From London Telegraph Online:
The Church of England is to grant partners of homosexual clergy who have registered under the Government’s new civil partnership scheme the same pension rights as clergy spouses.
The disclosure, made at the General Synod last night, could prove an embarrassment to the bishops because sexually active homosexuals are theoretically barred from the priesthood.
Only a few homosexual clergy have so far risked facing censure by publicly declaring that they are living in same-sex unions, but the prospect of gaining pension rights for their partners may prove an incentive for many more to “come out”.
The bishops plan to issue a letter for the guidance of clergy and others before the Act comes into force.
Over the Christmas holidays I happenned to see the phone directory for the Episcopal Diocese of Olympia, in Western Washington State. I looked up a couple of clergy I know, and noticed that each cleric (male & female created they them) listed had a space next to their name marked “Spouse/Partner”. It is certainly taken for granted in the US that the clergy are shacked up; the laity have been told it’s OK for about forty years. The British are just a little slow on the uptake. Next thing you’ll tell us is the Prince of Wales has a concubine…
This obsession, this unseemly, excessive preoccupation with the topic of Gay Marriage reveals much about what is wrong with Christianity today. There are over 3,000 passages in the Bible that instruct us to assist the needy and seek justice for the poor. Yet to listen to Christians today you would think poverty had been wiped out, no one was hungry, and everyone had access to health care, leaving us with nothing better to do than wag our fingers at people who dare to love someone of the same gender.
In the book “Looking for a God to Pray To”, William Reiser S.J writes:
“Any Christian assembly which has not even occasional contact with the experience of economically, socially and politically disadvantaged people of today, and which is not open to their presence but remains unmindful of their needs and their cries, may find itself in the position of a child clamoring for attention of a preoccupied parent. Thier liturgical worship is going to reveal itself to be increasingly disconnected from the world and from history, which is what happens when worship is disassociated with the story of Jesus. The grand work of redemption which is mentioned so often in our sacramental worship is rendered vacuous unless we see the connections between the life and death of Jesus, and the life and death of those in the world who hunger and thirst for justice.”
I don’t favor gay marriage. I don’t want to see it in my Church. But I have to believe that this is one of God’s lesser concerns.
Dean, is your criticism directed towards those churches preoccupied with gay marriage and want to institute it, or towards those who critique that preoccupation? The target of your criticism is not clear.
If you are arguing that these churches should think less about sexual orientation and more about the Gospel, yes, I definitely agree.
Dean, your emphasis on certain core aspects of the Gospel is good and necessary. But Scripture also teems with passages which concern personal righteousness before God, not just bringing justice and reducing poverty. You are stressing one half of the Bible’s message and minimizing the other, which is a distortion of Scripture. The issue of gay marriage is highly relevant and urgent today, and it concerns personal righteousness as much as any other issue.
I’ve often heard this rationale: “As long as thus and such is being done, then what does it matter if this and that are taking place?” This is reductionism and is not allowed in a faith that takes the entire Bible seriously. The same prophets who championed the issues you favor also preached total commitment of one’s inner heart to God’s will as well. “Seek first the kingdom of God,” yes, but also “and its righteousness.”
Father Jacobse: My criticism is directed at both, but largely regarding order of priority. I don’t think the face the Church presents to the world should be either sexual scold or sexual revolutionary. Our focus should be on bringing people to Jesus Christ so they can hear His message. These pro-Gay and anti-Gay agendas and food-fights get in the way of that and are counter-productive.
I think a more carefully nuanced approach to the Gay Marriage issue is neccesary. We believe that Gay people should be treated with dignity and respect and that people who choose commitments as life-long partners ought to have certain legal rights. Marriage however, is “not something to be entered into lightly”; it is difficult enough even for heterosexuals. Marriage demands sacrifice and involves serious responsibilities, as much as it confers benefits and privileges. Our church views it as a Holy Sacrament. Making rash and ill-considered changes to marriage may lead us to the slippery slope of debasing and trivializing the entire institution.
Sometimes the substance of a message is determined by the challenges it seeks to address. When mainstream Christianity promotes homosexual marriage as morally legitimate, the only possible response for Christians remaining within their moral tradition is a clear “No”. Call this scolding if you want, but a clear no is better than an equivocal maybe — especially in a culture already confused about some very crucial issues of morality.
If this offends homosexuals or even liberal Christians, well, so be it. Better that some be offended than society enter into such confusion that homosexual pairings are granted a moral parity with heterosexual marriage thereby undermining already unstable ideas and values about family and raising children even further.
Why this moral stand should interfere with the preaching of the Gospel isn’t really clear. We don’t suspend the 10 Commandments when the Gospel is preached. Why should other moral prohibitions be suspended?
Dean, sexuality or its abuse is a clear statement of the nature and value of human life and the human person. The Church cannot ignore such a fundamental issue, nor can she equivocate. IMO homosexuality is a form of idolatry as is greed. Twisted sexuality and greed are the intertwined residue of the 60’s cultural revolution that elevated personally focused materialism and hedonism to the highest virtues.
Michael and Bill: I agree with you that personal righteousness is an important and integral part of our faith. One concern I have however is that the excessive attention to the gay marriage issue, particularly leading up to and following the election, is overshadowing and obscuring other important messages regarding the Christian faith.
Suppose there is a young person in your neighborohood raised in a non-religious family and unfamiliar with many of the basic precepts of the Christian faith. Following some tragedy or traumatic event (which is how is often happens) he wonders if he should pray, learn more about God and even come to Church.
What message about Christianity below do you think would be most helpful in bring him to Church:
1) Christians are driven by compassion to help other people and they make the communities they live in a better place.
2) Christians are happy and confident because they know they are loved by God, a God that loves us so much he sent his only Son to teach us and to die on the cross for our salvation.
3) Christians hate Gay people.
My concern is that message number three is what people unfamiliar with Christianity are getting, and not messages one and two. There are behaviors that our Church finds spiritually unhealthy and destructive, and we should condemn them. Let’s just make sure we are condemning behaviors and not people.
It would be better if our witness were positive-affirming the sanctity of marriage, the importance of the union of man and woman as reflective of the Incarnation, and therefore symbolic of and instrumental in our salvation as well as being the foundation for Tradition (that which is passed down). On a practical and societal level, marriage is the foundation for the continuation of the species, the protection of women and children and the civilization of men. In fact, societal acceptance of homosexual behavior and its sanctioning in erstatz “marriage” negatively impacts our witness.
Because the whole life of the Church bears witness to the fact that homosexual behavior is sinful, that does not mean we “hate gays”. I don’t. I’ve know many in my life and liked most of them. To argue otherwise is to take the mind of the the secular, materialistic world. I do hate having their behavior stuffed down my throat at every turn and the constant pressure to not only allow it, but to affirm it or be labled as a person of hate.
Fear is a great motivator. The fear that homosexuals are taking over American culture has shown itself to be a powerful motivator. I believe George Bush is in office today because of his exploitation of this fear. Exploiting a fear is a dangerous thing. It breeds more fear. It creates terror. It separates and alienates people and can lead to violence. But more importantly, a fearful person is an easily controlled and manipulated person. To the extent which we have a culture where heterosexuals are afraid of homosexuals, and homosexuals are afraid of heterosexuals, then we have an environment where both groups are wide open targets for psychological and political manipulation.
Sinful heterosexual orientations are the most prevalent in society and create the most damage to marriage and family. It would seemingly make more sense to be afraid of heterosexuality. Abortion is practiced mostly by heterosexuals. Broken families are usually the result of heterosexuality. The stirred passions of homosexuality may stir the dangerous passions of heterosexuality in others, but the real damage to society is usually carried out by heterosexuals. The fact that George Bush has even given credit to a gay agenda as being a core problem in our society has turned attention away from the overwhelming problem of heterosexuality in America. Heterosexuality is constantly stuffed down our throats in America.
The Orthodox Church is filled with people of sinful sexual orientations, heterosexual, homosexual, and whatever else also. The church doesn’t bless sexual orientation, though, but rather blesses foremost the union between a person and the Church, and secondly between a man and a woman. I am thankful that this is a non-issue in the Church. It isn’t even something that we can vote on. Even if the state decides to bless “gay” marriage, the Church doesn’t even have the ability to do so.
Different Intellectual Framework; Different Factual Assumptions
I hesitate to comment on theological matters as I am not trained in them, but, it is my understanding the Church’s teaching on sexuality is part of a larger framework. Christian theology defines and ties together a Trinitarian God with Mankind, Christ with his Church, and a husband and with his wife. The generations are tied together by the commandment to honor one’s mother and father. Proverbs directs parents to attend to their duty to be good parents. I consider it to be a network of divine love and divinely guided love. Christianity sanctifies human sexuality by dedicating it to an expression of lifelong love between two complimentary adults and by celebrating the power of physical love to bring life into existence. The loving care and attention of both a mother and father create the best environment for children to grow up to be healthy and productive adults.
Homosexual conduct is profoundly sterile and misdirected, and its hallmark is the abuse of the normal functions of the human body. No child should be forced to grow up without a mother and father.
The entire concept of “fear of homosexuality” is a bit silly. People who engage in homosexual acts have been recorded throughout history. We don’t know more about homosexual conduct than St. Paul did. If we disregard St. Paul’s express teachings on homosexual conduct then there is little in the Bible that we are not free to rewrite as convenient. Here is the real battle, can we simply rewrite the Bible. For a complete theological analysis of the Bible’s treatment of homosexual conduct I would refer you to New Testament scholar, Robert Gagnon. There is no true scientific basis for the concept of “sexual orientation.” Sexual orientation is a term developed by those who whish to assert that homosexual conduct is somehow determined by DNA. This assertion does not hold up to even the most cursory scientific examination.
Libertarians like to argue that no one should interfere with personal life of an individual, but, like it or not, society is nothing more than the sum of the people that live in it. Our actions affect others, even our personal actions. If you want to see what a society which honors homosexuality is like, look to Europe. I maintain that Europe is not now a pretty sight. It is dying and part of Western culture will die with it. I tend to doubt that the procreating Muslims who inherit the European museums will lovingly preserve the monuments built by Christians to their Faith.
Reducing the debate about homosexual behavior to fear vs. acceptance ignores much of what is written about this issue (some of it very good, BTW), and requires an emotional rather than reasoned response to it.
If fear drives the criticism, then the only solution is acceptance. From another angle, if non-acceptance is based on fear, than the critic has the problem — not the homosexual activist. The argument assumes a moral parity already exists while arguing for exactly that end.
That’s why heterosexual sin appears to cancel out homosexual sin according to the argument. In real life it doesn’t. Sin is sin. Heterosexual sin does not negate homosexual sin, or vice versa.
Rather than examining the issue solely in sociological categories, look into the psychological pathology of homosexual desire. Elizabeth Moberly’s book (she is Orthodox, BTW) “Homosexuality: A New Christian Ethic” is a good place to begin. The Narth website also has some good information too.
And yes, the Church does not bless gay unions. But this does not absolve Orthodox Christians from trying to bring about moral clarity about homosexuality. St. John Chrysostom, to name one example, spoke on the pressing issues of his day all the time.
Missourian,
I’ve read a little bit about the concept of “divine eros” which would be akin to the Old Testament “hunger and thirst after righteousness”. Christians would be called to have this divine eros, a thirst for holiness, an appetite and orientation for God and the Church. I believe everybody has this appetite or orientation somewhere inside of them. As mentioned, other appetites (not just sexual) attempt to drown this out. Certainly the heterosexual union of marriage is sanctified and functions within the divine eros, but conceivably even that appetite could drown it out. For example, the Church has rules about maritial relations before communion.
Fr. Hans,
I agree that the Church should (and it does) bring moral clarity to the pressing issues of the day. Condemning homosexuality amongst a predominantly heterosexual crowd will probably enjoy rapt attention, but would not provide much actual moral clarity in that context. I think its called “preaching to the choir”. It works great for politics and televangelism. People often have a morbid fascination with sins that have nothing to do with them. It makes people feel better about themselves. Though it may be unpopular for them, a heterosexual crowd needs to hear about heterosexual sins.
Citizens Have a Right to Preserve Their Culture
It is not true that Christians are neglecting important aspects of their Christian life when they join together to oppose something as devastatingly harmful and wrong as the legitimization of homosexual conduct.It is proper for Church authorities to encourage their membership to exercise their rights as citizens and use proper and lawful political means to oppose the elevation of homosexual conduct to an honored status in our country. It is hard to think of a more fundamental and important issue before the public today.
As citizens in a democracy, Christians have every right to shape their culture through the laws of the country in which they live. Society has every reason to promote marriage between a single man and a single woman. Society has every right to deny this special status to other personal relationships. There is an important difference between de-criminalization of homosexual conduct and the elevation of homosexual conduct to a constitutional right. The so-called “right of privacy” on which legal protection of homosexual conduct is based, is an invention of 20th century judges and would have been anathema to the Founding Fathers. No one seriously thinks that the “right of privacy” is a simple exercise in Constitutional interpretation, everyone understands that it is legislation from the bench.
Theological efforts to gut the plain meaning and the force of the teaching of St. Paul are deeply corrosive to the Faith. If a teaching as plain and explicit and forceful as that of St. Paul against homosexual conduct can be put aside, no teaching of the Church is safe from revision.
Missourian writes: “Society has every reason to promote marriage between a single man and a single woman. Society has every right to deny this special status to other personal relationships.”
With all due respect, that battle has already been lost. Oh, many will fight a rearguard action, but the main battle is already over.
I remember 40 years ago, when I was just a kid, I didn’t even know what a homosexual was. I suppose I was in my early 20s when I finally realized that homosexuals existed. Even the passages in the Bible about homosexuality didn’t make much sense to me. Those passages made as much sense to me as passages about idolatry — that yes, I suppose someone thousands of years ago might worship a golden calf, but surely no modern person would. Thus I assumed that the passages in the Bible referring to two men “lying together” were references to some kind of obscure practice that may have existed thousands of years earlier. There was no public acknoweldgement of homosexuality. I don’t recall any mention of it in sex education classes. Even Liberace to me was just a guy in flashy clothes.
Now cut to today. Movies and TV shows feature homosexuals. There are a large number of famous people who are “out.” Homosexualty has to a large extent already been accepted in the culture. I mean, you have Dick Cheney’s openly-lesbian daughter doing outreach to gays and lesbians for the Coors brewing company. And then she goes to work for the Republican party! While in a committed relationship with another woman! If homosexuality is bad, someone forgot to tell the Republicans.
Concerning homosexual marriage and society, I’ve looked at the studies supposedly showing the negative effects. Well, all I can say is that the studies are persuasive if you oppose gay marriage to begin with. Those studies are really for preaching to the choir. People who don’t already oppose homosexual marriage are unmoved by them. Concerning homosexuals and child rearing, there are already, what, around 250 thousand kids living with one or more homosexual parents.
Missourian: “It is not true that Christians are neglecting important aspects of their Christian life when they join together to oppose something as devastatingly harmful and wrong as the legitimization of homosexual conduct.”
That’s changing too.
Christianity has always been a developing religion. For example, in the very early church Christian teaching was completely against Christians fighting in wars. The argument that “Jesus didn’t tell the centurion to stop being a soldier” is interesting, but it didn’t fly in 150 a.d. This persisted as far as I know at least through the second century and somewhat beyond. Now, Christians are some of the most warlike people on earth. Or take divorce. Traditionally, both in the church and in society, being divorced was considered a terrible thing, and being married after divorce was adultery. Now nobody looks at it that way except for a very few fundamentalist groups, and the divorce and remarriage rate for Christians and non-Christians is roughly the same.
The problem with enforcing moral standards related to personal relationships is twofold. First, when push comes to shove, when it’s a choice between a church and a spouse or partner, I can tell you who’s almost always going to lose that battle. Second, it’s the kind of situation in which there is no “Plan B.” In other words, after you’ve kicked out the divorced-and-remarried church member, or excluded the nice lesbian couple, what then? Now what? These people wanted to go to your church, but you didn’t let them. So now what do you do? Nothing. Any influence you might have had is gone, but the church down the street will welcome them.
It’s like when Alan Keyes kicked out his lesbian daughter and refused to pay for her college tuition. What happened? Dozens of offers of housing from other people and someone else paying the tuition. What’s Alan Keyes’ Plan B? He doesn’t have one.
But back to homosexual marriage. Sure, there are various laws being passed right now. But these are defensive efforts. These laws will be around for a while. But the basic battle, the main issues, have already been lost. It’s only a matter of time.
“I came to heal the sick, and not the well”, Jesus tells the disapproving Pharasees, and perhaps illness should be the proper metaphor for thinking about behaviors Christians consider sinful.
Watching the movie “De-Lovely”, about songwriter Cole Porter, I couldn’t help but finding the depictions of Porter’s tawdry one-night stands with male prostitutes sad, disturbing and unpleasant. Porter wasn’t a bad man – but he suffered an addiction to a destructive behavior.
In the movie “Ray”, about songwriter Ray Charles, one of the final scenes depicts the songwriter in a Rehab facility, writhing on the ground with painful withdrawl symptoms and delerium, until a vision of his mother appears reminding him that “I told you never to act like a cripple son”. Ray realizes that heroin addiction has turned him into a cripple the way blindness never could.
Lastly, in her book “Traveling Mercies” author Annie LaMott describes being raised by athiest parents in Marin County and falling into a life of alcoholism, drug use and promiscuity by her late twenties. One day, shaking with the DTs as she struggles to sort out the calamities of her life and how to be a single mother, she hears choir music and wanders into a church and sits in the back pew. At that moment she is transformed. She is befriended by members of the church and urged to come back. Slowly the dawning realization that God loves her gives her the strength to shake off alcoholism and other unhealthy behaviors that have plagued her, and subsequently is able to develop as a writer. A person loved by God learns to love him or herself again and gain new self-respect, and wil then shed unhealthy behaviors like and old, dirty, skin.
Gay men who engage in promiscuous sex are engaging in beahviors that are unhealthy and self destructive. Sexual behavior that is unloving, exploitative, selfish and irresponsible is always unhealthy and self destructive. Instead of attacking people for who they are we have to focus on behaviors, and work on bringing people to God and God’s love. Then, ideally proximity to God’s love will result in the same miracle of self-respect and the rejection of further self-destructive behavior.
All right, “Dean Scourtes,” what did you do with the real Dean Scourtes?
Of course, you leave the window open for “non-promiscuous” gay relationships, so perhaps you are our own Dean Scourtes after all.
On this point I, and I think several others here, disagree. We, unlike you, do not see a place for a “non-promiscuous” gay relationship within the Christian vision.
However, you speak very well of the need to love the sinner. On this we can agree.
Do not be so eager to assume that those who disallow any gay relationship at all constitutes “attacking people for who they are.” This is a blind spot for you, one you’ve displayed many times on this blog.
Battle is Not Lost/Nature Doesn’t Love Sterility
Stalin is quoted as having said that “once the last grandmother dies, the Orthodox Russian Church will be gone forever.” At the time, Stalin said this there were many reasons to believe that Stalin was right. I believe that Russian Orthodox grandmothers are now observing Lent and preparing for Easter.
Those Christian denominations which preach and promote traditional moral guidelines have grown briskly in the United States. Those “Christian” denominations which have abandoned the Gospel for social activism are hemoraghing members. During the time that liberal Episcopal Bishop Spong has been in charge, his diocese has lost 40% of its members and the average age of his congregations goes up every year. His brand of Christianity is the brand that is dying.
Third World Christianity is vibrant and growing steadily in China and Africa. Third World Christians are staunchly orthodox in their teachings. It is the African Anglicans that have led the resistance to Bishop Gene Robinsons’ gay relationship.
Every generation thinks that it has just newly discovered the world or just newly invented it. The Flower Children thought that they had discovered sex, something unknown to their parents. Traditional marriage would wither. Venereal disease had been conquered, pregnancy could be easily controlled. Lifetime permanent pair bonding was on the way out.
Sure. AID/HIV stalks the land. Herpes is an epidemic. Clamydia has destroyed the fertility of millions of young women. Young people are returning to traditional churchs and the Covenant Marriage movement demonstates a popular yearning for the restoration of the status of marriage to its proper place. Strident feminists who see marriage only as a prison for women have found out that a career does not hug you back. A career isn’t there for you at Christmas or when you are sick at the hospital. In fact, the day after you leave your office they have already begun to forget you. The age of the Flower Children is over. Their adolescent rebellion for rebellion’s sake has run its course. A marker of this is that Hunter S. Thompson, one of their intellectual “bright lights” just committed suicide. God rest his soul. Contented people who are at peace with themselves do not commit suicide, apparently a life of drugs and sexual excess was not a recipe for a long and gratifying old age.
So, I don’t think that “the battle is lost” because a few trendy TV shows showcase homosexual conduct. TV shows come and go. Cultural trends come and go, but Christ and his teachings are eternal and true. People who follow his teachings have their difficulties and travails but they overcome them all.
Secular Viewpoint
People are certainly entitled to embrace a secular viewpoint, but, I don’t know why they feel compelled to express it here.
Note 8: In your list of what a ‘seeker’ might find in a time of crisis, I think you meant to write, “God hates Gay people.” Any honest individual must admit that there are some Christians who chant and wave signs that bear this hateful phrase. However, the only time I hear or read “Christians hate Gay People” is when the Left lumps all Christians together with these hateful souls who attack homosexuals in such an inarticulate and ignorant manner.
It is a fringe element that engage in the poisonous behavior you properly condemn. In fact, the message of most conservative Christians, who are reasonable, caring and honest, is no different than yours. They also believe “Gay men who engage in promiscuous sex are engaging in behaviors that are unhealthy and self destructive. Sexual behavior that is unloving, exploitative, selfish and irresponsible is always unhealthy and self destructive. Instead of attacking people for who they are we have to focus on behaviors, and work on bringing people to God and God?s love.”
In fact, compare what you wrote to this:
“Everyone is entitled to be treated with respect and dignity, even those who are living in immoral circumstances. There is no place for hatred, hurtful jokes, or other forms of rejection toward those who are homosexual. We cannot hope to win others to Jesus Christ if we insult and wound them.”
“… there are celibate homosexuals who are trying desperately to live godly lives. … These men and women need every ounce of compassion and support they can get from Christian people who konw of their tendencies. Often, however, they are rejected and excluded from the church community because of fear and misunderstanding by those who find them repulsive. This is wrong! These individuals need the community of Christ and the fellowship it can provide. They must be embraced as fellow believers who are trying to please the Lord and conform to a standard of moral purity.”
These sections are from Dr. James Dobson’s Focus on the Family.
The problem is that when homosexual activists hear Focus on the Family’s message, all they hear is “CONFORM to moral purity!” and the message becomes “Yet another Christian conservative tells the public that God hates Gay people”, which is eaten up by MSM’s liberal oligarchy and repeated ad nauseum.
Telling conservative Christians that they need to change their “message” from “God hates Gay people” to “God loves you, just the way you are” than you are buying into a wretched, evil lie perpetuated by homosexual activists. The lie is not that God loves them, which, of course, we all know to be true (though wouldn’t you agree that God wants all of us to be more than “just the way we are?”). The lie is that conservative Christians are horrible homophobes who want to force homosexuals to become Ward & June Cleaver.
Note 11: Missourian, I think your biggest errors are in occasionally overgeneralizing and than drawing flawed conclusions from them.
Birth rates are declining in most of the civilized areas of the world, especially Japan where marriage has been declining for the last three decades (and where gay marriage has not proved to be much of an issue). Birth rates have declined in liberal countries of Europe but also in extremely conservative nations such as Romania where homosexuality is in no way tolerated.
As far as the feminists, let’s remember that while a “career” isn’t everything, we certainly would not have had the amazing contributions of great career women like Margaret Thatcher, Condoleeza Rice, and even Oprah to name a few had the ability of women to at least make that choice for themselves not been available (as was the case in the early days of this country).
Spare me the lecture about feminism, James
Your mistake James is assuming that I didn’t literally live through the entire feminist revolution. My graduating class at law school was only 15% women out of 250 students. The previous graduting class had had 10%, the year before 7%. At the time that I went to Law School the professors were mildly uncomfortable with women students and didn’t know what to call them in class. I was attracted to what I think is the most demanding type of legal practice, trial law. I am an actual litigator, as only 5% of all attorneys are. Women litigators are very scarce because of the intense demands made on us. Describing litigation as “long hours” and “intense pressure” doesn’t even begin to describe it. Have you ever stood up in a courtroom with a half million dollars at stake, a terrified client and an opposing attorney ready to figuratively rip your throat out? I think not.
At this stage in my career, women lawyers are common, as are women judges. When I was starting out I encountered judges who would flat out tell me that they didn’t approve of women lawyers in their courtrooms, I still perservered. Again, puhleeze don’t tell me about the feminist movement. Don’t tell me about breaking into a very tough male dominated profession as one of the first women, with little or no help and guidance from a mentor.
I can personally remember when it was considered unfeminine for a woman to display indicia of high intelligence or accomplishment. It is good that things have changed, and that women are valued for their intelligence. It is my core feminism that causes me to fight the acceptance of Islamic culture as legitimate. I have a great deal at stake in that issue. I have studied with Muslim men and although none of them was overtly rude to me, they displayed a deeply contemptuous attitude towards women. It used to make my skin crawl. My conclusions about Islamic culture is based on reading many of the core sacred documents including the hadith. I am one of the few people I know who one a six-volume edition of the Bukhari hadith. Vastly enlightening reading.
What you are not in touch with is what happened to the noble feminist movement of the type advocated by Susan B. Anthony. Today’s feminism is an intellectually and psychologically sick set of delusional thinking. The professor’s of women’s studies in most Universities instill in their students a hatred of the opposite sex, a sense of entitlement based on victimhood, a rank and utter disdain for marriage and the family. Very littel real scholarship occurs in such places, and the departments are simply taxpayer financed advocacy for socialism and homosexual conduct.
Young women are very much urged to concentrate on career to the exclusion of family. This produces a very unbalanced life. Today’s feminism is contemptuous of full-time homemakers such as my very intelligent mother. An unbalanced life is not good for either men or women, regardless of the level of achievement. Most people will not rise to the level of Margaret Thatcher or Condoleeza Rice, most of us will have routine lives and have to decide what our priorities are.
I re-assert that a career does not hug you back and as nice as a big win is, people forget that too after a while. Family and true loving relationships last longer than career success. What is the point of winning the big case if you come home and have no one to celebrate it with.
James, I think your biggest errors are logical, try thinking harder
BIRTHRATES AND THE SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE OF HOMOSEXUAL CONDUCT.
My thesis was taken from work done by Stanley Kurtz of the Hoover Institution. He has done a series of very detailed studies of birthrates in several European countries over several decades. Kurtz makes the case that social legitimization is one cause of reduced birthrates in Europe. My assertion was that we can conclude from a study of Europe that the social acceptance of homosexual conduct contributes to a reduction in birth rates. I will grant you I didn’t mention Stanley Kurtz but his work isn’t too hard to find.
COMPARE AND CONTRAST LOGICAL ASSERTIONS
My assertion was as follows: “The social acceptance of homosexual conduct has been shown to contribute to a reduction of birth rates in Europe as shown by a study by Stanley Kurtz.”
THIS IS A DISTINCT ASSERTIONS FROM:
B) All reductions in birthrates experienced by any country at any time must be the result solely of the social acceptance of homosexual conduct.
After you spend a moment thinking about this, you will see that the situation in Japan and Romania, in no way, refute my assertion. Spend some time on this and it will become clear.
James, I’ll thank you not to lecture me on feminism
When I graduated from Law School only 15% of my class was female. Today the percentage is 50%. Law professors were slightly uncomfortable having us in class and didn’t quite know what to do with us. After I graduated I encountered judges who openly stated that they didn’t like women lawyers. We had to prove ourselves daily to clients, other lawyers, judges and juries. Most male lawyers were able to find mentors, only a few women did.
I chose what many believe to be the most demanding specialty. Trial law. Litigation. It is an understatement to say that litigation demands long hours and imposes a high level of stress. James, have you ever stood up and argued a case in Court with $500,000 at stake? With a stressed out client hanging on to you? With an opposing attorney ready to figuratively rip your throat out? My guess the answer to this is “a big fat no.”
I have lived the Feminist Revolution so please do not lecture me on its benefits.
Today’s feminism is psychologically and morally sick and bears little resemblance to that of Susan B. Anthony. Today’s Women Studies Departments teach women to eschew science and logic and rely on a “woman’s way of knowing,” to depise men, marriage and the family, and to see children as an insufferable burden. My comments on the fact that a career does not hug you back are on point. It is a truism for both men and women.
So James, I would categorize your comments about feminism as a BIG FACT FACTUAL ERROR in assuming that I didn’t support the revolution in women’s status. I did more than support it. I lived it.
Missourian writes: “So, I don’t think that “the battle is lost” because a few trendy TV shows showcase homosexual conduct.”
What I’m saying that the whole attitude toward personal relationships — not just homosexuality — has changed tremendously in just the last 30 years or so.
While it is true that the membership of conservative churches is increasing, it is interesting to see what people in these groups actualy believe. The research of the Barna Group is particularly instructive in this regard.
http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=94
“Americans are evenly divided on the matter of whether homosexuality should be considered an acceptable lifestyle. In total, 45% said it should be considered an acceptable alternative while 46% said it should not, and the remaining 9% were not sure. The religious gap was wider on this item with born again Christians twice as likely as non-Christians (66% vs. 34%, respectively) to portray homosexuality as an unacceptable lifestyle. The distinction between mainline and non-mainline churches was larger on this issue than was true regarding the legality of homosexual relations: only 44% of the adults who attend mainline churches said homosexuality is not an acceptable lifestyle, compared to 64% among those attending non-mainline Protestant churches.”
Keep in mind that in a very short amount of time we’ve come from a situation in which homosexuality was almost never discussed and homosexuals were never publicly portrayed in movies or TV, to a situation in which almost half the people believe that it is an acceptable lifestyle. The 34% approval figure among Christians is significant, because it means that even with everything in the Bible and all the denunciations of homosexuality from the pulpil one of three Christians takes an opposing view.
But demographics may eventually be decisive:
“One of the trends that emerged from the research concerns the divergent perspectives of young adults. People 35 and younger are substantially more likely to approve of abortion in all or most circumstances than are people over 35; are much more likely to describe themselves as “pro-choice” than are any other age segment; were much more likely to argue that homosexual relations should be legal; substantially more likely to consider homosexuality an acceptable lifestyle; and notably more likely to approve of clergy conducting or blessing gay marriages.”
Missourian: “Cultural trends come and go, but Christ and his teachings are eternal and true.”
Well, I don’t want to argue against eternal truth here. But in any religion what is perceived as “true” is often a matter of interpretation. In other cases, it’s not a matter of interpretation but of emphasis (or de-emphasis).
For example, we’ve come to a point where “resist not evil,” “turn the other cheek,” and “blessed are the peacemakers” are seen as consistent with the firebombing of civilians in WW2. “Inasmuch as you have done it to the least of these . . .” is seen as consistent with libertarian economics. The rich having a tough time getting through the eye of a needle and “serve God rather than Mammon” is seen as consistent with having great wealth. ” . . . and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery” is seen as consistent with divorcing and remarrying.
So one can talk about “eternal truth.” But I’m not sure, down in the trenches of actual life, what that really means. There are, for example, something like 30,000 Christian denominations in the world, many of them very conservative. When I have discussions with fundamentalist friends who tell me that they have access to absolute truth I acknowledge that yes, they do have access to absolute truth — all 30,000 versions of it. Even Christians who believe in the absolute inerrancy of the Bible disagree on many of the basic doctrines.
But a more basic issue is this: Christianity as a religion developed over time. This is something that most people can accept, though it drives the fundamentalists crazy. But many of the basic doctrines and beliefs of Christianity took a long time to develop or realize, sometimes hundreds of years. So in that context what does “eternal truth” mean? It must refer not to something that is unchanging and unchangeable, but rather to something more like sub specie aeternitatis, from the viewpoint of eternity. In that sense, “eternal truth” refers not to something fixed and unalterable, but more to a certain quality of truth, or perhaps to certain general principles.
Note 23: I’m actually quite familiar with Kurtz’s studies. The problem is that he confuses correlation with cause.
First of all, it stands to reason that if people have none or if they decide to have fewer children than in previous generations, the birth rate will decline. This is a no-brainer. I don’t see Europe being overrun with homosexuals, however, so I’m willing to bet that the gay population has remained relatively constant there. (To me this implies a negligible overall effect on the “birth rate” which you and Kurtz seem to fret over.)
So what is it?
People relocate much more frequently and spend much more time furthering their education, causing many to postpone marriage until their careers are settled (often into their late 20s). So people are no longer marrying when they’re 18 or 20, as a general rule. Subtract a good 8-10 years from a woman’s fertility period and you can see why the birth rate is going South.
After that, birth control (and surgical sterilization) has made it possible to remain married while avoiding unintentional pregnancies. How many families do you see anymore with 5 or 6 kids? Very few, I’d guess.
I do wonder why Kurtz hasn’t argued for the elimination of birth control and for people to marry upon graduating high school. I wonder why.
Jim Holman: Believers and Secularists Talking Past Each Other
There exists a huge intellectual dividing line between persons who believe in the Judaeo-Christian God and those who do not. The religious point of view puts an eternal God with his eternal truth at the center of the world. You are fully free to accept or reject the Judaeo-Christian God and His Truth but it is a binary choice. There is a branch in the road, one path leads one direction, the other path leads in another direction. If my fundamental premise is that the Judaeo-Christian God is in fact Lord of Creation and your fundamental premise is that no such God exists, then frankly there isn’t much that we can discuss in terms of fundamental philosophy or ethics or morals.
You seem to want to discuss the history of Christian theology and I frankly don’t think that you are qualified to do so. I don’t consider myself qualified to do so and when theological questions come up, I expressly state my limitations.
This raises my previous question. Why are you posting on a board called Orthodoxy Today? What do you have to say about Orthodoxy, in particular, or Christianity in general.
Missourian, what would you prefer to see in these discussions? (This is an honest question, not a sarcastic one.)
Note 27: I don’t think Mr. Holman’s denying the existence of a Creator, simply stating that Christian “Truth” varies wildly by denomination. This is fact. If we are bound to accept the Judeo-Christian God and His Truth, it would be certainly nice if the objective Truth were more easily attainable and knowable than what it apparently is and if all Christians agree. They don’t. And we’re not talking about small, inconsequential articles of faith, either. I know many Baptists who insist that Catholics and the Orthodox are guilty of many errant beliefs regarding how their faith is lived out, from their beliefs on transubstantiation, the role (and necessity of) sacramental confession, the use of birth control, the nature of baptism and its role in salvation, not to mention the role of the Christian in modern society in regards to warfare and other political issues.
Even if every one who contributes to this blog merely quoted Orthodox doctrine or theology, we’d still end up in many of the same debates, not because the discussion is between “saints” and “unsaved heathens” but because what is right and true is sometimes ambiguous.
Jim,
Certain aspects of Orthodox Christianity did develop over time. Confession was originally done in public before the church, but as abuses grew the system was changed to protect the identities of others involved in the confessed sin. The priests originally wore more simple garments that were similar to those worn by the laity. The liturgy started from a more simple adaptation of the worship in the synogogue, but then was expanded over time. The Agape meal was eventually discontinued and replaced by fasting prior to partaking of the Eucharist.
Yes, such elements of praxis as these and more grew and changed over time as the needs of the Christian community and its environment changed. However, one thing I simply can’t abide is the idea that key elements of moral praxis have been altered. From the Apostles through the Fathers to the present, a multitude of human sins have been roundly condemned. Among these are indifference to the poor, hate, anger, violence, and also homosexual practices.
I agree with you that modern Christians have tended to restrict the faith and its moral witness. We tend to spend an inordinate amount of time discussing sexual sins that few of us commit, while simultaneously excusing that which strikes too close to home. That is not to say, however, that the faith has somehow changed simply because a large number of Christians have been lax in their faith and imperfect in their conversions.
Several months ago I attended a speech given by a Coptic Bishop on the question of ethics. His first words were, “He who fails to love his brother as himself is guilty of murder.”
Sobering words. Tough words. Words we don’t want to hear. Better to focus instead on someone else and project responsibility for our problems all on their shoulders, rather than focusing on our own guilt. The Orthodox faith, however, directs us to look inwardly, to pray for the sins of others as if they were our own. To not judge, to work out our own salvation.
At the same time, the Orthodox faith will bear witness against the world. This will cause friction, not just when dealing with homosexual activists, but also against the powers-that-be. St. John Chrysostom openly denounced the imperial family, and paid for it with his life. Hundreds of thousands (millions?) of Orthodox Christians met similar fates by speaking truth to power, whether over the abuses of Ivan the Terrible or against the Bolsheviks. Many of our own Bishops opposed the war in Iraq, and have been horribly vilified by Orthodox and non-Orthodox alike.
The truth is the truth, and there are still Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic witnesses who will speak out in love to bring light to darkness.
You mention a lot of evils that Christians have used their interpretations of Christianity to excuse. Among these are the firebombing of cities in WWII. This is clearly evil, a violation of the principles of Just War, and would be rightly condemned by the majority of Orthodox bishops (a few may be too steeped in hate to see the truth). If individual Christians, or even whole denominations lost in error, are incapable of understanding that intentionally targeting civilians is wrong – then is the problem with the truth or those who reject the truth?
Yes, there are 30,000 denominations. As an Orthodox Christian, I believe that they are wrong about many things. While they may be faithful in some regards to the faith once received, the fullness of the faith may be found only in the Orthodox Church. The errors, the limitations, and the extreme pro-American bias on all foreign policy issues of non-Orthodox Christians – these things mean nothing to me. They are simply doctrinal errors which can have disastrous consequences and against which I am supposed to labor, even while loving those who hold such positions. Such shortcomings of heretics are in no way an indictment of the Christian faith.
During a war with Persia, St. John Chrysostom dispatched missionaries to that nation. He argued that saving their souls was an obligation that was beyond mere politics. I do not believe that the bishops who have followed him are any different in their views today. The church today teaches that targeting civilians in war is wrong, that war is a necessary evil that should be avoided if possible, that Christians must remember the poor and the defenseless, that we must pray for our enemies, we must render good to those who do us evil, and the list goes on and on. The Beatitudes aren’t optional. Neither are the 10 Commandments. In our current moral climate, we certainly do speak much more about comdemnation than love. Shame on us!
Thank you for pointing that fact out, it needs to be said over and over again. At the same time, please understand that the opposition of the moral teaching of the church to any kind of homosexual relations is also not optional. To preach acceptance of a practice clearly contrary to God’s divine law is not mercy, it is, in fact the opposite. To focus on only some sins while absolving others is also an offense against mercy.
The full truth, always, and without reservation should be our goal as Orthodox Christians.
Talking Past Each Other
The blog belongs to Father Jacobse who has graciously decided to create it as a forum for discussion. Therefore it is up to Father Jacobse to decide what the blog should be and how it should be run. Having said that, I see the blog as a place in which news articles and essays touching on issues important to Orthodox Christians and Christians in general are collected for review and discussion. The blog seems to address the important question of how believing Christians, particularly Orthodox, should interact with the world outside their churches. For instance, how should one’s Faith influence one’s role as a citizen in a democracy like the United States.
Father Jacobse has allowed unrestricted comments and posting privileges. I am not suggesting that should change. The quality of the articles posted on the blog is quite high, most are well written by someone with some expertise in the subject.Although I probably violate my own rule from time to time, I do try to avoid commenting on topics that I really don’t have a solid background in. As I have said many times, I am not trained in theology and I try to avoid engaging in direct theological debate.
My comment about Jim Holman’s perceived secularist viewpoint relates to the fact that commenters on the blog frequently discuss moral and ethical issues. The starting point for any discussion of moral and ethical issue is the writer’s position on the existence or non-existence of a God. A believers orientation is based on living in a world made by a Creator with the authority to establish moral guidelines for humankind. The secularist’s viewpoint does not include this “navigational aid”; this point of reference that help create order and meaning in life and helps direct a person’s decisions.
A secularist is not going to have much to say to a Christian who is discussing with other Christians what the proper or wisest course of action is for Christians in today’s society. The paths simply do not intersect.
Demographics
In a previous note Jim Holman cited some surveys that appeared to show that people under 35 were more accepting of abortion and homosexual conduct. This was to support his claim that the battle over the legitimacy of homosexual conduct was over. He referred to this as a “demographic” fact. I think the term “demographics” is properly restricted to a study of immutable human charactertistics such as gender or race or ethnicity.
The fact that someone approves of something when they are 30 does not guarantee that they will approve of it when they are 50. Again, in the age of the Flower Children many people under 30 really believed that exclusive marital unions between a man and a women was “on the way out.” A great deal of what was trumpeted a the revolutionary, progressive and new way of living during the 1960’s is no longer followed by those same Flower Children who have now lived a little longer and see things differently.
Additionally, young people are notoriously unreliable on election day. It is true that more young people in absolute terms came out to vote in 2004. However, the percentage of young people as a share of the overall voting population remained the same. Political parties have been trying to mobilize the youth vote for decades with very little success. I have seen it happen election cycle over election cycle. If I were a political organizer with the sole goal of getting someone elected I wouldn’t invest a great deal of resources in the youth vote.
Public opinion counts only if that public votes. The voting public soundly rejected gay marriage in 11 states. Bush will appoint the next three Supreme Court Justices. A single Supreme Court justice will have more influence than a million young people.
Note 23 Not Familiar with Kurtz’ Work
My initial comment was limited to the assertion that there is reason to believe that social acceptance and its elevation to the same honor previously given marriage contributes to a decline a birthrates. This is the focus of Kurtz; work. Kurtz did a meticulous study of the official legal position of homosexual conduct in several western European countries and traced changes in the birth rate and other demographic trends in detail across several decades.
Your first reply to my comment brought up depressed birth rates in Japan and Romania. You stated that there were other factors besides social acceptance of homosexual conduct that could despress birth rates. This is undoubtedly true.Your reply did not invalidate my comments because I did not assert that social acceptance of homosexual conduct is the SOLE CAUSE of all declines in birth rates.Kurtz did not address Japan or Romania. Neither did I.
Missourian writes: “The religious point of view puts an eternal God with his eternal truth at the center of the world.”
The issue I raised is what does “eternal truth” mean in the context of widely divergent beliefs in a religion in which many of the major beliefs and practices developed over time.
Missourian: “You seem to want to discuss the history of Christian theology and I frankly don’t think that you are qualified to do so.”
I’m not sure what “qualified” means in a blog such as this. I don’t have any academic credentials in theology, but I’ve been involved in various aspects of religion for over 30 years.
Missourian: “This raises my previous question. Why are you posting on a board called Orthodoxy Today?”
I knew Fr. Hans in a previous life, so to speak, heard about his blog, and jumped in.
Missourian: “What do you have to say about Orthodoxy, in particular, or Christianity in general.”
I have been interested in Orthodoxy for several years. I’ve read quite a bit on the internet, of course, and have read a number of books, some of which were recommended by Fr. Hans. My interest is of an academic and personal, not a “conversional” nature (if there is such a word.) Having had no personal experience with Orthodoxy, I have to confine my comments to what others have told me, in person or on paper. Part of my interest in this blog is in seeing how Orthodox believers think and deal with various issues.
As far as Christianity, I was a strict fundamentalist Christian for ten years. In college I was a philosophy major with a concentration in philosophy of religion and modal logic. I was also briefly in an academic M.A. in religion program, but hated it and got into a regular job. My hebrew is terrible, my Greek almost nonexistent. Books most influential to me are the unabridged _Les Miserables_, Miguel de Unamuno’s _The Tragic Sense of Life_, and Schweitzer’s _Philosphy of Civilization_. I am very familiar with historical Jesus studies (and very confused by them.) I’m interested in the history of early Christianity, but not in any sense a scholar. In general, I’m interested in the relationship of faith to history and science. I’m interested in issues related to faith, traditionalism, and modernity. My wife is an atheist and my best friend is a practicing Jew. I play flamenco guitar and agree with Luis Antonio de Vega that “flamenco is the means through which man reaches God without the intervention of saints or angels.”
“flamenco is the means through which man reaches God without the intervention of saints or angels.”
That’s a great quote. I like it.
If flamenco is “the means through which man reaches God” what happens when the music stops? According to what Jim writes, one ends up putting eternal truth in scare quotes and is left wondering, “what does “eternal truth” mean in the context of widely divergent [religious] beliefs.” If this what the path to God through flamenco guitar leads to, then I’ll pass, thank you.
What Jim probably means is that art is close to God — “art” meaning something created that is coherent and meaningful. Dostoevsky said the same thing when he wrote “beauty will save the world.”
Note 30: Glen, you mentioned that Orthodox bishops were villified for opposing the war in Iraq. Where did this happen? I can’t think of a single example.
RE: No 21. Dan: Thank you for your thoughtful and insightful comments. As you suggest, the conundrum for the Church is this:
How does the Church remain welcoming and draw in people who need spiritual healing and exposure to the message of Christ and God’s love, while at the same time not appearing to validate behaviors which it clarly considers sinful. Tilting too far in either direction will have harmful consequences.
I was surprised at the quote you provided from Dr. Dobson. If he wants the more gentle tone and fine nuances of his views to be better understood, my advice would be “More Jesus, less Sponge-Bob”.
Note 38: Thank you, Father. I didn’t think of that possibility. I guess I was distracted by the relativism in Jim’s comments.
Note 40: Dean, Thank you for your comments. Regarding Dr. Dobson and SpongeBob, please read through his response to the so-called SpongeBob episode. Most of what you think you know about this is the creation of a media intent on smearing and marginalizing a good man, who accepts and promotes moral truths out of step with secular fundamentalists.
Here are few excerpts from Dr. Dobson’s lengthy response:
“In truth, this tale has very little to do with SpongeBob himself, and everything to do with the media’s ability to obscure the facts and to direct lies and scorn toward those of us who care about defending children.”
Dr. Dobson expressed “a word of concern about a video that will be distributed to 61,000 public and private elementary schools across the nation, for use on the proposed “We Are Family Day,” March 11.”
“But while the video is harmless on its own, I believe the agenda behind it is sinister. My brief comments at the FRC gathering were intended to express concern not about SpongeBob or Big Bird or any of their other cartoon friends, but about the way in which those childhood symbols are apparently being hijacked to promote an agenda that involves teaching homosexual propaganda to children. Nevertheless, the media jumped on the story by claiming that I had accused SpongeBob of being “gay.” Some suggested that I had confused the organization that had created the video with a similarly named gay-rights group. In both cases, the press was dead wrong, and I welcome this opportunity to help them get their facts straight”
“I want to be clear: the We Are Family Foundation – the organization that sponsored the video featuring SpongeBob and the other characters was, until this flap occurred, making available a variety of explicitly pro-homosexual materials on its Web site. It has since endeavored to hide that fact (more on this later), but my concerns are as legitimate today as they were when I first expressed them in January.”
Again, please read the entire response, which includes a great deal of evidence about the We Are Family Foundation’s association with promoting homosexual behavior to children as young as 5 years old, and how the media completely distorted Dr. Dobson’s message.
Note 39:
Father,
I would put the Schaeffer letter concerning the OPF plea in that category. Remember this line, “Why have so many priests and bishops traded their call to pastoral care for a few fleeting moments of political “relevance”?”
The assumption is that anyone in the Orthodox hierarchy signing that letter was simply a publicity seeking near-apostate. Such an attack is totally uncalled for.
First and foremost, I consider the OPF Plea to have been over-the-top hogwash. If a priest or a bishop, I wouldn’t have signed the thing on my worst day. Not because I didn’t think the Iraq War was a blunder, but simply because the language of the letter was misleading and inaccurate. It could never have helped further the debate, and only succeeded in making a good many people upset. (Not necessarily a bad thing, but it didn’t win any hearts and minds either.)
Okay, that said, I certainly wouldn’t question the motives of the churchmen who signed it. I believe Kallistos Ware and Father Harakas and the others were acting for honorable motives, though exercised bad judgment.
Schaeffer was the most vocal critic with access to a published forum, but Father Patrick Reardon confirmed in a different article that he and other parish priests had been forced to step in and intercept a great deal of hostile letters directed to bishops over their stands. I, personally, have been in the unpleasant situation of having to defend the bishops against extremely agitated Orthodox converts who believe that George Bush is a candidate for sainthood in the Orthodox Church. Trust me, the anger is out there and the bishops, I am sure, are well aware of it, unless they are hiding in a bubble.
I am sure, also, that you have seen your share of it and that you probably know people who have written nasty letters over this. I do, and I am sure that you have a wider circle of acquaintance than I. Even on this forum, we have debated whether or not our own bishops are ‘leftist.’ That is a prevailing opinion in many quarters, and I think that it is a mistaken one on the whole, though the coddling of Sarbanes and Snowe by the bishops of the GOA is EXTREMELY troubling. (Taxes and foreign intervention may be debatable. Abortion is most certainly not.)
Note 41: I took it upon myself to visit the We Are Family Foundation web site (available here).
I found only one vague reference to sexual orientation in the “Tolerance Pledge” which encourages its members to “respect” those with beliefs or a “sexual identity” different than their own.
I didn’t read “agree with”, simply “respect”, much as Christians are obliged to respect the views and beliefs of others they feel are errant, including Buddhists and Hindus (e.g., don’t beat them up on the playground?)
It’s somewhat sad this is viewed as “ominous”.
Respect: Writing a Blank Check on Your Brains
RESPECT? WHAT IS WRONG WITH RESPECT?
At first blush, it seems like a very reasonable thing to do, that is, respect someone’s beliefs, but, in fact, it is impossible for a principled and thinking person to “respect” the religious beliefs of everyone they encounter in their daily life.
RESPECTING A PERSON’S RIGHT TO RELIGIOUS AND INTELLECTUAL FREEDOM IS PROPER AND IMPORTANT but IT IS NOT THE SAME AS RESPECTING THE CONTENTS OF OTHER’s BELIEFS
I fully support and respect the right of every citizen of the United States to complete religious and intellectual freedom. I respect the essential right of every person to make up their own mind on religious issues. Our Constitution protects religious beliefs and religious practices which do not violate the civil laws of the United States. (For instance, an Aztec is not free to rip the living heart out of a living human being as a sacrifice to the Sun God, however, if they omit human sacrifice they can get up in the morning and sing to the Sun God.)
It is not possible for me to respect the content of everyone’s religious beliefs. There are beliefs which are sometimes labeled religious which I find offensive and ridiculous. I have a woman friend who considers herself Wiccan. I respect her right to arrive at her own conclusions about religion but I don’t have a shred of respect for Wicca. Sorry it is just plain nonsense. I have no respect for Islam, however, I respect the right of American Muslims to their religious choices as long as they abide by the civil laws of the United States, which may be a problem for them as the men believe they have a Koranic right to beat women.
Here is a glorious example, a “religious” text which grants men the right to beat their wives if they are “disobedient.” Sorry, its garbage Charlie.
Agreeing to respect the content of anyone’s religious beliefs would be equivalent to writing a blank check on your brain and your principles. A thinking person cannot do that and maintain integrity.
Sexual Orientation: Assuming Facts Not in Evidence
He who frames the issues wins the debate. He who defines the terms frames the issue.
“Sexual orientation” is a phrase that stands for the idea that a sexual attraction to a person of one’s own sex is GENETICALLY PREDETERMINED and that it is essentially healthful and in some sense normal. The primary idea is that sexual preference and therefore sexual conduct is beyond the control of the individual and we wouldn’t want to condemn someone for something over which he has no control. Or so goes the argument.
There are a multitude of scientific reasons why the idea of a genetically determined tendency to be attracted to a member of one’s own sex is indefensible. I won’t repeat all of those arguments at this point. Let me just say that it is absurd to suggest that nature would favor the sterile.
There is a reason that proponents of homosexual conduct want to pound the idea of “sexual orientation” into everyone’s heads. The goal is to convince people that “sexual orientation” is an IMMUTABLE CHARACTERISTIC. The ususal approach is to claim that a sexual desire for a member of your own sex is not chosen and cannot be changed. (We know this to be true given the high percentage of prisoners who engage in homosexual conduct while imprisoned and go back to heterosexual relationships when released.) When this fact is mentioned the goalpost is moved back anther 100 yards and another category of human being is invented “the bi-sexual.” This moves the number of genders up to at least 5. It can be seen how very quickly this logical structure buckles under examination. Even that old goat, Gene Robinson had a loving and sexual relationship with his wife. What was that? An illusion? Where did the daughter come from? The stork? I think not.
So asking someone ever so gently to respect someone else’s “sexual orientation” is to win the debate before the debate begins, something I won’t do and neither should you.
Note 42. I think Schaeffer was right. Schaeffer’s criticism, as well as many others, arose not because Orthodox leaders impugned George Bush (I think your description charicatures their motives), but because the leaders spoke in such shoddy and partisan terms. Remember that the OPF piece said every American soldier is a murderer, and that anyone who supports Iraq is afflicted with some kind of spiritual sickness. Villification seems to be on the other foot.
The OPF piece reads like a committee draft, and can be read as either a pacifist tract or a statement against the Iraqi war. I think the signers saw what they wanted to see and put their names to the document without sufficient deliberation (a point I made at the time). It certainly is one of the sloppiest statements that ever came out of Orthodox circles.
RE: Note #31
Glen you give a very good summary of many aspects of Orthodox ethics applied to society, however you make a very common mistake in the area of war when you state that war is a necessary evil. If all war is evil then it is not necessary, if it is necessary, it is not evil. As Christians, we are forbidden to participate or support evil, in fact we must do all that we can to confront evil.
I agree with the Coptic Bishop you quote, “He who fails to love his brother as himself is guilty of murder.” In a fallen world, it is sometime necessary to use violent, deadly force to protect and defend one’s self and those unable to defend themselves. IMO, such acts are acts of love for one’s brother, failure to take such action would indeed be tantamount to murder. If I were being threatened, I would consider it a virtuous act for someone to defend me, even if it meant killing the one who threatened me. IMO, once the use of violent, deadly force in any aspect of social life is considered as virtuous, then one must also allow that at least some wars are virtuous. When the “necessary evil” formula is accepted, all moral restraint against war and actions in war is removed. We have accepted the unjust, unethical belief that the ends justify the means.
We should consider the parameters that make a war necessary and the criteria needed to make proper judgement. As part of such consideration, we must vigorously debate the proper relationship between the Church, the State, and the individual believer. Right now, we Orthodox are in great confusion as to the proper ordering of these relationships. Such confusion vitiates and distorts our witness. The worst thing about the OPF statement was that it was made by an extra-ecclesial group with no official standing within the Church and no effective episcopal oversight. If they are to continue to function, they should submit themselves to the authority of a bishop, not try to form an ad-hoc coalition of like-minded Orthodox that pretends to speak with episcopal authority. The lack of judgement on the part of so many bishops to lend themselves and their office to such an endeavor, no matter the rightness of the cause is distressing.
The dilemma in a fallen world is that all courses of action have unintended consequences that often lead to pain, destruction, and even death. Does that mean all courses of action are necessary evil? To the extent that we all sin and fall short of the glory of God, yes. However, that does not relieve us from making decisions and acting in the hope of a greater good–Acting out of an imperfect realization of virtue to be sure, but acting nonetheless. There are many actions taken by sincere, faithful people, even saints, that are wrong and immoral.
The Church’s responsibility is to teach the unvarnished principals of a God-pleasing life. Certain actions will always be wrong, condemned and proscribed by the Church such as premeditated murder. However, most of the actions we decide to take in our lives as individuals and as members of society are individual moral choices founded on our understanding of the revealed truth of the Church and our own state of grace within the body of the Church.
Note 44: Of course, I do not believe a great many of the concepts and ideologies of numerous religions, even within some of the Christian denominations, so in that sense I do not “respect” them as my own. When you’re dealing with children who are quick to ostracize, ridicule and otherwise deal inappropriately with other children they see as “different”, however, I would hesitate to make too much of a big deal about this. I really see it as a simple plea to keep the peace in what can be already troubling years (grade school,junior high), not an attempt to “indoctrinate” them with any particular religious or moral beliefs.
“If all war is evil then it is not necessary, if it is necessary, it is not evil.”
I’m not so sure.
I think of a moral good as an action that is laudable, praiseworthy and something to be encouraged.
Now, bombing civilians who pose no direct threat to ourselves or who had played no role in an attack against us (as we did when bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki) would not seem to fit into that category. That being said, it may have been necessary from the standpoint of being able to preserve the lives of those in the United States as well as our freedoms. Was it the least amount of harm that could be inflicted? We’ll never know, unfortunately.
Moral absolutes are nice, but unfortunately there are times when actions are truly neither, as in the case with many wars which are filled with both good and evil intentions on both sides. The most dangerous thing in the world is he who believes that he is 100% in the right: they usually end up doing the greatest evil.
I’m glad, James, that you took the time to review We Are Family Foundation’s website. Did you give Dr. Dobson’s letter the same courtesy? It appears not. If you did you would have read the following:
“If you’re planning on visiting the We Are Family Foundation’s Web site [www.wearefamilyfoundation.org] to verify the accuracy of the above information [which details the foundation’s pro-homosexual agenda], don’t bother. In the days since this story broke, the majority of overtly pro-homosexual content has been removed. The founder of the organization, Nile Rodgers, appeared on the “Today Show” and said that we had the wrong site and that they had nothing to do with homosexuality. That was Jan. 21. Two days later, most of the homosexual content disappeared or became inaccessible. I will leave it for you to determine the motive behind the mysterious vanishing of such material by the We Are Family Foundation. Suffice to say that we have clear documentation that these materials were being promoted on the Web site as recently as late January, despite denials to the contrary.”
Here is a webpage, that provides information on We Are Family Foundation Allies in the “101 Ways to Combat Prejudice” and here is the Foundation’s webpage on the same program. You won’t find any “Allies” listed in the We Are Family Foundation’s webpage.
Note some of the groups listed (which can be found on Page 16 of the ADL booklet linked below) as Allies in this project: Parents, Family and Friends of Lesbians & Gays (PFLAG); National Gay and Lesbian Task Force; Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network (GLSEN); Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD). Yes, there are plenty of other groups listed there as well, including the Boys and Girls Club of America, Children’s Defense Fund, a teacher’s union (the NEA), and the PTA. That these groups are also listed is irrelevent to my point, but it does tell us something about these groups, does it not? Why would Boys and Girls Club of America allie itself with GLAAD and GLSEN? What’s next? NAMBLA?
The ADL’s booklet on this program is kind enough to give us some readings that will teach us to “overcome prejudice” against, among others, homosexuals. Among the readings are “Daddy’s Roommate”, “Heather has Two Mommies”, “Growing Up Gay” and “Overcoming Heterosexism and Homophobia”; books which promote homosexual behavior as “just another lifestyle” and as normal as Ward and June Cleaver. (It looks like those of us who see the relational norm between the sexes as one man and one woman suffer from “heterosexism” and need to overcome our “homophobia”. Nothing like labeling and marginalizing those you disagree with before you’ve even talked them to promote tolerance and understanding, eh?)
Why would the We Are Family Foundation apparently remove this portion of that particular project but retain everything else? In fact why do they make it so hard to find information about the “101 Ways to Combat Prejudice” on their website? I had to go through Google to find it. It is not readily available from their own webpages.
This confirms that Dr. Dobson is telling the truth about the We Are Family Foundation. And those who don’t want to believe Dr. Dobson are simply closing their minds because they don’t like Dr. Dobson or what they think he represents.
If you support the We Are Family Foundation and want to join with groups that promote homosexual behavior, that is your choice. But don’t then tell me that your’s is the Orthodox Christian position. PFLAG, GLSEN and GLAAD all believe homosexual behavior is something to embrace and celebrate. Orthodox Christianity teaches it is a sin. These two views are not compatible. I’m sorry, but that is the truth.
Dr. Dobson is forthright and honest about what who his group is and what it believes. The We Are Family Foundation is hiding who they are and what they believe. I stand with Dr. Dobson.