Dear Thekla,
Just as non-Orthodox will apply their perception to us and we will feel misunderstood, so do those who identify as gay feel when heterosexuals apply their perception and see only one part of what to them is holistic; and that is what is happening time and again here.
The only wholeness is Christ - a wholeness applied to body soul and spirit; heart, mind, and strength. Lord have mercy +
I can relate to what you're saying, but I also think one cannot truly "understand" what is not lived - this certainly applies to Orthodoxy. So to some extent, it is not too much a concern to be "misunderstood". God can sort it out.
As for persons, I do not pretend to understand anyone, as I believe that is impossible. I can only come to know persons, and even this will have limit.
Sexual encounter and experience is not something I typically discuss with my friends and relatives (gay or straight). Does this mean I don't know my friends and relatives ?
One aspect of homosexual life is being singled out as though it can in some way be separated from the whole. That is where the Golden Rule, at least in the eyes of some of us, is violated.
The whole is only Christ - the aspects of the person are discussed in terms of 'diagnostics' in the ECFs and Saints. This means all who are not yet completed are treated, in part, 'diagnostically'. The diagnostic is considered through report and observation of the spiritual father. Perhaps some of the accounts of those Saints who were given to "see hearts" could be consulted. As one Orthodox writer said, "we are all mentally ill". (This statement does not offend me, though my son is diagnosed and lives with mental illness.)
There is no evidence that suggests St. Paul was condemning something for which a word did not exist - that is long-standing same sex relations based on self-sacrifice and devotion. The homosexual acts condemned are lumped together with heterosexual acts of the same sort: these are selfish and exploitative acts.
I'm sorry to disappoint you, Anglian -as I fear this will. But there has not yet been a compelling support given to that statement. As noted, our present "understanding/construction" of personhood well post-dates the scripture. Is it possible, for this reason, that the scripture is "not for us" in the 21st century ? Nor has it been established that marriages at that time were not "exploitative", or why would Paul need to teach mutual self-sacrifice ?
I have spent a considerable amount of time in research chasing this; I'm trying to find the basis of the argument. I have done this with language, with thematic development ... perhaps you would be willing to join the effort ? Some time ago, it was mentioned that the Laws of Leviticus did not in their entire match Deuteronomy. So today, I had some time to look into this. I was researching so that I could try and figure out which Matthean passages you were referring to; it seemed that either those on marriage or eunuchs were meant.
10The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."
11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriagec]" class="footnote">[
c]because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."
Matthew 19
Three sorts of eunuch are mentioned; the term has a broad (and sometimes muddy) range of meaning. I have begun to research it in the LXX - then will turn to the Masoretic for the same passages. Perhaps you could assist in the research ?
. In Deuteronomy, the Laws that are given are for those who may enter to worship God. Prior to the passages outlining these directives, a list is given about those who may not enter: eunuchs and the castrated may not. Thus, the Laws given in Deuteronomy do not match those in Leviticus likely because they apply to a subset of the first - here again is the theme of "narrowing". I mentioned this in my response to your post, but it seems you have not seen it.
I add this from the prophecy in Isaiah (56):
3 Let no foreigner who has bound himself to the LORD say,
"The LORD will surely exclude me from his people."
And let not any eunuch complain,
"I am only a dry tree." 4 For this is what the LORD says:
"To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths,
who choose what pleases me
and hold fast to my covenant-
5 to them I will give within my temple and its walls
a memorial and a name
better than sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name
that will not be cut off.
It is interesting in that it does associate childlessness with eunuch. But it also seems to support the second trend I noted in the other post - a ceremonial loosening.
Of course the Fathers do not comment on long term same sex relationships of the type mentioned above, since they too had no knowledge of such;
Perhaps the Theban Band (as I mentioned above) might be a good place to look - try Plutarch, though others wrote of them (as they were well regarded). Note, when considering this, that the age of marriage for females was aprox. 15 in the (early) Byzantine period - thus, this may be useful as an age marker for males as well. (A recent 10 year brain scan study has found that the areas governing executive function do not complete development in males til aprox. age 25 , perhaps younger in females. Thus, we should consider that in our era, even with modern scientific findings, we do not adhere to the age of consent - a degree of loosening would be not unreasonable in applying our own faulty standards to an earlier era. They didn't even have auto insurance companies with the statistics to anticipate the finding. At least the Theban males were old enough to fight.)
one might as well suggest that Biblical comments about blood mean that blood transfusions run contrary to the word of God. Inspired though it is, the Bible cannot comment on what its authors knew nothing about; it can however, as in the case of JWs and blood transfusions, be read as doing such a thing.
It can and does, however, provide an "ethos" when considered as a whole. And the ECFs and Saints do point out that the heart must first be cleansed; this is rather opposite the post-modernist trend of reading against the text, identifying "plagiarism by anticipation", and reconfiguring the subtext as an act of participation in order to create a text 'mutually created by author and reader. A sort of S/Zing the Bible should be warned against, also re-reading the history and "diagnosing" those dead.
Yes, St. Paul might well be condemning all homosexual relations, even as the Marcionites thought he was condemning all marriage and the whole of Torah.
A pre-modern post-modernist
We must be careful also here to not "read away the Torah".
Mankind's ability for eisegesis is considerable. If suggesting that homosexuals should be viewed not simply on the basis of one part of their lives is to contravene God's law, then that will be another sin to be added to my tally.
Yup, that is so. Post-modernism has perfected eisegesis into an anti-art (Warhol won), so that all will crumble under "the gaze" of Tzara's alarm clock droning on and on. (Wonder what post-modernism will do with icons now ...)
But then, there is nothing of substance to keep us from loving people in our daily interactions with them. Nor have I suggested at any time that one not love any person for one aspect of their lives. The very poor, the very rich, all sorts experience this. We're
all irritating to someone else. Christ offered mercy for all - our only effort for consent to His mercy is repentance.
Lord have mercy +
How about the folks in my family with challenges ?
