Creeping Liberalism

[ZaidaBoBaida]

That, and look what they did to the CEO/one of the founders of Mozilla because he supported proposition 8 - they forced him out of his job. Because if you're a conservative Christian you can't have high profile jobs like that even if it's a company that you helped found. Now, there's a Christian dentist being sued for playing Christian music in her own office.

My mom has long believed that acceptance of homosexuality was going to become to mark of the beast of revelation that you'll need in order to buy or sell, and from everything I've seen in recent history, I believe she is right.

 

[GregConstantine]

Rumeister I agree with a lot of what you are saying but I feel I need to say this again because no one else is saying it. Chesterton is not a Church Father.

 

[~Anastasia~]

That, and look what they did to the CEO/one of the founders of Mozilla because he supported proposition 8 - they forced him out of his job. Because if you're a conservative Christian you can't have high profile jobs like that even if it's a company that you helped found. Now, there's a Christian dentist being sued for playing Christian music in her own office.

My mom has long believed that acceptance of homosexuality was going to become to mark of the beast of revelation that you'll need in order to buy or sell, and from everything I've seen in recent history, I believe she is right.

That had never crossed my mind. (Though to be honest, I don't really speculate on such things.) However, I must say that the same-sex issue seems to have gripped society (and the legal system) in ways I would not have foreseen. It does seem a bit surreal sometimes.

 

[rusmeister]

I know that. The question is whether this view of marriage, the family and sexuality is what the fathers do support. I say that it is. Would you say that it is not? If so, how and why not? If an atheist argues for monogamy and chastity and against immorality, would you reject his arguments because he is not a Church father?
(I just think that it's a really unimportant point. It would only be important anywhere he denies Orthodox doctrine - and that is something you'll have a hard time finding with GK.)

 

[rusmeister]

Well, now that I understand you, I like what you are saying even less.

Your standard for what is sinful--calling for the legalisation of immoral things that are illegal--makes the sinfulness of the action subject to the current laws. So, following your logic, if I support legalised gay marriage when it isn't, I am sinning. Yet if the next day the Supreme Court legalises gay marriage, then it seems support for legalisation is no longer sinful.

Moreover, your standard is just an appeal to preserve the status quo; you are providing no guidance for us as Orthodox about what sort of just society we should seek. What if the status quo allows actions that we both agree should be illegal such as torturing little children or slavery? Shouldn't we try to pass laws to prohibit certain types of immorality? Wouldn't support of legalised child torture be sinful?

So I don't think your standard gets us too far.

This really, really, doesn't understand what I am saying.
No, I am NOT saying that morality is dependent on law. I AM saying that is IS immoral to support legalization of immorality. So your subsequent logic doesn't follow at all. It is ALWAYS immoral to support legalized homosexuality, to encourage it in society (and legalization DOES encourage and protect it).

We should seek a godly society. If we can influence law and national morality, we should. If we cannot, we suffer persecution. I don't care about "status quo"; I care about what OUGHT to be, and if we can influence our laws, they ought to reflect Christian morality.

So I really think you have to back up, read me again, and ask questions, because hitherto you haven't understood what I am saying.

 

[GregConstantine]

Here are some quotes from some "Orthodox" people on FB in response to an article about the possible upcoming Great Council. This is evidence of some of the "creeping liberalism".

"Where would the Orthodox Church be without discrimination? Is outrage!. An assault on 1700 years of TRADITION! The primates are defending it with their bodies!"

"An excellent analysis. I do agree with (name omitted)'s comment above. I was a little surprised by the omission of the most significant rifts in the pre-conciliar proceedings, namely the refusal by Moscow to sign the statement on human rights and non-discrimination."

"Good analysis. However, it is not only the more fundamentalist voices who do not want this council...They feel that any statements out of the council might be ill considered (i.e. reactionary). Skewed to placate the more fundamentalist strain of Orthodoxy that now holds sway in some quarters and/or represent the least common denominator on any single issue without allowing for the work of the Holy Spirit..."

 

[All4Christ]

Could you post a link to the article?

 

[rusmeister]

Blech. "Fundamentalist strain". I'm starting to read that as a general attack on Tradition, on what has generally been agreed upon throughout history, that modern innovators want to roll back or deny.

 

[GregConstantine]

Blech. "Fundamentalist strain". I'm starting to read that as a general attack on Tradition, on what has generally been agreed upon throughout history, that modern innovators want to roll back or deny.

Yes, but they are here, and they are within the Church, and nothing is being done about them.

 

[Orthodoxjay1]

Blech. "Fundamentalist strain". I'm starting to read that as a general attack on Tradition, on what has generally been agreed upon throughout history, that modern innovators want to roll back or deny.

The word "Fundamentalism" has lost all meaning, it use to be about a certain movement in the Protestant world, now it just used by those who have problem with Orthodox theology, morals, Creeds, Traditions, etc. , especially concerning the issues of the dignity of human life, the sacramental view of marriage, and family, and most especially the orthodox view of sodomy.

It no surpise there people who say they are Orthodox online bashing the church, you should of seen the many Orthodox facebookers celebrating the legalization of Homosexual marriage, and disregarding the Church statements renouncing such a travesty. I brought the problem of this disturbing trend up on Orthodox another forum months ago, but was called a "hater".

 

[GregConstantine]

that is terrible. Why are these people not being dealt with? I hate to bring up the OCA but they are some of the biggest offenders in this issue.

 

[dzheremi]

Why does anyone ever expect anything more, or anything else, from people on Facebook? It is more akin to a filthy latrine than a seminary.

If the dynamic of any platform (including this one I'm posting on right now) is built upon generating "likes" and connecting like-minded individuals via those likes, then you're not going to get any kind of nuance or understanding of any topic that actually matters; instead, people will split off into opposing camps based on whatever their personal whims may be: the Spongs of electronic world will find themselves together against the mean ol' "fundamentalists" in much greater numbers (or at least with a much greater support network) online than they probably ever have in an actual parish where people actually have to moderate what they say regarding the church or its leadership for fear of getting in trouble. And of course for a lot of people all of these things are just boxes to check off on their Facebook profiles in the first place. That's the danger of Facebook and many other such places in the first place. It leads to a kind of laziness where affiliation is enough and any individual wingnut (or group of wingnuts) can thereby present whatever opinion they have, no matter how at variance with their church it may be, and be confident that this is an acceptable position to have and still be Orthodox. After all, they're Orthodox and they're having it! And if you challenge such a person on the specifics of what they're presenting, or the particulars of their affiliation (e.g., who is their bishop), then yeah, you're a 'hater'. And there's nothing worse than being a hater. That's right there in the 10 commandments according to Facebook.

 

[GregConstantine]

check this out:

http://www.wheeljournal.com/blog/20...er-christians-should-be-happy-about-pluralism

look in the beginning and see who contributed to this article...

 

[GregConstantine]

Why does anyone ever expect anything more, or anything else, from people on Facebook? It is more akin to a filthy latrine than a seminary.

If the dynamic of any platform (including this one I'm posting on right now) is built upon generating "likes" and connecting like-minded individuals via those likes, then you're not going to get any kind of nuance or understanding of any topic that actually matters; instead, people will split off into opposing camps based on whatever their personal whims may be: the Spongs of electronic world will find themselves together against the mean ol' "fundamentalists" in much greater numbers (or at least with a much greater support network) online than they probably ever have in an actual parish where people actually have to moderate what they say regarding the church or its leadership for fear of getting in trouble. And of course for a lot of people all of these things are just boxes to check off on their Facebook profiles in the first place. That's the danger of Facebook and many other such places in the first place. It leads to a kind of laziness where affiliation is enough and any individual wingnut (or group of wingnuts) can thereby present whatever opinion they have, no matter how at variance with their church it may be, and be confident that this is an acceptable position to have and still be Orthodox. After all, they're Orthodox and they're having it! And if you challenge such a person on the specifics of what they're presenting, or the particulars of their affiliation (e.g., who is their bishop), then yeah, you're a 'hater'. And there's nothing worse than being a hater. That's right there in the 10 commandments according to Facebook.

But its not just facebook, some of the people who commented on what I quoted are clergy and lay leaders in the Church. They speak in other venues (public speaking, writing, etc) Why are these people still in their positions?

 

[All4Christ]

check this out:

http://www.wheeljournal.com/blog/20...er-christians-should-be-happy-about-pluralism

look in the beginning and see who contributed to this article...

Well...I can't read the whole thing right now, but based on the names of those who contributed, I can guess at some of the content. I'll read it tonight and hope I'm wrong.

 

[dzheremi]

But its not just facebook, some of the people who commented on what I quoted are clergy and lay leaders in the Church. They speak in other venues (public speaking, writing, etc) Why are these people still in their positions?

Yes, but I was talking specifically about Facebook, as Orthodoxjay mentioned "Orthodox facebookers".

As to those other venues, you'd have to ask their bishops and the publishers/bookers of the people in question, I suppose. How would you go about making sure that they don't speak/publish when these other avenues that you mention are not ones that you yourself control? I would think without a bishop willing to put a stop to nonsense, there's kind of not a lot that can be done. If other people want to publish trash or give misleading talks, what can you do other than what you're apparently already doing by trying to get the message out that it's bad?

 

[GregConstantine]

Yes, but I was talking specifically about Facebook, as Orthodoxjay mentioned "Orthodox facebookers".

As to those other venues, you'd have to ask their bishops and the publishers/bookers of the people in question, I suppose. How would you go about making sure that they don't speak/publish when these other avenues that you mention are not ones that you yourself control? I would think without a bishop willing to put a stop to nonsense, there's kind of not a lot that can be done. If other people want to publish trash or give misleading talks, what can you do other than what you're apparently already doing by trying to get the message out that it's bad?

Bishops can "censure" a lay person. They can instruct their clergy not to allow them to hold any leadership position in any parish in his jurisdiction. They can be disallowed to go to seminary. For clergy, they can be removed from their position or asked to step down.

There are certain people that have been very vocal in their desire to see the Church change her teachings, and nothing has been done.

I'm not literally asking, my question is more rhetorical than a literal inquiry. Plus, do we really need to ask our bishops about a job function that falls under their responsibilities that they should be doing without being prompted?

 

[dzheremi]

I would think that if things are bad as you're painting them then, yes, you do. It is, as you say, one of the bishops' responsibilities to deal with such situations and people. That's why I asked the question that I did, as according to your own posting bishops are not taking the actions that they should.

(Or I suppose you could be like the Roman Catholics and just sort of accept that you've got "liberal" and "conservative" wings in a society like America that views everything through the prism of polarizing secular politics anyway...that's certainly worked out well enough for them, right? )

 

[GregConstantine]

"(Or I suppose you could be like the Roman Catholics and just sort of accept that you've got "liberal" and "conservative" wings in a society like America that views everything through the prism of polarizing secular politics anyway...that's certainly worked out well enough for them, right? )"

We should absolutely not do this.

I know why we're not asking. We are so conflict aversive as a society that very few will actually contact their bishops about this. This is mainly taking place in a jurisdiction that I'm not in, but one that I left. This problem was one of the reasons I left. I said something before I did leave though.

 

[GregConstantine]

Well...I can't read the whole thing right now, but based on the names of those who contributed, I can guess at some of the content. I'll read it tonight and hope I'm wrong.

Your hopes are unfortunately going to be dashed.