Met Kallistos on "gender"

[rusmeister]

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.

The trouble I see here is that you imagine me imagining a conspiracy, as far as I can tell, in the classical stereotypical sense that everyone has been taught to laugh at. Are there some people who have actively desired to subvert Christian morality? Have intellectuals, like Bertrand Russell and Margaret Sanger actually existed? It would seem that you say that they did not. (I don't think you REALLY say that,; I actually think you have pre-interpreted my ideas to include the comic stereotype of conspiracy which I don't actually think.) But we'd have to launch into the history of public education and the media, and you don't even ask where I get my crazy ideas. I think you just assume, and assume wrongly.

And it's not fair to me to say that I cast people who disagree as enemies. I admit that people come at different times and ways to see things, and some never come to see them. You might as well say that an Orthodox Christian who wants to convince everyone of the truth of the Church sees everyone who disagrees as an enemy. But you know we don't. You know we see webs of deceit and falsehood in the world, making it really difficult for people to see the truth. They aren't our enemies. They are, we hope, our future allies. So it is here. (That I am even trying to say something to you is a nod of faith in your intelligence and in an ability to overcome misunderstandings.)

I think that in order to disagree meaningfully, you have to UNDERSTAND what you disagree with. You have to know exactly what the vision of a thing is, not leaving out anything important, and to correctly see through it. Homer Simpson can disagree on the basis of blind opinion. The question is, do you really understand what you are disagreeing with, or only a superficial version of it? The real test would be to repeat a person's thesis back to them so that they could only say "Yes, that is what I believe (and that about covers it)".

 

[rusmeister]

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.

No argument. But he is still in an influential position, teaching thousands and millions of the faithful.
I haven't seen anybody trying to dehumanize anyone here.

 

[rusmeister]

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

A lot of things would have to be nuanced, Matt. What exactly is "new"? The word "gay" was used for a generation or so to refer to profligate living, prostitution and so on. But its current use as specifically and exclusively homosexual/sodomic sexual activity and relations dates only back to the sixties. That is what I was referring to, as well as the use of "gender" to replace "sex", something I am old enough to actually remember, an even later imposition. I remember when nobody asked "what is your gender?" and EVERYBODY spoke of one's sex. Younger people, under thirty, will not remember this, so it may come to them as a bolt out of the blue that even their father and mother spoke differently. The mystery, insofar as it is one, is much more why the older generation compliantly sold out and changed their language usage. It is Frederica M-G and Met Kallistos saying "gender" that I find amazing, not you or Seashale. They are old enough, like me, to remember that people did not talk like that. "Gay" in that sense, the only one that matters, was a NEW word, spoken in whispers in public in 1970. And the fact that the Flintstones could "have a gay old time" with zero connection to sex in the 60's is PROOF that it was so.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

What Rus said was NUTHIN', Seashale! If you want to get lynched, mention Santa Claus or not being a fan of Father Seraphim Rose around here! Then you'll get a good old-fashioned lynchin' going down!

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]

A lot of things would have to be nuanced, Matt. What exactly is "new"? The word "gay" was used for a generation or so to refer to profligate living, prostitution and so on. But its current use as specifically and exclusively homosexual/sodomic sexual activity and relations dates only back to the sixties. That is what I was referring to, as well as the use of "gender" to replace "sex", something I am old enough to actually remember, an even later imposition. I remember when nobody asked "what is your gender?" and EVERYBODY spoke of one's sex. Younger people, under thirty, will not remember this, so it may come to them as a bolt out of the blue that even their father and mother spoke differently. The mystery, insofar as it is one, is much more why the older generation compliantly sold out and changed their language usage. It is Frederica M-G and Met Kallistos saying "gender" that I find amazing, not you or Seashale. They are old enough, like me, to remember that people did not talk like that. "Gay" in that sense, the only one that matters, was a NEW word, spoken in whispers in public in 1970. And the fact that the Flintstones could "have a gay old time" with zero connection to sex in the 60's is PROOF that it was so.

I meant in general. the fallenness of the world trying to creep in via language. I personally don't mind if they use some word like gender provided the understanding is still Orthodox. if someone were to call abortion "woman's reproductive rights" then that is fine, I will just be clear that the "right" they are fighting for is the right to murder the unborn.

 

[Dorothea]

Maybe I'm just ranting here; I've been a little suspicious of Met Kallistos for a while and couldn't put my finger on exactly what.

Having finally listened to an interview (part of a longer one divided up into topics) with Kevin Allen - a pretty cool dude at AFR, imo, I've figured out what exactly it is - at least from what I heard here:
http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/illuminedheart/metropolitan_kallistos_ware_on_gender

It's a few years old, but the issues are relevant, and the Metropolitan is, I am afraid, on the wrong side of them.

The two basic issues raised are women priests and homosexual relations. Taking them in reverse order, I'd say on homosexual relations that the Metropolitan agrees with the teaching of the Church (thank goodness!), but the thing that stuck out like a sore thumb is that he accepts and uses the terms and understandings of the modern world - not (in my opinion) merely translating from the true understandings of the mind of the Church but actually speaking of "orientation" and "being gay" as concepts he subscribes to himself.

On women priests, though, he really discounts the meaning of Tradition and iconic understandings, though he mentions them, and to give him credit, admits the importance of the iconic understanding. But to his discredit, he treats the issue as arguments, as if a "better argument" would override Tradition. I admit I was dismayed to hear that Met Anthony Bloom also supported women priests; if true, it's a significant blow to my image of him, one of the most important Orthodox figures of our time to my mind, as I think Holy Tradition still more important.

I really didn't like Met Kallistos implying that an argument from Tradition means merely that "we shouldn't do it because it's never been done".

I'll throw in that I was disappointed by the recent Ancient Faith Today program on talking to children about sexual intercourse, as the lone guest went effectively unchallenged in saying that masturbation is not a sin, and even Kevin Allen, an outstanding moderator, spoke about "safe sex" in the worldly sense, as if that should be a prime concern of ours.

I see these to be major theological gaffes that allow the philosophy of the world to creep into the Church. The AFT ones were much less significant than those of an educated metropolitan, but still, this stuff gets not insignificant airing among Orthodox believers and inquirers, and it bugs me. It makes me feel like we are NOT of one heart and one mind, in communion in that deep sense of united in our doctrine.

Ah, I haven't heard that interview with the Metropolitan, but I did listen to the beginning of AFR's talk on talking to children about sexual intercourse. It was right after I'd listened to Fr. Josiah talking about marriage and sex and celibacy (or some title like that), which I thought was EXCELLENT. Yes, I was quite disappointed in the first few minutes I listened to the other one you mentioned - talking to children about sexual intercourse. I didn't finish listening after those first few minutes. It was rubbing me the wrong way, if you will. The priest sounded like a typical secular psychologist, TBH, imo.

 

[rusmeister]

I meant in general. the fallenness of the world trying to creep in via language. I personally don't mind if they use some word like gender provided the understanding is still Orthodox. if someone were to call abortion "woman's reproductive rights" then that is fine, I will just be clear that the "right" they are fighting for is the right to murder the unborn.

I get that. I even understand how new usages wouldn't bother you if they were the only usage you really knew or used yourself.

But this is where Dorothy's comment comes in. It is HARDER to maintain the Orthodox understandings if they are described wrongly. if we used the common four-letter word for sexual intercourse, even in marriage within the Church, we would be using a wrong word that describes the act wrongly, with its background understanding and etymology as a coarse physical act whose goal is personal pleasure. Such usage would disconnect both the physical from the spiritual, and the act from its legitimate purposes. Even if a person in every other way was grounded in the mind of the Church, all listeners would be drawn to think of the act in the terms formed by the chosen word, and begin to cease to understand that mind, would begin to think it other than it is.

That's what has happened with that guest speaker. And with Metropolitan Kallistos. And to greater men than he. And could (and does) happen to any of us. It is a fact that Met Kallistos thinks that Holy Tradition can be changed by "the right arguments". That that guest speaker believes that masturbation is not a sin. And even that Kevin Allen (who, darn it, I really like) thinks there is such a thing as "safe sex". We ALL come to the Church broken, with our baggage from the world. It is to us to let the Church work to cure us, not to try to change the Church to suit ourselves.

The objective meaning of "gender" is founded on the idea of a subjective social construct, whereas "sex" has always meant an absolute and objective reality, not subject to local custom or taste. That's why we only used "gender" for grammar, generally speaking. In French, a book is of the masculine gender, while in Russian it is feminine. It's arbitrary, and custom and practice can change it from place to place. That's why people have gone crazy thinking that they can change their sex at will, that it is a malleable thing.

Again, we can only do what we can, based on what we understand. We need to keep returning to the mind of the Church, where the fathers do not speak in such terms, which we do not find in Scripture or the rest of Holy Tradition.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

While I wholeheartedly agree with Rus on semantics and the dangers of misuse of terms that deviate into the modern warped lexicon, I must say in all honesty that if this is the worst stuff we're dealing with in Orthodoxy to talk about, we're in pretty good shape theologically, aren't we!

 

[truefiction1]

I get that. I even understand how new usages wouldn't bother you if they were the only usage you really knew or used yourself.

But this is where Dorothy's comment comes in. It is HARDER to maintain the Orthodox understandings if they are described wrongly. if we used the common four-letter word for sexual intercourse, even in marriage within the Church, we would be using a wrong word that describes the act wrongly, with its background understanding and etymology as a coarse physical act whose goal is personal pleasure. Such usage would disconnect both the physical from the spiritual, and the act from its legitimate purposes. Even if a person in every other way was grounded in the mind of the Church, all listeners would be drawn to think of the act in the terms formed by the chosen word, and begin to cease to understand that mind, would begin to think it other than it is.

That's what has happened with that guest speaker. And with Metropolitan Kallistos. And to greater men than he. And could (and does) happen to any of us. It is a fact that Met Kallistos thinks that Holy Tradition can be changed by "the right arguments". That that guest speaker believes that masturbation is not a sin. And even that Kevin Allen (who, darn it, I really like) thinks there is such a thing as "safe sex". We ALL come to the Church broken, with our baggage from the world. It is to us to let the Church work to cure us, not to try to change the Church to suit ourselves.

The objective meaning of "gender" is founded on the idea of a subjective social construct, whereas "sex" has always meant an absolute and objective reality, not subject to local custom or taste. That's why we only used "gender" for grammar, generally speaking. In French, a book is of the masculine gender, while in Russian it is feminine. It's arbitrary, and custom and practice can change it from place to place. That's why people have gone crazy thinking that they can change their sex at will, that it is a malleable thing.

Again, we can only do what we can, based on what we understand. We need to keep returning to the mind of the Church, where the fathers do not speak in such terms, which we do not find in Scripture or the rest of Holy Tradition.

I did not hear the talks, but I do know that oversimplification in our understandings of issues of sexuality have indeed been to blame for irresponsible practices, causing mismanagement, allowing considerable harm to befall people both inside and outside the Church. Priests raping children, falling in love with choir directors and having various affairs, any other monkey business involving genitals is in reality far less likely to be problematic if sexuality is better understood and respected for what it is. It gives us greater leverage in preventing sexual indiscretions. We can learn a thing or two from those secular sounding psychologists.

 

[buzuxi02]

The Church must speak with authority, bishops are not to scratch their heads and write that they will come to a conclusion when they hear one. Rarely did the Fathers speak as do the modern day bishops.

Those ancient men that laid the foundations of the Faith spoke with authority, they did not condescend like cowards to what the popular culture dictated. Can you imagine a St. CYRIL or St Basil give the kind of politically correct interviews that are given today? But then again if we had men like that today, this topic wouldnt need to be discussed because these "christian" social plagues would have never arisen..

Personally I think the battle is lost, the one time christian west has gone in a different direction, it no longer speaks to us nor for us. But we await the voices of the heirarchs to speak the ageless truth without shame and fear of repercussions so that no one can cry ignorance on the matter.

 

[Ignatius21]

Well, this has all certainly been interesting to read.

So, I have a few "practical" questions. Like, given that language usage today "is what it is," that "gay" will never again mean "happy and carefree" to 99.95% of the population; that "gender" means "male or female" to most; that "safe sex" means "a physical act of gratification that is statistically unlikely to produce either children or disease"...

Where do we all go from here? Launching a campaign to return the world to older customs of language doesn't seem likely to persuade anyone.

(I, too, was a bit surprised by the Kevin Allen interview...I'll add that).

 

[GregConstantine]

"Personally I think the battle is lost, the one time christian west has gone in a different direction, it no longer speaks to us nor for us. But we await the voices of the heirarchs to speak the ageless truth without shame and fear of repercussions so that no one can cry ignorance on the matter."

I agree with this. This convo made me think of an older tread on this forum about living in community. I explained that rather than wringing our hands over things that may truly be lost as stated above, we ought to live in more "intentional" communities in which we live in close proximity with other Orthodox Christians and or live in the same facilities, or a combination of both (I'm definitely including the clergy and hierarchs in this community btw). There we can reinforce the virtues that we ought to be practicing with some measure of protection from the world, especially for our children. We will then go out into the world for our jobs and education, etc, having been reinforced and strenghten by our living in that community. So many people (Orthodox mind you) balk at this idea, as we saw in the responses on that tread. Well, I might sell my house in a few years (I need to sell it anyways) and hopefully I can establish such a community in a larger home then the one I have now. However, I'm not confident that the leadership in the Church will give the support we will need for such a endeavor.

 

[rusmeister]

Well, this has all certainly been interesting to read.

So, I have a few "practical" questions. Like, given that language usage today "is what it is," that "gay" will never again mean "happy and carefree" to 99.95% of the population; that "gender" means "male or female" to most; that "safe sex" means "a physical act of gratification that is statistically unlikely to produce either children or disease"...

Where do we all go from here? Launching a campaign to return the world to older customs of language doesn't seem likely to persuade anyone.

(I, too, was a bit surprised by the Kevin Allen interview...I'll add that).

Well, we obviously can't change how other people talk. We do not control the schools or the media. But we can STILL control ourselves, how we talk. Not only our choice of words, but the very expression of Orthodox/traditional Christian views and assumptions may jar some into thinking where they had never thought before.

The most political act you can conduct is to get your neighbor to convert. If we can just, as Orthodox Christians, determine to educate ourselves and our own communities, then maybe in the long term that might have more far-reaching effects. One person at a time.

 

[rusmeister]

"Personally I think the battle is lost, the one time christian west has gone in a different direction, it no longer speaks to us nor for us. But we await the voices of the heirarchs to speak the ageless truth without shame and fear of repercussions so that no one can cry ignorance on the matter."

I agree with this. This convo made me think of an older tread on this forum about living in community. I explained that rather than wringing our hands over things that may truly be lost as stated above, we ought to live in more "intentional" communities in which we live in close proximity with other Orthodox Christians and or live in the same facilities, or a combination of both (I'm definitely including the clergy and hierarchs in this community btw). There we can reinforce the virtues that we ought to be practicing with some measure of protection from the world, especially for our children. We will then go out into the world for our jobs and education, etc, having been reinforced and strenghten by our living in that community. So many people (Orthodox mind you) balk at this idea, as we saw in the responses on that tread. Well, I might sell my house in a few years (I need to sell it anyways) and hopefully I can establish such a community in a larger home then the one I have now. However, I'm not confident that the leadership in the Church will give the support we will need for such a endeavor.

I see nothing wrong with this. Such deeds are done by those who see the need. If you find interested people and get your priest's blessing, then go for it!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I think there is something to be said about being stubborn about language. I am a sixth grade teacher. I am fed up with innovations in English. I'm sick of people saying, "thanks for the invite to your party!" rather than "invitation." I'm tired of people saying, "so just what are you inferring here, pal!" when it should be "implying." Obviously the other person receiving infers. I'm tired of people's slang and misuse of grammar.

That being said, this thread isn't about just vocabulary and grammar, but rather it's about fundamental terminology that defines things improperly. Rus is correct that much of this terminology warps a person's thinking. Being "gay" becomes an intrinsic 'esse' of the person. It becomes part of their identity, their created state of life, their soul, rather than a struggle with a particular sin. "Gender" is also problematic, as Rus has pointed out better than I could do.

Language is subtle. It brainwashes.

I understand, Ignatius, your concern. It makes sense. How do we communicate with people on their terms if they don't understand our language. It's like going into the ghetto and trying to broker a peace between gang-bangers saying, "excuse me, gentlemen. I'm most confident that this conflict can be rectified given both of your propensities toward financial success and your desire to continue respiration and existence as we know it. I'm sure with the cooperation of both parties we might attain a reasonable outcome in which both sides not only profit, but avoid collateral damage that inflicts a truly painful loss in our community." Would gang-bangers understand that?

No.

So then we try to meet them half-way, but we don't sell out our vocabulary and syntax to do so. And we call a spade a spade. Murder and mayhem remains murder and mayhem. Maybe we have to explain "mayhem" to them, then so be it. We cannot sell out our vocabulary to dummy-down to the other side, yet we have to be comprehensible.

I don't think Rus is suggesting we speak like Harvard professors to the average Joe, but rather some words are non-negotiable, like "gay" and "lesbian" and "gender" and "having sex," all terms he has highlighted. Saying "a person suffering from same-sex attraction" has VASTLY different implications than saying "a gay man," does it not? So we stick with the SSA angle.....

Happy medium.

Well, this has all certainly been interesting to read.

So, I have a few "practical" questions. Like, given that language usage today "is what it is," that "gay" will never again mean "happy and carefree" to 99.95% of the population; that "gender" means "male or female" to most; that "safe sex" means "a physical act of gratification that is statistically unlikely to produce either children or disease"...

Where do we all go from here? Launching a campaign to return the world to older customs of language doesn't seem likely to persuade anyone.

(I, too, was a bit surprised by the Kevin Allen interview...I'll add that).

 

[truefiction1]

The Church must speak with authority, bishops are not to scratch their heads and write that they will come to a conclusion when they hear one. Rarely did the Fathers speak as do the modern day bishops.

Those ancient men that laid the foundations of the Faith spoke with authority, they did not condescend like cowards to what the popular culture dictated. Can you imagine a St. CYRIL or St Basil give the kind of politically correct interviews that are given today? But then again if we had men like that today, this topic wouldnt need to be discussed because these "christian" social plagues would have never arisen..

Personally I think the battle is lost, the one time christian west has gone in a different direction, it no longer speaks to us nor for us. But we await the voices of the heirarchs to speak the ageless truth without shame and fear of repercussions so that no one can cry ignorance on the matter.

Or, Christians could experience sufficient spiritual growth to overcome the difficulties of deciding issues for themselves rather than wishing for someone or something else (like some ageless truth)with authority to decide for them. But how silly to think such courage will ever emerge large scale. Perish the thought! (As Athanasius the Great would say)

 

[buzuxi02]

True,

I'm not sure what you mean by your post. But today everything is being decided for us by the political class and those in the judicial system. Throw in the elitists who write policy for universities along with their friends in hollywood and there you have the recipe of disaster.

 

[truefiction1]

True,

I'm not sure what you mean by your post. But today everything is being decided for us by the political class and those in the judicial system. Throw in the elitists who write policy for universities along with their friends in hollywood and there you have the recipe of disaster.

I like the friends in Hollywood who made that "Jesus of Nazareth" film. I think it's awesome.

 

[buzuxi02]

"Personally I think the battle is lost, the one time christian west has gone in a different direction, it no longer speaks to us nor for us. But we await the voices of the heirarchs to speak the ageless truth without shame and fear of repercussions so that no one can cry ignorance on the matter."

I agree with this. This convo made me think of an older tread on this forum about living in community. I explained that rather than wringing our hands over things that may truly be lost as stated above, we ought to live in more "intentional" communities in which we live in close proximity with other Orthodox Christians and or live in the same facilities, or a combination of both (I'm definitely including the clergy and hierarchs in this community btw). There we can reinforce the virtues that we ought to be practicing with some measure of protection from the world, especially for our children. We will then go out into the world for our jobs and education, etc, having been reinforced and strenghten by our living in that community. So many people (Orthodox mind you) balk at this idea, as we saw in the responses on that tread. Well, I might sell my house in a few years (I need to sell it anyways) and hopefully I can establish such a community in a larger home then the one I have now. However, I'm not confident that the leadership in the Church will give the support we will need for such a endeavor.

Its possible but difficult to implement. Certain jewish groups here in NY have been successful in keeping their communities cohesive. In Great Neck, NY iranian shephardic jews s have had success at turning it into a jewish enclave which holds to values far different than their jewish american counterparts. In brooklin the lubavitch jews were looking to move to greener pastures but their leaders have been successful in convincing them to stay put.

In other words they have been successful in their rejection of assimilation. Immigrant groups segregate themselves amongst these own but after 2 generations they move out to seperate neighborhoids based on their incomes and eventually assimilate. It is this assimilation that will be difficult to overcome.

 

[GregConstantine]

"Its possible but difficult to implement. Certain jewish groups here in NY have been successful in keeping their communities cohesive."

Same here in Baltimore.

I think one of the difficulties that challenges the building of such communities we have as Orthodox is that we put our ethnicity as priority over the faith to the extent which many cannot fathom their ethnicity being a separate entity from the faith. We do not have the same amount of cohesiveness that the Jews do, even with their internal divisions. They still have a much more stronger solidarity with each other then we do.
If something like this would to come to fruition and word of it spreads to various jurisdictions, many Greeks, Slavs, etc would ask themselves, "is it Greek? (fill in an ethnicity)" if the answer is "no", then they won't give it a second thought.