"Gay iconoclasm: Holding the Line...."

GregConstantine · Jun 23, 2017

Are you asking me or just to anyone generally?

Well, first I would say that we need to be clear about what the Church teaches. We need to speak the truth in love of course, but we need to speak it and be clear about it.
Not only do we have to clear about it, but I think we need to move past just reiterating over and over what the Church's teachings are on this issue, but talk about the "why" behind the Churches teachings. This includes the teachings on marriage and the family, and how all this ties into what it means to be a human being.

Second, I think we need to move past (I'm speaking from an American perspective) any feelings of discomfort regarding living more communally with people who are not our blood relatives. America's main cultural inheritance is from the English, which is very individualistic and any community oriented activities or approaches are very much restricted to one's immediate blood related family members, usually extending only to parents and siblings, sometimes to grandparents and aunts/uncles, but not always.

The reason why I bring this up in relations to how to respond to and minister to not just people struggling with SSA, but really any passion, is that we need to extend our communal "bubble" to our brothers and sisters who are struggling with SSA. For example, if there is a single person who struggles with this, but is not called to monasticism, offer your home as a place for them to live in, or perhaps not live in, but included in your family's events and activities. The worst thing in the world is for someone struggling with this is to be alone. That is when the temptations start to really rear their ugly heads and being alone is very tempting to just give in. Again this is not unique to SSA, but any passions, alcoholism, inappropriate contentography, really any passion.

Another way we as the Church can respond is to provide support groups, something like Alcoholic anonymous. It could be run by a priest or a trained Orthodox counselor. Obviously, this will be a place for those struggling to come together and get the support they need while keeping things confidential.

We have to move past just telling people to go to confession and pray. Yes, we need to do those things, no question about that, but, we also need to be more pragmatic and creative in our outreach.

Those are my two cents.

ArmyMatt · Jun 23, 2017

I think something else to keep in mind is Fr Josiah grew up during the so-called sexual revolution in San Francisco, and he currently pastors in Riverside which is close to LA. he has seen firsthand how the LGBTQA agenda negatively impacts people.

All4Christ · Jun 23, 2017

GregConstantine said:
Are you asking me or just to anyone generally?

Both you and whoever has input

Well, first I would say that we need to be clear about what the Church teaches. We need to speak the truth in love of course, but we need to speak it and be clear about it.
Not only do we have to clear about it, but I think we need to move past just reiterating over and over what the Church's teachings are on this issue, but talk about the "why" behind the Churches teachings. This includes the teachings on marriage and the family, and how all this ties into what it means to be a human being.

Second, I think we need to move past (I'm speaking from an American perspective) any feelings of discomfort regarding living more communally with people who are not our blood relatives. America's main cultural inheritance is from the English, which is very individualistic and any community oriented activities or approaches are very much restricted to one's immediate blood related family members, usually extending only to parents and siblings, sometimes to grandparents and aunts/uncles, but not always.

The reason why I bring this up in relations to how to respond to and minister to not just people struggling with SSA, but really any passion, is that we need to extend our communal "bubble" to our brothers and sisters who are struggling with SSA. For example, if there is a single person who struggles with this, but is not called to monasticism, offer your home as a place for them to live in, or perhaps not live in, but included in your family's events and activities. The worst thing in the world is for someone struggling with this is to be alone. That is when the temptations start to really rear their ugly heads and being alone is very tempting to just give in. Again this is not unique to SSA, but any passions, alcoholism, inappropriate contentography, really any passion.

Another way we as the Church can respond is to provide support groups, something like Alcoholic anonymous. It could be run by a priest or a trained Orthodox counselor. Obviously, this will be a place for those struggling to come together and get the support they need while keeping things confidential.

We have to move past just telling people to go to confession and pray. Yes, we need to do those things, no question about that, but, we also need to be more pragmatic and creative in our outreach.

Those are my two cents.

These are some great points. I agree 100% with this.

At my old church, the one I belonged to before I became Orthodox, they have a support group for anyone who is struggling with an issue whether it be alcoholism, abuse, homosexuality, inappropriate contentography, etc. I disagree with some of the theology, but I really appreciate the work that they are doing. I'd love it if the local Orthodox community could do something similar to it. It'd be a great outreach both to Orthodox in the area and he surrounding community.

I also think this would be a great topic to discuss in some seminars on parish development or on outreach to others. There are a wide range of tough situations in the world - and reaching out to them to help them heal is critical.

Thank you for your input!

These are some of the few times that I wish I did continue with my career as a counselor - in that becoming an Orthodox counselor might be a great way to reach out to others. I love my job though - so I'm not complaining

FenderTL5 · Jun 23, 2017

This is an issue where I have trouble discussing, particularly articulating, my thoughts.
I saw nothing wrong with Fr Josiah's address, given who he is and who the audience was.
I do tend to think it could've (maybe) been out of place in the general marketplace.

Keeping a healthy balance based on 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 is a challenge (for me anyway).

Lukaris · Jun 23, 2017

The thing I do not understand is that Christians in general seem to be held more accountable to Mosaic morality than Jews. The Sermon on the Mount did not change the moral laws of the 10 commandments but did abolish the severity in areas of attitudes towards and putting individuals to death. Clearly the 2 great commands and the golden rule sum up the law in this regard.

Nonetheless, St. Paul preaches the same morality in Romans 1 and the spiritual consequences for immorality. St. Paul is probably considered a hate speaker by many in the world but he is only affirming the same mortality preached by the Lord in the Sermon on the Mount.

Surely it has taken overall human attitudes too long to see the humanity our Lord preached divinely in His sinless human nature to extend to our neighbor. Those of a formerly and excessively stigmatized human nature (gay) still seem to want to redefine what is sinful though.

The thing is though past generations did regard heterosexual adultery as grave sin. It is just that attitudes towards that relaxed earlier than homosexuality. Just because popular opinion seemed to condone a more natural sin ( heterosexual adultery) does not redefine the preaching of the Lord.

I do not intend sound haughty or self righteous in what I post.

FenderTL5 · Jun 23, 2017

In my former tradition we had an expression; "Sunday School Answers"
The Sunday School Answer to difficult questions could be: Jesus, or prayer, turn it over to God.. those kinds of things. It's not that they are wrong answers, they just don't help very much.
Here, I think the sunday school answer is that we have to show genuine love for neighbors and community while at the same time we must keep ourselves and our parishes free of immorality.

However, it becomes much more difficult when we try to put that into practice in the current volatile society we have in the USA.

Orthodoxjay1 · Jun 23, 2017

gurneyhalleck1 said:
A great lecture on the vile plague of the LGBT agenda. So great to see the Church fighting the good fight!

Fr. Josiah Trenhem is a modern St. Athanius crying against the modern heresy of our time, the LGBT dictatorship of the Godless masses, while he faces opostion, even in the church.

ArmyMatt · Jun 23, 2017

he may have been negative, but so what? Christ was often negative. sometimes to get people to see, you gotta call a spade a spade.

Paul of Eugene OR · Jun 23, 2017

Ygrene Imref said:
And, you may want to rethink the AIDS punishment argument.

AIDS began as a bio weapon tested on an unsuspecting population. The fact that a sexual fluid Westerner spread it amongst the world is a matter of circumstance, not providential punishment.

Homosexuality has existed since the fall; an epidemic tangentially related to a specific sexual preference is not necessarily the punishment, or price.

That is unfounded conspiracy talk. Aids rose naturally.

rusmeister · Jun 24, 2017

The Amsterdam Symposium: An Abuse of Authority?

I used to hold Fr John Behr in higher respect. I can now see how his ideas have lead him in this direction.

rusmeister · Jun 24, 2017

My apologies, I was not referring to you at all, and did not know that you are ordained in your own communion.

For the third time, Fr Josiah was NOT discussing Orthodox presentation on the understanding of what same-sex attraction is, or pastoral care in dealing with the passion. I think these words must be invisible to you. You keep looking for something that he wasn't even trying to offer, and are upset that he doesn't talk about it. It wasn't the point of his talk. The Klein family IS the point of his talk, and you evidently STILL haven't heard of them, and have no idea that Christians ARE being persecuted under the general calls for tolerance. That, or you disingenuously don't want to admit it. It is obstinacy and worse to refuse to acknowledge the people that have been punished for refusing to celebrate sodomy.

If you want an Orthodox consideration of sodomy and same-sex attraction, you have but to ask.

But speaking about words, and being a professional wordsmith, I'm not going to stop using the language of my forefathers just because modern people want me to; I deny it is insult if it is the fact of the matter, and have no intention of debating that. Nor do I mean it as pejorative. If I speak of a priestess in any other religion, I am not insulting her; I am stating what she is. In English, "priest" has always been understood (until yesterday) as a male form, and "priestess" as the female form of the concept. I accept traditional usage and do not accept modern innovation. I still say "stewardess", too, and am not insulting stewardesses by calling them such, and am not going to call them " flight attendants" just because feminists want me to.

Not sure if you've ever heard of CS Lewis, or his essay entitled "Priestesses in the Church?".

FenderTL5 · Jun 24, 2017

Marriage in the USA is one area where the government/religious entanglement is beyond disturbing.
Speaking only for myself, I would rather the church and priests only celebrate the Sacrament and leave the civil aspect to the governing authorities/jurisdiction. ymmv

There have been several examples listed in this discussion where LGBT advocacy and religious freedom have conflicted. I don't think all of them are equal. For example, in my humble opinion Kim Davis didn't have a leg to stand on. She was representing government, which means she represents everyone in that community religious or not. She plays by the government rules or finds another line of employment.
Although different, the commercial cases are similar. If I have deep seated religious convictions about alcohol, I don't think opening a bar or becoming a bartender would be advisable. In our country, if you don't want to work 'some' weddings (for whatever reason) don't offer those services commercially.
In all of the cases I've seen, there has been a completely viable, legal, respectful of religious freedom option(s). Instead stubbornness, anger, and in some cases outright hypocrisy prevailed, none of which is becoming the cause of Christ nor the example He gave.
There has to be a better way to love our neighbors without compromising morality than becoming a media spectacle.

Orthodoxjay1 · Jun 24, 2017

Ygrene Imref said:
And, you may want to rethink the AIDS punishment argument.

AIDS began as a bio weapon tested on an unsuspecting population. The fact that a sexual fluid Westerner spread it amongst the world is a matter of circumstance, not providential punishment.

Homosexuality has existed since the fall; an epidemic tangentially related to a specific sexual preference is not necessarily the punishment, or price.

What kind of Conspiracy theory garbage is this? is TAW, still TAW? Behold a Pale Horse is a fictional book full of misleading misinfo. Conspiracy theories like this, takes Sin out the equation, and man's Proneness to Sinfulness, and instead put the blame on others. It funny those who think the government created AIDS, don't want to admit a big link between the sin of Sodomy, and this deadly virus. Satastics even show sodomites are the biggest carriers of this virus, and due to them being cowards, and the whole "down low" culture have passed it onto straight victims. if anything, it not the government responsible for this Genocide in a grand scheme, it is the sodomites due to sinfulness, and selfishness.

All4Christ · Jun 24, 2017

Orthodoxjay1 said:
What kind of Conspiracy theory garbage is this? is TAW, still TAW? Behold a Pale Horse is a fictional book full of misleading misinfo. Conspiracy theories like this, takes Sin out the equation, and man's Proneness to Sinfulness, and instead put the blame on others. It funny those who think the government created AIDS, don't want to admit a big link between the sin of Sodomy, and this deadly virus. Satastics even show sodomites are the biggest carriers of this virus, and due to them being cowards, and the whole "down low" culture have passed it onto straight victims. if anything, it not the government responsible for this Genocide in a grand scheme, it is the sodomites due to sinfulness, and selfishness.

The conversation for this post was moved to another thread. It'd be good to post this over there if you want to continue debating this part of the thread, as we wanted to move that debate portion out of TAW. Please don't bring the debate back into the TAW thread.

rusmeister · Jun 24, 2017

FenderTL5 said:
Marriage in the USA is one area where the government/religious entanglement is beyond disturbing.
Speaking only for myself, I would rather the church and priests only celebrate the Sacrament and leave the civil aspect to the governing authorities/jurisdiction. ymmv

There have been several examples listed in this discussion where LGBT advocacy and religious freedom have conflicted. I don't think all of them are equal. For example, in my humble opinion Kim Davis didn't have a leg to stand on. She was representing government, which means she represents everyone in that community religious or not. She plays by the government rules or finds another line of employment.
Although different, the commercial cases are similar. If I have deep seated religious convictions about alcohol, I don't think opening a bar or becoming a bartender would be advisable. In our country, if you don't want to work 'some' weddings (for whatever reason) don't offer those services commercially.
In all of the cases I've seen, there has been a completely viable, legal, respectful of religious freedom option(s). Instead stubbornness, anger, and in some cases outright hypocrisy prevailed, none of which is becoming the cause of Christ nor the example He gave.
There has to be a better way to love our neighbors without compromising morality than becoming a media spectacle.

Well, we've spoken about Kim Davis before. She DOES have a leg to stand on, it's called being right about morality. It is a secular idea that says laws need not conform to morality; she rightly refused to support an immoral application of law and was persecuted for it. A law must be lawful for us to demand that it be obeyed, and a law that states that we must tolerate the killing of babies or the pretense of marriage between two men is unlawful. It's not as if she sought to become a registrar after the wicked Obergefell decision; she was one for some time before. Yes, the government may punish her, but if we say the government is right to punish her, then we become complicit in the government's evil.

FenderTL5 · Jun 24, 2017

rusmeister said:
Well, we've spoken about Kim Davis before. She DOES have a leg to stand on, it's called being right about morality. It is a secular idea that says laws need not conform to morality; she rightly refused to support an immoral application of law and was persecuted for it. A law must be lawful for us to demand that it be obeyed, and a law that states that we must tolerate the killing of babies or the pretense of marriage between two men is unlawful. It's not as if she sought to become a registrar after the wicked Obergefell decision; she was one for some time before. Yes, the government may punish her, but if we say the government is right to punish her, then we become complicit in the government's evil.

This is where our POV must be differing. It's not that I think government was right to punish her, it's that I think she was wrong to put herself in that position. Romans 12:9-21 .

FenderTL5 · Jun 24, 2017

rusmeister said:
She already had her job. Obergefell went down afterwards. Then these two people who could easily have gone ANYWHERE but wanted to have an example made of her repeatedly went to her office (and not anywhere else) to force the Obergefell decision. She didn't "put herself" in that position. She was there, like you or I might have been in our own jobs. What do I do if I'm a teacher, and students insist I approve of such things, law or no law?

She had ample opportunity to recuse herself, or to simply step aside. It was offered as an accommodation, more than once and she refused.
She put herself in the adversarial position. As I understand it, they were refused four times before filing suit. She would have to be quite naive to not see the legal challenge coming.
I definitely agree that the two plaintiffs forced the issue, I just think it could've been diffused in a Christ-like way early on.

I would hope, if I were to encounter a similar situation that I would put my personal pride aside and get out of the way.

All4Christ · Jun 24, 2017

Well, I'll just say one more thing. I'm very thankful that I was welcomed when I started visiting TAW when I was a Pentecostal, even when I wasn't planning to become Orthodox. I'm very thankful for those who spoke to me at that time, even when I expressed concern about some beliefs.

I also hope that if my family and friends came to TAW that they too would be treated with kindness and love. They wouldn't attack anyone or try to teach against our beliefs (but I don't think some of our posters here were intending to attack or teach against our beliefs either).

We certainly can keep our truth and not compromise, while still showing love to others. If needed, we can also correct others in love.

Enjoy the rest of your conversation.

HoleyHermit · Jun 24, 2017

There is no such thing as compromise in the Tolerance War. Concession is not the fashioning of a peace accord. It is the surrendering of a new beachhead.

Unless you are willing to completely surrender and take up arms for the opposition, you will always be an adversary to be crushed.

All4Christ · Jun 24, 2017

rusmeister said:
I've already said why it is an accurate word. It is pejorative to the Christian ear for a darn good reason, because it states a fall from Christian doctrine and practice, which is precisely why they don't want the term used, and want the masculine term "priest" used for women, to hide the basic fact. "Heretic" is also pejorative, but both words are pejorative in the sense that the common man recognizes that there is something undesirable in being so unnamed. It is NOT pejorative in the sense of a false label that inaccurately and wickedly mischaracterizes the described person, office or object. Using the word "pejorative" here winds up being a "mix-and-match", to imply false mischaracterization whose aim is cruelty, while in actuality seeking to deny the basic fact that terms denoting sex have always been normative in certain professions, including that of priest. (Yes, I know you can appeal to the word "actor"; but I say that a) that is misuse, and b) doesn't have the profound theological effect that masking the introduction of women as ordained icons of Christ does in fact have.

I will not bow to what the world encourages here in TAW, and don't go to other congregational forums seeking to impose Orthodox understandings. I believe the use of the word "priest" as applied to women to be a deception, one of the steps made towards the ordination of women, and I won't back down over the use of the word. I have in fact not called our visitor at any point "a priestess", I have only said that that is the proper term. Anglican conventions are irrelevant to us, and because it matters, I'm not going to adopt that deceptive usage.

As to promoting things, Gurney posted a great link to Fr Josiah's speech about the assault on our own freedom to oppose the agenda of sexual anarchy, and a whole slew of non-Orthodox came posting their modern anti-Christian views in our forum, and the member in question characterized Fr Josiah's extremely reasonable speech as "ranting". I attempted to point out that it was not ranting, and not intended to be an "Orthodoxy Sexuality 101" speech, but addresses the ferocity of said assaults against, but wasn't terribly successful. Then it came out that she is an ordained member of her communion, and the topic of priestesses came up. I noted that the two topics are linked, and tend to be supported by the same people, and that language and choice of words is a necessary part of such promotion.

I think all posts by non-Orthodox that don't seek to understand our view, but to defend their own, should go to St Justin's. I welcome anyone in the appropriate place and approach. I spend my time here exclusively in TAW, never anywhere else, and don't want to spend my time

Also, you'll notice that we worked hard to move that slew of posts. There was a very different tenor to many of those posts.

People mentioned about non-Orthodox moderating this forum. Three of us TAW members try hard to help out with this. It's not just non-Orthodox that watch out for this forum.

"Gay iconoclasm: Holding the Line...."

Newbie

Regular Member

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙

Κύριε, ἐλέησον.

Orthodox Christian

Κύριε, ἐλέησον.

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Finally Old Enough

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian

Κύριε, ἐλέησον.

Well-Known Member

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian

Κύριε, ἐλέησον.

Κύριε, ἐλέησον.

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙

Active Member

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙

Similar threads