.
There is also a state representative from an Antiochian parish I am contacting.
Where are we headed?
Probably toward a regime which prohibits ministers from officiating at weddings if they refuse to officiate at same-sex weddings. Additionally , it would probably be the end of 501(c) religious organizations tax exemption and would probably lead to court decisions favoring same sex supporters against the official hierarchy. Are we getting the picture , yet?
I don’t think it will go that far. I think religious weddings will be stripped of legal status, meaning an Orthodox couple would need to get a civil wedding as well as a church wedding. This is already done in some (many?) countries, and I know many would argue that it should be this way anyway.
Actually, I think you are wrong. I think the aclu would be on the churches side if government is the required ceremony.
The ACLU? Really? Dream on!
The reason you are wrong is because the aclu would not want a majority religion to decide how the government ceremony would be performed. This is one of their tenets; that majority religion should not drive government.
And if the churches fought for the abolishment of government weddings; they would lose, too.
The ACLU is a chicken-***t, com-symp organization that was founded by a known Communist for the express purpose of undermining Christian and American values. I say this as a former member. They are only for free speech when it suits their anti-American/Christian agenda. Like most progressives, they have been notably silent in taking the Islamists to task for their numerous outrages against free speech but they were in the forefront in defending blasphemies against Christian sensibilities.
They have flaws-that is sure.
Now now, the ACLU are equal-opportunity blasphemers.
No the ACLU is chicken***t just like George said. They defend those that fit their communist agenda. A few tokens here and there mean nothing. Sorry to say.
Peter
Was this the group of Christian men that were stoned at the festival gates? That’s all on film-I saw no pig head and no actions from the Christians that were violent towards the Muslims. The police just sat on their horses as the bottles, rocks and crates were thrown at these men.??? These men should have sued.
Oh and by crude messages-did you mean they were talking about Christ??
What I saw was annoying for sure, but not violent or angry-they have every right to say their message and not be killed or injured for it.
You’re mistaken about the ACLU, George. They act in the courts and haven’t defended Islamism ther, but may have defended any American Moslem in court if their civil right were violated, like, say, Dearborn Muslims. Please name even ONE blasphemy of the many of which you say the ACLU was the defender.(“in the forefront in defending blasphemies against Christian sensibilities.”).
Name ONE such blasphemy.
Very, very true.
Peter
Ages:
Can’t people like Ages even get their facts straight? Religious weddings have “legal status” EVERYWHERE in the U.S.A. and will continue to do so. One reason a church wedding would not be recognized as legally contracted would be if the priest or minister or pastor refused to fill out the appropriate paperwork, as Patrick Henry Reardon has publicly proclaimed on this blog to be his practice at “HIS” church. In which case, any Orthodox couple getting married at Patrick’s church will have to see a justice of the peace, and have the license signed by that officiant, if the marriage is to be recognized under the law.
OOM, by what logic do you predict that “religious weddings have legal status…and will continue to do so?” Are you an oracle as well?
George:
By the logic that includes common sense, the unbroken political tradition of our country, and the protections afforded by the first amendment, for a start. The whole issue is moot. If and when your paranoid fears of religious weddings not being recognized by any jurisdiction are realized in fact, let’s revisit the issue at that point, okay?
Rymlianin:
First, stir up hysterical fear without any basis…
Rymlianin:
… then, combine it with complete ignorance of the tax law…
Rymlianin:
…and follow it all up with a nonsensical observation/”prediction”
Rymlianin:
Yes, we are. Rymlianin is NOT TOO BRIGHT.
Well, not surprisingly the march was labeled “anti-gay”. Not even anti homosexual marriage. Just anti-gay.
Not surprisingly several folks were quoted in such a way as to emphasize their rabid fundamentalist apocalyptic attitudes presented as chicken little.
First rule in talking with the press: always strongly highlight the positive side. Especially when asked a leasing question designed to elicit the negative side.
Example: instead of saying required homosexual marriage is destructive, say traditional marriage is a potent force for a strong society.
Second rule speak in simple words and do not attempt any philisophical nuance.
Third rule: Be loving and joyful.
You give too much credit to the press. In cases like this, they will always and without exception bypass a thousand kind and well-spoken individuals to quote the one moderately “crazy” person.
Please give a URL to the press coverage you are discussing.
Information is important.
Even better is “natural marriage” since homosexual couplings can not in any way be called a marriage, even a non-traditional one. Marriage is the conjugal union of male and female needed for procreation. Sodomy does not qualify. The term “traditional marriage” gives moral weight to the idea of “non-traditional marriage” but in nature no marriage other than natural marriage exists.
Ryan T. Anderson explains the distinction in another context:
The Russian Orthodox philosopher, Nikolai Berdyaev was married in Church. He and his wife lived together as brother and sister as long as they lived. Nothing “conjugal” or “procreative” about it. Are we to call this “unnatural marriage?”
Think this through Your Grace. Any marriage between a man and woman constitutes a natural marriage. It still fits the natural model even if no sexual relations took place. This should be self-evident.
“Think THIS through”k, Father Hans, I was commenting on your apparent teaching that “natural” marriage must include the intent to reproduce or conjugate. I’m glad you’ve cleared that up!
However, I find your sloppy reference to ANY marriage between a man and woman as being NATURAL fails to indicate that incestuous marriage between a mother and her son or a father and his daughter to be highly UNnatural.
I know, I know, Cain’s seven wives show that incest polygamy are “natural”, right? At least according to the oft-scorned “situational” ethics!
Your response is peculiar, Your Grace. Making the distinction that natural marriage is between one man and one woman does not imply that the distinctions within natural marriage are obliterated. The distinctions exist, but for different reasons.
I assumed these natural distinctions were self-evident. Given that you are a Bishop the assumption is a reasonable one to make.
As it stands, your response creates the inference that you define marriage to include same-sex couplings. It’s only an inference but you might want to clear the air.
I’ll be glad to clarify things for you, Father Hans, and I understand whyyou, ;an Antiochene, might find my reasoning strange.
Premisw: The Antiochian Orthodox, peculiarly, do not recognize ANY marriages not performed in the Orthodox Church. ALONE among American Orthodox, they rountinely requrre that any Protestant couples, or atheist couples, etc., already married in the eyes of the state and society, must undergo the Orthodoxliturgical Mystery of Marriage if they become members of the Orthodox Church: in other words, even if they are were married by a Justice of the Peace, the Antioochenes do NOT consider them to be be married.
If anything at all is counter-intuitive in these matters, it is that the ONLY Orthodox hierarchy that does not accept ANY marriages—monogamous, heterosexual, etc., done outside the Church is suddenly taking an initiative to try and control who can have a NON-MARRIAGE!
If EVER a same=sex couple somehow was crowned in marriage by an Orthodox hierarch, I would have to recognize it, I suppose— But this is IDLE FANTASY. Nevertheless, an Orthodox hierarch is being LIONIZED for trying to control marriages which he doesn’t recognize anyhow!!!!
I think it’s plain (and not what George M. calls a “dead horse”) that the Holy Tradition supposedly acknowledged by all Orthodox condemns abortion as MURDER and that abortions are nevertheless performed by Orthodox. There’s a commandment, one of the TEN that condemns murder; there is no commandment that condemns illicit, unnnatural, or same-sex marriages. Orthodox hierarchs of the OCA have for DECADES valiantly and publicly marched for LIFE. where have these other “valiant’ types been?
I became Orthodox when I was 28, a mature man with some experience of llife and religion, and I’m not 82+. Let me know when a Greek or Antiochian hierarch speaks out publicly condemning abortions aa murder. Tell me when same-sec marriages came to be such a popular problem AT ALL in Orthodox Churches, and I’ll march against that THEN.
And please, Father Hans, be more careful with your language. Nothing I could possibly say could CREATE an inference. You may infer what you will, but please, take credit for your ;OWN inferences. I’ll try to mind my implications, OK? :))
My “click to edit” button does not work” I meant to type that I am NOW 82_, not “not 82=”.
Age and arthritic fingers are bad enough without having to deal with program foibles of Monomakhos!
And what happened to the nice old procedure of being able to VIEW previous postings of anyone? Afraid of libel?
I can’t say I’ve ever heard an Antiochian priest or bishop say that we don’t recognize non-Orthodox marriages per se. I don’t personally know of any converts who were required to be sacramentally re-married when they joined the Church. The holy Chrism is understood to complete and fill whatever is sacramentally lacking in a marriage, as with the incomplete baptism.
At least that’s how I was catechized. I’m not familiar with what Your Grace is writing about.
Fr. Hans….I don’t really see the reason for marriage to be recognized by the state at all beyond its contractual privileges and requirements. Does the state care if the marriage is natural then? I don’t see why. For the state, the only thing that matters is a contract exists.
And then, if a baker decides they don’t want to bake a cake for a social or religious ceremony between two men; it should be their right. It would be and should be no different than a baker saying I don’t want to bake a cake for a Hell’s Angel wedding (can he refuse?).
I think by the church wanting the state to uphold ‘natural’ marriage; gay marriage will require state recognition, and thus gay marriage becomes an institution.
Strategically, I think you are missing. Just my opinion.
Daniel,
It is not a matter of the state “caring.” It’s a matter of what the state *does*. If marriage is redefined to include homosexual couplings, then in fact the state has arrogated unto itself the authority to determine which human relationships are morally licit. On its face it means this: the coercive powers of the state would be used to enforce those new definitions.
We are already seeing the effects of the shift. The baker in Oregon was fined $137,000(!) for refusing to bake the wedding cake, clearly an amount calculated to bankrupt her and shut down the business. We’ve seen the fire chief fired in Atlanta. In Colorado a business owner was forced to attend two years of ‘reeducation’ and file monthly reports to a local commission (sounds like Chinese Communism — the Soviets imprisoned, the Chinese reeducated).
State recognition of natural marriage merely affirms that which already exists in nature: it takes one man and one woman to create a child. There is no arrogation of moral authority here. In granting moral parity to homosexual couplings however, the State establishes itself as the source and arbiter of what constitutes morally licit human relationships, which in fact sets the machinery of the State against natural marriage since there is no way to limit the definition to homosexual couplings alone.
There is no “right” to same-sex marriage, just as there is no”right” to marriage between multiple partners, brothers and sisters, parent and child, and so forth. Nor is a homosexual’s “rights” being abridged. He has the right to marry just like anyone else, just not to a same-sex partner.
Natural marriage is not solely a matter of rights. Natural marriage is within the order of creation. This is indisputable. All civilizations recognized this, even non-Christian ones, throughout human history. The challenge to natural marriage is less than 20 years old and only in the privileged but increasingly decadent societies of Western Europe and the Americas. Even the ancient Greeks who were more tolerant of homosexuality than Christian culture never saw homosexual coupling as analogous to natural marriage. Undermine the family and you undermine society. They all knew this but we have lost it.
You say that “if a baker decides they don’t want to bake a cake for a social or religious ceremony between two men; it should be their right.” That shows you don’t understand the full scope of the conflict and what is at stake. There will be no conscience rights. There can’t be. The brakes will have been removed.
If you doubt this, look at Canada or England. They have no First Amendment. If marriage is redefined however (if the natural definition is abolished), then the First Amendment no longer applies since all deliberation falls under the legal rubric of human rights. Freedom of religion goes by the wayside as well for the same reason. The Rainbow Jihadists will see to that because the State enforcement mechanisms will support them.
Western Christian society is at a critical turning point and the effects of the Supreme Court ruling should not be underestimated. The reason I attended the March for Marriage and spoke there was not because I thought it would influence the Supreme Court (although I hope it does), but to make clear what the stakes really are and to prepare people for the coming hardship (especially Christians) if the Supreme Court rules in favor of abolishing natural marriage as a cultural institution (the net effect of the legal affirmation of homosexual couplings).
A ruling abolishing natural marriage will affect and probably split the Church as well. We already see it. Fr. Arida, Inga Leonova, and other Orthodox Episcopalians in the North East and elsewhere have made their accommodations with the gay zeitgeist and are working to direct the Church into their apostasy (yes, apostasy).
If they love the Church and Christ they should avoid the fight and become Episcopalian. God might even bless them for this despite their confusion. If they continue to undermine the Orthodox moral tradition however, they will face fierce opposition and God may judge them for wreaking havoc in His Church.
My sense is that very hard times are coming and we have to prepare. I am not optimistic that this cultural revolution can be reversed until it dies through spiritual exhaustion which, as Soviet Russia taught us, takes at least a generation or two and only after much suffering.
I wrote about these themes in an essay a while back:
Homosexual Marriage at the Dusk of Liberty
Thank you for responding. While we don’t fully agree on all things; we do agree that government has no business blessing personal relationships. The difference is you seem to believe government should bless natural relationships. I don’t.
Rather than defending the status quo, a good change would be the state stop blessing marriage et al. But because that isn’t what anyone wants; it won’t happen.
As for your loftiness on my baker point; you missed the point entirely, so the loftiness can find the jet stream. My point is that government should not care if I want a relationship with any person, nor should it respect that relationship or treat the relationship as a person. Of course, if corporations are people; then I guess gay relationships are people. My point is that holding on to the status woe is worse than asking the question, “should government throw holy water?” I say no.
If, for example, my good friend Glen and I go to a baker for a cake for a backyard party, is the baker required to bake that cake? The answer is NO. And the only reason they would is fear that we are gay, which is not valid.
So, why do you hold on so hard to that which causes the disparity?
If marriage were not a sacred institution visavie the state; it would not be afforded protection. Can you explain why heterosexual or traditional marriage requires state protection? I see none.
Let it be blessed only by the church.
And then for healthcare and such, the label spouse becomes second person on the policy. Then the health insurance companies would lose money. So, is the state blessing homosexual unions to fit the culture of a spouse provision on health insurance? It is a very fair point.
The culture of treating marrieds inequitably is driving this debate. And while you hold on and give reasons; the disparity has never been right to unmarried persons.
The State doesn’t “bless” anything. The only power the State has is to coerce. If you speed, you pay a fine. If you assault someone, you go to jail. These are necessary coercions in order to maintain an orderly society. The absence of coercion however, is not a “blessing” or even a favor. It is simply the absence of coercion.
Nor should the State “not care” about natural marriage. Laws should support natural marriage because stable families are crucial for the health of a society. This concern however is merely the ratification of something that already exists in nature. No marriage exists apart from natural marriage, and constructing one out of thin air and codifying it into law has the net effect of abolishing natural marriage in the cultural structures through State coercion. That is how it will play out. (Ever wonder why the activists don’t confront a Muslim baker?)
You don’t seem to understand that the State is *never* a neutral player. The Founders understood this. The Bill of Rights is exclusively a restriction of government power.
As for disparity, yes, absolutely. Natural marriage has always been favored in the law because it favors the health of the society. The reason it favors the health of a society is because no marriage exists apart from natural marriage. So homosexual couples, polygamists, incest partners, pedophiles — any ‘loving’ partnership claiming spousal benefits are discriminated against by this reasoning. But the weakness here is the notion that the partnerships constitute a marriage and are deserving of the same treatment as natural marriage. They don’t and they aren’t.
Fr. Hans – if you have a fan club, I’d like to join. 🙂
Deeply appreciate your bold and clear teaching of the faith. Lead and we will follow (something I wish more clergy understood).
These discussions tend to miss what should have been the most important point in this debate — while marriage for us is a Holy Mystery, with all of the profound implications that entails for us, and has had various degrees of religious apparatus around it in virtually every society throughout history, this is not why the state is involved in marriage.
The state (whether it is the less formal society of a hunter-gatherer tribe back or a vast empire replete with advanced technology) has historically had a compelling interest in stability when it comes to procreation and property. If men and women having sex didn’t produce babies, the state would have no more interest in that relationship than it does in any other friendship or social relationship.
Every single society in human history, whether in the Judeo-Christian tradition or not, has marriage laws of some sort, and they have all involved men marrying women. Those laws address a variety of things, but the most important things they address are the rights of the woman involved (since historically, wives were physically dependent on their husbands and the other men of their family) and the rights of the children, particularly for their support and for the distribution of property when parents die and their property has to be disposed of.
This is why there are laws that create “common-law marriages” — in other words, if the man can’t be bothered to marry the woman with whom he is cohabiting and likely making babies, the state will simply declare them to be married after a certain period of time with no ceremony whatsoever, since it suits the state’s interests to do so. There is obviously nothing concerning “blessing” or morality or any such nonsense regarding the state’s involvement in this or any other marriage. Fr. Jacobse is of course absolutely correct that many people do naturally come to the conclusion that anything that is legal is morally OK, but it just makes the Church’s job harder, not impossible, and it really isn’t a compelling argument.
Consider — does any Orthodox Christian believe that pornography is morally OK? It’s legal. Prostitution is legal in NV and in many European countries — does an Orthodox Christian from Indiana think that it is morally OK to engage the services of a prostitute when in Nevada or Amsterdam? In spite of Roe v Wade, most Orthodox Christians know that abortion is murder. In fact most non-Orthodox Christians and a huge swath of the non-Christian population knows that all of those things are wrong and/or undesirable, at some level and for some reason.
The state’s interest in making something legal or illegal usually has nothing to do with morality or blessing, or anything of the sort. The state’s interests, however cloaked or worded, are much more nakedly self-interested than that. And this includes state involvement in marriage. It is of great interest to the state to have laws that pretty much automatically kick into action when couples marry and/or make babies.
The Church is either going to be up to the moral onslaught of these times or it isn’t. Christ has promised that the Church will survive, but I fear that it will experience a lot of pain, suffering, and schism to do so. I applaud Fr. Jacobse’s stance, and agree that America without same-sex marriage was a better place for many reasons.
But — and this cannot be emphasized strongly enough — it was never really necessary (and clearly it was not even close to being sufficient politically) to make morality and religion the centerpiece of the argument against same-sex marriage being recognized and performed by the state. The scary thing politically and societally is that the experiment of the last 20 years or so is unprecedented in human history. Furthermore, it is taking place only in the most privileged, rich, fat, and lazy societies on earth — societies with such great wealth and power that they can, perhaps survive whatever disaster they bring on themselves. It is like a rich celebrity like Madonna celebrating single motherhood — for her, children can be an accessory as though they are a designer purse. For poor women, single motherhood is almost always a life-time sentence to assured poverty and misery.
Societies from hunter-gatherer tribes back in the Amazon rainforest to the massive and advanced civilizations of India and China have obviously not had marriage laws that have been exclusively between men and women because of Christianity and Mosaic law. Those marriage laws have existed because every human society (and/or government) has found it necessary to attach legal and property consequences to men and women getting together and making babies. We have absolutely no idea of the long-term consequences of this precipitous innovation. It would be far less risky to re-introduce polygamy, which at least has a lot of human experience across a variety of cultures and religions.
Again, think about it — the full-scale introduction of same sex unions into the concept of marriage as being exactly legally equal to opposite sex marriage is unprecedented in human history. We don’t even need to get into Christianity, the Judaic religious tradition, or the so-called Abrahamic religions in general.
The fact that this entire debate has gone by without prominent thinkers and statesmen even raising these questions — let alone articulately making the case for prudence and caution — says says something about our society. I’m not exactly sure what it is, but it can’t be good.
Fr. Hans:
FEAR. PARANOIA.
Fr. Hans:
God MIGHT do this and God MAY do that. Fr. Hans admitting he does NOT know the mind of God. Imagine that.
Fr. Hans:
How apocalyptic! How ominous! How confused Fr. Hans is!
Contextualize properly OOM. “Rainbow Jihadists” refers to intimidation tactics and policies such as the $137,000 fine levied for not baking a wedding cake. Fr. Arida and other Orthodox Episcopalians are not labelled as such in my response.
Yes, you are absolutely correct about not knowing the “mind of God” regarding the Orthodox Episcopalian attempts to conform the Orthodox moral tradition to the gay zeitgeist.
God judges, not me, but anyone familiar with scripture and the Fathers and other writings knows that to undermine the tradition is to undermine the faith and therefore is a serious offense not only to believers but also to God. The conditional language reflects prudence on my part.
As for the decadence of society, anyone who believes that the sexual revolution has brought anything but increasing dislocation, disease and death into the culture (although it has produced rainbows), and that abolishing the definition of natural marriage will fulfill the utopian vision that gives purpose to this destructive energy, is too ideologically bound to consider contrary facts.
Oh, OOM! I think Father Hans misspoke. He didn’t, surely, MEAN to utter the silly “Orthodox Episcopalians,” which is the name of some incorporated splinter Episcopalians here and there. He should have used the more familiar (and accurate) “Eastern Rite Calvinist” sobriquet which used to be reserved more for Antiochene Americans and, especially, the EOC acquisitions!
Vladyka, Fr. Hans meant it. He’s just sloppy about facts (and logic, too.)
Oh, OOM! I think Father Hans misspoke. He didn’t, surely, MEAN to utter the silly “Orthodox Episcopalians,” which is the name of some incorporated splinter Episcopalians here and there. He should have used the more familiar (and accurate) “Eastern Rite Calvinist” sobriquet which used to be reserved more for Antiochene Americans and, especially, the EOC acquisitions!
_______
Vladyka, Fr. Hans meant it. He’s just sloppy about facts (and logic, too.)
Are you talking to yourself? Speaking of sloppy. Just curious.
Peter
I like the phase natural marriage. Sex and procreation are NOT the only measures of fruitfulness in a marriage. However one must ask why are sex and procreation eschewed? I believe St. John of Kronstadt was also in such a marriage was he not?
True, but there is always a danger in imitating the extraordinary (and sometimes off-putting) acts of holy saints when we ourselves are not to their level of holiness. We who are given little should start with being faithful with a little.
One must ask, indeed!
[Says a man married 48 years, with 5 children and 12 grandchildren….not to leave out the sons-in-law and daughter-in-law!]
Michael Bauman,
Christ is Risen,
While I do appreciate your point, I agree with Fr. John Meyendorff’s insistence on the use of the term “Christian Marriage” because of the analogy of St. Paul in Eph. 5:22-32 that the Church has incorporated into its Liturgical celebration, so profound & rich is the theology. There is no qualifier or utility- such as fertility or ability to produce children – but the sacrifice & cleansing of the Lord, submission of the Bride to the Head, & mutual love and respect. And to this day, I remain stunned by Evdokimov’s observation that, as St. Paul concluded the depth of the relationship between Christ, the Eternal Groom, and the Church, His eternal Bride, “is a great mystery,” so the conjugal relationship between a man & his wife – barring extraordinary circumstances – are between them & God Who has joined them. In my estimation, this whole discussion of “natural” & “sterile vs procreative” is contrivance to the clear and instructive Tradition of the Church. As Fr Schmemann used to quote Bernard-Shaw: “A wise man, in the presence of the finest art, simply removes his hat, closes his mouth, and allows the art to speak for itself.”
Michael Stankovich. Clearly the liturgical marriage of the Church is beyond anything natural or it would not be sacramental, i.e., the uniting of the uncreated with the created. However, it is quite unlikely that such a description would mean anything to anyone outside the Church save for a few RC’s and precious little to many in the Church.
Natural marriage is, however, part of the created order and can more easily be comprehended. As Fr. Hans himself indicated. It still won’t make a dent with those who have given themselves over to the mind of the world for whatever reason.
I am not a big fan of Natural Law arguments because if they are not connected to the sacramental and incarnational reality, such arguments inevitably degrade to a useless even heretical deism.
Nevertheless, one has to start somewhere. If the understanding of the natural created order can begin to be grasped, then perhaps there will be an opening for “the rest of the story”
I am partial to the Paul Harvey school of evangelism: affirm the truth in people being evangelized and they tell them the rest of the story. Unfortunately, I can find nothing to affirm in homosexual unions. Where filial love is present that has wrongly been sexualized, it makes it difficult to affirm the filial love.
If we look on the so-called culture wars as an opportunity to counter-punch with evangelization, we might fare better.
Just a thought.
Michael,
Yes, natural law standing alone can only point to a creator and may end up in Deism. Nevertheless, natural law exists and serves a necessary function as St. Paul reveals in Romans 1.
From the other direction, a sacramental view removed of its relationship to the natural ends up as some variant of Gnosticism where religious thought is completely removed from the exigencies of real life. We see this for example in the thinking of David Dunn who divorces the sacramental from the natural to such a degree that he concludes the endorsement of homosexual “marriage” conforms to the Orthodox moral tradition.
We should only have Deism! Instead, we have….well, what we have….nothingism.
Father I see what you are saying yet a genuinely sacramental understanding sees the natural and the divine in balance just as our Lord is fully human and fully divine.
Christ interpenetrates the created order. But as St. Paul also points out in Romans we know this but choose to ignore it.
Michael,
I see the created order in ways stronger than what your term “balance” implies. I see that the sacramental affirms the natural as an inherent good. The sacramental elevates the natural yet never negates or even contravenes it. We don’t stand above or apart from the concrete existence of both the natural and the sacramental. We stand, rather, somewhere within the continuum.
The world is created with eschatalogical purpose. The fact that the purpose is not always recognized or understood doesn’t change this. The fact that that the purpose is not realized apart from the sanctifying grace of the Holy Spirit doesn’t change this either. The purpose is revealed in the inherent goodness of creation and grounded in the primordial word spoken at creation, and remains despite the Fall and despite the attempts by some to profane the good and even the holy.
Marriage then is to be honored, whether or not it took place in the Church. We nurture the grapes that become the wine that is transformed into the blood of Christ and the wheat that becomes the bread that is transformed into the body of Christ. We nurture them so they can flourish because we understand their end. Why would we treat human beings any differently? Why would we not tell them the truth about their own purpose and destiny?
The term “natural” applies to created reality: it takes one man and one woman to create a child. This constitutes a family. Genesis, the authoritative text of Christianity and, until the last 20 years or so of Christendom, affirms it. Genesis gives the language and concepts for contextualizing nature in ways that contribute to human flourishing because it reveals the Divine imperative and operations in ways that are congruent with and correspond to created nature.
“Natural marriage” also functions to clarify the ambiguity of the term “traditional marriage.” Traditional marriage implies that homosexual couplings can form a “non-traditional marriage” that has concrete existence and moral force. It doesn’t. It can’t. It’s a legal fiction having no ground in nature. It may have authority to a mind saturated by ideology and its false eschatologies, but anyone who sees clearly cannot embrace it.
Fr. Hans,
I am easily convinced. Demonstrate authority outside yourself – the Scripture, the Patristic Fathers, the Canonical Fathers, the liturgical (“If we believe it, we sing it.”) or our Holy Tradition – that “natural” marriage is of necessity patterned upon procreation & human flourishing as is patterned in created nature, therefore excluding homosexuals because their marriage is “sterile” and contrary to the Divine imperative in the Genesis narrative. We both know you cannot do this because it does not exit, and I suspect, as previously, you will simply ignore me.
What you are doing is building a “one issue” theology focused on homosexuality. Of what bearing does your speech & limelighting having, for example, on “natural law” and the Sacrament of Confession? How about the Anointing of the Sick? Are these “mysteries” dependent on some contrivance of your modernist thinking, or can we agree they are eschatological by nature, in and of themselves? You accuse Fr. Arida & Dr. David Dunn of “orthodox episcopalianism,” but you lack the fundamental trust that the Spirit-inspired liturgical text of the Services of Betrothal & Marriage are heavenly theology, from which you detract.
It seems to me that traditional BIBLICAL marriage is polygamous, starting in the first generation after Adam and Eve. One of the earliest Protestant efforts to realize this biblical ideal was the creation of a separate kingdom in Muenster, Germany, which mad polygamy MANDATORY. The attempt at the same thing was Mormonism. Nobody opposed this on scriptural grounds, rather on social convention. “one man– one woman “is certainly Holy Orthodox marriage, but there’s nothing biblical about it.
I’m surpeised at how Fat how the doughty Father Hans spells Yves!
I’ve become a student of Persian. the word for “person” in Persian is “adam.” They don’t have capital letters.
Father I knew the word balance was wrong when I wrote it. Just could not find the right one.
I agree with all you say.
I understand.
Your first paragraph is unclear. What are you asserting exactly? Are you saying that if Genesis (or any of the biblical narrative or Patristic literature) is silent about a homosexual coupling constituting a natural marriage, then we can conclude that such couplings can in fact constitute a marriage?
It seems a stretch to read it this way but I don’t see your sentence making sense any other way. Try rewriting it as a clear assertion so I can see if I am misunderstanding you.
One clarification. It is not that the homosexual “marriage” (your term) is sterile. It is that homosexual couplings are sterile. Calling the coupling a “marriage” puts the cart before the horse.
The second paragraph is unclear too. The sacramental affirms and elevates the natural. The sacramental does not diminish or negate the natural. If one is confused about the natural however, the language of the sacramental dimension becomes impossible to understand. If one believes the sacramental diminishes or negates the natural, then one veers off into gnostic fantasy.
To explain the Eucharist you begin with the bread and wine. To explain Holy Unction you begin with the oil. To explain Holy Confession you begin with a description of sin.
Moreover, if the sacramental language is misused to posit something against nature as natural, then the moral tradition is presented as something other than it is.
Both David Dunn and Fr. Arida want to remove the moral prohibitions against sodomy and to sanction homosexual couplings as a natural marriage. Dunn divorces the sacramental from the natural without apology. Arida is too smart to make this rookie error. He starts with the sacramental language in order to redefine the natural. Arida’s approach is the more dangerous.
Michael, in support of Fr. Hans’ approach, I do not see a divide between “Natural” and “Sacramental.” If that were true then Romans Chapter 1 would make no sense. Here is the text:
Romans 1 (RSV)
[18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth.
[19] For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
[20] Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse;
[21] for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened.
[22] Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
[23] and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.
[24] Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,
[25] because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.
[26]For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
[27] and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
[28]And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct.
[29] They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips,
[30] slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
[31] foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
[32] Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.
It all starts out as “Natural” or God’s “Natural Law” that then took on a sacramental and liturgical element. As Fr. Hans states the sacramental affirmed the natural.
When God created humanity in Genesis God created them Male and Female. God gave the Woman to the man and they became “one flesh.” This is how it was and still is “As in the beginning.”
I understand what you are doing and how you want to keep this within an Orthodox sacramental and liturgical context, but the very basis of what the sacraments are have their origin in nature and nature’s God. To deny the predicate is in essence to deny the substance of the sacrament.
I do not believe your approach is in conflict with Fr. Hans’ approach, but Fr. Hans’ gives a fuller understanding to the concept of marriage that affirms its natural underpinnings and also strengthens its sacramental value.
Peter
Peter,
See my discussion of Rom. 2:14-15 below. It is much more significant evidence as to St. Paul’s knowledge and understanding of “natural law” in the Ancient World, and I would add it is the reason that we find icons of Aristotle and other philosophers in the ancient churches of Greece: “Which shows the works of the law written in their [the Gentiles] hearts, their conscience… [they] do by nature.” Good heavens, the contemporaneous Fathers of his day marveled at the familiarity of Greek philosophy by, for example, St. Basil the Great! And as you note, St. Paul was well aware, in no uncertain terms, of the “unnatural” and abominable relationships both Roman men and woman had fallen into, thereby incurring the wrath of God.
As Fr. Meyendorff notes in his book on Marriage, the liturgical service for betrothal and marriage were the last evolved (e.g. it seems quite obviously to have been conducted within the context of a Eucharistic celebration) and formalized, and equally obvious, no one “forgot” the Epistle to the Romans. Yet, as I have noted in this thread, there is no reference to “natural law,” “unnatural relationships” (or “couplings”), nor the necessity, qualification, or goal of procreation (though there is certainly a continuous prayer to God for “from the fruit of their bodies, fair children”). We do not hear Romans, but Ephesians: the “great mystery” of the union of Christ and His “spotless Bride,” the Church, not about the wrath to be incurred for “unnatural coupling.” And the Gospel is John 2:1-11, the marriage feast in Cana of Galilee. Is it simply because Jesus was at a marriage feast? Certainly not! Here he defies natural law in his first miracle, changing water into wine, which is consistent with the Epistle, which is consistent with marriage, which “manifested his glory; and his disciples believed in him.” And the only “affirmation” of any sort in the liturgical service is at the removal of the crown of the bride: “And you, O Bride, be magnified as was Sarah, and rejoiced as was Rebecca, and increased as Rachel, being glad in your husband, keeping the paths of the Law, for so God is well pleased.”
And finally, to say these are eschatological events is to say they begin and end in the Kingdom which is to come! And I emphasize begin. Before Adam, they were. Fr. Hans cannot seem to grasp that “natural law” is not of this fallen world or of this fallen humanity, but of the Creation “as it was in the beginning.” The Sacraments are not of this fallen world or this fallen humanity, but of the Kingdom. The crowns of marriage are not of this fallen world or this fallen humanity, but as the priest prays: “Accept their crowns into Your Kingdom unsoiled and undefiled; and preserve them without offense to the ages of ages.” And likewise, while it may appear the Eucharist “starts with bread,” the eschatological reality is that the “Banquet of Immortality” always begins at the Masters table in the Kingdom which is to come.
My point, Peter, is that if you do not believe in the sufficiency of the Scripture, the Fathers, Liturgy, and the Holy Tradition – which has also been the path of witness and martyrdom – and develop your own “theology” for every issue that arises, you are the “orthodox episcopalian,” regardless of the erudition of your words. Again, I am easily & simply convinced: let Fr. Hans demonstrate from Scriptural or Patristic sources that the Sacraments “affirm” the natural law and I will be corrected that this is not contrivance and contrary to our Holy Tradition.I asked him to do this a year ago, and I suspect I will be repeating myself next year.
Need an example? How about this:
“And make this bread the precious body of your Christ…and that which is in this cup the precious body of your Christ…Changing them by your Holy Spirit…”
Seems like a pretty strong link between the natural and the sacramental to me.
I just got home from the reception of a wedding I performed this afternoon. The link between Genesis and the reading from Ephesians is indisputable. It’s all connected in the prayers and scripture – Genesis to the Patriarchs to Christ and His Church. The connection between the natural and sacramental simply cannot be denied. They are not bifurcated in the ways you insist they should be.
You make the mistake above of only referencing part of the service.
And yes, of course there is no reference to homosexual couplings in the service, just like there are none in Genesis. The Orthodox don’t marry same-sex couples. This is not an omission. This is the practice of the Church since its inception when Peter first preached after Pentecost (and the Jews before that). Why does this have to be mentioned in a wedding service?
And no, the wedding of Cana does not defy ‘natural law’ (nature). Rather, it reveals nature’s eschatological end. Miracles don’t defy nature, they transfigure nature. They reveal nature’s original prowess, its properly ordered power as it was first in Eden and as it shall be in the Kingdom.
Fr. Hans,
Personally, I have many “theories” and ideas that I believe comport and are consistent with the teachings of the Church, but I am absolutely clear that they are my personal opinion and not the Holy Tradition. It would never, ever cross my mind to stand before a crowd and proclaim personal “theologumena” without qualification. You do so with no authority whatsoever but yourself.
I say outright, it is obvious you have not read Aristole on the natural law – when it is essential to understanding, for example, St. Gregory of Nyssa’s On the Creation of Man, St. Basil the Great, and St. Chrysostom. How is it possible that you are foolishly putting natural law in a “complimentary” and “affirming” position with the eschatological Sacraments of the Church? Is St. Paul telling us a Gentile is saved by the “law written in their hearts, their conscience” by nature? If so, why baptize them? By your logic, Holy Baptism would simply be an “affirmation” of what already exists in their heart. A sort of “grandfathering” into the club (unlike the Ethiopian with Philip: “See, here is water; what does hinder me to be baptized?” Acts 8:36) Likewise, you could not have read Evdokimov and his exposition on Christian Marriage! Marriage occurred for generations before the Lord, and for many reasons, but it took Jesus Christ, The Bridegroom and sacrifice, to purify His Bride “in a great mystery.” Paul knew about “unnatural coupling” and abominations, but he makes no effort or directive in Ephesians, “Now, this is the ‘natural marriage’ God intended, so you should be aware.” And why? Because it was obvious.
You are promulgating a “one issue” theology related to same-sex marriage for which you can provided no authority but yourself. Then you are attempting to “extend” this contrivance post-fact to fit your modernist theory. You obviously do not understand the concept of natural law as put forth by Aristotle, and later re-articulated by the Holy Fathers. At least have the integrity to admit that these are your personal opinions, you are unable to provide authority other than yourself, and there are significant conflicts in your opinion that contradict our Holy Tradition.
Not at all. I am refuting David Dunn’s bifurcation of, and Fr. Arida’s implicit gnosticism towards, the natural and sacramental.
The sacramental does not negate or diminish the natural. The sacramental elevates the natural, brings it into its proper created context which can only occur in and through Christ. This is realized first in the Church.
Why baptize those who have the law written on their heart, their consciences bearing witness? Because baptism is entry into the death of Christ and being raised in the likeness of His resurrection (Rom. 6). They who do not have the Gospel but still follow that law written on their heart cannot experience the adoption as sons and the power it confers (Baptism) even though they follow that natural law and, as Paul implies, find favor with God in ways that still remain unclear to us.
Yes, you are correct that Paul does not mention unnatural relations in his discourses on marriage (1 Corinthians and Ephesians), but he has plenty to say about it in Romans 1. This is the same objection you raised about the marriage service where you highlighted the epistle reading alone, while ignoring all the references to Genesis and the Patriarchs where natural marriage is honored and even held up as an example.
Note the final blessing of the married couple:
Why do you suppose these words are offered as the final blessing; the last words spoken before the apolysis of the wedding service?
All of our service texts honor the natural. Oil is transfigured into an agent of healing without negating the natural properties of the oil. Water is transfigured into the waters of baptism without negating the natural properties of the water.
BTW, if the Dunn Error and Aridian Gnosticism prevail — if the sacramental is divorced from the natural regarding same-sex marriage, then it will lead to an iconoclasm of the body, a denial that the body has any role in the transfiguration of the human person. The body becomes extrinsic rather than intrinsic to being. We become ghosts in the machine. Call it the New Anthropology.
The sacramental elevates the natural. Nature is transfigured, not diminished or negated.
Michael, you are absolutely correct to raise a warning flag about new personal formulations of theological ideas, making sure to identify them as such. Fr. Hans is part of a venerable tradition of reaching into the holy tradition of the Church to try to find responses to contemporary challenges to that Tradition that are facing us. You likewise are part of that tradition by questioning his formulations out of concern for unintended theological consequences. After all, most heresies began with perfectly good intentions.
Your well-stated concerns would move the discussion forward better, IMHO, if you would simply state and restate, tiresome as it may seem to you, that: 1. you acknowledge that the societal acceptance of same sex relations poses a major moral challenge to the Church, one that requires a response from us, 2. you acknowledge that Fr. Hans is correct in asserting that our tradition is unequivocal in stating that marriage can only ever be between a man and a woman.
Having done so, by all means fire away at the errors you perceive, explaining why they are theologically troublesome or even dangerous.
I have expressed my own concerns here and there about how this debate has proceeded, but I have tried to articulate points of agreement and disagreement where I think necessary in order, as much as possible, to keep clear what my overall position is regarding the issue under debate.
With these hot-button issues, it is just too easy to wrongly attribute positions, by association, to those we are debating with. Thus, you are accused of wanting to promote same sex marriage and Fr. Hans is accused of hating gays. Neither of which, I feel certain, is remotely true.
Fr. Hans,
As is typical with any discussion I enter with you, you are as practiced in your rhetoric of avoidance as anyone I have ever met. What I “think” of this point or that point, or why the Church includes “this” and not “that ” is fully explained by the Scripture, the Fathers, and the Holy Tradition. I am not edified by your modernist “addenda” to what has stood for millennia as sufficient, dogmatic, and the eternal Truth revealed to us as to the nature of Christian Marriage. You believe you have stumbled upon the “Orthodox” refutation of same-sex marriage, when it stares you in the face in the anthropology of St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Basil, the Great, St. Maximus the Confessor, St. Simeon the New Theologian, and St Gregory Palamas. And they are founded in Aristotle’s writings regarding natural law. Every single one of them!
You will continually need to “re-amend” you modernist theology as similar issues evolve, and seek out new “Devils” to personalize in order to keep anyone’s attention to this ridiculous contrivance. And as always, sensing the foolishness of continuing this “cat chasing his tail” uselessness, I resign this argument to you & your fan club.
Edward, my friend,
1) I unequivocally acknowledge that same-sex marriage poses a danger to the Church, and it is only the beginning of what will be many coming moral trials for the Orthodox Christians who are the final harbinger of the Truth entrusted to us by the Lord before His Passion.
2) Marriage, can only be “as it was in the beginning,” between one man and one woman. Period. (And I am not even complaining that Fr. John Whiteford asked me this identical question, on this same site, to which I provided the identical answer, in 2011).
Let me be absolutely clear: these are not “my points,” and they do not need “my defense. I have presented nothing more than any Orthodox Christian can discern from reading and contemplating the Holy Scripture, the writings of the Fathers, and the glorious liturgical texts of the Services of the Betrothal and Marriage of the Orthodox Church. These are what will move the heart of the unbeliever and the questioner, not these modernist attempts to actively engage with “logic” those absorbed in their own sinful lifestyle.
Michael, my friend, I appreciate your response. I already knew your answers, but those readers who persist in grouping you with those who want to push the ssm agenda forward need to hear you say it, if only to force them back on topic. I know it is tedious to have to restate things repeatedly, but that is the nature of this kind of format if we want actually to communicate — and force others to communicate.
I for one was finding your exchange with Fr. Jacobse to be one of the most significant that I have seen on this site, since it gets directly to the heart of what is most important. For those of us who agree on the fundamental bottom line (and disagree with the received wisdom of our society) — which includes you, me, George, Fr. Jacobse, Vladyka, Fr John Whiteford…, the most important issue, IMHO, is how should this be articulated — both as positive witnesses of what we believe and as negative refutations of error. Our fundamental agreement gets lost in the rough and tumble — as does the opportunity to hone in on the real disagreements, which are not over whether the Church should embrace ssm, neither are they about whether gays should be treated with anything less than pastoral compassion of the utmost sensitivity. But you wouldn’t know that based on some of the sharp exchanges with people talking past each other.
I for one am not wanting you and Fr. Jacobse to drop this. It is too important. I think it at a minimum deserves it’s own thread, with you leading off with an article articulating some sort of vision of how the anthropology of the saints you have mentioned can and should be restated for today’s listener, in a way that gives a meaningful and effective answer to the profound moral challenge of ssm (and the even harder challenges that, I agree, are coming.) And the roots in Aristotle and natural law to which you refer might go far toward what I think is necessary — responses that are potentially persuasive even to those not ready to embrace the Holy Orthodox faith.
You have been elsewhere accused of holding the position that the Church only earns the right to speak on an issue if it reaches a level of practical purity of witness that is unattainable. There too, I think you are being misunderstood or misrepresented.
Would you be game to lead off if George agrees?
Edward,
I have not hit a golf ball since high school. Why? I hit the ball, follow its trajectory, observe it hit the ground and roll, walk to the spot where I saw the ball land, and the ball is not there. How is this possible? I recall the sense of relief upon finally walking off the 18th green. The lesson? No aptitude for golf (i.e. ain’t got game).
As I have said here many times, God has not blessed me as a an “original thinker,” and I am, at best, a savant who can’t remember where he set his car keys, but am blessed to recall the words and reasoning of extraordinary individuals in whose path God set me. Nevertheless, anyone with internet access and a bit of diligence can easily discover the extraordinary liturgical texts of the Orthodox Services of Betrothal & Marriage, the commentary of the Fathers, and the commentary of Holy Tradition. Not intending this as a pejorative, but I do not recall much of what Fr. Paul Tarrazi taught save the continuous mantra: “Read the text of the Bible.”
Your words are flattering but naive. This is the internet, not Grand Rounds. Similar historical invitations (where I was accused of heresy without apology) led me to think, “If I can just get off of that LA Freeway without gettin’ killed or caught…” So, my friend, as I step off the 18th green I now say, “If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.” (Lk. 16:31) And while I hate labels, I walk away a Traditionalist, with great respect for your intentions.
It would seem fairly obvious that when St Paul says
he is aware of what in the Ancient World – notably articulated by Aristotle, and later the Holy Fathers – was understood as “natural law”; the inherent morality instilled in the Creation. I have recommended previously that you pursue these ancient arguments before you race ahead with this argument of “natural marriage” as simply “patterned in nature” as the answer to this question of confused anthropology.
In the Marriage Service, the first lengthy prayer offered by the priest begins
This phrase, “Maker of the laws that govern earthly bodies, Guardian of incorruption, Kindly protector of the means of life,” is the single time there is even the vaguest reference to what you are describing as “natural marriage.”
By your logic we should be hearing an Epistle from Paul to the Romans, but instead, the Church specifically prescribes Ephesians 5: “Giving thanks always for all things to God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ; Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.” And the Gospel is from John, the marriage at Cana in Galliee; the first miracle of the Lord – transforming one thing into another – “and manifested his glory; and his disciples believed in him.” By His presence He bestowed honour.
Certainly this is a naturally moral event in the context of the inherent morality of the creation, but it is only a mystery of one man and one woman when it is an eschatological event and their crowns are accepted into the Kingdom. Could the Church be more clear than what is contained in the liturgical service of Marriage? Is an addendum necessary to further “develop” Orthodox anthropology? Are there set any further qualifications (e.g. fertility, reproductive ability, etc.)? Anyone who will not be convinced by the liturgical text of the Services of Betrothal & Marriage in the Holy Tradition of the Orthodox Church will not be convinced by the contrivances of near misses at “natural law” and “Adam & Steve.”
Michael, I don’t disagree with you, but Romans is the predicate, or better points to the predicate which is the natural order of things “as it was from the beginning.”
I would never expect Romans in the wedding service, just like we don’t have references to the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act during a civil marriage.
Peter
You know I must be totally inarticulate here. Never said there was a real difference between natural band sacramental. To be sacramental requires the natural. But people can and do try to separate this incarntional reality and it happens frequently with ill considered natural law arguments. Most of the major heresies are the result of the separation one way or the other.
I even said I like the term natural marriage.
You don’t have to argue with me.
Well put in both postings, Michael.
Fr. Hans Jacobse says:
Viva Thomas Aquinas! How very un-Orthodox all this talk of natural law, natural ends, a “sacramental view,” and so forth, is…
Aquinas was not wrong. There is such a thing as natural law. St Paul wrote about it.
George:
George (along with Fr. Hans and others) are eclectic and indiscriminate in their intellectual antecedents. They pick and choose ideas from the scriptures, the Fathers, the canons, and “natural law” theorists including Aquinas to bolster their weird, MODERN, un-Orthodox worldview.
Oh, that’s all right, if debatable. But there can be no civil debate at all here, if people continue to speak of the “GAYSTAPO”, or “RAINBOW JIHADISTS”, or rehearse that tired old redneck saying, It’s Adam and Eve not Adam and STEVE!”
Nobody said Adam and Steve, however someone may very well have said “ADAM AND YVES!”
I think St. Gregory Palamas, often upheld as the Orthodox contrast to Aquinas, would feel right at home with this language–being thoroughly versed in the same philosophical and religious roots as Aquinas, especially Aristotle.
OOM, what would the Orthodox response be? Rejecting something so embedded in the heart of Aquinas as the idea of a divinely ordered universe would also be rejecting something deep in the minds of Ss. Justin Martyr and Maximus the Confessor. Why would we think our enemy here is Aquinas? Sniping at our ally is still friendly fire.
The only problem with arguments from natural law is that they assume acceptance true facts and right reason. They work with people of faith, whom honesty compels to admit what seems true, factually and logically, even when it’s inconvenient. They don’t work with people whose perception of reality and ability to reason are perverted by faithlessness.
That’s not to say we shouldn’t make arguments from natural law. We certainly should, but part of making them must be pointing out the dishonesty, irrationality, and selfishness of the faithless who refuse to admit what is obviously true.
Protodeacon Mitchell writes: “…:they assume acceptance true facts and right reason.”
“True facts?” You’d get laughed off our dinner table when I was growing up!
Try also to use some concept less inclusive than “faithless” or “faithlessness.” Faithlessness began in Paradise, ok? Surely, you’re not ruling yourself out?
Why some Roman Catholics might think you are talking about those who deny Pope Francis’s declaration thar man-made climate change is a fact!
Bishop Tikhon:
Why complain only about “true facts”? Why not complain also about “right reason”? Is there such as thing as “wrong reason”? Wouldn’t that be, in truth, unreason?
But of course, I’m not the first to speak of true facts and right reason, and fair-minded readers will know I mean real facts and real reason, in contrast to false claims of fact and specious reasoning.
Will you now quibble with the word “real”?
OOM, I would refer you to this following title: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Readings-Paradigms-Historical-Systematic/dp/0199650659/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1431192889&sr=8-3&keywords=thomas+aquinas+and+the+orthodox+church“>
Its not as antagonistic as you may believe.
Peter
I just read a reference to Paul Evdokimov. The Amazon blurb on his classic book, The Sacrament of Love, says
“For Paul Evdokimov, the conjugal union of man and woman in marriage is an image of God in Trinity – a relationship of persons united in love, thus realizing their one nature. But, since the Fall, only Christ can truly reconcile man and woman and bring about the harmony of Eros and the person. The sacrament of marriage regulates the communion between man and wife in all its sacramental fullness. True love is fruitful, but this fruitfulness is not only expressed through children; in can also be manifested through hospitality, through service, and sometimes through a common creation.
The Sacrament of Love is a unique reflection on marriage, as well as on monastic and non-monastic celibacy. It places the relationship of man and woman within the context of the most perfect relationship of persons: the Trinitarian communion of the Divine Persons.”
Keep on posting, even though you may see some of the pearls cast to swine.
Mr. Kraft,
Thank you for providing a fuller context to my statement from Evdokimov. His words are like heavenly poetry regarding the nature of Christian Marriage, and I did not do this stunning volume justice. I believe Evdokimov is a father of our generation and The Sacrament of Love belongs in every clergy library.
That’s “Kraeff” and the Click to Edit is not functioning on the Mac or iPad today.
Click to edit doesn’t work on any platform, as Mike and others have pointed out.
Workaround: 1. Use Chrome 2. Right click edit icon, open new tab 3. Edit and save changes in new tab
I took the elevator to the Monomakhos Technology Services Division and the guys there told me they are looking into it. It’s an old plugin that’s held together by wire and duct tape. The latest WordPress update may have finally killed it. If they can fix it, they will. If not, they will take it out.
Fourth rule: Do not bother to speak with mainstream media pseudo-journalists in the first place; save the expenditure of time and energy for genuine journalists (i.e., not left-wing propagandists) who are not attempting to score political points or engage in hatchet jobs. (There are still some true professionals in the fourth estate out there.)
Actually, I think it’s important to talk to the press — with the reporter knowing that you are recording both sides of the conversation and hope to publish the results YOURSELF. In some cases, transcripts may even be provided to editors if there are issues of ACCURACY and balance in the coverage.
journalism matters. Try to find the skilled reporters who are still interested in debates, information and accuracy.
RE: “journalism matters. Try to find the skilled reporters who are still interested in debates, information and accuracy.”
Terry, I think we’re saying the same thing: “There are still some true professionals in the fourth estate out there.” However, I no longer submit to the so-called journalists who freely and with impunity distort interviews and misquote by intention.
Mostly working for RT, Sputnik and Russia Insider.
How does one understand people, including those assuming moral leadership, who loudly and forcefully advocate an activity, but do not themselves participate in it?
I think the most charitable thing would be to say that they be conflicted, no? Or that they have priorities THEY find to be weightier.
Where’s the beef? No, where are the leaders?
Metropolitan Jonah has aleady informed the world that he is busy moving to new quarters in northern Virginia….on Facebook.
At least a few of “those assuming moral leadership” had the courage to advocate positively on this matter in some form. Where was your voice? What, to busy feeding your cats to attend or at least utter a peep in support? Thought so.
Heaven protect us from daft bishops.
You mean like Archbishop Iakovos of the GOAA who spoke against racism AND marched with Martin Luther King, Jr.? Hmmmmm?
Peter
HOW UTTERLY TIRESOME!
Somebody please tell Heracleides Pompikos that my cats died long ago. I thought that march was a waste of time and its advocacy to be hypocritical, Of COURSE I would not utter a peep in support of it. Further, I don’t give a damn who the non-Orthodox choose to marry with their free will and all.
Please acquaint me with the lives of any saints who marched in protest (or, WORSE) advocated marching in protest against ANYTHING OR ANYBODY before you blame me or anyone else for not participating in it.
Glad I could help “bishop” as it is always enlightening when a glimpse of the true Lee Fitzgerald oozes from behind the façade the title affords you.
As always, I must remind myself that you are an OCA hierarch, which, well… explains
a loteverything.“As always,” Heracleides Pompikos, whoever you are? You ridicule me for being behind some FACADE?
You need to get a life, I think. here’s a list of all my real names. Please note: “REAL” names:
I am the real Lee Roy Willard Fitzgerald
I am the real Lee Roy Howard Fitzgerald
I am the real Stephen Fitzgerald
I am the real Tikhon (Fitzgerald)
Who are you? Boy? Girl? Both? What are you afraid of? Why not show you trust God JUST A LITTLE?
Your name is actually LEGION! Has been so for many years. Repent and return to Christ while there’s still time.
“Now, therefore,” says the Lord,
“Turn to Me with all your heart,
With fasting, with weeping, and with mourning.”
So rend your heart, and not your garments;
Return to the Lord your God,
For He is gracious and merciful,
Slow to anger, and of great kindness;
And He relents from doing harm. (Joel 2)
Yes it does explain everything.
Peter
Christ is Risen! Truly He is Risen!
HOW UTTERLY TIRESOME!
Well you are 82 your Grace.
Somebody please tell Heracleides Pompikos that my cats died long ago.
Can’t you buy new cats?
I thought that march was a waste of time and its advocacy to be hypocritical, Of COURSE I would not utter a peep in support of it.
The March on Selma was not a waste of time, nor was the March on Washington, D.C. in 1963. Archbishop Iakovos of the GOAA didn’t think Marching for a righteous cause was a waste of time. That’s why he was with Martin Luther King, Jr.
Further, I don’t give a damn who the non-Orthodox choose to marry with their free will and all.
Your Grace, please watch your language. You are a bishop after all.
Please acquaint me with the lives of any saints who marched in protest (or, WORSE) advocated marching in protest against ANYTHING OR ANYBODY before you blame me or anyone else for not participating in it.
Well, I don’t know of any saints, but…
Nonviolent Resistance in the Twentieth Century: In 1905, over 100,000 people marched in the streets of St. Petersburg under the leadership of an Orthodox priest – some carrying icons – to protest their miserable circumstances and to beg the help of Czar Nicholas. Their petition stated: “Oh Sire, we working men and inhabitants of St. Petersburg, our wives, our children and our parents, helpless and aged women and men, have come to You our ruler, in search of justice and protection. We are beggars, we are oppressed and overburdened with work, we are insulted, we are not looked on as human beings but as slaves. The moment has come for us when death would be better than the prolongation of our intolerable sufferings. We are seeking here our last salvation…. Destroy the wall between yourself and your people.” Tragically, with the czar’s permission, soldiers fired on the crowd, killing and wounding hundreds in what became known as “Bloody Sunday.” Like Boris and Gleb, those who perished were not killed because of their faith; they did, however, respond nonviolently to injustice and lost their lives as a result.
Full article here:http://www.incommunion.org/2011/07/26/orthodox-approaches-to-nonviolent-resistance/
Oh and again Archbishop Iakovos of the GOAA back in 1963 with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Oh by the way, I was wondering what about the March for Life? Orthodox priests, Bishops and Laity attend that every year, so that’s not a waste of time right? Being that you are big time against Abortion and have castigated the GOAA for not coming out more forcefully against Abortion I am assuming that you have been to the march for Life right? If so good for you I am glad. If not then I guess according to your logic the March for Life is a waste of time as well? You may want to clarify at this.
Peter A. Papoutsis
Peter, taking a break from his sometime pious posing, asked: “Can’t you buy new cats?”
Answer” I can, but I never have done. I found myself caring for a stray once, and she got kittens. I kept two and gave the others away: to Vincent Peterson and Rev /& Mrs Alex Lisenko. Before that I never liked cats at all, only dogs, springer spaniels at that.
He appreciates how tiresome imbeciles become after one has been around for 82 years and six months. Good. Thanks!
Peter is not a careful reader: he obviously confused my objections to the marriage march with an antipathy for marches per se!!!!!!! What an idea!!!! I love marches and I particularly admired the Selma March and Archbishop Iakovos’s lone Orthodox representation there. He showed solidarity with the oppressed and scorned Afro-Americans. I don’t think, though, that he wrote any encyclicals telling the Faithful they should march at Selma or OR FOR ANYTHING. Marching himself was LEADERSHIP: urging his “subordinates” to march but not himself marching? He was never a hypocrite mouthing pious exhortations he had no intention of fulfillin himself…..That’s what we’ve beheld in this March for Marriage (sic) show.
Again, marching to disply your convictions is quite all right. Nothing Christian about it, of course.
That’s what we’ve beheld in this March for Marriage (sic) show.
Again, marching to display your convictions is quite all right. Nothing Christian about it, of course.
So are you in support of Same-Sex Marriage and against the Church’s prophetic voice? Is that what you are saying?
Peter
Well, Peter, a more honest march would be “”Down with the SAME-SEX marriages of the Non-Orthodox Christians!”
Just like down with Abortion for non-Orthodox Christians. Sorry you are contradicting yourself and you are exposing your hypocrisy.
Peter.
Peter, his point is that same sex marriage is a non-issue for Orthodox Christians — they don’t happen and aren’t going to happen in the Church, and I bet you could count on two hands the number of Orthodox Christians who’ve been married by the state or in other churches.
Abortion is very much an issue among Orthodox, and it’s a far more serious matter. The two issues aren’t remotely equivalent in gravity or in relevance for Orthodox Christians. What’s so hard to get about that? The hypocrisy (and blindness) is all yours.
Good luck with that Mike.
Peter
Martin Luther King, Jr. himself repeatedly stressed that silence and inaction in the face of injustice was a “betrayal,” noting that “our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”
Archbishop Iakovos later explained that it was that obligation to speak up that led him to Selma:
“We have fought oppressive and repressive political regimes, based on Christian principles, for centuries. . . . A Christian must cry out in indignation against all persecution. That’s what made me walk with Martin Luther King Jr. in Selma. We are all responsible, and must continue to speak out.”
It would seem my good Bishop that Speaking out is the norm and inaction equates with injustice. So why was the March for Marriage wrong? Please let us all know.
Peter A. Papoutsis
Peter, why do you keep on citing the entirely UNIQUE, never to be repeated actions of ever-memorable Archbishop Iakovos as some kind of NORM? It was EXCEPTIONA! One might ask in what volume of his biography we can find his encyclicals denouncing abortion as murder—or even JUST denouncing them in any forum?. Where are Metropolitan Joseph’s pastoral letters against abortion? WHICH Archbishop Iakovos or WHICH Metropolitan Philip, or WHICH Metrpolitan (or Bishop ) Joseph EVER joined OCA /hierarchs in the annual MARCHES FOR LIFE? I, of course, certainly admired Archbishop Iakovos for joining all those Liberal Democrats ADA, and the ACLU in demonstrating against hate and WHITE Christian unfair and cruel discrimination against people of color in the Selma march!.
Great then endorse the March for Marriage and exercise your office as an Orthodox Bishop in using the Church’s prophetic voice to oppose Same Sex Marriage. And please stop dodging with the Abortion canard. It’s getting old.
Peter
Same sex marriage is no more a problem in the Orthodox Church than polygamy, Mr. Papoutsis; however, why don’t you ADMIT that abortion IS a problem in THE ORTHODOX CHURCHES TODAY? Before I march in public against the sins of THOSE OUTSIDE THE ORTHODOX CHURCH, I feel the sin of abortion IN the Orthodox Churches should be addressed,
Abortion is no canard. You are just SQUIRMING because of the cowardly and shameful silence of your hierarchs on the sin of abortion. You think I shouldn’t “harp” on it?
The Church’s “prophetic voice?” Really? The Church’s prophetic voice should be pointing out how the non-Orthodox have same-sex marriage and condemn them for it? SOME PROPHETIC VOICE!
You can’t just brandish terms like prophetic voice” or “natural law” or “just war” or even “nous” and “phronema” and imagine you have won an argument thereby!
And did anyone tell Father Hans that it is not “Adam and Steve,’ But “Adam and Yves?”
Same sex marriage is no more a problem in the Orthodox Church than polygamy, Mr. Papoutsis;
I agree. I was talking about the society at large that needs the Church’s guidance and solid prophetic voice pointing towards the cross and the Gospel of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. What are you talking about?
however, why don’t you ADMIT that abortion IS a problem in THE ORTHODOX CHURCHES TODAY?
Absolutely it is inside and outside the Church. That is why we need Bishops that will lead and proclaim the Gospel loud and proud. Care to join me?
Before I march in public against the sins of THOSE OUTSIDE THE ORTHODOX CHURCH, I feel the sin of abortion IN the Orthodox Churches should be addressed,
Abortion is no canard. You are just SQUIRMING because of the cowardly and shameful silence of your hierarchs on the sin of abortion. You think I shouldn’t “harp” on it?
No squirming going on I am with you and agree with you 100% that Abortion inside and outside the Church must be addressed and preached against with clarity and conviction as well as the Abomination and sin of Homosexuality and Same Sex Marriage. Both can be done at the same time. Let’s do it together.
However you are still hiding, dodging and deflecting behind you Abortion canard. Stop doing that and denounce Homosexuality and Same Sex Marriage as the sins and abominations that they are and will gladly follow you and any other Orthodox Hierarchy that does so.
The Church’s “prophetic voice?” Really? The Church’s prophetic voice should be pointing out how the non-Orthodox have same-sex marriage and condemn them for it? SOME PROPHETIC VOICE!
Address by Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk
01 November 2013
The Voice Of The Church Must Be Prophetic
Address by Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk,
Chairman of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate,
At the 10th Assembly of the World Council of Churches
Busan, the Republic of Korea, 1 November 2013
Your Holinesses and Beatitudes, Your Eminences and Graces, dear brothers and sisters, esteemed delegates of the Assembly,
The World Council of Churches has a long and rich history. Set up after the Second World War, the Council responded to the expectations of Christians of various confessions who strove to meet, to get to know each other and to work together. Over the sixty five years since the founding of the WCC, several generations of Christians belonging to religious communities that were cut off from each other have discovered for themselves the faith and life of their brothers and sisters in Christ. Many prejudices regarding other Christian traditions have been overcome, yet at the same time that which divides Christians to the present has been acknowledged ever more clearly and deeply. The greatest achievement of the Council has been those encounters, that well intentioned and mutual respectful inter-Christian communication, which has never allowed for compromises in the field of theology and morality and which has enabled us to remain true to ourselves and to bear witness to our faith, while at the same time growing in love for each other.
The World Council of Churches today remains a unique instrument of inter-Christian cooperation that has no analogy in the world. However, the question arises as to how effective this instrument is. We must note with some regret that, in spite of all of the efforts aimed at bringing Christians of various confessions closer to each other, within Christendom not only are the divisions of the past not disappearing, but new ones are arising. Many Christian communities continue to split up, whereas the number of communities that unite with one another is extremely small.
One of the problems which the WCC is encountering today is that of finances. It is said that it is connected with the world economic crisis. I cannot agree with this opinion. The experience of other international organizations, whose work is of general benefit and therefore needed, has shown that funding can often be found for noble goals. This means that the problem is not the economic crisis, but how relevant and important is the work of the WCC for today’s international community, which is made up to a significant degree by, and at times, a majority of Christians.
The creation of the WCC was determined by the endeavour to find answers to the challenges of the post-War period. Yet in recent years the world has changed greatly, and today Christians from all over the world are facing new challenges. It is precisely upon how successfully we respond to these challenges that the need for our organization in the future depends. The contemporary situation demands from us more decisive action, greater cohesion and more dynamism. And yet it also demands a re-orientation of the basic direction of our work, a change in priorities in our discussions and deeds. While we continue to discuss our differences in the comfortable atmosphere of conferences and theological dialogues, the question resounds ever more resolutely: will Christian civilization survive at all?
In my address I would like to focus on two fundamental challenges which the Christian world today faces in varying degrees. The first is that of the militant secularism which is gathering strength in the so called developed countries, primarily in Europe and America. The second is that of radical Islamism that poses a threat to the very existence of Christianity in a number of regions of the world, mainly in the Middle East, but also in some parts of Asia and Africa.
Militant secularism in Europe has a long history going back to the period of the French revolution. But it is only in the twentieth century in the countries of the so called socialist bloc that godlessness was elevated to the level of state ideology. As regards the so called capitalist countries, they preserved to a significant degree the Christian traditions which shaped their cultural and moral identity.
Today these two worlds appear to have changed roles. In the countries of the former Soviet Union, in particular in Russia, Ukraine, Belorussia and Moldavia, an unprecedented religious revival is underway. In the Russian Orthodox Church over the past twenty five years there have been built or restored from ruins more than twenty five thousand churches. This means that a thousand churches a year have been opened, i.e. three churches a day. More than fifty theological institutes and eight hundred monasteries, each full with monks and nuns, have been opened.
In Western European countries we can observe the steady decline of the numbers of parishioners, a crisis in vocations, and monasteries and churches are being closed. The anti-Christian rhetoric of many politicians and statesmen becomes all the more open as they call for the total expulsion of religion from public life and the rejection of the basic moral norms common to all religious traditions.
The battle between the religious and secular worldview is today raging not in academic auditoriums or on the pages of newspapers. And the subject of the conflict is far from being exhausted by the question of belief or lack of belief in God. Today this clash has entered a new dimension and touches upon the fundamental aspects of the everyday life of the human person.
Militant secularism is aimed not only at religious holy sites and symbols by demanding that they be removed from the public domain. One of the main directions of its activity today is the straightforward destruction of traditional notions of marriage and the family. This is witnessed by the new phenomenon of equating homosexual unions with marriage and allowing single-sex couples to adopt children. From the point of view of biblical teaching and traditional Christian moral values, this testifies to a profound spiritual crisis. The religious understanding of sin has been conclusively eroded in societies that until recently thought of themselves as Christian.
Particularly alarming is the fact that we are dealing in this instance not only with a choice of ethics and worldview. Under the pretext of combating discrimination, a number of countries have introduced changes in family legislation. Over the past few years single-sex cohabitation has been legalized in a number of states in the USA, a number of Latin American countries and in New Zealand. This year homosexual unions have attained the legal status of ‘marriage’ in England and Wales and in France.
We have to state clearly that those countries that have recognized in law homosexual unions as one of the forms of marriage are taking a serious step towards the destruction of the very concept of marriage and the family. And this is happening in a situation where in many historically Christian countries the traditional family is enduring a serious crisis: the number of divorces is growing, the birthrate is declining catastrophically, the culture of a family upbringing is degraded, not to mention the prevalence of sexual relations outside of marriage, the increase in the number of abortions and the increase of children brought up without parents, even if those parents are still alive.
Instead of encouraging by all means possible traditional family values and supporting childbirth not only materially but also spiritually, the justification of the legitimacy of ‘single-sex families’ who bring up children has become the centre of public attention. As a result, the traditional social roles are eroded and swapped around. The notion of parents, i.e. of the father and the mother, of what is male and what is female, is radically altered. The female mother is losing her time-honoured role as guardian of the domestic hearth, while the male father is losing his role as educator of his children in being socially responsible. The family in its Christian understanding is falling apart to be replaced by such impersonal terms as ‘parent number one’ and parent number two’.
All of this cannot but have the most disastrous consequences for the upbringing of children. Children who are brought up in families with ‘two fathers’ or ‘two mothers’ will already have views on social and ethical values different from their contemporaries from traditional families.
One of the direct consequences of the radical reinterpretation of the concept of marriage is the serious demographic crisis which will only grow if these approaches are adhered to. Those politicians who are pushing the countries of the civilized world into the demographic abyss are in essence pronouncing upon their peoples a death sentence.
What is to be the response of the Christian Churches? I believe deeply this response can be none other than that which is based on Divine Revelation as handed down to us in the Bible. Scripture is the common foundation which unites all Christian confessions. We may have significant differences in the interpretation of Scripture, but we all possess the same Bible and its moral teaching is laid out quite unambiguously. Of course, we differ in the interpretation of certain biblical texts when they allow for a varied interpretation. Yet much in the Bible is stated quite unambiguously, namely that which proceeds from the mouth of God and retains its relevance for all subsequent ages. Among these divine sayings are many moral commandments, including those which concern family ethics.
In speaking out against all forms of discrimination, the Church nonetheless must vindicate the traditional Christian understanding of marriage as between a man and a woman, the most important mission of which is the birth and upbringing of children. It is precisely this understanding of marriage that we find on the pages of the Bible in the story of the first human family. This same understanding of marriage we also find in the Gospels and the apostolic epistles. The Bible does not know of any alternative forms of marriage.
Unfortunately, not all Christian Churches today find within themselves the courage and resolve to vindicate the biblical ideals by going against that which is fashionable and the prevalent secular outlook. Some Christian communities have long ago embarked on a revision of moral teaching aimed at making it more in step with modern tendencies.
It is often said that the differences in theological and ethical problems are linked to the division of Christians into conservatives and liberals. One cannot but agree with this when we see how in a number of Christian communities a headlong liberalization is occurring in religious ethics, as a rule under the influence of processes taking place in secular society. At the same time the witness of the Orthodox Churches should not be reduced to that of conservatism. The faith of the Ancient Church which we Orthodox confess is impossible to define from the standpoint of conservatism and liberalism. We confess Christ’s truth which is immutable, for ‘Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and today, and for ever’ (Heb. 3:8).
We are not speaking about conservatism but of fidelity to Divine Revelation which is contained in Scripture. And if the so called liberal Christians reject the traditional Christian understanding of moral norms, then this means that we are running up against a serious problem in our common Christian witness. Are we able to bear this witness if we are so deeply divided in questions of moral teaching, which are as important for salvation as dogma?
In this regard I would like to speak about the Church’s prophetic vocation. I recall the words of Fr. Alexander Schmemann who said that a prophet is far from being someone who foretells the future. In reminding us of the profound meaning of prophecy, Schmemann wrote: ‘The essence of prophecy is in the gift of proclaiming to people God’s will, which is hidden from human sight but revealed to the spiritual vision of the prophet’ (Schmemann, The Celebration of Faith, vol.1: I Believe…, p.112).
We often speak of the prophetic voice of the Churches, yet does our voice actually differ much from the voice and rhetoric of the secular mass media and non-governmental organizations? Is not one of the most important tasks of the WCC to discern the will of God in the modern-day historical setting and proclaim it to the world? This message, of course, would be hard to swallow for the powerful of this world. However, in refusing to proclaim it, we betray our vocation and in the final run we betray Christ.
In today’s context, when in many countries and regions of the world the revival of religion is underway and yet at the same time aggressive secularism and ideological atheism is raising its head, the World Council of Churches must find its own special voice that is understandable to modern-day societies and yet which proclaims the permanent truths of the Christian faith. Today, as always, we are called upon to be messengers of the Word of God, the Word which is ‘quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword’ (Heb. 4: 12); the Word which is not bound (2 Tim. 2: 9). It is only then that we can bring to Christ new souls, in spite of the resistance of the ‘rulers of the darkness of this world’ (Eph. 6: 12).
Allow me to speak now of the second global challenge for the entire Christian world, the challenge of radicalism on religious grounds, in particular radical Islamism. I use this term fully aware that Islamism is in no way identical to Islam and in many ways is the opposite of it. Islam is a religion of peace able to coexistence with other religious traditions, as is demonstrated, for example, by the centuries-old experience of peaceful coexistence between Christians and Muslims in Russia. Radical Islamism, known as Wahhabism or Salafism, is a movement within the Islamic world that has as its goal the establishment of a worldwide Caliphate in which there is no place for Christians.
Here I shall not go into the reasons for the appearance and rapid growth of this phenomenon. I shall say only that in recent years the persecution of Christians has assumed a colossal scale. According to the information of human rights organizations, every five minutes a Christian dies for his faith in one or another part of the world, and every year more than a hundred thousand Christians die a violent death. According to published data, no less than one hundred million Christians worldwide are now subject to discrimination and persecution. Information on the oppression of Christians comes in from Iraq, Syria, Egypt, North Sudan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and a number of other countries. Our brothers and sisters are being killed, driven from their homes and separated from their families and loved ones; they are denied the right to practice their faith and educate their children according to their religious beliefs. Christians are the most persecuted religious community on the planet.
Unfortunately, manifestations of discrimination with regard to the Christian minority can no longer be treated as separate incidents: in some regions of the world they have become a well established tendency. As a result of the continuing conflict in Syria the number of murders of Christians has increased, churches and holy sites have been destroyed. The Copts, the original inhabitants of Egypt, have today become a target for attacks and riots, and many have been forced to abandon their own country.
Radicalism on religious grounds is growing not only in the countries where the population is predominantly Muslim. It is important to draw attention to the situation in the area of Asia where today’s Assembly is taking place. In this region the Christian communities for more than three hundred years, thanks to the efforts of missionaries, have grown and developed. According to data by the experts, over the past ten years the level of discrimination of Christians in the region has increased many times over. Great anxiety is caused by the position of the Christian communities of Indonesia, where over the past two years the level of aggression aimed at Christians has increased considerably. Information on the discrimination of Christians is coming in from other Asian countries too.
Today we have to be aware that one of the most important tasks facing us is the defense of our persecuted brothers and sisters in various areas of the world. This task demands urgent resolve for which we must employ all possible means and levers—diplomatic, humanitarian, economic and so on. The topic of the persecution of Christians ought to be examined in the context of inter-Christian cooperation. It is only through common energetic endeavours that we can help our suffering brothers and sisters in Christ.
Much is done in this regard today by the Roman Catholic Church. There are Christian organizations that monitor the situation and collect charitable aid for suffering Christians. Our Church also participates in this work. I believe that of much benefit would be joint conferences and the exchange of information and experience between Christian human rights organizations that are pursuing this problem.
The rights of Christians can be guaranteed only by supporting dialogue between religious communities at both the inter-state and international level. Therefore, one of the important directions of the WCC’s work is inter-religious dialogue. I believe that we ought to pay more attention to the development of a deep and interested mutual inter-action with traditional religions, especially with Islam.
The World Council of Churches is already working to draw attention to the problem of the persecution of Christians. As an example I can quote the Christian-Muslim consultation on the topic of the Christians presence and witness in the Arab world, organized by the WCC in January 2012 in Lebanon, as well as the conference held there in May of this year on the persecution of Christians, in which the General Secretary of the WCC participated. I would also like to remark upon the work carried out by the Council with the aim of reducing the level of tension in Syria, of averting an escalation of the conflict and of not allowing external military intervention.
Addressing those who confessed Christianity St Peter said: ‘But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ’s sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy’ (1 Pet. 4: 13). Recalling these words, we prayerfully desire that the All-Merciful Lord shall grant comfort and joy to those afflicted and oppressed so that they, in feeling the help and compassion of those brothers and sisters who are far away geographically yet close in the faith, may find in themselves the strength, with the aid of the grace of God, to travel further down the path of steadfast faith.
In concluding my speech, I would like to thank from the bottom of my heart the Christian communities of South Korea for the hospitality that they have shown us and the excellent organization of this General Assembly. The Russian Orthodox Church sympathizes with the Korean people in its striving to find unity, and in prayer and in deeds supports the processes for the overcoming of tension in relations between the two countries of the Korean peninsula.
To all of you, the participants of the Assembly, I enjoin the aid of God in joint labours and those labours which each of us carry out in their churches and communities. May our witness become the word of truth which the world needs so much today.
Our very own Monomakhos published this back in 2013.
https://www.monomakhos.com/the-voice-of-the-church-must-be-prophetic/
you can’t just brandish terms like prophetic voice” or “natural law” or “just war” or even “nous” and “phronema” and imagine you have won an argument thereby!
I am not trying to win an argument. I am trying to have the Church be the Church and defend the Gospel because that is what fallen man needs and its what we need from our shepherds, the Bishops, for our protection and for the protection of our children.
And did anyone tell Father Hans that it is not “Adam and Steve,’ But “Adam and Yves?”
Funny.
_______________
To move past this as Bishop Tikhon’s answer to my question was loud and clear. I strongly suggest everybody read all of Rod Dreher’s articles on the Benedict Option as this is greatly needed in this times we find ourselves in.
May God have mercy on us and protect us.
Peter A. Papoutsis
If only Bishop Tikhon had heeded the teaching of Confucius: “when in hole best to stop digging.” Or the old saying “better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.”
Or I could have used a pseudonym to cower behind, right? Confucius is always good even when misapplied or when your own brain has shut down. Return to your mirror, “Centurion,” and thank God you are you!
Oh BTW here is the link to the full article I took the above quotes from: http://hellenicleaders.com/blog/the-images-every-greek-american-should-see-on-martin-luther-king-jr-day/#.VUonN_Ac_KE
Peter
Here is an interesting article concerning the impact of making homosexual marriage OK
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/04/14899/
On another noteworthy event in the GOAA, the Chicago Tribune reported today that Fr Angelos Artemas, who spoke out against the improprieties in the Chicago Metropolis, has been “reassigned” from Milwaukee Annunciation to Atlanta. Also there is now an online petition signed by about 700 asking the EP to remove the Bishop and Metropolitan because of their inaction related to the misappropriation of bequeathed funds in Milwaukee.. When they tried to contact Bishop Dimitri for comments, he was ” unavailable “, traveling in Greece. (must be on some remote island with no cell phone or internet connection?) Fr. Dokos’ trial is scheduled for October.
The drama continues.
Unfortunately it does. Many in the Chicago area Greek American community have criticized Bishop Demetrios like Greek American reporter and colunist John Kass. The drama is growing and the Dokos trial will reveal a great many things long hidden here in Chicago. Also, the names on the petition to remove Demetrios is growing. God have mercy on us and protect us.
Peter
Petitions, petitions! It’ll take, rather, a mammoth dosnation of cash, probably to some people in the Greek Foreign Office, to get rid of another GOA Archbishop! Everybody knows that!
This is why no foreign hierarchies should be allowed. The foreign patriarchs are untouchable.
Oh yeah, that will fix things.
Peter
Right, and when the OCA got it’s first American-born Primate, everything started to go haywire. Or should I say gaywire? Those students of Slavic languages will get the pun, since Russians and Ukrainians often interchange “g” with “h”.
Oh your Grace what a sense of humor.
Peter
Bishop Tikhon wrote….
How about Mark and Steve, that dynamic duo that saved the OCA!!!!!
Full communing members of their OCA parish in Dayton, Ohio. Known by all in the parish, including their priest, to have been a gay “married” couple for 24 years. The man who judged everyone but refused to be judged for his “lifestyle.”
As long as OCA bishops and clergy give their tacit if not open consent for this, as long as Bishop Paul of Chicago does nothing, he too gives his approval to gay marriage.
One can wonder why Bishop Matthias really got run out of town on a rail after he removed Mark from the Metropolitan Council.
Full OCA hypocrisy on parade, again.
Years ago this “marriage” canard was a staple false accusation here, but I’m not aware of any more evidence for this “marriage” now than existed when many of y’all were parroting this assertion here non-stop. A tongue-in-cheek aside in an obituary doesn’t = a marriage license/certificate. As far as I know, that document has yet to be produced. And something tells me that it would have been dug up by now if there were anything to this — given the passionate will to defame this guy at all costs, so vividly demonstrated by so many.
If your beef is with his committed partnership with Steve Brown, a commitment lasting longer than many genuinely canonical marriages — the sexual component of which, in this instance, not one of you knows a thing — then limit your public venting of indignation to that fact. And see where it gets you. Good reason to think that among persons of good will, it won’t be very far. What they do get from it loud and clear is malice and bigotry.
Mark Stokoe didn’t “judge everyone.” That’s just a lie. Another lie is that he “refused to be judged for his ‘lifestyle'” — since, as far as I know, y’all and others have succeeded in hounding him out of any Orthodox Christian fellowship. So the fact is that they have indeed been judged — by you — and evidently have accepted your judgment. Well done!
I’m sure we’ll hear you take your bows for that in reply. But keep in mind that confessors decide who may be in communion, not the mob.
I am not up with the times, so this is just a point of information: when we read that one man is another man’s long-time “partner,” without qualifying it with an adjective like “business” or “bridge,” what exactly does the couple intend to communicate? It is true that no-one knows diddly about what happens in someone else’s bedroom — but if a man shacks up with a woman for that many years, especially if they identify themselves as “partners,” the government will (if it suits the governments interests) declare them married by common-law, even if they swear they never “did anything” in all that time.
I can’t understand why recognizing the huge distinction between two cases seems to pose such a problem for many of you: 1) a long-term, committed life companionship between two Orthodox Christians is one thing, 2) their taking the distinctly in-your-face step of crossing a clear line and getting married, even civilly, is a very different one. AFAIK, no one has ever produced any evidence that they were married, and, if I recall correctly, they have actually denied this, although I could be wrong about that and misinformed. But if it is true that they aren’t married, then to knowingly parrot this false accusation is to lie unconscionably about two Orthodox Christians. To parrot it without knowing is little better. The motivation for which interests me very much. It smells a lot like malice to me and like the unclean braying of a mob.
As I already said, if your beef is with their committed friendship/companionship, then be honest enough to confine your indignation to that, without distracting with innuendos and gratuitous lies the attention of those who are trying to rationally and compassionately consider an important social issue — not to mention comporting yourself with the most elementary decency wrt the two gentlemen in question. I strongly encourage all of you indignant ones to give eloquent, thoughtful expression to your pious horror and the reasoning behind it, but see if you can do that while purifying these observations of the byproducts of a continually evident fondness for lies and distortions, “holy” and otherwise. I encourage this with the deepest sincerity, because I’m certain that doing so will prove instructive about where many of you are coming from. I’m particularly interested in the take on this of the ordained present, should they have the honesty and integrity to weigh in. No doubt it will interest many others, too.
To “Robert”: Are you a member of this parish? I ask because you pronounce with such authority about it. Is my understanding that these two have been driven from communion there incorrect? Does anyone here know the facts? (I appreciate the irony in such a request on this blog.)
Is “Robert” indifferent to the gravity of posting libels (at least in this context . . .) online, anonymously or not? I get that it’s sort of a thing on Monomakhos, and that even ordained clergy feel comfortable doing that here, but I’m still curious.
I have been careful to say “law partner” for a long time now– with both men and women partners! 😉
I don’t know about you, Tim, but when my loved ones die, I make sure my long-term, committed, same-sex business partner is listed as an in-law in the obituary.
I confess to Robert and everyone else that I waswrong to say same-sex marriage Is not a problem in the OCA. I somehow overlooked case, that of the Archdeacon who had been “picked up” by an OCA Bishop long ago from the New Skete kennels and they cohabited for YEARS until the Archdeacon ELOPEDto San Francisco with another guy and got married thee, but “outside” the Orthodox Church. The PROBLEM arose when the Archdeacon got a divorce from his guy and returned to cohabit with his bishop in the DOS again. The Archdeacon and the (retired) Bishop remain attached to a DOS parish, and NO ONE HAS DONE ANYTHING ABOUT IT: not Ever-Memorable Archbishop Dmitri, a GOOd friend of that Bishop, not Bishop Nikon, not Metrpolitan Jonah, not the Holy Synod
Perhaps somebody’s afraid Father Gerasim might take action in that case if he became the ruling bishop? Just saying….
Vladyka:
Surely Vladyka Tikhon was made aware of gay priests and bishops when he was part of the Holy Synod. Did he “out” any of them then? Did he DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT then ???
Oh my goodness.
How dare you defend Matthias. He screwed up bigtime. And now you want to credit the relationship of Mark Stokoe and his priest for it?
Wackerdoodlez.
This is just a twisted attempt to slam the OCA.
Seven idiots gave you a thumbs up for the anti-gay or anti-OCA aspect.
Next time you go to church, reflect heavily on how much you enjoy the country club.
Daniel E Fall,
Mark Stokoe is an inconvenient truth to you and his supporters. The OCA has turned and continues to turn a blind eye to his lifestyle, one which he practiced when he was a seminarian and where he met his husband, Steve Brown. Now, it is just fine to be blatantly open and “in your face” to any right-believing Orthodox who would “dare” call into question their relationship. Full color pictures in a magazine proclaiming their committed relationship and nothing will be done, and they know it. Why? Because people like you don’t care, or think its just fine and normal.
I will and I do call into question their priest, who has given his blessing to their relationship and who therefore has led his flock to accept it OR LEAVE the parish. Their relationship has become a litmus test in Dayton of their brand of Orthodoxy.
As for Matthias, he took action against Stokoe and had him removed from the OCA MC. It is no coincidence, unless you wish to continue to live with your spiritual blinders, that Matthias was retired without Stokoe working his magic to get rid of him.
Now, the OCA Diocese of the Midwest has a bishop who will “see nothing and do nothing” to upset the colorful apple cart and safe space that Stokoe and Brown have made for themselves in that “safe haven” known as Dayton and the OCA.
I guess Archbishop Job was right, “we are free men in the Midwest” and apparently free to do whatever they thing best no matter how it reflects on the Body of Christ.
Edward…… the rest of the story………
Whoever read that article and knows little or nothing about SVS or St Paul’s in Dayton can easily conclude that Orthodoxy supports their 24 year relationship. That is the evangelism Stokoe and Brown with help from their friends are spreading. That is what they want the Church in the future to look like. That is the “legacy” they wish to leave.
You have conveniently contorted this thread to your malcontent for Stokoe. Matthias texting vulnerable women needed revisiting? The facts are simple. The sexuality of hierarchs was advantaged. Stokoe brought it to light. You are bringing up facts that are useless.
Rather than villianizing Stokoe, go pick on a barking dog.
And I am not a supporter of Stokoe, so check your facts.
But if it is true that Stokoe and his common-law (well maybe not quite yet in Ohio, but that is a mere formality that will be attended to shortly) husband have been driven out of fellowship with any Orthodox Church, then their union is not being accepted by the Church, and the safe-haven you say they have doesn’t exist. Which is it?
Edward,
Stokoe and Brown have not been driven out of fellowship with any Orthodox Church. They are founding members of St. Paul Church (OCA) in Dayton, where they continue to be communing and active members. They host an annual picnic for parishioners at their home in Dayton. Their relationship has not been nor is it a secret in the parish. St Paul Church in Dayton is a safe haven made so by the support of their parish priest, who, to be fair, was given that blessing, or at the very least, tacit consent, by the late Archbishop Job, how had no trouble with the leadership of Mark Stokoe inside and outside his diocese, while he was the ruling bishop before his untimely demise.
This is the type of systemic moral corrosion, being fostered by the advocacy of Fr. Arida and the inability of the OCA Synod to act against an Archdeacon in Miami and another priest who divorced his wife (while a priest under Archbishop Job) declaring he was a homosexual. This priest still serves in the DOS. And the list does go on and on.
Again, the damage being done is not only spiritual but the total misconception “reported” in the magazine article to non-Orthodox about Brown and Stokoe, giving the clear impression that the Orthodox Church approves of their lifestyle. And that, in the final analysis, is the end-game; for now, tacit consent of their lifestyle and in time full acceptance.
Are you a member of this church, “Robert”? If not, what’s your source for claiming they are once again active members there? This may be true now, I don’t know, but based on what I and many others were told it wasn’t true for quite some time, at least, after Stokoe was summarily dismissed from the OCA Metropolitan Council. By the way, I neither know Mark Stokoe nor have I ever had any contact whatsoever with him, not even as a poster on his website. He’s innocent of any connection to me. To preempt and lay that potential slur (mainly against him) to rest.
If this anonymous assertion is true, however, and they are back in fellowship, then that would be a good thing in my book. And also a cue for y’all to light your hair afire and run around screeching about him and his “lifestyle” — about which not one of you knows squat, I’m certain. You’re abject captives to the logismoi bubbling up from your scurrilous imaginations.
Another poster had claimed to have some knowledge that they had been driven out of fellowship with any Orthodox church, although I wIll admitedly be soon beaten verbally upside the head for being too stupid to understand what he wrote and for twisting his words. But on the off-chance that I understood him correcrly, only one of you can be right rgearing Mr Stokoe’s status. I was asking for clarification. I will take your word to be the final answer unless someone else credibly contradicts you.
I completely agree, btw, with the corrosive effect an article like that has because of the misconceptions it givea both to the world and to the faithful.
Seems to me the bigger question is why do you care?
Noone else, or very few, Orthodox Christians would put their sites on another person in the church and wish to drive them away like an alpha gorilla in the forest in a display of dominance.
As a big gorilla myself, may I suggest swallowing your own camel first[sic].
Or perhaps we should go on a crusade against fat people. We already know they are indulgent; the proof is right there.
Find a new drumbeat. The stokoe one is well worn. He hasn’t advocated for any changes to church doctrine.
Now, about your last Confession Ed.
I am not the one who made Mr. Stokoe an Orthodox “celebrity” about whom many people are intensely interested — on both “sides.” I believe that person was him.
When two diametrically opposed claims of fact are being made about him in the same thread, I see nothing odd about drawing attention to that fact and asking for clarification. Whether one believes that Orthodoxy needs to maintain or change its moral teaching, having a public article like that stand without response is of great significance.
To Daniel E. Fall,
My source for my statement that Mr and Mrs Brown are fully integrated members of St. Paul’s in Dayton, OH? Communing members, financially supporting members, highly visible members? My close relative who is a member of the parish and keeps me informed.
And, sadly, you still don’t get it. Mark Stokoe is not just another person. He is a public figure. He put himself front and center and led many to believe that his crusade was a just one. History will judge his efforts but he believed and still does, that his sexual orientation has nothing to do with who he is as an Orthodox Christian. That he can be a perfectly good one while at the same time being gay. You, I would assume have little or no problem with that, however the Church does and clearly identifies such a lifestyle as sinful. It is also clear that Mr. Stokoe is unrepentant about his lifestyle because he doesn’t think its a sin, and so does his pastor, and so did his former late Archbishop. Does his current bishop? We don’t know but I believe it would be important for him to address this issue. My point in bringing up Bp. Matthias was that he did have a problem with it and Stokoe did his best to get rid of him.
I am not naive enough to believe that there are not other gay couples in the Orthodox Church .In fact I know several, but in each of their cases, they have been directed that they can attend services and support their parish as much as they would like, but that they are NOT free to commune until they repent of their lifestyle.
As to your false conclusion, Stokoe is not advocating for a change in Church doctrine, that is untrue. By his very actions he most certainly is. He doesn’t have to put it into words because in this case the way he is permitted to live and sacramentally participate is proof of his advocacy for doctrinal change. I am sure you would not be so naive as to think that if the Church did change its doctrine that Mr and Mrs Brown would oppose it!
No, Mr Fall, Mr and Mrs Brown have ventured down the more insidious road of gay acceptance by being such a nice couple. “Look at those nice boys. They are so polite and generous. I just don’t understand why anyone would object to them being married.” And their reported 24 year relationship? Well, doesn’t that prove it? That is how they are trying to change Church Doctrine from the inside out. One nice gay couple at a time.
PS. I went to confession a month ago and I am going again ASAP!
Well said, Robert (and Edward). In OCA circles, Mark Stokoe was most definitely a celebrated personality. Going all the way back to his tenure at Syosset, continuing on as a member of the Metropolitan and Diocesan Councils, and of course as a journalistic gadfly. He traveled extensively on the Church’s dime and was granted exclusive rights to documents relating to church history for his book on the history of the Orthodox Church in North America. (A rather good and easy-to-read book for that matter.)
I for one was astounded with the authority that OCANews.org was afforded by various and sundry persons (myself included). In many oversees churches, this news-portal was viewed by many as an official (or at least semi-official) news source and/or house organ of the OCA. (Again myself included.)
There was a reason why OCANews.org was well respected: time and again, its reporting was spot on. It is unfortunate that Mark Stokoe’s private life was made into public issue as a device to defend a certain retired metropolitan. That said, I cannot support the proposition that the Orthodox Church should accept gay marriage or sex by communing persons who are indulging in such. However, I do not accept the belief that an entire jurisdiction is in heresy when a minuscule minority of its parishes are not upholding orthodox practice in this regard. I pray Bishop Paul of the Diocese of the Midwest and the new Bishop of the Diocese of the South will address their respective problems in a mature and Christian way.
Mr. Fall,
Sorry, but Stokoe isn’t Joe Average in the pew. He set events in motion which helped unseat two OCA Metropolitans .Not
saying he did it by himself, but I wouldn’t call him innocent either.
You’re OK with Bishop Matthias having to step down because of his foolish error. Fine. But then, if Mr. Stokoe can dish it out, shouldn’t he be able to take it?
Robert,
Has your close relative been to the bedroom to keep you informed? Your type of assurance that he “doesn’t have to put it into words because in this case the way he is permitted to live and sacramentally participate is proof of his advocacy for doctrinal change,” is pretty much a moron’s hate-driven invitation that used to lead to “stringin’ a few few people up” on a drunken Saturday night: “What was that you was sayin’ about my wife, boy?” “I wasn’t sayin’ nothin, sir.” “Nah, you didn’t need to say nothin’. I could tell by the way you was lookin’ at her.” I suggest you carefully ponder these words – the third time I have offered them – from our Father John Climacus:
If I am not mistaken, Robert, our blessed Father John indicates that the Lord is fully competent to manage His duties as Righteous Judge without your intervention. And PS to your PS: I would think it more wholesome to have confessed “contemplation” of murderous gossip, rather than first vomiting on my shoes.
Christ is risen, truly risen!
Before he expresses himself on such issues again, Michael Stankovich must publicly and firmly dissociate himself from his involvement with ‘We Are Their Legacy’. Elsewise, he will always and everywhere be assumed to support their attempt to ‘normalize’ homosexuality in christian morality.
According to the scriptures and consonant with all the authentically orthodox catholic christian tradition, we are required to call each other back from sinful behavior.
Of course, this involves a certain amount of judgement: we must all choose between good and evil, and between good and evil behavior, and act accordingly in order to help each other ‘work out our salvation in fear and trembling’.
These actions on our part as human beings, as Christians, do not in any way usurp the eternal privilege of Christ our God to judge us all at the end. They merely provide all of us opportunities to help us prepare for that ultimate judgement.
In the case of Mark Stokoe and Steve Brown it’s entirely allowed for us Christians to tell them that their homosexual life together is sinful
And it’s entirely possible for us Christians to tell their approving (for his own reasons) pastor at St Paul church in Dayton, Ohio, Fr Theodore Bobosh (corroborated by his own seriously compromised former bishop Job Osacky) and their current bishop, the most reverend Paul Gassios of Chicago, that all of this needs some serious remediation.
Michael,
Thank you for the St. John quote. It is of course very helpful. And thank you for your suggestions about my confession. Apparently you may judge, and you do it all the time, but when others present the implications of a sin left unchecked you call it murderous gossip and vomit.
But, understand, I didn’t have to go looking, as St. John points out very clearly, “for fault in others.” The life of Mr Stokoe and Mr Brown was presented to me in that article. I didn’t have to go searching for their sin. They freely allowed it to be presented to me. They also allowed, unless there is a rebuttal somewhere that we missed, an article to be presented that gives the clear implication, to those who don’t know better, that the Orthodox Church supports their homosexual relationship. And when they are allowed to commune, is it not reasonable to conclude that their lifestyle choice is sacramentally blessed by their Eucharistic communication? And, why is such a reality blessed in Dayton but not by other clergy and bishops in the Orthodox Church face with the same situations, even within the same jurisdiction as the Dayton parish? What makes it ok in Dayton, but not in New York City?
And you are so right when you say, “….The Lord is fully competent to manage His duties as Righteous Judge without [our] intervention” But it seems that Mr. Stokoe didn’t think that the Lord could handle things when he created OCAN – but that is a different story.
And please, stop insulting me with the “look in the bedroom” and the “hate-driven”canards. That stereotyping is way below your intellectual base line. And, I will end by admonishing you by accusing me of hating Mark and Steve. How dare you judge me of such a sin. I don’t hate them. I don’t hate you I don’t hate anyone, and in my darkest moments when I might have been tempted to think I hate, I have fled to the Sacrament of Confession to beg for forgiveness.
Michael,
Thank you for your reply. All I can say in response, is to copy what you wrote in reaction to the comments of Fr. Jon Braun at St. Katherine’s commencement. He incapsulates as you report, not vomit induced gossip but what is taking place.
Thank God we have a God that is always in charge and who we are called to believe and worship. And thank God He requires of us to be vigilant and fight against the creeping, or not so creeping tide of #3.
Robert,
Orthodox News ceased to function as other than an archival site in 2011 and Archbishop Job died in 2009. As near as I can tell, you offered nothing that has not been previously delivered on this and other sites ad nauseum. You have not delivered us from a “clear and imminent danger,” nor a “creeping tide.” I agree that our God requires both vigilance & fight, but from there you miss my point: there is a phrase of the Fathers to which I was referring, the disgusting cycle whereby “like dogs returning to their own vomit,” such things are re-consumed & regurgitated. Thanks, indeed, that God is “always in charge,” and this means that justice is not yours, and that our God is a jealous God and will not tolerate injustice to the righteous. You trust this, or you fall from the step of vainglory, according to our Father John Climacus, because you believe God is impotent without you.
Monk James,
I would kindly request that you describe in detail “We are Their Legacy,” its members, its stated missions and goals (covert & overt), and from where you read and derived your opinion.
Michael, every time we sin, we pollute the universe. When we sin openly, we hurt our brothers who aren’t saints. Sometimes we hurt them by tempting them to judge us. Sometimes we hurt them by having them look at us and thinking, “well I guess it ok to do or say that.” But we hurt them.
You just hurt yourself and others by likening a fellow Orthodox Christian’s heartfelt concerns to vomit, by judging him guilty of the sin of judgmentalism (surely St. John doesn’t give a free pass to those who judge others for judgmentalism), and by accusing him of murderous gossip.
I am hurting myself by judging you for judging others for judging. Please forgive me.
I am not holy enough to figure this all out. I suspect that God wants some of us to speak out and take action in order to clean up the Church, only to have them refuse Him and stay silent. I suspect God tells others of us to be silent and we refuse and shoot off our mouths anyway. I suspect God sometimes turns both refusals somehow to the service of good, and other times He allows us to live with the consequences of our disobedience. I suspect some who are being activist and some who remain silent are doing exactly what God wants them to do, and good results will follow.
I’m not smart enough to figure it all out, but I do my best. And I probably get it wrong more than I get it right. But I don’t think you can reduce everything either to “don’t say anything that sounds judgmental, just shut up and pray” (if you believed that, you wouldn’t have written what you did about the parents of those Greek kids). Nor can it be boiled down to “everyone needs to be like John the Baptist and cry out the truth to the generation of vipers.”
We are all just doing our best, Michael, and I think we all do well to remember that. I recall being disturbed when one of my children told me he was in favor of gay marriage — I was wondering if, in my teaching my children tolerance and compassion for gays, if I had somehow failed to teach them right from wrong. Turned out that a formative experience was his watching kids get bullied for supposedly being gay — it had even happened to him briefly once when he switched schools with a rough bunch of rednecks. His perspective was that legalizing gay marriage would stop that — ah, the idealism of youth is refreshing sometimes. I won’t say we came to complete agreement (we weren’t terribly far apart, from either of our perspectives) but it was a peaceful exchange because both of us started from a standpoint of assuming the good intentions of the other.
“We Are Their Legacy”? Wasn’t that where Michael Stankovich first wrote that same-sex attraction and same-sex sex are “mutually exclusive”? Has he ever actually admitted that this was a gross overstatement?
Thomas Barker, votre attention, s’il vous plaît : voici votre Tartuffe.
Mr. Barker, for three years, Tartuffe has been knowingly looking up my skirt with this same childish glee. “Objection, your honour. Asked and answered.” I feel special.
Monk James,
First, I smell the stench of repetition in what the moderator of another forum accurately assessed your baiting of me:
His response was simple and to the point: “We have all had enough of this. The monk James is banished from the Forum.”
Your response was to whine like a child that I had mistreated you and called you “names.” In the latter “accusation,” you are absolutely correct, and I repeat myself for those who did not read it the first time: you are a liar who, despite my demand for any evidence to support your despicable, drive-by claims will not, because you cannot substantiate anything you say. Put up or shut up. We Are Their Legacy was a website containing exactly six essays in a series entitled “The Science of Same-Sex Attraction,” written by me, and for which I alone am accountable. Everything – unedited & unchanged – from We Are Their Legacy can be found beginning here. I have insisted that there is no contradiction with Scripture, the Patristic or Canonical Fathers, or our Holy Tradition. I have submitted them to four Orthodox bishops, two of whom responded and offered me insightful assistance. Many priests have offered me helpful commentary.
This statement is troubling to me in one aspect only. It would not bother me in the least going to my grave known as the creator and sole author of “We Are Their Legacy,” nor that any jackass would “always and everywhere” (hyperbole, right?) associate me with such an “assumption.” But you are the Carrie Bradshaw, “Monk in City,” who cannot seem to shut up long enough to pray unceasingly, and would presume to instruct me as what I must “publicly and firmly” do before I express myself again?
Thomas Barker, votre attention, s’il vous plaît: voici votre Tartuffe.
Edward,
You missed my point entirely, and I hope you picked it up in my second comment. The phrase, “Like dogs returning to their own vomit” does not refer to criticism of anyone’s sincere attempt to confront sinful behaviour in a spirit of love and conciliation. It is about a disgusting cycle of purging and re-consuming filth. I read that you and others were not aware of the “details” of who and what was being discussed. A “third generation” was happy to purge you the details. Were they edifying? From what I read, apparently not. But now a new “generation” knows the details.
But in the course of this “discovery,” you said you made a presumption that two men living exclusively together.. put two and two together… My specific question was, “Do your informants venture in to the bedroom?” The point being, what if at some point in an individual’s/couple’s journey, they make the decision with the help of their confessor to take the path of repentance, celibacy, chastity, obedience, and podvig to which all Christians are called? Is that Robert’s business? Is it your business? Do they owe anyone an explanation? An announcement? Or is it simply enough that “This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (1 Tim. 2:3-4) St. John Climacus was abundantly clear that we do not see what God alone can see, that even the saints err, and that the Just Judge is both merciful and will judge according to our works.
Still Stankovich refuses to admit the obvious: That he has repeatedly misused the term “mutually exclusive,” which every educated English-speaker understands to mean not merely “not the same” but “cannot coincide.”
Why does it matter? Because both his use of the term and his obstinate defense of his use of the term are dishonest attempts to mislead others about the direction of his argument.
Who started the Stokoe noise on this thread?
It was Vladyka, seconded by Mr. Myers, claiming that ssm wasn’t a problem in the Orthodox Church. Stokoe was offered by Robert as a high profile example that it has happened without apparent repercussions.
Vladyka subsequently walked back his comment, recalling the example of the retired bishop’s deacon live-in who married another man then came back to the bishop — nothing done about that one, either. Mr. Myers subsequently qualified his statement by saying that ssm was rare in the Orthodox Church, and also claiming there was no evidence that Stokoe actually married the guy anyway. I pointed out that under normal rules of engagement (pun intended) 24 yr publicly self identified life partners are married under common law, so producing a marriage certificate isn’t necessary.
But the original question of whether ssm is a problem got lost in the noise, as you call it. I suspect that disagreement remains about that point…
WOW!!!!!!! I will say again WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I confess, I have not followed this story – the last I tracked it until Bishop Matthias removed him from the counsel. I naively assumed he would be quietly dealt with.
These two unrepentant homosexualists (they have to be the most infamous in American Orthodoxy no?) are active, communing members IN FULL KNOWLEDGE of their priest and bishops who supports this????????????????
Robert, this is not “their brand of Orthodoxy” – this is not Orthodoxy or Christianity at all – not one little bit.
I have to seriously consider whether I can still approach the Cup any more at my small mission parish that is part of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (under the EP), as this so called “bishop” of the OCA is in communion with my bishop – and the simple truth I am not in communion with this anti-Christianity!!!
This really is madness – Is the OCA synod functioning on a Christian level at all anymore? Faithful of the OCA, WHAT IS GOING ON?
To all those in communion with the OCA – are we the Church anymore?
Christopher:
Christopher, the Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, or Old Calendarists would welcome you with open arms. BYE-BYE!!!
Christopher,
Aren’t you more worried about your patriarch and bishops breaking the Canons by praying with heretics and non-Christians? If an OCA priest communes someone living in an illicit relationship, surely that’s his personal sin?
OOM,
I presume you consider the Old Calendarists outside the Church? Would you consider the Latins, Uniates, Monophysites, and Nestorians to be in the Church/
ES
“If an OCA priest communes someone living in an illicit relationship, surely that’s his personal sin?”
Not if it’s public. Read I Cor.
I worry about “bad” ecumenism yes, but those who are living the New Anthropology and bringing it into the Church are not doing something that is purely “personal”. They are being subversive, in that they are through their actions purposely trying to teach another Jesus. One of the first steps of any subversive program is to “desensitize” – get people used to seeing openly homosexualist persons/couples being approaching the chalice “you see, no lightning came down from heaven, this is no big deal”.
These subversive tactics are tried and true – they have been used in many other institutions and areas of our society, and they are fundamental to the “gay movement” and have been written about by the intellectual leaders of that movement.
Also, I am wondering out loud how the Church is going to deal with this falling away? When whole diocese and possibly “jurisdictions” in America reject the Faith over this issue how are faithful bishops/clergy/laity gong to break off communion with them? What is that going to look like? We need to start thinking about this. To those who think this is not going to happen, and indeed is not already happening, well I live in a desert and I want to sell you a truck load of sand…
E.S.:
E.S., here in the OCA, we welcome gays. So does the GOA, by the way. Who is and who is not inside the church is not the issue. I’m just inviting the fundamentalists to find a church where they will feel more at home.
I suggest if you wish to worry about the appropriateness of every pastoral issue in order to remain in the church; give your brain a rest and quit now.
You have no idea what priests do or say on these matters. To believe they always do precisely what you believe to be correct is more than foolish. Ask Fr Hans how many priests have been removed for their own misdeeds versus a pastoral challenge met in a fashion that doesn’t suit you.
We live our own lives as Christians; we do not judge everyone else. The wow you express is merely an exclamation of naivety. There are many more homosexuals in the church than a few. Nearly every church I’ve attended has had those folks.
We live our own lives as Christians; we do not judge everyone else.
This is another subversive tactic of the homosexualist movement – appropriate the moral language of your opponents (in this case, Orthodox Christianity), and twist it and turn it back against them.
Here, Mr. Fall is cherry picking the Tradition in a failed attempt to say we are “breaking our own rules” and “judging” homosexual activism.
I would say it is “pathetic”, and it is, but is also a proven and effective tactic.
Kill the witches!
Cliché.
Doubtless you are referring to Inga Leonova’s Gay-In-Your-Facebook ‘Orthodox’ Coven: Cackle
I have no time for such dribble.
That case of Mr and Mrs Brown is most inconvenient to the supporters of ever-memorable Archbishop Job, who preserved and protected and protected them and their lifestyle knowingly. He KNEW hiw Chancellor Kondratick had seeen to it that Mrs. Brown was removed from his position as OCA Youth Director (“allowed to VOLUNTARILY RESIGN”). Mrs Brown got his/her revenge, though, and continued to bash the downed Chanceloor when he was downed in order to keep the hounds from scenting his Metropolitan.
When that Hierarch repeated his saying, “We are FREE MEN in the Diocese of the Midwest,” the main “free men” were his beloved Mr. and Mrs. Brown. I believe Father Arida was that Archishop’s gift to the New
England Docese, before fleeing to the Midwest.
+Tikhon:
That case of Mr and Mrs Paluch is most inconvenient to the supporters of Bishop Tikhon.
I can’t figure out why that would bother you. You and Meyers are reflexive defenders of sodomy. It’s all you guys ever talk about. All gay all the time.
John Pappas:
John, the topic of this thread is marriage, and whether or not gay people should be married. Or, as you might say, the topic of the thread is “sodomy.” So in this thread about “sodomy” it’s all gay all the time for EVERYBODY who participates in the thread. Can you parse what I’m saying here, or are you ALL DUMB ALL THE TIME?
John Pappas:
It DOESN’T bother me. I’m just drawing attention to the fact that ALL OF A SUDDEN, Vladyka Tikhon is interested in purging the ranks of the hierarchy of the taint of homosexuality; and yet, when he could have actually DONE something about it, he chose to ignore it. If I am wrong, let him correct me.
This is truly funny stuff. Whenever Bishop Tikhon F. gets into the financial scandal matter, we get glimpses of the insanity that drove it all.
Shhh. Someone might say something.
OOM. You are out there most of the time, not here.
Ask Mrs..OOM where and how exactly did I “suddenly show interest in purging the ranks of the hierarchy of the taint (SIC) of homosexuality?” I missed that entirely! Anybody?
Of course +Matthias screwed up big time. Although it is a sign of our times that some of us found it almost refreshing to have a scandal where the good bishop was interested in grown-ups and women and all that boring old-fashioned stuff.
Refreshing? This is where anonymity suits you well. You wouldn’t want the world to think you enjoy bishops preying upon vulnerable young women.
There has got to be more to this story. No way even the OCA has been ignoring and giving tacit approval to something that open, especially when an OCA seminary and parish get named in a high profile piece in the press. Who has the rest of the story?
My goodness Edward. Read between the lines. Unmarried men are hierarchs. The last few before Jonah it seems had skeletons that were advantaged by a high priest it seems. Then another unmarried man came along and said enough and stopped that scandal and now some people would enjoy hanging him for it under the guise of his unmarried lifestyle. Hint: replace unmarried as u wish
A thought to ponder courtesy of David Bentley Hart in his book: The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss.
Natural Law arguments that are founded on the assumption of the Natural Law taking precedence over the life of God in His creation are almost blasphemous. The right order and connection has always to be made or we quickly enter a morass.
It is a difficulty that is harder to avoid than it may seem. That does not mean natural law arguments cannot or should not be made but they must always be placed in their correct context. For instance, natural marriage can only exist because God exists and created us that way. That marriage is both ontological and eschatologically unique to every other type of union we can imagine. Only the incarnational presence of our Lord, of which marriage is an icon, allows it to be truly fruitful both in this world and as a step toward the next.
Unfortunately, it is the ontological and eschatological dimension of marriage that is wholly missing in homosexual unions which are erotically filial at best: wholly of this fallen world and our twisted understanding of sexuality.
Nevertheless we must recognize and articulate the counterfeit nature of homosexual unions even if they don’t pose any threat to the Church (a claim that is so incredibly disingenuous as to boggle the mind.)
It is not an easy task as even in the best of Orthodox marriages, the full reality of that marriage is hidden and a deep mystery that is only rightfully shared with the parties to the marriage as husband and wife in communion with our Lord.
Michael:
Michael, this is gibberish. Just because you read D.B. Hart don’t make you D.B. Hart.
Nope on both counts
OK, I’ve had it with the theo-cant, and I’m calling your bluff, Michael. You’re a scientist. Do you accept the findings of molecular and integrative biology: that modern Homo sapiens sapiens are the descendants of antecedent primates, of now divergent species? Answer that, and then I’d like to get a conceptually higher resolution look at this trope of “as they were created in the beginning” and the alleged “consensus” of the Fathers here, and its relevance to rational discourse informed by science. Let’s see how competent you are to defend what seems to me to be an utterly incoherent anthropology, nonsense on stilts, at least wrt how most people who claim to speak in its name and by its light come off. What is the relationship between this “Creation as it was in the beginning” and natural history? Forget vague notions about “natural law”: I’m interested in your expounding on this alleged interface between Orthodox theology and anthropology, which you claim to understand, and modern biology.
Mr. Meyers,
You are a greedy man, always announcing the “turning of my tables,” and the “calling of my bluff.” To what end I am not exactly sure, but I’m continuously left with the chorus of Ali & Big Gipp’s Let ‘Em Fight when I read you. il est livré avec le territoire. Whatever…
I, personally, am incompetent to defend what appears to you to be an incoherent anthropology – and bravo, “nonsense on stilts!” – so spare me the crass “challenges” as if I’m some chump from the streets. I am, Mr. Myers, by the Grace of God, something of a savant placed in the path of great men to whom I listened in stunned silence – and not being one to recreate the wheel, I’ll share with you what I have written previously to answer (basically for myself) what seems so convoluted to you.
Firstly, I accept this conclusion presented by Met. Anthony (Bloom), of blessed memory, a theologian, but likewise a gifted surgeon:
Now, speaking as a geneticist, this is all to say that “being incorrupt” determined our “living as God,” [έζη λοιπὸν ὡς Θεός] (St. Athanasius) and “corruption” is “unnatural.” What is “natural” according to this world, delivered to us by our First Parents, is not the genome of the Creation. And if, in fact, we struggle and attempt to guess as to who and what we “are,” it supports Met. Anthony’s contention that we can no longer recognize (cf. Jn. 20:15, Jn. 20:27, Lk. 24:15 – 16, Lk. 24:37) nor distinguish what we are from what we have become. Is it a surprise that that the separation between the sacred and the profane has nearly vanished? That the natural boundaries of gender are now perceived as “oppressive,” and, for example, Gender Dysphoria (i.e. formerly Transgender Disorder) is “diagnosed” completely by the subjective report of the patient – not by DNA, not by the 14 known gender identification disorders, or simply by the genitalia you are born with). That we are so radically altered by polymorphic evolutional changes that have rendered more than 90% of our genetic code as “junk” and failed attempts to repair itself, and as we are discovering, grossly influenced in the epigenetic process of interacting with the fallen world we have created? This is, in fact, the relationship of our fallen humanity with “natural history,” par excellence.
Nevertheless, the “signs” for us are abundantly clear. The Psalmist’s utter joy in proclaiming, ““O Lord, how manifold (μεγαλύνω: diverse, magnified, exalted) are Your works! In wisdom You have made them all.” (Ps. 103) points to the Creator who established “objective order” out of non-existence with His own hand, and the creation, His very handiwork, does, in fact “speak for itself”: “God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.” (Gen. 1:31). And if we are to believe St. Gregory Nazianzus’ observation, “To us also is manifested that which made and moves and preserves all created things, even though He may not be comprehended by the mind,” or according to St. Maximus the Confessor, that “Christ succeeded where man had failed: namely, in bringing about the reconciliation of all divisions—between man and woman, paradise and the inhabited world, heaven and earth, the intelligible and the sensible, and, ultimately, between God and his creation,” only a fool would conclude that objective science and “facts that speak for themselves” do not, of necessity, always refer to the Creator. It is in the same Orations that St. Gregory reported sitting in the woods, observing the interaction of birds and animals and their environment, and wondered to himself how anyone making this observation could not make the connection to God. And in our own time, the noted surgeon, author, and atheist, Richard Selzer wrote in Mortal Lessons: Notes on the Art of Surgery that the only time he could begin to imagine there was a God was staring into the open cavity of the human chest or abdomen; it was simply not possible this had occurred randomly.
Science, as I see it, Mr. Meyers, is revelation into the fallen humanity, within the context of this fallen world. Nothing more, nothing less.The risen and exalted Jesus Christ was unrecognizable to Mary Magdalene in the garden, to the disciples on the road to Emmaus, and frightening to His Apostles in the closed room. But as St. John of Damascus tells us, the New Adam was truly and completely a man, but the new man was “as it was in the beginning,” and of the Kingdom which is to come. And I am content that this “anthropology” is consistent for St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Symeon the New Theologian (and I recommend the Dissertation of Met. Hilarion (Alfeyev)), and St. Basil the Great without any exaggeration or “hyperbole.” They all were well read in the Greek philosophers and well read in one another.
If this is not sufficient for your needs, Mr. Meyers, well, chalk it to my inadequacy, plain and simple!
Yup
I prune off all the immaterial or at best remotely tangential verbiage above, wrt to its relevance to anything like a response to the question. Preserving this, which seems to be the most substantive and germane bit. Are you saying that you do not accept the modern scientific position on the natural origin of modern human beings’ biological substrate, at least, as recounted by modern integrative biology and more or less proved by molecular biology? I have to assume that this excerpt could not be your sole authority for denying the factual reality, and evident truth, of that scientific position — if that is in fact what you mean to do. Do I need to restate the question in higher resolution for you? Am I wrong to wonder if you might be taking a cue from Fr. Jacobse’s playbook of tactics: studied avoidance, & rhetorical diversions, spiced with a pinch of ad hominem noise and tedious cant? Your personal twist, adding pop culture references –generally vile “music” and the associated vapid “lyrics” — is one I’d urgently recommend dropping immediately. The only resonance it ever has is confined to your own head, I assure you.
Let’s assume you recognize this question to be a terribly serious one, meriting a serious, and not intellectually insulting, attempt at a response. Recall that you’re the guy given to regularly dressing down priests hereabouts who fail to rise to SVTS luminary-accredited standards of theological probity. You are able to discern when a proper consilience is lacking between, for example, Fr. Jacobse’s personal theologoumena and the Holy Tradition, having yourself sat at the feet of Paris School greats. So I take it you’re up to a bit more meat in response to the most basic question arising from the theological/biological interface. It’s impossible to believe this subject never came up at seminary, if only in the dorm late at night.
This just won’t do, Micheael. (My last name has only one ‘e’, after not before that ‘y’. Incidentally.)
Mr. Myers (with apologies for previous misspellings),
“This just won’t do?” Seriously, Mr. Myers? You called my bluff, Mr. Myers, and not vice versa, and it seems you are already prepared with an “acceptable” answer according to your own notion of the Orthodox anthropology pursuant to the Fathers and our Holy Tradition, so why trouble yourself with me? Nothing angers me more than individuals who make statements in the form of baiting questions. Cheap theatrics Make your world-changing statement and we will debate; don’t demand my opinion, then negate me. In what position, exactly, are you to “prune off all the immaterial or at best remotely tangential verbiage” when you are neither a clinician nor a student of theology who – as you mock – have sat at the feet of the “Paris greats?” You were expecting perhaps some articulation or exposition from me on the theories of the interface of biological evolution, human medicine, and your perceived conflict with the words of Met. Anthony? You were looking for the date this occurred, perhaps? I have no interest.
Let me explain to you, Mr. Myers the “meaty” and practical integration of what I learned as a student of medical science and its integration with my education in Orthodox anthropology and the Patristic Fathers. I was crammed into a room slightly larger than a large utility closet that contained a combined chair-desk (such as one finds in high school) and a cage slightly larger than an old phone booth. There were two thick records, one medical & and one criminal awaiting me, but before I ever had the chance to open them, a door swung open and two officers wearing surgical gloves and face shields led a big man handcuffed to a leather belt at his waist, which in turn connected to shackles of both his feet. He was also wearing a gauze bag over his head held by a leather belt around his neck to prevent him from spitting on anyone. They opened the cage, sat him down, locked the cage, and without acknowledging me left. My only thought was, “Have mercy on me, O God!” Welcome to prison. I asked all the proper questions, took all my notes, and when we got to the part of why he was in prison now, it turned out that he enjoyed sexually abusing women with the large screwdrivers used to repair heavy construction equipment. And as he “remorsefully” described his crimes, it suddenly struck me and I yelled at him, “Stand up!” He would not. And I am ashamed to say I took one of those thick files and I hit the side the side of the cage and yelled, “Stand up!” And when he complied, he had had an erection from being aroused at describing his offense to me. And he started to cry. I was young, embarrassed for me and him, disgusted by him so that I wanted to vomit, and when I reached into to pocket to again get my pen, my small prayer rope was entangled with it, and I just closed my eyes and took my seat. At the end of the day, I drove to my confessor’s home. How is it possible to feel compassion, to even pity, and ultimately to commit to attempt to heal such an individual? And this story is relatively mild by comparison. How is it possible?
Now, Mr. Myers, you are welcome to trim the immaterial and “remotely tangential verbiage” from this, my second response to you, but this is the struggle I and many, many others live with. Whether I “accept the modern scientific position on the natural origin of modern human beings’ biological substrate, at least, as recounted by modern integrative biology and more or less proved by molecular biology” is of absolutely no consequence to me. As I said above, St. Maximus the Confessor declared Christ was the reconciliation of all divisions, but you would not know it by me. And you are only able to mock me – and presumably all those who struggle with this awful burden – with the words. “Let’s assume you recognize this question to be a terribly serious one, meriting a serious, and not intellectually insulting, attempt at a response,” because it is an academic question for you. If you truly appreciated the depth of human desperation and despair, helplessness and hopelessness, and the corollary of having to force yourself to look with the eyes of the Lord in order to feel any mercy and compassion, and likewise to be forced to choose who you may help from among those who are equally needy, not knowing what will happen to those you must turn away, you could perhaps appreciate my answer(s) for the theological answers that they ultimately are. And then you would show me and some of the others on this site to whom you are so arrogantly insulting the respect we have earned.
And the hip-hop music? Learn something about dyslexia & ADHD before you lecture me. I can involuntarily bop to the clothes washer, for heavens sake. For the record, Archbishop Benjamin and I had student season tickets (albeit in the rafters) to the Metropolitan Opera while you were probably in diapers.
See that absurd false accusation, all in bold? Hardly true or fair. You may want to consider a bit more carefully just how much you yourself are “arrogantly insulting.” Maybe I know more and care more, and do more, than you think about “the depth of human desperation and despair, helplessness and hopelessness.”
Get over yourself, Michael. You know practically nothing about me. Sometimes I have to wonder how much you really know about you.
Anyway, what I know and what you know matter a lot less than what God knows. I’m certain God blesses all of your efforts that are motivated by sincere charity, rather than, say, reaction formation or whatever. That’s “how it’s possible,” to answer your presumably rhetorical question. Maybe a specialization of labor is relevant to my point: some focus on prophylaxis, some more on management, and some, real saints, on the cure of hearts, minds and souls. We probably do best to start out by cooperating with the Grace that is curing us, and maybe you’d agree that’s the most efficient beginning to an education in charity. I think we are cured to the extent that we love — or to the extent that we blunder in that direction at least. In that, Godspeed to you.
Mr. Myers,
Actually, no, I do not see the absurd false accusation. The practiced art of observation and a simple tally of the number of individuals you have have so demonstrably and arrogantly insulted, degraded, and suggested are “beneath” your level of intelligence and comprehension speaks for itself. Read your own reviews? The issue here is congruence, and you had better talk fast if you intend to dismiss me with “godspeed” and another paragraph of your tiresome, “words, words, words.”
I know enough about myself to admit following my ego into this insulting, baited discussion with you – as my correct intuition a year ago was that you love to fight with anyone who will engage with you. Not again, Mr. Myers. You are the smartest guy in the room.
It’s astounding to hear myself singled out for insulting and degrading words, as if that were something only I could be charged with. I’m regularly insulted, slurred, lied about and degraded by a priest, a deacon and more than a few apparently lay fellow travelers here — mostly just for telling the truth. I won’t bother responding any further to your silly innuendo above, aside from noting that insulting and degrading arrogance have also been a “demonstrable” component of your contributions, Michael. Blatant hypocrisy on your part. And the only reviews I’m concerned about won’t be issuing from ignorant, hypocritical bigots in little internet cliques. Sensibilities disinformed by Fox News, Limbaugh and Dominionist ravings make for a very weird mixture with the Gospel, as we understand it. I don’t lose any sleep over their judgments.
Based on the Chicken Little talking points squawked so hysterically, the vast majority of those posting here are textbook far-Right ideologues or something quite close to it, the few obvious exceptions with whom I engage but do not “fight” just prove the rule — so so much for that false accusation. And what is it with so many of you Orthodox and false accusation? A native tongue rich in outright lies, slurs, smears, innuendo and distortions. Whenever you go off a parroting of the pious script. You really need to work on that. Broaden your vocabulary, and modulate just a bit.
The bottom line: You have a real big problem with the garden variety of Pharisaical apostasy and neo-gnostic Manichaeism in your churches, and that just ain’t my problem. It’s all on you and its importers. Rather than tired re-readings of Plato and Aristotle, or atavistic nostalgia for caesaropapism of the Byzantine or Russian imperial variety, I suggest as an antidote more focus on the teachings of the Prophets and the Sermon on the Mount and their political repercussions — since y’all are so political, if not too spiritual in any genuine sense of the word. Newsflash: those Hellenic and Slavic dinosaurs whose bones you want to dig up and venerate were transcended many, many centuries ago. “Philosophy of religion,” or worse, invidiously seditious attempts to turn back our clock to your epically failed medieval autocracies won’t get you very far at all in the interior race to the Kingdom of God. Catch up if you can. Best of luck.
Seeing as how you admit to not being Orthodox and therefore are not a member of the Church, we are hardly your “lay fellow travelers here”.
Pardon me, Mr. Myers, it took me longer than expected to nail your current rapier-sharp witted mockery – intended to prove that you are the victim – to the door of the All Saints Church in Wittenberg. I also am holding open auditions for singers interested in singing the Troparion, “Ἅγιοι Μάρτυρες…” in your honor.
And so we conclude the Pascha, Mr. Myers, and celebrate our Lord returning the “new flesh” – which, in fact, is our human nature “as it was in the beginning” – to the right Hand of the Father. Can you imagine! “Christ succeeded where man had failed: namely, in bringing about the reconciliation of all divisions—between man and woman, paradise and the inhabited world, heaven and earth, the intelligible and the sensible, and, ultimately, between God and his creation,” says St. Maximus, and, indeed our clock is turned back.
I saw wonderful things this weekend: Orthodox college graduates filled with the hope and encouragement only youth and that first real accomplishment can provided; the dynamic words of a senior priest who spoke to a large gathering with the unmistakable moral voice of the Orthodox Church: the authority of the Scripture, the Holy Fathers, and the Holy Tradition; and in the last liturgy of the Paschal cycle, I saw demonstrated the words of St. Ignatius that “where the Bishop is, there is the Church,” celebrating one parish’s 40th Anniversary.
Who cares what you think, Mike Myers?
and, indeed our clock is turned back.
Well stated. Indeed time itself is transformed, and every Orthodox Christian has been granted a glimpse of this…
Back in the 70s, we had something called the misery index. You got it by adding the inflation rate to the unemployment rate.
I postulate the existence of a Monomakhos misery index. You get it by adding the rate of arrogantly insulting posts made, plus the rate of touchy whining about purportedly being insulted and degraded and lied about, plus the rate of bragging/threatening about demolishing ones intellectual inferiors.
I regret the tone of this interrogation, Michael. There is no good answer to my question so this is sort of a set-up, and I’m sorry. I shouldn’t hold you to account for that just because you’re a seminary grad. I guess I’m just ticked off by the fact that after 2000 years Christian theological reflection simply isn’t up to what it will take to fend off the challenges not just of scientism but of science on some key questions. Not your job to deal with that dereliction or that a some central anthropological dogmas aren’t holding up.
Mr. Myers, I am going to take a wild stab and guess that you have little formal training in the biological sciences beyond perhaps an introductory college course. I base this on a lifetime’s experience observing that those who make the broadest claims and express the greatest certitude about what we know science to have proven without a doubt tend to be those with degrees in liberal arts — or the soft sciences at best. Those who have gotten their hands dirty in the real stuff tend to be more circumspect and humble in their assertions, knowing how quickly today’s scientific fact becomes the idea that tomorrow’s scientists chuckle and shake their head over.
Michael actually gave you quite a few quite clear answers, but since you were intent on forcing him into a “do you open-endedly agree with my understanding of what science says (but that I haven’t yet spelled out)… or are you a flat-earth troglodyte?” choice, you didn’t notice. I can’t say I blame him for demurring with playing along any further.
I am unaware of any Orthodox anthropology with any degree of authority that, even in the 21st century, does not begin with one man and one woman in Paradise, created by God from the dust of the earth. I am also unaware of any reputable Orthodox theologians who deny that when a given scientist does a given experiment, that he doesn’t gather the data that he does. In some instances of the interface between the two, the connections and interpenetration of fact are clear. In others, they are very opaque. But given a straight up choice between someone’s interpretation of scientific observations in a fallen world and the Church’s dogmas about the unfallen world of our human past and future, no Orthodox Christian with an actual life in Christ is going to throw over the latter to embrace the former. It would be as nonsensical and as contrary to what he knows to be true as would be stepping off a cliff, denying that gravity exists.
…and so the materialist fundamentalism of Mr. Meyers is clearly revealed falling prey to the fallacy that simply describing a things material history one knows everything there is to know about it.
That is not even true when we know all of that and have observed it all.
Please. Do you know about the “straw man,” a tired rhetorical fallacy? You perpetrate it almost every time you direct some quarter-baked jab at me. I said nothing even remotely in the ballpark of this shallow butchering: “simply describing a things material{sic} history one knows everything there is to know about it.”
It seems you don’t know. It’s one of the easiest fallacies for most people to grasp, conceptually speaking. Go and study.
Yes sir.
Please. Do you even what the straw man rhetorical fallacy is? You perpetrate it almost every time you direct some quarter-baked jab at me. I said nothing even remotely in the ballpark of this shallow butchering: “simply describing a things material{sic} history one knows everything there is to know about it.”
It seems you don’t know. It’s one of the easiest fallacies for most people to grasp, conceptually speaking. Go and study.
Mike, anyone who would like to write a text on basic deductive logic should be told that he may find examples of every fallacious argument on Monomakhos! They could even find exammples of the most common misunderstandings of the argumentum ad hominem which most of the wiseacres here think is the same as makinig negative personal remarks.
When I heard that right-wing imbecile, Senator Cotton, REVEAL that Iran has “already taken over Tehran”, I though that if he gives up his day job he could busy himself here with defending monogamy here on a biblical foundation. Polygamy is NOWHERE condemned in the Bible the Bible which gave us condemnation of eating shellfish and pork chops as ABOMINATIONS!.
After making Adam, God decided that Adam needed a COMPANION as Moses reports Him deciding. and therefore proceeded to derive a companion out of Adam’s rib to ameliorate the situation. They never got married at all. I don’t believe Adam was ever called Eve’s husband. They were commanded to multiply and did so, but did not follow the ORIGINAL (THEREFORE “NATURAL”)PRECEDENT OF USING RIBS.
I had the great honour this morning of attending the commencement of St. Katherine College, a small, start-up Orthodox college in San Marcos, CA, with Archbishop Benjamin. This college is the dream of Frank Papatheofanis, MD, Ph.D., MPH, MLitt (Div), a renowned former Professor of Radiology and researcher at UCSD (and, by all means, Google his “h-index” at Google Scholar). There were three lovely & charming young women who received their Bachelor Degrees, one in Art, one in Natural Science, and the Validictorian, Sara Turner, in English Literature (Magna Cum Laude). It was wonderful to hear Ms. Turner, in her valedictory address, not only address the humorous experiences of her campus “journey, but quote the Holy Scripture, the Holy Fathers, C.S. Lewis, and fine literature. It certainly was not happening down-county at my neighbors commencement at SDSU.
The highlight of the event, however, was my dear friend, and the one of the original members of the Evangelical Christians to approach Met. Phillip (Saliba) seeking the Orthodox Church, Fr. Jon Braun, who was the commencement speaker. I am truly sorry that I did not record his address – there was an official video made and I hope it will be released. He told the graduates they were “sheep” going among the wolves, and the modern wolves were of a conviction to do three things:
1) Destroy the foundation of the family by destroying the sanctity of marriage. “If you destroy the foundation of the family, who, fundamentally, is left to defend you?” He noted the irony that his eldest son (who is a member of the Board of Directors of St. Katherine’s) and ArchBp. Benjamin were both infants & toddlers tended to by his wife in LA in daycare together! This makes them family. And in so many innumerable ways, we Orthodox are one “family” that must fight being destroyed.
2) Destroy the Church’s Tradition of Morality. “They are not making these determinations by going to the polls any longer, but by merely polling.” We must be prepared to stand fast, “and we must be prepared to suffer for the Truth of the Kingdom.”
3) Destroy our basic faith in God Himself. This is the most dangerous narcotic of all, because it attempts to assuage all “unnecessary” and “debilitating” guilt you don’t need. No more omniscient judge looking over your shoulder, no more childish beliefs of the outlandish “payoffs in the end.” He told the story of his granddaughter (“And I have many.”) who is studying theater in NYC, who recently asked to speak to him, and told him how confused she was by what she heard, by discussions she had had. etc. He asked her, “Do you know what you believe?” She said, “I think so, but I have trouble articulating it.” He said, “No you don’t. It’s very familiar to you. It begins, ‘I believe in One God, the Father almighty, Maker of heaven and earth…'”
He concluded by saying, “But when I say, you are sheep among wolves, you are not alone. You have a Great Shepherd in our Lord Jesus Christ. And while you may not imagine that St. Paul or the Apostles needed a Shepherd, they too were sheep. And the Church remembers sheep, not wolves.” Mine is a poor representation of a very inspiring & compelling address delivered by a man of great faith & piety.
I told Dr. Papatheofanis (whose wife, also a physician, cared for me without cost when I was in chemotherapy) that Archbishop Benjamin and I graduated from, arguably at the time, the most respected Orthodox seminary available, yet were previously “out-placed” to local undergraduate colleges simply because an “arrangement” was made with SVS. What a tremendous gift he was offering to Orthodox young people. St. Katherine’s College is an Orthodox College committed to assisting students financially, and is worth your support and donations (and perhaps your children!). I was very moved by this event.