Fr. Josiah On Pornography, and Nick Fuentes

[ArmyMatt]

Candace Owens and others have been retired from DW when they criticized Israel. If you want to be a part of that crew you have to tow the Shapiro line.

not true, Matt Walsh doesn’t think we should support Israel the way we do. he and Ben have openly disagreed on Israel.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Thank you, at first read I misunderstood the point you were making.
I watched the first video, unfortunately Fr Trenham did not rebut anything from Fuentes, he quoted portions of the Carlson interview where he agreed with him, repeatedly.
I haven't watched the second, follow-up video yet to see if he corrects this.

100% agreement

gotcha, maybe more clarity after the second video

 

[E.C.]

Wow, how much TAW has changed since 2007.

I can not remember a single time when a thread within TAW has been as politically charged as this. Nor can I remember a time when such a political priest, who has clearly made the culture war and politics his idols, would have been posted in this forum; especially a priest who clearly has Calvinist views on family life. This used to be such a good, peaceful, Coffee Hour-like environment, such a shame.

Fr Josiah Trenham's opinions are strictly that: his own opinions. He does not speak for the entirety of the Orthodox Church. He has caused far more pastoral and spiritual damage than he has been a positive influence.

 

[prodromos]

Fr Josiah Trenham's opinions are strictly that: his own opinions. He does not speak for the entirety of the Orthodox Church. He has caused far more pastoral and spiritual damage than he has been a positive influence.

And that is your opinion. One that I personally do not share.

 

[prodromos]

especially a priest who clearly has Calvinist views on family life

Perhaps you could share how Calvin's views on the Christian family diverge from the Patristic consensus.

 

[rusmeister]

Candace Owens and others have been retired from DW when they criticized Israel. If you want to be a part of that crew you have to tow the Shapiro line.

I assume it’s a misprint, as “towing” a line sounds like the Volga River boat men.

 

[rusmeister]

Running the risk of weighing in here…

I certainly have seen VERY charged disagreements, perhaps even in politics. This is by no means the most acrimonious thread ever in TAW.

The central problem I see in the discussion is that one man has opinions on a number of different issues, but what the thing to do in our time is find one opinion which we strongly disagree with, and then completely dismiss or cancel the whole man, equating and dismissing everything he thinks about all issues with the one, two, or three stupid and bad opinions (in our own wise and good opinions, of course). We say, “The MAN is bad”. Well, we’re ALL bad. All of us think something that is unpopular with a majority somewhere.

Also, people do change over time. Charlie Kirk at 18 was not the same as Charlie Kirk at 31. Both external influences (as our friend Chesterton- not to be confused with the great GKC of course - here pointed out) and internal convictions can and often do change over the years. Some people grow up, or something happens to completely change their perspective.

GZT thinks conservatism brings only death and destruction. Aside from the obvious questions the honest observer would have, such as defining what exactly is meant by “conservatism”, his perspective may become modified over time. Some people might become convinced that the Orthodox Church really IS the historic Church established by Christ and become Orthodox, others might become convinced that it is not, and leave it. Certainly I have been so tempted over the past few years. EC thinks Calvin’s view of the family differs from established Orthodox teaching and might change his mind over time - Though I, too, am curious about what anti-Orthodox things Calvin says about marriage and the family. His main heresy was elsewhere. Most of Christendom for most of its history, until the 20th century, had huge agreement on the subject of marriage and the family, though there WAS a very slow and gradual falling away over a thousand years, such as in the Catholic idea that the couple performs the sacrament, enabling the idea of “annulments”, and the Anglican “till death do us part” that denied anything eternal in the marriage relationship and made multiple marriages in one’s life much more acceptable.

So regarding accusing Fr Josiah, I think it hasty. He probably should have looked up Fuentes‘ current views more thoroughly, though the vital issue is whatever F said about pornography. Any priest who speaks to audiences online, outside of his own parish, is “putting himself out there”, for better or for worse. The risk of doing so is significant. Ne has chosen to take it. Speaking for myself, people like him and Fr Seraphim, the monk at the Iona monastery, help me continue to believe in the Orthodox Church, when I have seen falling away from the traditional and ancient teachings, the Patristic consensus, on all sides, and while it doesn’t surprise me that the heterodox denominations are all falling away, nowhere has it struck me harder than finding it in the Orthodox Church.

I find that I don’t even see agreement on Patristic consensus with other members here, let alone elsewhere on the internet. What can be said when a member has an avatar that promotes a slogan that we certainly agree with as an isolated statement, and find completely abhorrent as connected with a Marxist political movement that has had anarchy and racial discord as its goal, sporting a particular hierarch who has made no effort to avoid the appearance of approving of things that we may not approve, who has effectively approved of such things? I don’t know what to say to Orthodox people who attack a heterodox Christian man who says that men ought to be faithful to their wives and responsible husbands and fathers, and that we should honor the Theotokos, just for example (if you are unaware that Charlie Kirk DID say such things, you really should educate yourself). Certainly they mean to attack other things that such people say, but they make no acknowledgement of the huge good things that he said. Some here and in my real life think divorce between two practicing Orthodox Christians is acceptable (and the evil of men, at least, is in nodding their heads at teachings such as loving one’s neighbor and one’s enemy, but then making an exception of their wives), some think cremation is fine, some women proudly disdain headcoverings in church, and flaunt NOT wearing them, rejecting the idea of submission altogether, not seeing the pridefulness of so doing.

Most people I know are unwilling to take the trouble to explore nuances, to ask whether a man who has an obviously bad idea might also have good ideas, and so are not able to state the distinctions. Furthermore, we trust our own sources a little too much, and forget that even “our side” might choose to, or at least inadvertently leave out part of a story that might modify our understanding of it.

If I can, I’ll make a little time and watch the interview itself. But I don’t need to watch it to say what I am saying now. Honestly, I am at a point where I can hardly watch even the people I mostly agree with anymore. They are saying what I already know or have figured out, and sometimes say things that disappoint or dismay me.

As a final note, I think that modifying our views over time to be fine - IF they are being gradually modified to align with the mind of the Church, the Patristic consensus, little by little. Just bear in mind that that gradual change of mind IS sometimes to the good and should be taken into account. Hardly any of us hold all the views we held when we were eighteen.

 

[Chesterton]

I assume it’s a misprint, as “towing” a line sounds like the Volga River boat men.

Your assumption is incorrect, sir. What you're looking at are electronically generated pixels. I haven't used print since the 20th century.

 

[Chesterton]

Running the risk of weighing in here…

I certainly have seen VERY charged disagreements, perhaps even in politics. This is by no means the most acrimonious thread ever in TAW.

I was going to let the thread die, but I had wanted to say to @E.C. that I joined here in 2008, when there were heated debates on a number of things, such as evolution, the age of the earth, toll houses, etc. Later there were the same regarding Fr. Heers, Constantinople, the Russian war and Putin, and other stuff. But I hope I haven't been acrimonious with anyone here. Some people enjoy debate and think it important at times, others may want to relax in a coffee hour environment. To each his own. But if you want to relax in a coffee hour environment, don't enter a politically charged thread. And vice versa.

The central problem I see in the discussion is that one man has opinions on a number of different issues, but what the thing to do in our time is find one opinion which we strongly disagree with, and then completely dismiss or cancel the whole man, equating and dismissing everything he thinks about all issues with the one, two, or three stupid and bad opinions (in our own wise and good opinions, of course). We say, “The MAN is bad”. Well, we’re ALL bad. All of us think something that is unpopular with a majority somewhere.

Imagine you live in ancient Greece, and your next door neighbor is Pythagoras. You find out he's come up with this brilliant new theorem. Then you find out he's very racist towards Latins, or Arabs. Do disregard the theorem because of that?

Or, suppose someone writes a piece of music which is very widely loved, and is almost the perfect music to excite an arena full of sports fans (Rock And Roll Part 2), and then later the writer, Gary Glitter, gets convicted of serious pedophilia-related criminal charges. Do you throw out the baby with the bathwater? Sadly IMO, that's what's been done with that song. (I say "sadly" on principle, not because I'm crazy about the song.)

...the Anglican “till death do us part” that denied anything eternal in the marriage relationship and made multiple marriages in one’s life much more acceptable.

An aside unrelated to the main topic - you still hear it sometimes these days, but it used to be more common. In American jurisprudence, a judge will sentence a criminal to imprisonment "for the rest of your natural life". Why not just say "for the rest of your life"? It's an orthodox Christian recognition that a man can repent, and regardless, his eternal life will be judged by God.

So regarding accusing Fr Josiah, I think it hasty. He probably should have looked up Fuentes‘ current views more thoroughly, though the vital issue is whatever F said about pornography. Any priest who speaks to audiences online, outside of his own parish, is “putting himself out there”, for better or for worse.

I disagree with this, and I think it may insult Fr. Josiah's intelligence. You and I have tiny little "platforms" on CF. Even I know better than to even reference someone or something blindly, someone I haven't looked into, in even a single post. You risk getting verbally ripped to shreds.

What can be said when a member has an avatar that promotes a slogan that we certainly agree with as an isolated statement, and find completely abhorrent as connected with a Marxist political movement that has had anarchy and racial discord as its goal, sporting a particular hierarch who has made no effort to avoid the appearance of approving of things that we may not approve, who has effectively approved of such things?

Agreed.

I don’t what to say to Orthodox people who attack a heterodox Christian man who says that men ought to be faithful to their wives and responsible husbands and fathers, and that we should honor the Theotokos, just for example (if you are unaware that Charlie Kirk DID say such things, you really should educate yourself). Certainly they mean to attack other things that such people say, but they make no acknowledgement of the huge good things that he said.

Agreed, and it's almost comical the number of people across various sub-forums here and even on YouTube and the wider internet who, since the Tucker interview have said "I've never heard of this Fuentes guy, but he's a bad man! He's hateful!"

A final comment about Nick - he has said insulting things about American blacks and black culture. (For that matter, you can hear African blacks insult American blacks.) But many American blacks agree with Nick, and will sit down and politely discuss things with him. The Jews? Not so much. Online people use code words to talk about them, like the "juice", the "J's", or the "Swedes". I don't have a dog in the fight since I don't hate anyone because they belong to group they didn't choose at birth to belong to, but I do find it all very interesting.

 

[Chesterton]

not true, Matt Walsh doesn’t think we should support Israel the way we do. he and Ben have openly disagreed on Israel.

Several sources associated with the DW have reported that Matt got a stern "talking to" after his comments last spring. According to AI, he hasn't spoken about Israel since.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Several sources associated with the DW have reported that Matt got a stern "talking to" after his comments last spring. According to AI, he hasn't spoken about Israel since.

I doubt it. Walsh said the same thing about Israel when America struck Iran in one of his videos which was in summer.

 

[Chesterton]

I doubt it. Walsh said the same thing about Israel when America struck Iran in one of his videos which was in summer.

Apparently you're right. I double checked and he did make the comment that "erasing threats to Israel is not America’s job", but he made it in the larger context of his being non-interventionist anywhere in the world. Not necessarily pro- or anti- Israel.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Apparently you're right. I double checked and he did make the comment that "erasing threats to Israel is not America’s job", but he made it in the larger context of his being non-interventionist anywhere in the world. Not necessarily pro- or anti- Israel.

sure, but that’s been his stance for a while. Shapiro has even said that Walsh is shortsighted, and they still work together.