Met Kallistos on "gender"

[gurneyhalleck1]

Other improprieties?

His homilies are one thing, just like Met Kallistos, the inspirational speeches aren't controversial. But when it came to dogma and adhering to tradition they tried to be everything to everyone. There have been plenty of criticisms of Met Bloom from allowing laxed discipline to promoting a cultic personality of himself to other improprieties.

 

[InnerPhyre]

I guess I'm just not willing to throw out a blanket condemnation of a man as holy as Metropolitan Kallistos, who has done so much for the Church because of a 5 minute sound bite. For a more clear understanding of his view on women and the priesthood, I would suggest reading Women and the Priesthood by Fr. Thomas Hopko, which includes an excellent chapter by Met. Kallistos on the subject.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I guess I'm just not willing to throw out a blanket condemnation of a man as holy as Metropolitan Kallistos, who has done so much for the Church because of a 5 minute sound bite. For a more clear understanding of his view on women and the priesthood, I would suggest reading Women and the Priesthood by Fr. Thomas Hopko, which includes an excellent chapter by Met. Kallistos on the subject.

I agree.....the work of someone in total can't be dismissed or forgotten for the overal message their work has spoken of because of a soundbite that had potential to be taken the wrong way.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I agree, IP. I have listened to lectures by Met. Kallistos and have gained a lot from them. His famous book was a huge part of my conversion. I have heard since day one about how some really conservative Orthodox raise an eyebrow at him claiming him "excessively ecumenical" and "a sellout" and how some bishops don't like him so he must be a crumb.

Most of the time the "excessive ecumenism" isn't excessive at all. It's usually much ado about nothing. I have heard Met. Kallistos talk about the imperative for us to dialogue with the Catholic Church and try our best to live out the expectations of Christ that "we may all be one." He has said that if we don't do everything in our power to reconcile the East and West, we are shamefully ignoring the Lord's admonition. At this point, the converts from Catholicism and Protestantism who have a chip on their shoulder angry or bitter toward their former communion say, 'is outrage! blasphemy! sell-out! traitor! You're willing to sell out the Orthodox faith for unity! I am not!" But the problem is, they stopped at that point in Met. Kallistos' speech and didn't let him continue! Because after the imperative to TRY and reach out to Catholicism, Met. Kallistos then goes on to say (paraphrasing) 'but ANY ecumenical talks, any reaching out, any dialogues we have with the Roman Church MUST be on our terms and they must accept Orthodox polity, theological musts like dropping the filioque and adopting a different view of the papacy and how we function as a colllective church, etc.' He goes on and on about preaching the Truth in Love to the West.

In the end, some people just hate Catholicism and don't want to touch it with a fifty-foot cattle prod. They have bad feelings about it, or they're former Catholics. Sometimes converts remind me of reformed smokers. A reformed smoker is somebody who smoked 3 packs of cigs a day for 25 years and then all of a sudden they go through a program and, after six months, are smoking-free. What's the first thing they do? They get on a band-wagon about how AWFUL other smokers are. They have to comment on every smoker's lighting up, roll their eyes, and inundate you with their conversion story and how sad and pathetic the people still stuck in smoking are.

So I see Met. Kallistos feeling more ecumenical and a bit more keen to talk about tough issues. Most Orthodox just don't even want to "go there" on many of these issues, so they never get treatment in a larger contextual dialogue.

I think I agree with what Rus says about language. The usage of the word "gay and lesbian" and "homosexual" and other imagery that the LGBT community uses is intentional, and it has a deeper psychological thrust to it seeking to indoctrinate us steadily through semantics. However, from my feeble readings of Met. Kallistos and listening to his lectures and following him to a certain degree, I don't see him as being the awful Leviathan that Buzuxi is making him out to be. I'm very hesitant to lambast and defame the guy's character at this point based on a few terms he used in a lecture. And from my reading of Rusmeister's post, I think he is equally slow to condemn the guy as a heretic. Rus is just fed up with the bad semantics. In that I concur.

I guess I'm just not willing to throw out a blanket condemnation of a man as holy as Metropolitan Kallistos, who has done so much for the Church because of a 5 minute sound bite. For a more clear understanding of his view on women and the priesthood, I would suggest reading Women and the Priesthood by Fr. Thomas Hopko, which includes an excellent chapter by Met. Kallistos on the subject.

 

[rusmeister]

My thanks, Gurney.
Yes, I am disappointed, if not surprised, that people read my words as "blanket" condemnation of the man. The thread title says what I intended - to address the root of the Metropolitan's error. It is sad that he is, I believe, fully one generation older than me, and has been so thoroughly taken by the modern language that either did not exist or was not used except by the radicals that sought approval for these things when he was young.

No one thinks that all of a man's wise and true thought and teaching should be dismissed because of error. It is only complaint about the error. Language enables truth or falsehood, and wrong language makes errors in thought possible in the first place. Knowing that it s wrong and why enables one to recognize the error.

If you guys GET that "gay", "orientation", "gender" and so on are wrong language, that they wrongly frame words in an un-Orthodox paradigm that enables lies and falsehood to spread, that it matters what we say and what words we choose, then I will think that I have done what little I can do here. And eventually, our hierarchs will, too, and a floodgate of false doctrine kept out of the Church.

Let us, insofar as we can, speak the language of our forefathers and the Church fathers, and avoid the fashionable terms that never existed in the Church.

Oh, and IP - I hear you. I can read anything free online. I can't read stuff that has to be ordered from America for $$$.

 

[rusmeister]

If I'm really wrong, I wish a clear majority of TAW'ers would come in and kick my butt, and show how the modern language expresses unchanging Orthodox truth, how "gay" really is the right word for those merry people, and so on.

But I think I'm only going to hear the sounds of silence, and the chirping of crickets.

 

[buzuxi02]

Language can be manipulated, no question about it. The problem is most of the laity is too lax or to naive to understand, or even worse agree with it. Its simply easy to manipulate the ignorant masses, just look at the new form of protest and expression is for women to bare their breasts in denonstration, then call it a 'wardrobe malfunction', all of a sudden its ok.

 

[rusmeister]

The single most helpful thing (4 pages or so), that helped me understand all this, in addition to all my years of teaching and learning languages, was Chesterton's "On Evil Euphemisms". Once I grasped the principle, I began to see that they are everywhere, and we are mostly unconscious of the fact.
"Birth control" is one massive example that Chesterton exposes.

By now we need footnotes. Fewer of us read Charles Dickens, and so don't know who Fagin is, for example (from "Oliver Twist").

 

[seashale76]

Having a love for correct terminology and usage and realizing that most other people don't share that love can be very irritating. However, it is also important to understand that language evolves over time. It is a normal and natural thing. The vast majority of people go with common usage. I'm sorry, but while interesting, I don't see how getting up in arms over terms like 'birth control' and 'gender' is anything other than pedantic at this point.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I guess I'm just not willing to throw out a blanket condemnation of a man as holy as Metropolitan Kallistos, who has done so much for the Church because of a 5 minute sound bite. For a more clear understanding of his view on women and the priesthood, I would suggest reading Women and the Priesthood by Fr. Thomas Hopko, which includes an excellent chapter by Met. Kallistos on the subject.

I agree. we have saints that believed in some "off" things, but we look at the totality of their life. I think far too often we fall into buzzwords (a lot like we do in American politics) when it comes to writers. folks have told me to avoid Elder Ephraim's monasteries and Fr Seraphim Rose's works because they are slobbering fundies who would just as soon yell at the heterodox than talk to them. others have told be to avoid Fr Schmemann or Met Kallistos because they are uber liberal modernists who would just as soon water down Orthodoxy because they are ecumenists than actually maintain the tradition. I found neither to be true (although I am more of a Fr Seraphim Rose kinda guy).

 

[beardedone]

Rus--I do not think that the terms themselves are the issue, but rather how they are used. I think it is acceptable for Orthodox to use the terms that you have issue with, but the way they are understood needs to be different than how they are understood outside of the Church. Terms like hypostatic and what not that the ECF's used in creating the central doctrines of the 4th and 5th centuries were not acceptable in their original intent either. The challenge was, and remains, how to use them in a way that is acceptable. This is the challenge of contextualization and should not be dismissed. I do agree with you though, that the way they are often used is very problematic for an Orthodox understanding of anthropology.

 

[rusmeister]

I understand that you can think that, BO,
I wonder if you understand why I DON'T think that? Did you read the short essay I linked to?

Do you know what etymology is and why it's relevant, that is, important? I knew the word, of course, but didn't begin to understand its importance until I was in my mid-40's.

 

[rusmeister]

Having a love for correct terminology and usage and realizing that most other people don't share that love can be very irritating. However, it is also important to understand that language evolves over time. It is a normal and natural thing. The vast majority of people go with common usage. I'm sorry, but while interesting, I don't see how getting up in arms over terms like 'birth control' and 'gender' is anything other than pedantic at this point.

Forgive me, Seashale, but this is a complete failure to understand what I am saying.
Do you understand that if we call murder by another name that it can become acceptable in society? And that this is, in fact, what terms like "abortion" and "euthanasia" have achieved - the legalized murder of babies, the seriously ill , infirm, and elderly? That those terms are common usage, and that "abortion" is now a common and publicly accepted phenomenon? That when these words were not used the phenomena were also not tolerated?

There IS such a thing as natural, organic development of language. However, in our time this has all but ceased, with the domination of centralized education and media to teach everyone a uniform language that is not natural in development at all, which is the slow and gradual acceptance and concurrence of all over decades and centuries, but is artificially engineered and controlled by a tiny minority and imposed on all swiftly via those machines (public education - that is, government schools, and the mass media).

It is not at all pedantic, or a mere love for "the correct words", and is extremely practical, though the practice is bad. Language is a prime enabler of evil, and makes its acceptance palatable. Did you read that extremely short essay I linked above? (I'm guessing the answer is "No".)
Again: ON EVIL EUPHEMISMS

This sentence alone says volumes:

When somebody wishes to wage a social war against what all normal people have regarded as a social decency, the very first thing he does is to find some artificial term that shall sound relatively decent.

And the final salvo:

but nobody need sympathize with publicity experts picking pleasant expressions for unpleasant things; and I for one prefer the coarse language of our fathers.

And that is where these words that you are so used to came from - NOT from natural language development, as you supposed, but from publicity experts that wanted to propagate sexual immorality in our society, and bamboozled a nation and ultimately all of Western society over two-three generations into believing the opposite of what our grandfathers believed.

 

[seashale76]

You guessed wrong. I read the linked article. I simply don't agree. I find some of what you're saying to be too conspiracy oriented, honestly.

Yes, to an extent, language has been engineered and controlled by whatever elite groups are in power to ensure classism and the continuation of their own power. This has gone on throughout history. However, the natural evolution of language permeates the so-called lower classes (i.e. the majority) and always has.

Take, for example, the concept of infanticide. This practice was rather common in some ancient societies. I can think of no society- currently- where it is considered acceptable to kill a child that has already been born. It still may be done in some places, but it is not considered alright. I also disagree that just because terms like 'abortion' and 'euthanasia' are used that it has had an overwhelming effect on how this is perceived. People, at their core, know these things involve the killing of life. However, people are no more desperate now than they ever were. In some ways, I'd say people are more aware of these now than ever before.

 

[rusmeister]

You guessed wrong. I read the linked article. I simply don't agree. I find some of what you're saying to be too conspiracy oriented, honestly.

Yes, to an extent, language has been engineered and controlled by whatever elite groups are in power to ensure classism and the continuation of their own power. This has gone on throughout history. However, the natural evolution of language permeates the so-called lower classes (i.e. the majority) and always has.

Take, for example, the concept of infanticide. This practice was rather common in some ancient societies. I can think of no society- currently- where it is considered acceptable to kill a child that has already been born. It still may be done in some places, but it is not considered alright. I also disagree that just because terms like 'abortion' and 'euthanasia' are used that it has had an overwhelming effect on how this is perceived. People, at their core, know these things involve the killing of life. However, people are no more desperate now than they ever were. In some ways, I'd say people are more aware of these now than ever before.

It is easy to not agree and not respond to argument. Anyone can do it. It is the magic of assertion. Opinions that disagree and don't engage what they disagree with are cheap.
I wonder if you disagree that the "lower classes" (i.e. the majority) attend public school and are in fact compelled to by law, and whether you disagree that conspiracy exists, and hold that it is an imaginary concept - though I think it a more complex and subtle thing than the stereotype of a small group of men rubbing their hands and speaking in whispers.

The issue of abortion is entirely about the unborn. No one tried to say that the word changed attitudes toward babies who have already exited the womb. It is precisely that they deny that it is killing a person. And while ancient societies did not have Christ, Western society, the thing once called Christendom, had advanced to the point, rather early on, to where killing babies inside the womb became unacceptable and illegal, as it admittedly killed babies. Yet we have regressed, over the past fifty years, to where a great many people no longer know what was once common knowledge - that unborn babies are people, too. So ancient societies here are irrelevant. We were born into Christendom, and that's the society that has very recently and unnaturally changed. I submit that the choice of words used, though not an isolated cause, has everything to do with it.

If you don't understand how euphemism can be used to advance evil, then you didn't understand Chesterton at all, though I don't think it hard to understand. I am frankly amazed that you don't see it, once it is pointed out. It is as blazingly obvious as the sun to me now. I can't forcibly change your mind. You must come to see it for yourself. Your key words were "I don't see". That's why we desire enlightenment, so we are enabled to see. At least consider that not seeing might really be a matter of not having come to see, rather than that there is nothing to see.

 

[seashale76]

You know, I don't disagree with everything you've said, but I didn't realize that any disagreement automatically locked me into a debate around here. I get it, any disagreement makes one automatically plugged into the matrix or an agent Smith.

I'm sorry, but this whole idea of the Metropolitan using terms like 'gender' being equated to his falling prey to some worldly understanding born from a conspiracy of indoctrination is excessive.

I'm done. Carry on.

 

[ArmyMatt]

And that is where these words that you are so used to came from - NOT from natural language development, as you supposed, but from publicity experts that wanted to propagate sexual immorality in our society, and bamboozled a nation and ultimately all of Western society over two-three generations into believing the opposite of what our grandfathers believed.

I see your point about the danger rus, but I dunno if this is really all that new.

 

[truefiction1]

Well, at least the metropolitan is no Patriarch Nikon. I'd hate to have my tongue cut completely out for refusing to speak in euphemisms and later be burned alive. Thankfully we're not brought down to such low standards of behavior be euphemisms, but by "dysphemisms" of the dehumanizing sort.

 

[nutroll]

I think there is a big difference between recognizing how words can be used to further an agenda and then drawing a line in the sand regarding whether those words can be used by the faithful or the hierarchy. Regardless of how words like "gay" or "orientation" entered our vernacular, they are there, and they have been there for a long time. At this point we have an entire generation that has grown up with these words being used in this way. I think it better to come up with arguments that use these words to defend our beliefs than to insist on the proper words and fail to get the point of our argument across. You can insist that people read Chesterton and that they consider the origins of these terms, before you will have a discussion, but for the most part they won't do those things and you will end up never presenting the Church's teaching.

I think this is the point that Metropolitan KALLISTOS is making. It is not sufficient to just say that an issue is resolved. We live in a society that does not respect tradition (or Tradition) for tradition's sake. They want to know why we believe what we believe. And in order to be able to communicate that to them, we have to examine it for ourselves first. Not so that we can throw out tradition, but so that we can transmit it to a people who don't always speak our language. It is about being missionaries in a new land but still presenting the faith "once-delivered." I applaud people who are willing to take up the difficult task of translating our beliefs faithfully into a nearly impossible vernacular much more than those who refuse to translate our beliefs into what they consider a vulgar tongue.

 

[rusmeister]

I think there is a big difference between recognizing how words can be used to further an agenda and then drawing a line in the sand regarding whether those words can be used by the faithful or the hierarchy. Regardless of how words like "gay" or "orientation" entered our vernacular, they are there, and they have been there for a long time. At this point we have an entire generation that has grown up with these words being used in this way. I think it better to come up with arguments that use these words to defend our beliefs than to insist on the proper words and fail to get the point of our argument across. You can insist that people read Chesterton and that they consider the origins of these terms, before you will have a discussion, but for the most part they won't do those things and you will end up never presenting the Church's teaching.

I think this is the point that Metropolitan KALLISTOS is making. It is not sufficient to just say that an issue is resolved. We live in a society that does not respect tradition (or Tradition) for tradition's sake. They want to know why we believe what we believe. And in order to be able to communicate that to them, we have to examine it for ourselves first. Not so that we can throw out tradition, but so that we can transmit it to a people who don't always speak our language. It is about being missionaries in a new land but still presenting the faith "once-delivered." I applaud people who are willing to take up the difficult task of translating our beliefs faithfully into a nearly impossible vernacular much more than those who refuse to translate our beliefs into what they consider a vulgar tongue.

I agree on one thing. We DO, sometimes need to use the false language if it is the only way listeners will hear anything, a necessary concession of charity. so, yes, I understand the need to translate. But I'm not speaking to an "LGBTQ..." convention, but to Orthodox Christians who supposedly want to know the truth about our relationship to sex, to to world and to sin.

I object to your use here of the words "consider" and "vulgar". "Gay" is obviously a euphemism and lie that we have wrongly gotten used to. I may need to translate into the language of the world, but I am saying that Orthodox Christians speaking to Orthodox Christians ought to speak the language of the Church, not the world. It's not "vulgarity". Theological truth can be expressed in vulgar as well as cultured ways. It's about FALSEHOOD. I don't "consider" it (wrongly, or as a private opinion) to be false; it IS false. Where is the merriment? WHY was the word coined in the first place and by whom, for what purpose?

And I think, even with the wrong use of "gender", instead of "sex", there is a practical, and sad result. We have hierarchs thinking that they may know better than the Church across space and time. Kallistos thinks in terms of arguments, even to seriously entertain arguments against the universal practice of the Church regarding ordination of women. And if he speaks true, so did Bloom, to my dismay.

People CAN use wrong language, and most of us do, and I include myself. But when we realize that something in our language use is wrong, we should be ready to change it, to master, rather than be mastered by our language, to say "gay" or "gender" if we MUST, and to use the right words, to the best of our ability, in all other circumstances.