Obedience to authority: the gay marriage question [Archive]

Fr Raphael Vereshack

04-01-2006, 04:11 PM

A good current example would be the homosexual "marriage" issue. In Canada it is now the law. But, very obviously, it is also a faulty and unjust law. Should Orthodox Christians obey it or not?

Below is pertinent information concerning Canadian legislation on same-sex 'unions' or marriages (from CBC site)

on Dec. 9, 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Ottawa does have exclusive jurisdiction to decide who has the right to get married in this country ï¿½ but that religious groups are not obliged to perform unions against their beliefs.

The decision means that same-sex marriages performed in eight provinces and one territory are legal and must be recognized. Same-sex marriages are not performed in Alberta, P.E.I., Nunavut and the Northwest Territories, but the Nunavut government will recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.

On May 5, 2005, the government's same-sex marriage bill passed a second reading, moving it closer to becoming law.

The legislation came to a vote on June 28, 2005. In the lead-up to that vote, cabinet ministers who opposed the bill were urged to vote against it. MP Pat O'Brien, who left the Liberal party over the issue, said some Liberals in cabinet had voted in the past to uphold the traditional definition of marriage.

In the end, Bill C-38 passes by a 158-133 margin, with support from most Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois.

The bill became law less than a month later, on July 20, 2005. After being passed by the Senate, the same-sex marriage legislation received royal assent as Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, acting in her role as deputy governor general, signed it into law. Canada become the fourth country to recognize gay marriage, after the Netherlands, Belgium and Spain.

As you can see from the above religious groups are protected in their legal right not to perform same-sex marriages. So far no sober minded person doubts that this right is truly protected. Where things get a little more problematic is in making public statements against homosexuality- already some have gotten into legal trouble over this. We are safe to preach as we feel conscience bids us while in our church- but in a public place- eg giving a talk in a college or university- one has to be aware of the consequences of making an open appeal to our own moral standards on this issue.

This is my own personal feeling about this issue- I think that we overdo our fear of persecution at times over our faith. In western democracies I think that what is far more important is the erosion of a culture that in some important sense was based on Christian virtues (notice I don't say 'values'- thanks Gertrude Himmelfarb!); and with the erosion of this culture we are seeing its replacement by a culture based largely on self-indulgence. All of this has a great effect on the Church since it is dealing with real people of flesh & blood who come to Her for healing.

My point here is that it is important to distinguish between persecution and a fundamental change in cultural values such as we are presently witnessing. Mainly I think this is a question of maintaining sobriety so as to correctly see our way forward.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Stephanos

05-01-2006, 02:26 AM

Dear Alex and Fr. Raphael,

Thank you for your excellent comments. However, I may need to rephrase my question as follows: Under what circumstances the Orthodox Church would support civil disobedience? I think this is the gist of my query.

Best regards,

Mariusz

Owen Jones

05-01-2006, 02:46 PM

I think you have to go to Aquinas for any serious theory of when civil disobedience is permitted by Christians. Solzenitsyn is a contemporary example of an Orthodox Christian who stood in opposition to a totalitarian regime. He said one of his principles was to always obey the law.

Antonios

05-01-2006, 06:41 PM

Dear Mariusz,

I think that depends on your definition of civil disobedience. If it includes breaking the commandments of God, such as causing violence to another, than the Church would not support it. If it means to refuse to bow down before a pagan idol, which in Roman times was considered an act of civil disobedience, than the Church would support it because in effect, you would be keeping the commandments of God by doing such a thing. What makes things so difficult is that a lot of what is so freely accepted by society is against the teachings of the Scriptures. We are called to adhere to the commandments of God while at the same time find our way through this post-modern era, all the while being neither judgemental nor critical of our neighbor. But, at the same time, as Father Raphael stated above, we also should not- cannot- allow the erosion of Christian virtue and culture to proceed. It is a difficult task we have to overcome, and I have no idea how to do it. My only guess is that only with the Grace of God can this be accomplished.

Stephanos

06-01-2006, 06:03 AM

Dear Owen,

Thank you for your suggestion re Aquinas but, perhaps due to my inadvertent hint in this direction, it widens the scope of my inquiry too much.

Dear Antonios,

Many thanks for your comments, too. In fact, I believe that they hit the problem on the head, so to speak.

Best regards,

Mariusz

Owen Jones

06-01-2006, 03:04 PM

My point was that I do not think you will find in Orthodoxy any such analysis.

Olympiada

07-01-2006, 02:12 AM

Dear Mariusz

I am concerned about what message the discussion of such a matter sends to our gay brethern. Does it send a message of compassion and love, or does it send a message of judgment and scorn?

I do not know how much personal experience you have with gay people, but I can tell you they suffer immensely. Personally, I think it is idle talk for straight people to speculate on gay marriage. We can not kind the suffering it brings to have a sexual orientation that will not allow us to ever form a union in this life with another person. Gay people are relegated to a life of solitude through no fault of their own. I would be very hesitant to discuss this issue out in public as a straight person my self. I have learned the hard way through hurting many gay and lesbian people throughout my life. Hopefully now that I am in the canonical church I can truly treat people as Christ does, with love and compassion.

I hope I am not the only one with this point of view in this community. I find it to be very harsh at times, as I do the whole Orthodox church towards gay people as a whole.

In Christ
Olympiada

Stephanos

07-01-2006, 05:13 AM

Dear Owen,

You wrote:

"My point was that I do not think you will find in Orthodoxy any such analysis."

Yes, I believe you are right, I have the same inkling. Still, the Orthodox Church deserves a lot of respect for not yielding either in theory or in practice to humanistic errors which currently are destroying so many other Christian and non-Christian communities of faith.

Best regards,

Mariusz

Eleftheria

07-01-2006, 05:42 AM

Arsenios

07-01-2006, 06:41 AM

A gay friend of mine told me that he opposes the legalization of gay marriages on the grounds that the divorce rate among straight couples is so high, and the cultural taboos against gay relationships are so intense, that he feared that the resultant sky-high divorce rate of gay couples would scandalize all, and demoralize gays...

Yet the issue cannot be taken on the basis of feelings that people have for each other sexually, but must be addressed instead in the context of the role of sex in marriage and especially in marriage within the body of Christ, and the place within the discipleship of the Church unto oneness with God that sex has, or doesn't have. To criticize the Orthodox for bad attitudes toward gays misfires on the grounds that the Orthodox attitudes towards sex generally are NOT all sugar coated and self-seeking unto pleasure, but tend to be more oriented toward repentance from self, and the turning of self unto God...

And God did make us male and female, not male and male, and not female and female... So that this forms for us in Christ the basis of our understanding of sexual union in marriage... We DO tend to see gay sex as but gratuitous self-seeking in pleasures that can only lead to pleasure, and not to procreation... And while this is an acceptable form of activity in a marriage relationship between husband and wife, we do not see it as within the Church when it is not...

And having said all that, there is no excuse whatsoever for any Orthodox Christian to judge anyone who is gay for being gay... They just cannot DO gay and remain within the communion of the Church... Glory to God at least gays have a clearly visible cross that they can bear! And even in straight marriages, gays are able to do well, and become fine husbands and fathers...

Rdr. Arsenios

Antonios

07-01-2006, 07:02 AM

Dear Olympiada,

I don't believe Mariusz is asking an inappropriate question at all. He is asking a very legitimate question regarding the society we live in now, and how do we as Orthodox Christians obey civil law and function in this world we live in- without compromising God's commandments and 2,000 years of Christian teaching. In fact he carefully phrased it by adding "Please note that I am not talking about the attitudes toward homosexuals, only about the observance or non-observance of a specific legal injunction."

Stephanos

07-01-2006, 09:46 PM

Dear George,

there is no excuse whatsoever for any Orthodox Christian to judge anyone who is gay for being gay... They just cannot DO gay and remain within the communion of the Church...

I completely agree. However, if we are going to tackle this extremely confused subject, let me say that I believe that any person defining himself totally by only one part of his psychological makeup (e.g., sex) is going to have a great difficulty in becoming fully human (which seems to be the goal of any spiritual progress, within Christianity or elsewhere.)

(Note: I use the traditional "he" in reference to both genders because I do not approve of awkward stylistic contortions in the name of political correctness; all they achieve is using two inaccurate words instead of one.)

Other than that, your point is well taken. It is true that Jesus forgave the sinners. But He also told them to sin no more, and in the case of the rich young man He found his lifestyle an irremovable obstacle to his spiritual development. Christian love is necessary, but it cannot ignore the Divine law.

Dear Eleftheria,

Since marriage is a sacrament between two people of the opposite sex, why is it referred to as gay marriage? Why not simply, gay union?

From the legal point of view these are two different institutions. Just the same, I fully understand your reservations and also share them, that's why I have put the word "marriage" in quotation marks.

Dear Antonios,

Once again, many thanks for your perfect understanding of my intentions. It is a pleasure to meet someone whose thinking and perception are not clouded by the doctrinaire fashions of the day.

Best regards to all,

Mariusz

Fr Raphael Vereshack

07-01-2006, 10:25 PM

To All,

On this point of gay "marriage", I have always had one question: Since marriage is a sacrament between two people of the opposite sex, why is it referred to as gay marriage? Why not simply, gay union? I mean no offense to anyone. Yet the idea of trying to force a 2,000 year-old institution to change its definition of one of its sacraments in order to be "politically correct" according to whatever the current trend is, somehow seems outside anything I've read or heard about the Orthodox Church.

In Christ,
Eleftheria

The reason for using the phrase 'gay marriage' instead of 'gay union' is because of political pressure within contemporary society that gays be able to have the same sort of legal & formal partnership as heterosexuals do.

In other words gay couples would like the legal right to be able to have not only a secular union but also a religious one (at least where the respective religion allows this- obviously Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, certain conservative Evangelicals, Muslims, etc do not). In Canada this has always been expressed as being able to have the legal right to the same sorts of union as heterosexuals, otherwise the law would be seen as being discriminatory. That the law no longer be discriminatory is a major point made in the campaign to change legal practice.

The last point about equality so as to be able to have a religious union- ie a marriage- shows precisely that what we are really talking about is a major change in moral standards which the law itself reflects. After all in the very recent past it was religion in general which most strongly disapproved of homosexuality and so gay people themselves would not only never have sought a religious union- they would have purposely avoided such a union. But in very recent times this perspective has changed possibly as religion's place within society has changed to being more approving rather than prophetic. Possibly I'm wrong on this last point or leaving something important out to explain the change. In any case this would make an interesting discussion- what has changed in regards to the relationship of religion and society in very recent times?

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Stephanos

08-01-2006, 12:17 AM

Dear all,

Since this discussion has veered toward the issue of the homosexual "marriage", please find below a collection of links related to the Orthodox perspective on that topic.
The rejection of this concept is universal:

[Link 1] (http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7101.asp)

[Link 2] (http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/CopticSocial.shtml)

[Link 3] (http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/01newstucture/pagesen/articles/samesex.html)

[Link 4] (http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/SOBASamesexUnions.shtml)

[Link 5] (http://www.forwardinfaith.com/artman/publish/article_77.shtml)

[Link 6] (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_copt.htm)

[Link 7] (http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/ethics/hopko_homosexual_christian.htm)

Best regards,

Mariusz

Alec Lowly

08-01-2006, 01:28 AM

George writes:

"Yet the issue cannot be taken on the basis of feelings that people have for each other sexually, but must be addressed instead in the context of the role of sex in marriage and especially in marriage within the body of Christ, and the place within the discipleship of the Church unto oneness with God that sex has, or doesn't have."

Such considerations are indeed paramount -- for Christians, that is. What about people of other faiths, or of no faith at all? They, too, are citizens of our modern, pluralistic, secular societies. They, too, have rights.

The real issue of "gay marriage" is not whether it's compatible with Christianity (it isn't) or whether it's truly a marriage (this would depend, in law, upon a society's definition of marriage), but whether Christians believe that their proclamation of the Gospel must perforce go further than mere proclamation, that is to say, that the Gospel requires Christians to ~force~ non-Christians into behaving the way Christians believe they ought to.

Legislating public morality is a two-edged sword. If we Christians insist that it's legitimate for us to compel people to live by Christian values, then we won't have a leg to stand on when a non-Christian majority one day insists that it has the right to impose non-Christian values on us.

Please think deeply on this. Western civilization has already moved into its post-Christian phase. It won't be too many generations before the church finds itself once again on society's fringes.

If we wish to have our rights respected, then we have to respect the rights of others, even those whose values we deplore.

In XC,
Alec Lowly, sinner

Vasilis Kirikos

08-01-2006, 04:00 AM

"and in the case of the rich young man He found his lifestyle an irremovable obstacle to his spiritual development."

But didn't our Lord complete this dialog by saying that with man it is impossible to be saved; but with God all things are possible...even for a camel to walk through the eye of a needle? "and in the case of the rich young man He found his lifestyle an irremovable obstacle to his spiritual development."

But didn't our Lord complete this dialog by saying that with man it is impossible to be saved; but with God all things are possible...even for a camel to walk through the eye of a needle?

I am not a theologian; but whenever I hear theologians making comments about matters concerning biology or psychology I think of the Salem witch trials. The Puritans were drowning old, defenseless women in water thinking they were the cause of cholera epidemics when rather than putting people in water they should have been boiling the water and keeping people out of it!! Pyromania, kleptomania, trichotillomania (a type of psychological condition that involves strong urges; I am sickened to the point of upchucking when I see it but about half of these people put the hair in their mouths after pulling it!) could be forms of obsessive compulsive behavior or disorder (OCD); and it has been hypothesized that OCD can be caused by something as mundane as strept throat (caused by the bacterium Streptococcus pyogenes which is known to cause rheumatic fever which can casue heart and kidney disease. Perhaps homosexuality is a form of Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) (formerly called multiple personality disorder). In his book �First Person Plural: My Life as a Multiple� (Hyperion) Dr. Cameron West recounts the dramatic true story of his struggle with multiple personalities, one of his alters was/is (??)a girl who actually had a crush on a guy while his core personality was/is fully heterosexual! Folks, the brain is just too complicated . Maybe that is why our Lord told us not to pass judgment on anyone??
http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

Stephanos

08-01-2006, 04:09 AM

Dear Alex,

Such considerations are indeed paramount -- for Christians, that is. What about people of other faiths, or of no faith at all? They, too, are citizens of our modern, pluralistic, secular societies. They, too, have rights.

Yes, they have rights within a society. But we are talking here about their rights within the Church. This is a very important difference.

The real issue of "gay marriage" is not whether it's compatible with Christianity (it isn't) or whether it's truly a marriage (this would depend, in law, upon a society's definition of marriage), but whether Christians believe that their proclamation of the Gospel must perforce go further than mere proclamation, that is to say, that the Gospel requires Christians to ~force~ non-Christians into behaving the way Christians believe they ought to.

This is not what the Christian opposition against the homosexual "marriage" is about. Christians don't force the homosexual lobby into their mould, it is the homosexual lobby that wants to break up the Christian mould and fashion the remaining pieces into something else that suits its purposes.

Legislating public morality is a two-edged sword. If we Christians insist that it's legitimate for us to compel people to live by Christian values, then we won't have a leg to stand on when a non-Christian majority one day insists that it has the right to impose non-Christian values on us."

As I have already said, it is - very obviously - not the Christians doing any legislating now, but the other party.

Western civilization has already moved into its post-Christian phase. It won't be too many generations before the church finds itself once again on society's fringes.

If such is God's will, let it be. The Church cannot depend on the society; indeed, it must often go against it (please read St. Paul's letters.) And persecution should be not only familiar to, but also welcomed by, a Christian (especially Orthodox.)

If we wish to have our rights respected, then we have to respect the rights of others, even those whose values we deplore.

Even when they go against our fundamental values and beliefs and threaten to destroy them? This is exactly the problem which made me start this particular discussion.

Best regards,

Mariusz

Vasilis Kirikos

08-01-2006, 04:12 AM

> "and in the case of the rich young man He found his lifestyle an irremovable obstacle to his spiritual development." But didn't our Lord complete this dialog by saying that with man it is impossible to be saved; but with God all things are possible...even for a camel to walk through the eye of a needle? "and in the case of the rich young man He found his lifestyle an irremovable obstacle to his spiritual development." But didn't our Lord complete this dialog by saying that with man it is impossible to be saved; but with God all things are possible...even for a camel to walk through the eye of a needle? I am not a theologian; but whenever I hear theologians making comments about matters concerning biology or psychology I think of the Salem witch trials. The Puritans were drowning old, defenseless women in water thinking they were the cause of cholera epidemics when rather than putting people in water they should have been boiling the water and keeping people out of it!! Pyromania, kleptomania, trichotillomania (a type of psychological condition that involves strong urges; I am sickened to the point of upchucking when I see it but about half of these people put the hair in their mouths after pulling it!) could be forms of obsessive compulsive behavior or disorder (OCD); and it has been hypothesized that OCD can be caused by something as mundane as strept throat (caused by the bacterium Streptococcus pyogenes which is known to cause rheumatic fever which can cause heart and kidney disease. Perhaps homosexuality is a form of Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) (formerly called multiple personality disorder). In his book ?First Person Plural: My Life as a Multiple? (Hyperion) Dr. Cameron West recounts the dramatic true story of his struggle with multiple personalities, one of his alters was/is (??)a girl who actually had a crush on a guy while his core personality was/is fully heterosexual! Folks, the brain is just too complicated . Maybe that is why our Lord told us not to pass judgment on anyone?? :-)

>

Stephanos

08-01-2006, 04:13 AM

Dear Fr Raphael,

In any case this would make an interesting discussion- what has changed in regards to the relationship of religion and society in very recent times?

This is an excellent suggestion, and I am willing to join a future discussion on this topic.

Best regards,

Mariusz

Anthony

08-01-2006, 05:13 PM

Another application of the original question about obedience to authorities seems to be coming over the horizon in Slovakia. If I have understood correctly, the EU is objecting to legislation allowing doctors and nurses not to participate in abortions on grounds of conscience, on the grounds that this may limit the choice of people who want abortions.

Antonios

08-01-2006, 06:23 PM

many thanks for your perfect understanding of my intentions.

Thank you Mariusz for the kind words, but you are the one who made your intentions clear to understand.

I think Father Rafael brings an important question into this discussion and we may be able to put this thread into a better perpective if we can answer his most recent question, that is, "what has changed in regards to the relationship of religion and society in very recent times? " I think that this may be the key to understanding many of the questions/concerns that we face in modern times.

Alex Haig

08-01-2006, 06:37 PM

Nowhere, to my knowledge, does it say that being a homosexual is wrong/evil: we are simply told that the only place for sex is in a (heterosexual) marriage.

With love in Christ

Alex

Stephanos

10-01-2006, 02:53 PM

Antonios wrote:

I think Father Rafael brings an important question into this discussion and we may be able to put this thread into a better perpective if we can answer his most recent question, that is, "what has changed in regards to the relationship of religion and society in very recent times? " I think that this may be the key to understanding many of the questions/concerns that we face in modern times.

Allow me to start this discussion by observing that the most fundamental change in the relationship between religion and society has happened when society ceased to be regulated by religion and religion began to be regulated by society. This process entailed not only an elevation of humanistic values over religious principles but also a near-complete loss of the sense of mystery (Rudolf Otto's "mysterium tremendum") within religion itself, to the point where almost all churches - especially Catholic and Protestant ones - are not much more than charitable social clubs. This is it in a nutshell.

Best regards,

Mariusz Wesolowski

Fr Raphael Vereshack

10-01-2006, 04:41 PM

"what has changed in regards to the relationship of religion and society in very recent times?"

My thinking about this has been affected by reading the books of Gertrude Himmelfarb for the past few months- especially her studies on the morality of the Victorian Age compared to ours. One of her basic points is that Christianity has in the past played a pivotal role in the moral/political vision of Britain and America. I would extend this influence to those countries which are or were part of the British Commonwealth such as Canada.

In connection with this discussion I think that one of Himmelfarb's most interesting and well-taken points is that the framers of post-Enlightenment legislation in Britain and America almost always assumed that 'rights' absolutely depended on a firm moral sense in order not to drift into selfish individualism. Anchored in what was a Christian moral sense society which was influential in forming and maintaining moral standards was the necessary underpinning of rights embedded in law so that these did not become simply a destructive means of selfishness.

I would submit that it is this last point which is being lost. We are forgetting the moral/social vision of the past history of most of our countries & especially the social balance between morality and legislation which largely defined what society was in the past. In effect in the past we were much more social than now simply because the moral component of society- one of its main characteristics embedded in all responsible members of society from youth- is inestimably more social than are the values of individual rights.

I would say that our moral sense is far more individualistic now than it is social because it is not in fact moral in the social sense that our fathers or forefathers meant this. Undoubtedly this represents a massive change in society. The question I think that is most interesting is how has religion played into this new way of looking at society- and how has our own sense of what it means to be Orthodox also been affected by this.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Alec Lowly

11-01-2006, 01:28 AM

Dear Mariusz:

This appeared in a newspaper story:

"I'm perfectly willing to tolerate Christians. I have never, for instance, attempted to prevent Christians from marrying each other, or tried to stop them from adopting children, or worked to make it illegal for them to hold certain jobs. I don't threaten to boycott companies that market their products to Christians, and I don't organize letter-writing campaigns to complain about Christian characters on television. It would indeed be hypocritical for me to complain about fundamentalist Christians who've done all of the above to gay people if I turned around and did the same thing to them, but I've done no such thing."

How you would answer this man?

In XC,
Alec, sinner

Stephanos

11-01-2006, 02:54 PM

Dear Alec,

This appeared in a newspaper story:

"I'm perfectly willing to tolerate Christians. I have never, for instance, attempted to prevent Christians from marrying each other, or tried to stop them from adopting children, or worked to make it illegal for them to hold certain jobs. I don't threaten to boycott companies that market their products to Christians, and I don't organize letter-writing campaigns to complain about Christian characters on television. It would indeed be hypocritical for me to complain about fundamentalist Christians who've done all of the above to gay people if I turned around and did the same thing to them, but I've done no such thing."

How you would answer this man?

This message appears to be addressed to fundamentalist Christians, and I am not one of them. For this reason, I can address only the part concerning the homosexual "marriage".

I would simply advise this gentleman to stop playing on emotions and to use his God-given rational faculties. I would tell him that this whole issue is not so much about homosexuality as about marriage. I would also ask him to think deep about the real meaning of marriage which can be easily seen from the natural law, common sense and the millennia-old praxis. I would point out to him that even the societies which fully approved of homosexuality (eg., ancient Greece) never tried to introduce homosexual "marriage".

We like to think of ourselves as scientifically rational beings while, in fact, our present culture in the West is based on sentimental emotionalism and a fuzzy belief system which we call "democracy." The above quote is a very good example of these tendencies.

Best regards,

Mariusz

Antonios

11-01-2006, 07:40 PM

As Christians we have a very good general idea on how things will pan out in the end. Many of today's modern Orthodox masters tell us that we are currently in the end times. Although we are told many things are still to happen and the parousia is likely a long time away, the history of our world and the signs of the times clearly demonstrate that we are approaching the return of our Lord Jesus Christ. The Lord Himself tells us "When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come." (Mark 13:7)

By the obvious decaying of Christian values and social morals that are occuring, we should not be alarmed but understand that these things must come to pass.

Christianity and society is and will continue to be at odds with eachother. The 'religion' of the world is quickly drifting far from the teachings of our Lord. The Church will likely decrease greatly in numbers, as the Lord Himself suggests when He says "when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?" (Luke 18:18). The world is headed towards an inevitable downward spiral to self-destruction.

The question that has always occured to me when a discussion such as this thread comes up which questions how we as Christians and sinners should react to/ accomidate with/ fight against the moral decay of our society is this:

Although we should not be alarmed, as the Lord tell us, should we just sit back, yelling "Maranatha!", "Lord, come!", as society and our fellow humans destroy themselves?

in humility and love,
Antonios

Stephanos

11-01-2006, 10:13 PM

Dear Antonios,

You asked:

Although we should not be alarmed, as the Lord tell us, should we just sit back, yelling "Maranatha!", "Lord, come!", as society and our fellow humans destroy themselves?

In answer to this, let me borrow an important concept from the Hindu tradition. This concept is "dharma" which, in this particular context, can be translated as "duty". The Bhagavad-gita states that, no matter what happens, one has to fulfill his duty, without expecting any results.

I agree that we seem to live in the last days (or very near to them.) I also agree that there is nothing we can do about it, and that we should look forward to the upcoming Armageddon (or Ragnarok, or the night of Brahma) with submission and hope. But we have to do our duty, Christian or otherwise, fighting against what we know for sure to be wrong.

Best regards,

Mariusz

Antonios

11-01-2006, 11:29 PM

Thank you Mariusz for your post. I whole heartedly agree. I tried to put it as a rhetorical question in response to how we as Christians should react to society's moral decay. As you nicely stated, we cannot just sit back and wait for Armageddon. It is our Christian duty to strengthen the Church, preach the Gospel, and help our fellow humans, animals, environment, etc.

I guess the difficult part is learning to do this in a world which is progressively becoming counter-Christian. We should not break laws, but we should primarily not break the commandments.

How can we ever hope to stop this current of moral decay (ex: the acceptance of homosexual marriage, abortion, death penalty, etc., etc.) in a society which is becoming ever more secular and disengaged with its traditional Christian morality and which has packs of attorneys, litiginous social minorities and agencies like the ACLU waiting for the slightest mis-statement or unagreeable action to spring into action?

I guess my answer is that we are to start by working on our own salvation, and then those around us. Hopefully after six degrees of this, we'll have everyone, including Kevin Bacon, covered!http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

Alec Lowly

12-01-2006, 12:59 AM

Mariusz writes:

"This message appears to be addressed to fundamentalist Christians, and I am not one of them. For this reason, I can address only the part concerning the homosexual "marriage"."

Hmm, my brother. This sounds like you're ducking the issues the gay spokesman was raising. While it may be true that you, personally, are not engaging in the legal, political and public relations battle that the evangelicals are waging agsainst "the homosexual agenda," i.e., the struggle of gays/lesbians to be afforded equal rights as citizens, would you condemn what the evangelicals are doing? I think not.

"I would simply advise this gentleman to stop playing on emotions and to use his God-given rational faculties. I would tell him that this whole issue is not so much about homosexuality as about marriage. I would also ask him to think deep about the real meaning of marriage which can be easily seen from the natural law, common sense and the millennia-old praxis."

Horsefeathers. By that line of reasoning, we would all be living in theocratic monarchies on a flat earth, trading in the labor of slaves/serfs. By that line of reasoning, women wouldn't be entitled to own property or to vote. By that line of reasoning, air flight would be impossible -- it's only "common sense" that heavier-than-air crafts cannot fly. Etc., etc.

"I would point out to him that even the societies which fully approved of homosexuality (eg., ancient Greece) never tried to introduce homosexual "marriage"."

Good luck with that argument, Mariusz. It sounds quaint even to me.

Let me be clear. I do not believe that the practice of homosexuality is ever consonant with Christian morality, nor do I believe that the church can "marry" same-gender couples, even if, God forbid, it wanted to. My beliefs in this matter are the direct fruit of my Christian faith. They are explicitly religious beliefs.

Now: What about the civil rights of my countrymen who do not share my religious beliefs?

Call it marriage, call it civil union, call it what you like -- in civil society this is a civil institution. In many Western countries, the practice is two ceremonies -- one religious, one civil. A secular state may make such arrangements for "domestic partnerships" as seems politically expedient.

Is it to be the Christian position that we reserve the right to use the power of state to impose Christian values on people who reject, freely and legally, Christian vaiues?

Please do not appeal to the past history of the church -- to Constantine, Justinian, "Holy Russia." Those states were autocracies which have ended up on the ash heap of history. I am prepared to argue, and at length, that every time the church gave in to the temptation to wield temporal power, the end result was the corruption and paralysis of the church, not the moral exaltation of the state. The classic case is the once-glorious Church of Rome.

The church's job is to be the salt and the leaven. The church's job is to be the light on the hill. The church's job is to be righteous remnant for whose sake the Lord will spare the city. The church's job is to proclaim the truth. So long as the world leaves us free to be and to do those things, we must find a way to live in peace with our neighbors.

"We like to think of ourselves as scientifically rational beings while, in fact, our present culture in the West is based on sentimental emotionalism and a fuzzy belief system which we call "democracy." The above quote is a very good example of these tendencies."

Hmm. So what alternative to "democracy" are you proposing, Mariusz?

There's an extremist Protestant movement in the United States known as Reconstructionism, the aim of which is to establish "biblical morality" as the law of the land and to afford full citizenship only to "Christians" (Orthodox and RCs probably wouldn't make the cut). If you don't believe me, do a Google on Reconstructionism, also "Rushdoony," their theologian. I can only describe these folks as the American Taliban.

I know that you are not one of their number, of course, but when Christians start dissing "democracy" (whatever do you mean by the ""?), alarm bells start ringing in my head. I think of 1920s Germany ...

In XC,
Alercm, sinner

Alec Lowly

12-01-2006, 01:09 AM

Antonios writes:

"As Christians we have a very good general idea on how things will pan out in the end. Many of today's modern Orthodox masters tell us that we are currently in the end times."

We have been in the End Times since the Day of Pentecost. Whether the Lord returns tomorrow or in 10,000 years, our duty today is unchanged -- the law of love, God and neighbor. Great saints have been wrong about the end times before. The real challenge before the church is to figure out how to go forward into history if these are ~not~ the end times.

"Although we are told many things are still to happen and the parousia is likely a long time away, the history of our world and the signs of the times clearly demonstrate that we are approaching the return of our Lord Jesus Christ. The Lord Himself tells us "When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come." (Mark 13:7)"

Cite one century since the Ascension when there were no "wars and rumors of wars."

"By the obvious decaying of Christian values and social morals that are occuring, we should not be alarmed but understand that these things must come to pass."

Sure. When they do.

"Christianity and society is and will continue to be at odds with each other. The 'religion' of the world is quickly drifting far from the teachings of our Lord."

When was "the 'religion' of the world" ever the teachings of Christ?

"The question that has always occured to me when a discussion such as this thread comes up which questions how we as Christians and sinners should react to/ accommodate e with/ fight against the moral decay of our society is this:
Although we should not be alarmed, as the Lord tell us, should we just sit back, yelling "Maranatha!", "Lord, come!", as society and our fellow humans destroy themselves?"

What do you propose that we do, Antonios? Force people to believe? Force them to be good?

In XC,
Alec, sinner

Alec Lowly

12-01-2006, 01:15 AM

Antonios writes:

"How can we ever hope to stop this current of moral decay (ex: the acceptance of homosexual marriage, abortion, death penalty, etc., etc.) in a society which is becoming ever more secular and disengaged with its traditional Christian morality and which has packs of attorneys, litiginous social minorities and agencies like the ACLU waiting for the slightest mis-statement or unagreeable action to spring into action?"

Good grief, Antonios, Christian societies have exacted the death penalty since time out of mind. I agree with you, though: it's wrong. The Christian societies that practiced it were wrong to do so. But you realize, I hope, that principled opposition to the death penalty is hardly a conservative or traditional position?

In XC,
Alec, sinner

Stephanos

12-01-2006, 02:47 PM

Dear Alec,

Please note that in your reply you did not manage to objectively counter any of my arguments. You called them "horsefeathers", you busily constructed your straw men, you drew unwarranted conclusions - and I don't want to continue this style of "discussion". Be happy in your beliefs.

Best regards,

Mariusz

Fr Aaron Warwick

12-01-2006, 03:58 PM

In this discussion, I think it is important to keep in mind a principle that seems to be a part of the patristic tradition. No person is entirely evil and no person is entirely good. I think the same principle can be applied to societies as well.

While I am not going to give money to or further the cause of the ACLU, for example, I believe they do many good things as well as many bad things. While I'm not a fan of the media, I believe the media does many good things and many bad things. Likewise, while I do not like the idea of civil unions or gay marriage or whatever you want to call it, the mindset that leads to that recognition is not all bad.

As an Orthodox Christian living in the USA, I cannot agree with either of the two parties in our current political system. I am certainly not fond of the so-called "religious right" because, quite frankly, if they had their way, most Orthodox Christians wouldn't make the cut. On the other hand, while I can't agree with the majority of the left, at least they are respectful towards my own personal opinions.

As has been briefly mentioned in this discussion, we could go back to the "good old days" when gay marriage and some of the other moral atrocities of today were considered unacceptable. Of course, the problem with that is that blacks and women were not accepted then. Neither were women who had children out of wedlock, etc.

Personally, the issues mentioned above (i.e. Democrat vs. Republican, conservative vs. liberal, living with corruption in the 1950's vs. living with the corruption in the 21st century) have perplexed me for quite some time. I have finally come to the conclusion that I must realize that this life on earth is, in reality, my home away from home. We are, by God's grace, sheep amongst wolves. We are in this world, but not of this world. There will always be this tension.

In regards to your orignal question, Mariusz, I don't know that I have any answers--just personal reflections. But I think it's an important question and we must ultimately continue to ask this question and to seek God and the Church's guidance in this area.

Please forgive my rambling.

Aaron

Owen Jones

12-01-2006, 04:07 PM

"But we have to do our duty, Christian or otherwise, fighting against what we know for sure to be wrong." To the contrary, it seems to me that the only duty we have in fighting wrong is to struggle to right the wrongs within ourselves. We are commanded not to resist evil, meaning, that we should not perceive our Christian duty to be fighting evil in others.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

12-01-2006, 07:22 PM

Two points for what is a very important discussion.

1) There is a qualitative and important difference between the societies formed as Christian polities basically from the time of the Emperor St Constanine up until approximately the time of the Enlightenment. After this Christian morality still played a crucial though diminishing role in social & legal culture which lasted up until about the 1960s or 1970s.

Those of us of a certain age can probably remember very clearly the difference between then and now. This difference chiefly boils down to man seeing himself as defining for himself every possible concept that governs his life. And there has been a noticable movement in this mode of self-definition so that it has become increasingly individualistic. To put this in Orthodox terms man governs himself to little or no degree by any truth outside of his own making which certainly gives God little room in his life.

The result of this is that moral standards are corroding for without an objective anchor in real truth man's standards tend towards the subjective- ie selfish and nihilistic- since man as the definition of himself ends in nothing. It is largely within this perspective that society's increasing acceptance of homosexuality is found. After all in the not too distant past such behaviour was seen as aberrant. How this change affects our own Orthodox response to this and other such sins- and I think the change is undeniable in the sense that we are more likely to accept this as an 'involuntary sin of nature'- is very important.

It is only recently that we have begun to see law as being an objective force above cultural standards. In the past it was much more clearly recognised that law is only the reflection of how society defines truth- and law was
'blind' or not prejudiced chiefly in the sense that it was not swayed by other forces which do not reflect truth. Within this perspective- which remained until very recently- law was the reflection of society's moral standard & chiefly its upholder- only in the last resort was it seen as an instrument of state force for it was clearly recognised that the whole basis of law is the tacit & willing acceptance of one basic moral standard- and that it is this which defines what a society is. In a crucial sense this is what society from Roman/Hellenic times meant- a common society based on a common moral standard or truth outside of the subjective individual. Once again it was in this cultural framework that laws concerning homosexuality and other moral sins arose.

2) The situation that now faces us is radically different from that of the Christian polity where law reflects a common moral standard. Now law reflects the fact that society accepts that there are different moral standards based on many different self-definitions of truth. From rights as the protection of the individual's protected ability to do what is morally right in terms of the community- the older definition- rights now means protection of differing moral standards within certain limits. The ambiguity of such a concept of law was always there even from the time of the Christian polity- this cannot be avoided in real life- but from Enlightenment times on and especially so in ours this ambiguity has tipped its balance decidedly in favour of 'differing moral standards' as against 'certain limits'. Again, one cannot understand Christian concerns about the present state of law and social standards unless one takes the dynamic character of society into account- the fact that it has an inner logic which tends to move it in a certain direction.

All of this leaves us in a profoundly ambiguous position as Orthodox Christians. Many have a kind of nostalgia for what was but yet as stated in this thread have great hesitancy about legal-state means for governing morality. The problem is more though that we are very hesitant about using state means to roll back the law for there is obviously a kind of compulsion about this where we are imposing our standards on others who live their lives by other moral values. Clarity is needed on this particular issue- we are not just talking about whether law should be used to govern morality- we are talking about whether we as only one - possibly minority- part of society may properly use legal means to impose our standards on those who by society's own definition are only living by their own legitimate standards.

I would submit that this whole situation- which is really radically different from what we faced in the past- has no easy solution. As others have pointed out we must discern what causes are worthy even if it involves a level of imposition of standards on others.

A last note here which connects directly to the point about the radical change in society compared to the past. I believe that this social change has made all of us far more isolated from each other- morally, spiritually (even geographically which is interesting) than previously. For all of the globalisation that there really is we are often as individuals far less social by the older definition. If any of this is so than we also are quite profoundly 'different' and this in turn profoundly affects life in the Church.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Stephanos

12-01-2006, 11:36 PM

Dear Owen

We are commanded not to resist evil, meaning, that we should not perceive our Christian duty to be fighting evil in others.

So, please, tell me what was Jesus Christ doing when he chased the money-lenders out of the Temple? Or Saint George when he killed the dragon?

Best regards,

Mariusz

Owen Jones

13-01-2006, 12:04 AM

Perhaps we should ask Him.

Alec Lowly

13-01-2006, 01:18 AM

Mariusz writes:

"Please note that in your reply you did not manage to objectively counter any of my arguments. You called them "horsefeathers", you busily constructed your straw men, you drew unwarranted conclusions - and I don't want to continue this style of "discussion". Be happy in your beliefs."

Thank you, Mariusz. Be happy in yours as well. And let the record show that you have chosen not to answer any of the questions I raised. Not that you are answerable to me, by no means.

Peace,
Alec, sinner

Alec Lowly

13-01-2006, 01:22 AM

Owen writes:

""But we have to do our duty, Christian or otherwise, fighting against what we know for sure to be wrong." To the contrary, it seems to me that the only duty we have in fighting wrong is to struggle to right the wrongs within ourselves. We are commanded not to resist evil, meaning, that we should not perceive our Christian duty to be fighting evil in others."

I think that our brother Owen has made an important contribution to this discussion.

In XC,
Alec, sinner

Stephanos

13-01-2006, 02:40 AM

Dear Aaron,

In this discussion, I think it is important to keep in mind a principle that seems to be a part of the patristic tradition. No person is entirely evil and no person is entirely good. I think the same principle can be applied to societies as well.

I completely agree. Alas, this is one of the fundamental truths that nowadays are much too often forgotten. Too many people think in terms of Democrat vs. Republican, Christian vs. secularist, etc., etc., and are extremely unwilling to acknowledge even the tiniest bit of good or right in the views of the opposing party.

while I do not like the idea of civil unions or gay marriage or whatever you want to call it, the mindset that leads to that recognition is not all bad.

In my opinion it is the mindset that is utterly erroneous here, because it does not take into account the natural law, tradition and common sense, only the assumed "right" of an individual.

Incidentally, I am not against the civil unions for homosexuals and the material benefits derived thereof, as long as the traditional understanding of marriage is left unmolested.

As an Orthodox Christian living in the USA, I cannot agree with either of the two parties in our current political system. I am certainly not fond of the so-called "religious right" because, quite frankly, if they had their way, most Orthodox Christians wouldn't make the cut. On the other hand, while I can't agree with the majority of the left, at least they are respectful towards my own personal opinions.

I understand your position and share it with one correction: I yet have to see any respect shown to religion by the left...

As has been briefly mentioned in this discussion, we could go back to the "good old days" when gay marriage and some of the other moral atrocities of today were considered unacceptable. Of course, the problem with that is that blacks and women were not accepted then. Neither were women who had children out of wedlock, etc.

I don't think this would be possible, short of using the time machine. Just the same, the issue of the homosexual "marriage" is totally incomparable to the (legitimate) human rights of blacks or women. The pro-gay propaganda tries to present it in such a way but the comparison is fallacious. Sexual orientation is simply not on the same level with gender or race, and placing it there may lead to very dangerous consequences (if homosexuals are a minority, why not sadomasochists, or pedophiles, or necrophiles? All it takes is a logical application of the democratic dogma of universal equality by an activist judge.

I have finally come to the conclusion that I must realize that this life on earth is, in reality, my home away from home. We are, by God's grace, sheep amongst wolves. We are in this world, but not of this world. There will always be this tension.

Once again, this is my feeling as well. The Orthodox Christianity always stressed this truth. But the question is, do we have any duties to fulfill in this reality, or do we just sit in a sheep pen and wait for the liberating death?

Best regards,

Mariusz

Stephanos

13-01-2006, 04:51 AM

Dear Fr Raphael,

man governs himself to little or no degree by any truth outside of his own making which certainly gives God little room in his life.

The result of this is that moral standards are corroding for without an objective anchor in real truth man's standards tend towards the subjective- ie selfish and nihilistic- since man as the definition of himself ends in nothing.

I fully agree. The modern (or, perhaps, post-modern, whatever that's supposed to mean) man has severed his vertical/spiritual dimension, and now his development - or, rather, an illusion of development - can be only horizontal/materialistic. This constitutes the negation of human essence. Of course, man can still be "happy" but with the "happiness" of pigs in the mud (this is meant only as a simile, pigs - like all animals - are much truer to their nature than the man has ever been.)

Now law reflects the fact that society accepts that there are different moral standards based on many different self-definitions of truth.

In my perception law does not reflect any moral truths anymore, only the dictates of the new religion of "democracy."

All of this leaves us in a profoundly ambiguous position as Orthodox Christians. Many have a kind of nostalgia for what was but yet as stated in this thread have great hesitancy about legal-state means for governing morality. The problem is more though that we are very hesitant about using state means to roll back the law for there is obviously a kind of compulsion about this where we are imposing our standards on others who live their lives by other moral values. Clarity is needed on this particular issue- we are not just talking about whether law should be used to govern morality- we are talking about whether we as only one - possibly minority- part of society may properly use legal means to impose our standards on those who by society's own definition are only living by their own legitimate standards.

I would like to point out that I have not advocated anywhere in my postings the use of "legal means to impose our standards" on anybody. I believe in individual responsibility before God (or any other legitimate authority), and my neighbor's sins are his problem, not mine. It is only when these sins are actually poised to harm the values I believe to be tried and true that I rise to defend them. At present we are witnessing a secularist attack on religion, and clearly not a religious attack on secularism. In many countries the laws are being arbitrarily and undemocratically changed, believers are being slandered as reactionary wingnuts, liberal bigotry is allowed full rein, and emotional demagoguery deceives the young and the naive. Under this assault it is moot to debate whether Christians have a right to impose their values on society. First we need to find a means of spiritual survival.

Best regards,

Mariusz

Eleftheria

13-01-2006, 07:41 AM

Dear Fr. Raphael,
Bless.

Thank you for your initial answer to my question regarding homosexual union. However, I believe the answer you provided in post #878 really covers all the areas - social/legal/spiritual/moral - that my question (perhaps not explicitly)raised.

A thought on your last paragraph about the fact that we are more isolated in spite of globalisation: With the breakdown of family, here I mean extended family - parents plus offspring plus grandparents plus aunts, uncles & cousins - the isolation can be intense. The US lost this structure and its interdependence/reliability some decades ago. That is evident in how things are addressed on the media (ie, 'The NBC/ABC/CBS "family"'),at the local schools (also refered to as "family"), and even in the churches (wherein the priests refer to the congregation as "family"). Such touchy-feeliness is, I believe, an external component of what is a desperate need within western society. That need, of course, is family - in its nuclear plus extended sense.

The situation here in Cyprus (because it is a small country & largely Orthodox) has not lost that type of family - yet. I say yet, because it is beginning to change here, due of course to the westernization of society. Whether it will get to the point of tolerating and legalizing homosexual union, only God knows.

If family in the west were to have continued being family and living within range of each other,growing together and helping each other,perhaps there wouldn't be this media-driven, societally-crazed mania for pushing what was as you say once aberrant behavior. In other words, family would be the precedent and discussions about homosexual union would not be taking place.

What's next,substitute the word pedophile for homosexual?

In Christ,
Eleftheria

Byron Jack Gaist

13-01-2006, 12:01 PM

Dear all,

This is a very interesting discussion. Whichever "side" of things one is on, it seems as if something is slipping away in our times. If you are a Christian, then you sadly experience the corrosion, reversal and distortion of everything you believe in. If you are a left-wing liberal atheist, you look at the overwhelming diversity of opinion and behaviour that your beliefs have encouraged and aimed to protect, and you cannot perhaps (if you are even a little intelligent about it) help but wonder why we can't just get along more now the "ogres" of religion and "backward" thought are "finally" dying the death.

In Christ
Byron

Stephanos

13-01-2006, 02:51 PM

Dear Owen,

Perhaps we should ask Him.

Ah, I see.

Best regards,

Mariusz

Stephanos

13-01-2006, 02:56 PM

Dear Alec,

And let the record show that you have chosen not to answer any of the questions I raised. Not that you are answerable to me, by no means.

I answer only real arguments, not emotional outpourings. Life is too short for playing such games.

Best regards,

Mariusz

Fr Raphael Vereshack

13-01-2006, 04:17 PM

Dear Mariusz & Eleftheria,

It seems that we are trying to balance our natural hesitancy as Orthodox Christians not to impose our own standards on others who do not hold to these- and our belief that our responsability is towards the wider community & does not stop with the individual (ie- ourselves). Balancing these two which was already difficult in a Christian world is made doubly so in a world whose standards may or may not be Christian.

Actually the example of pedophilia was at the back of my mind as an example of the ambiguity we face when it comes to this issue. Thankfully society still has an instinctual abhorrance about this but already there are those- at least in Canada- who are making in court the exact same legal arguments as are/were made in regards to homosexuality. One defense presently is also that the present legal definition of rights tends to still defend the child. The weakness in this definition however has already been shown to be in the idea of 'consenting': ie if anyone can show that two parties are 'consenting' then much of the hesitation about the behaviour begins to disappear. This all goes back to what we mean by 'rights' nowadays and how we mean willing consent rather than an overall moral standard that would prevent even two willing parties from engaging in something which is morally wrong.

In any case as with abortion and homosexuality, we would as Orthodox Christians react very strongly to any movement in society towards legalising pedophiles- even if this was 'consenting'. But again we would be in the ambiguous position of being perhaps a minority trying to impose our standards on a majority. Whether we would have the stomach to continue this struggle long term is anyone's guess. But given our attitudes towards abortion and homosexuality it seems that we are more inclined to gradually accept behaviour between consenting adults even if it is wrong than we are to accept that a mother has a legal right over her foetus. But does this mean that we also accept to some degree the argument that 'consent' makes things more justified? Perhaps so. After all to a mother's right to abort a child we often reply "what about the rights of the un-born child?"

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Rev. Luke Huggins

13-01-2006, 06:59 PM

Evryone keeps refering to or implying that there is or was a Christain World. Is this ment in a geographic context, a point in time in history or what exactly?

Alec Lowly

13-01-2006, 07:58 PM

Mariusz writes:
<<<>>>

Rational questions, not "emotional outpourings":

1. What about the civil rights of (our) countrymen who do not share (our) religious beliefs?
2. Is it to be the Christian position that we reserve the right to use the power of state to impose Christian values on people who reject, freely and legally, Christian values?
3. Marusz writes: "We like to think of ourselves as scientifically rational beings while, in fact, our present culture in the West is based on sentimental emotionalism and a fuzzy belief system which we call "democracy." The above quote is a very good example of these tendencies."
The question: So what alternative to quote-unquote democracy are you proposing, Mariusz?

In XC,
Alec, sinner

Alec Lowly

13-01-2006, 08:50 PM

Alec writes:
"The real challenge before the church is to figure out how to go forward into history if these are ~not~ the end times."

I am repeating this sentence because there's the rub. If the parousia is indeed imminent -- wthin our lifetimes, or the lifetimes of our children or grandchildren -- then this entire discussion is a waste of time. If the parousia is ~not~ imminent, we Orthodox Christians have a lot of work to do, because the church must define itself and its mission within a totally new context. I do know a monk who has wondered, privately, "In the year 7102, our times would be seen as 'the early church.'"

Father Raphael writes:

"It is only recently that we have begun to see law as being an objective force above cultural standards. In the past it was much more clearly recognised that law is only the reflection of how society defines truth - and law was
'blind' or not prejudiced chiefly in the sense that it was not swayed by other forces which do not reflect truth."

Society is competent to "define truth"? Let us remember that "society" is only people. The government and the state, for that matter, are only people; otherwise, they are abstractions that have no real existence. What sets government/the state apart from all other corporate entities, what defines its very nature, is that government/the state has a moral monopoly on the use of force. If I take your money against your will, it's theft. If the government does it, it's taxation. If I kill you, it's murder. If the state kills you, it's justice.

Let's be very clear what we're talking about when we use the words "society" and "the state."

Father Raphael writes:

"Within this perspective- which remained until very recently-law was the reflection of society's moral standard & chiefly its upholder-only in the last resort was it seen as an instrument of state force for it was clearly recognised that the whole basis of law is the tacit & willing acceptance of one basic moral standard-and that it is this which defines what a society is. In a crucial sense this is what society from Roman/Hellenic times meant-a common society based on a common moral standard or truth outside of the subjective individual."

The weakest, most vulnerable "minority" in society is the lone individual -- and, at times, the most ferociously persecuted. The test of the justice of the rule of law is not how it treats its supporters, but its dissenters. We Christians ought to be exquisitely sensitive to this point, because we are dissenters by our spiritual calling. We do not belong to society, we do not belong to the state -- we belong to Christ and His kingdom. To be a Christian is to say no to this world, no to the flesh, no to the Devil.

Father Raphael writes:

"The situation that now faces us is radically different from that of the Christian polity where law reflects a common moral standard. Now law reflects the fact that society accepts that there are different moral standards based on many different self-definitions of truth."

Ultimate truths are not the business of "society." Such truths cannot be said to exist except within the mind and heart of individual men and women -- for these truths to become incontestably real, they must become "incarnated."

Father Raphael writes:

"From rights as the protection of the individual's protected ability to do what is morally right in terms of the community- the older definition- rights now means protection of differing moral standards within certain limits. The ambiguity of such a concept of law was always there even from the time of the Christian polity- this cannot be avoided in real life- but from Enlightenment times on and especially so in ours this ambiguity has tipped its balance decidedly in favour of 'differing moral standards' as against 'certain limits'."

Why? Because the Enlightenment acknowledged that the ultimate things are no business of the state, which is temporal and temporary by nature, therefore the right of each men and women to live as their consciences dictate is by far the higher morality. Or else: Pinch of incense for Caesar, anyone? Or else: Oceans of blood spilled, Christian killing Christian in the wars of religion.

Father Raphael writes:

"Again, one cannot understand Christian concerns about the present state of law and social standards unless one takes the dynamic character of society into account- the fact that it has an inner logic which tends to move it in a certain direction."

That's the reason why the government that governs least, governs best.

In XC,
Alec, sinner

Alec Lowly

13-01-2006, 09:16 PM

Owen writes:

"So, please, tell me what was Jesus Christ doing when he chased the money-lenders out of the Temple? Or Saint George when he killed the dragon?

The Lord had every right to expel the money-lenders. The temple was, after all, His Father's house. According to one version, the dragon St. George killed was accustomed to dining on virgins. No one contests that the defense of the innocent is righteous action.

Alec, sinner

Alec Lowly

13-01-2006, 09:25 PM

Father Raphael writes:

"In any case as with abortion and homosexuality, we would as Orthodox Christians react very strongly to any movement in society towards legalising pedophiles- even if this was 'consenting'."

We are probably going to have to accept the idea that what two consenting adults do in private is nobody's business but their own. But this opens no door to pedophilia. There is no "equality" of consent between an adult and a child. Therefore the state has a legitimate interest in protecting childen (the weak) against the depredations of the strong (the pedophiles).

In XC,
Alec, sinner

Antonios

13-01-2006, 10:08 PM

Stephanos

13-01-2006, 11:59 PM

Dear Alec,

1. What about the civil rights of (our) countrymen who do not share (our) religious beliefs?

I don't have any problem with them, as long as they don't legally collide with our rights to hold specific religious beliefs. (Note: I am not in business of converting anybody.) When such collision is inevitable, the only solution is the use of the "equal-but-separate" paradigm (of course, an anathema to a "democratic liberal.")

2. Is it to be the Christian position that we reserve the right to use the power of state to impose Christian values on people who reject, freely and legally, Christian values?

I don't believe so, but this may depend on the particular character of their rejection (i.e., whether it causes any harm to individuals and/or society.)

My answer to no. 3 will be the longest so it must wait for later.

Best regards,

Mariusz

Alec Lowly

14-01-2006, 12:10 AM

Antonios writes:

"We should live like the parousia will be tomorrow, or better next, in the next five minutes. Also, the Church's mission does not change, it is society which changes."

If you check back on this thread, my brother, you will find that I pretty much said this.

However, to the extent that circumstances change, the church does change in order to meet them. If that were not the case, the church would have nothing to say to the world that the world could grasp.

We Orthodox Christians have a tradition of incredible richness and depth. When I said that the church has "a lot of work to do" vis-a-vis the modern age, what I meant is that the time has come -- indeed, it's overdue -- for the church to reach back into its tradition and find what it needs to deal with radically new circumstances.

Byzantium is gone. Holy Russia is gone. Neither will return. The challenge before us today is Orthodoxy for here and now, for these times, for climes where Orthodoxy is new, such as North America.

In XC,
Alec, sinner

Fr Raphael Vereshack

14-01-2006, 12:40 AM

Alec wrote

We are probably going to have to accept the idea that what two consenting adults do in private is nobody's business but their own.

By 'it's none of your business' we usually mean to not concern yourself with what I am doing. This is difficult for Christians since we believe that all people have a connection with each other and that one individuals' behaviour also affects all. Interference in another's life though of course is a much more delicate matter. As stated previously on this thread as Christians we properly have a great hesitation about anything which approaches compulsion of others. So again we come back to the balance also spoken of before.

Alec continues

But this [homosexualtiy]opens no door to pedophilia.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that this opens no door. In the spiritual life we know that falling into one passionate act can lead to falling into another and then into something increasingly worse. This is a kind of perverse law of human nature unless a struggle against the passions is undertaken.

Alec then says

There is no "equality" of consent between an adult and a child. Therefore the state has a legitimate interest in protecting childen (the weak) against the depredations of the strong (the pedophiles)

I would tend to agree that there is no equality. But society is continualy pushing the envelope about this. I would say that what is predatory but willing is being increasingly pushed forward so that at this point it is only barely beneath the surface of society.

I agree though that as long as one party can appeal to being 'unconsenting' then the protection of the law seems secure.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Antonios

14-01-2006, 09:52 AM

Alec writes

If the parousia is ~not~ imminent, we Orthodox Christians have a lot of work to do, because the church must define itself and its mission within a totally new context.

Alex, I want to reiterate what I wrote earlier because I think this is where our views differ. ( Again, these are my views and I am neither a member of the clergy nor a theologian, nor in fact a very learned person, and I do not want to give the impression that I think I am right and you are wrong. In fact, I am often quite wrong and discussion forums like this help me see my errors and learn from my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.)

Regarding the quote above, my understanding is that the Church's mission does not change and it does not need to define itself; it is society which changes and feels the need to define what the Church is. That is the difference between the Apostolic, Orthodox Church and the other Christian traditions, notably the Protestant and Episcopalian faiths.

I understand your points that the times of the day need to be aknowledged and addressed by the Church, but this does not mean the Church has to change its fundamental beliefs. The message of the Gospel has always been the same. Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Instead of wavering and cowaring to the social decay around, the Church instead needs to stand firm in its Apostolic beliefs and teachings. Now more than ever we need a Church that doesn't change to accomidate the individualistic opinions of certain social minorities, but rather stands firm in maintaining the message of Christ. Although this may sound selective, this will lead more sinners to salvation than otherwise. We sinners who are caught up in the waves and the rapids of the human condition need a strong anchor to hold on to if we are to be saved.

Stephanos

14-01-2006, 07:28 PM

Dear Antonios,

I understand your points that the times of the day need to be aknowledged and addressed by the Church, but this does not mean the Church has to change its fundamental beliefs. The message of the Gospel has always been the same. Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Instead of wavering and cowaring to the social decay around, the Church instead needs to stand firm in its Apostolic beliefs and teachings. Now more than ever we need a Church that doesn't change to accomidate the individualistic opinions of certain social minorities, but rather stands firm in maintaining the message of Christ. Although this may sound selective, this will lead more sinners to salvation than otherwise. We sinners who are caught up in the waves and the rapids of the human condition need a strong anchor to hold on to if we are to be saved.

Thank you for saving me the time by providing this excellent answer to Alec's proposition. I also believe that the world should follow the Church, not the other way around (numerous statements to this effect can be, of course, found in the Scriptures), and if it doesn't, well, it is the world's problem, not the Church's. The good shepherd can run after a lost sheep only so long, lest he risks abandoning his entire flock.

Best regards,

Mariusz

Stephanos

14-01-2006, 07:46 PM

Dear Fr Raphael,

I wouldn't go so far as to say that this opens no door. In the spiritual life we know that falling into one passionate act can lead to falling into another and then into something increasingly worse. This is a kind of perverse law of human nature unless a struggle against the passions is undertaken.

I have recently encountered a reference to a study which attributed 81% of the assumed pedophilia cases in the Catholic Church to homosexuals within the Ecclesia.

I would tend to agree that there is no equality. But society is continualy pushing the envelope about this. I would say that what is predatory but willing is being increasingly pushed forward so that at this point it is only barely beneath the surface of society.

I agree though that as long as one party can appeal to being 'unconsenting' then the protection of the law seems secure.

Two observations:

1. The age of consent in Canada is fourteen (14). A recent attempt in the Parliament to raise it has been defeated by the Liberals and the NDP (our local Socialists) on the grounds that such a change would criminalize "smooching teenagers". Considering the very loose application of almost any law in Canada, such an objection is ridiculous.

On the other hand, Canada has been for many years one of the preferred sex tourism destinations for pedophiles. Thank you, the enlightened and progressive Liberals!

2. "I agree though that as long as one party can appeal to being 'unconsenting' then the protection of the law seems secure."

For the child, maybe. But not for the other party who can be very easily framed by scheming parents, or even the teenager in question.

Best regards,

Mariusz

Stephanos

14-01-2006, 07:55 PM

Dear Rev. Luke,

Evryone keeps refering to or implying that there is or was a Christain World. Is this ment in a geographic context, a point in time in history or what exactly?

Although I did not notice this supposedly recurring reference, I would think that it would concern what is usually called "Christendom". It had been for many centuries a religious, geographic and temporal reality.

For example, Europeans called themselves up to about the mid-18th century "Christians", and even later this appellation was not uncommon. This term is still used in Arabic to denote the Westerners (except, of course, the Jews.)

Best regards,

Mariusz

Stephanos

14-01-2006, 08:18 PM

Dear Alec,

Owen writes:

"So, please, tell me what was Jesus Christ doing when he chased the money-lenders out of the Temple? Or Saint George when he killed the dragon?

The Lord had every right to expel the money-lenders. The temple was, after all, His Father's house. According to one version, the dragon St. George killed was accustomed to dining on virgins. No one contests that the defense of the innocent is righteous action.

You are quoting me, not Owen, but I entirely agree with your conclusion. Actually, Owen seems to be saying that Christians are not supposed to fight back under any circumstances, while I believe that this particular scriptural injunction, seen in the context of both Christ's actions and numerous hagiographical incidents, must be understood as referring to personal injuries but definitely not to the duty of protecting ("loving") one's neighbor or one's faith. In other words, a Christian should turn the other cheek (his own) but cannot stand idle when his neighbor is getting murdered.

Best regards,

Mariusz

Stephanos

14-01-2006, 08:37 PM

Dear Fr Raphael,

One defense presently is also that the present legal definition of rights tends to still defend the child.

Unfortunately, the stress must be placed on "still". With unelected, activist judges running amock in Canada one never really knows what's going to happen next. Legalizing pedophilia seems to be a long shot but the legalization (or, at least, de-criminalization) of polygamy and, perhaps, sadomasochism appears to be just round the corner.

In any case as with abortion and homosexuality, we would as Orthodox Christians react very strongly to any movement in society towards legalising pedophiles- even if this was 'consenting'. But again we would be in the ambiguous position of being perhaps a minority trying to impose our standards on a majority.

All we have to do is stand firm in our rejection of these phenomena, and make it public. We would not be imposing anything on anybody but we would in no uncertain terms refuse to co-operate in the acceptance and spreading of what we consider wrong. This is precisely what I have had in mind when I asked my initial question about Orthodoxy and civil disobedience.

Best regards,

Mariusz

Stephanos

14-01-2006, 09:44 PM

Dear Alec,

Finally I can get to answering your third question, namely,

3. Mar[i]usz writes: "We like to think of ourselves as scientifically rational beings while, in fact, our present culture in the West is based on sentimental emotionalism and a fuzzy belief system which we call "democracy." The above quote is a very good example of these tendencies."

The question: So what alternative to quote-unquote democracy are you proposing, Mariusz?

First of all, let me point out that one can clearly and correctly see the faults of something without having to have the means, or even an obligation, to find a better option. For this reason your question is invalid. Nevertheless, I will gladly tell you about my reservations in regard to democracy.

Many people seem to think that democracy is some sort of scientific discipline, based on empirical observations and faultless logic. In fact, democracy is only a belief system and its axioms are completely arbitrary, and often contrary to experience. There is not much difference, then, between democracy and religion, and I would even say that religion has much more solid foundations in the revelation and the natural law.

This is a huge topic, which I cannot hope to cover in this posting. If you are interested in its elaboration, please read William D. Gairdner's "The trouble with democracy. A citizen speaks out" (Stoddard, 2001), or - from a more metaphysical angle - Ananda K. Coomaraswamy's "The Bugbear of Democracy, Freedom and Equality", in: "The betrayal of tradition", ed. by Harry Oldmeadow, World Wisdom Inc., 2005, pp. 121-150.

Sir Winston Churchill has quipped once that "democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." Be it as it may, my greatest problem with democracy is that it does not really exist (that's why I have been using parentheses around this term.)

Democracy is defined as:

1: the political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives 2: a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them [syn: republic, commonwealth] [ant: autocracy] 3: the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group [syn: majority rule] (Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University)

Since the immediate experience of many of us lies within North America, let's have a look at the actual implementation of nos. 2 and 3 above in Canada and USA :

2: a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them.

In USA, the two bodies exercising the actual power are the Supreme Court and the Federal Reserve Board - both unelected. In Canada, the Prime Minister, once elected, has - at least in theory - unlimited powers. In both countries, the judiciary has for quite a while been the real seat of power. In Canada, people are allowed to vote for individual candidates but these candidates, if elected, have to toe the party line, thus resigning their responsibility toward their electors. And so on, and so forth.

3: the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group.

Every world government that has so far passed the legislation in regard to homosexual unions (either the civil union, or the marriage) has done so without consulting its citizens through a general referendum, even though this issue concerns absolutely everybody. Calls for such a referendum in Canada has been described in some of the media as "mob rule", and completely ignored by the Liberal government. Moreover, the whole issue of the homosexual "marriage" has been imposed by activist judges and not by any democratically elected body. No wonder that Plato, in his "Republic", described democracy as the form of the government directly leading to tyranny.

I could give you many more examples of this kind, but I don't think they would be necessary. The trend is obvious, and we should be very, very scared. For the time being, I'm thinking about getting myself a t-shirt which would say on one side, "Democracy is a figment of your imagination" and on the other, "Democracy is the opiate of the masses"...

Best regards,

Mariusz

Alec Lowly

15-01-2006, 06:38 PM

Mariusz writes:

"All we have to do is stand firm in our rejection of these phenomena, and make it public. We would not be imposing anything on anybody but we would in no uncertain terms refuse to co-operate in the acceptance and spreading of what we consider wrong. This is precisely what I have had in mind when I asked my initial question about Orthodoxy and civil disobedience."

You and I are agreement on this, Mariusz. The church not ony has the right to witness, but the duty to witness.

In XC,
Alec, sinner

Alec Lowly

15-01-2006, 06:46 PM

Mariusz said to Antonios:

"Thank you for saving me the time by providing this excellent answer to Alec's proposition. I also believe that the world should follow the Church, not the other way around (numerous statements to this effect can be, of course, found in the Scriptures), and if it doesn't, well, it is the world's problem, not the Church's. The good shepherd can run after a lost sheep only so long, lest he risks abandoning his entire flock."

If you look back over my posts, you will find that I ~never~ said that the church should follow the world. What I said is that the church has to figure out, from age to age, from people to people, how best and most effectively to preach the truth. To use a crude analogy from the business world: The issue is not the product, but the marketing of the product.

In XC,
Alec, sinner

Alec Lowly

15-01-2006, 06:56 PM

Mariusz writes:

"Sir Winston Churchill has quipped once that "democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." Be it as it may, my greatest problem with democracy is that it does not really exist (that's why I have been using parentheses around this term.)"

First, thank you for your clear and cogent response.

It happens that you have quoted Churchill to me before I had the opportunity to quote him to you <grin>. I agree with Churchill's quip.

Also, I am not blind to the faults and problems of democratic states in our times. Actually, you and I are not far apart in our perception of the structural problems endemic to North American democracies, in particular. And here in the States, more than half the eligible electorate seldom bothers to vote. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, I leave to personal opinion <grin>.

It may surprise you to learn that within my social circle I am often teased about one of my observations. "In politics, peaches grow on apple trees."

In XC,
Alec, sinner