Gay Friend - What should I do?

[nutroll]

Forgive me ... I know that my understanding especially in a pastoral sense doesn't compare to others.

But I think "gay" does have a particular danger attached (maybe due to the media insistence). A person may recognize that he lies or steals, and may even call himself a liar or a thief. But I've never seen someone who said "God made me a liar, God created me a thief, and I cannot be otherwise, so God must be ok with lying or stealing".

Being "gay" DOES have that ideology attached to it, frequently. In this case I think it is potentially dangerous for a person to identify as their sin. Of course, they could say and mean the exact same thing by saying "God created me same-sex attracted" but it takes a slight further disconnect to do so. The language of "same sex attracted" is a better descriptor and brings a person one step closer to seeing what the issue truly is.

Again, forgive me. It's funny because I initially disagreed with all the hullabaloo over which word to use, and if made sense to me to use whatever people understand. But in having time to think about it, having something of a background that delves into such things, and discussing struggles with very close friends who are same-sex attracted, my opinion has changed.

It's not the most important thing, but it is a factor. And anything we can do to improve anyone's potential outcome, we ought to do, it seems. (I don't mean this to be correcting anyone's ministering! Just a general comment.)

Forgive me.

I think it's precisely for that reason that we shouldn't argue about terminology. When people come to the church, they very often feel like they are trapped or that things are predetermined. They aren't initially receptive to the idea that they can be different than they already are. Some don't even see why they should be different even if they could be. The church teaches us to war against the flesh. If a person feels that their biology determined their behavior, it simply means that the passions and appetites have a stronger hold on them. We can reassure them that they can overcome the passions by the grace of God without having this conversation. They think it's impossible, but so is raising the dead, healing the blind, walking on water etc. Peoples' words tell us how they frame their struggle. If we are too busy trying to correct their words we risk not listening to them. I agree it's not good terminology, but it's what people are using; we need to be able to listen to it and interpret it.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I think it's precisely for that reason that we shouldn't argue about terminology. When people come to the church, they very often feel like they are trapped or that things are predetermined. They aren't initially receptive to the idea that they can be different than they already are. Some don't even see why they should be different even if they could be. The church teaches us to war against the flesh. If a person feels that their biology determined their behavior, it simply means that the passions and appetites have a stronger hold on them. We can reassure them that they can overcome the passions by the grace of God without having this conversation. They think it's impossible, but so is raising the dead, healing the blind, walking on water etc. Peoples' words tell us how they frame their struggle. If we are too busy trying to correct their words we risk not listening to them. I agree it's not good terminology, but it's what people are using; we need to be able to listen to it and interpret it.

Certainly this is most important.

And forgive me, you are right, if a person comes to me and says "I'm gay" and wants to talk about their struggles, I'm absolutely not going to offer a lecture on changing their terminology. I hope it didn't sound like I was suggesting that. Bottom line, how we treat actual people is the important thing.


I was participating in this discussion from the point of view of discussing language and how it shapes our thinking and how we might have a small effect (or at least not contribute to the problem) by changing how we speak in general discussion. I didn't mean it in terms of forcing someone who called themselves "gay" to change, though AFTER they understand the mechanics and spiritual implications, they might be freed from their negative thoughts by doing so.

Thank you so much for pointing that out. I wouldn't want to give any kind of impression that I thought this was something to beat someone over the head with when they are seeking help!

 

[rusmeister]

Yeah, thanks, Anastasia,
That is apples vs oranges. I’m talking about the meaning of language and the extent to which it expresses truth and falsehood, and you, Nutroll, are talking about pastoral care. I’m speaking to people who WANT to know what the truth is, and whether there are right or wrong, true or false ways to express things. I say that there are, and that our own understandings, of the people who are supposed to be the pastors, not the pastored, can be falsified to take in invisible philosophical assumptions about language expressed in reality. IOW, you and I can think wrongly, and even in contradiction to the mind of the Church, by expressing the nature of sin, anthropology, etc in false and deceitful terms. The fact that people have accepted it in large numbers does nothing to change that.

But like Anastasia said, you’re not going to try to strongarm a potential penitent who is not ready to hear certain things. I agree that in the name of charity, we may HAVE to use such language. But we ourselves should understand its falsifying nature, what euphemism is, its effect and purpose, and when the euphemism serves evil. So the question is whether YOU are open to what is true about language. I’m a language guy. If we were talking about cars, I’d at least listen to a mechanic, even if I didn’t like what he said, and take his opinion based on his experience seriously, even if I had the temerity to disagree. I’d remember that knowing how to drive a car does not confer in-depth understanding of all of the operational aspects of the vehicle that I know how to use.
I have to take apart, examine, analyze, and compare language elements in different languages and even histories and explain them to people who don’t know a second language at all. I’m no pastor and wouldn’t presume to have the experience of even younger folk like you and Fr Matt, who doubtless know a ton about things like that and the intellectual sides of theology. I can tell you how language works. That’s my function, and how I can help you.

If you disagree, well, I’m used to having everybody know as much about my own professional fields (teaching and languages) as me, and am not going to quarrel. You either acknowledge that euphemisms exist, and exist for a purpose, or not, and that that purpose can be good or evil, and unfortunately, evil seems to predominate in our language. If you don’t, then I don’t think we could intelligently argue (and I distinguish between arguing and quarreling, and hate the latter). Once you understand clearly that “gay” is indeed an evil euphemism, then of course you may use it when you must pastorally. But don’t think you are expressing truth about the person’s condition; recognize that you are expressing a twisting of the ontological reality that re-expresses it as connected to what is bright and cheerful, whether you intend it to or not (and I take for granted that you don’t). Nobody has abolished the word “gaiety”.

I hope that doesn’t sound egotistical. I’m speaking from long experience and learning, not just throwing an opinion around. This is one of those things that I am REALLY, absolutely sure about, just as any professional is sure about anything they have long experience with.

 

[nutroll]

Yeah, thanks, Anastasia,
That is apples vs oranges. I’m talking about the meaning of language and the extent to which it expresses truth and falsehood, and you, Nutroll, are talking about pastoral care. I’m speaking to people who WANT to know what the truth is, and whether there are right or wrong, true or false ways to express things. I say that there are, and that our own understandings, of the people who are supposed to be the pastors, not the pastored, can be falsified to take in invisible philosophical assumptions about language expressed in reality. IOW, you and I can think wrongly, and even in contradiction to the mind of the Church, by expressing the nature of sin, anthropology, etc in false and deceitful terms. The fact that people have accepted it in large numbers does nothing to change that.

But like Anastasia said, you’re not going to try to strongarm a potential penitent who is not ready to hear certain things. I agree that in the name of charity, we may HAVE to use such language. But we ourselves should understand its falsifying nature, what euphemism is, its effect and purpose, and when the euphemism serves evil. So the question is whether YOU are open to what is true about language. I’m a language guy. If we were talking about cars, I’d at least listen to a mechanic, even if I didn’t like what he said, and take his opinion based on his experience seriously, even if I had the temerity to disagree. I’d remember that knowing how to drive a car does not confer in-depth understanding of all of the operational aspects of the vehicle that I know how to use.
I have to take apart, examine, analyze, and compare language elements in different languages and even histories and explain them to people who don’t know a second language at all. I’m no pastor and wouldn’t presume to have the experience of even younger folk like you and Fr Matt, who doubtless know a ton about things like that and the intellectual sides of theology. I can tell you how language works. That’s my function, and how I can help you.

If you disagree, well, I’m used to having everybody know as much about my own professional fields (teaching and languages) as me, and am not going to quarrel. You either acknowledge that euphemisms exist, and exist for a purpose, or not, and that that purpose can be good or evil, and unfortunately, evil seems to predominate in our language. If you don’t, then I don’t think we could intelligently argue (and I distinguish between arguing and quarreling, and hate the latter). Once you understand clearly that “gay” is indeed an evil euphemism, then of course you may use it when you must pastorally. But don’t think you are expressing truth about the person’s condition; recognize that you are expressing a twisting of the ontological reality that re-expresses it as connected to what is bright and cheerful, whether you intend it to or not (and I take for granted that you don’t). Nobody has abolished the word “gaiety”.

I hope that doesn’t sound egotistical. I’m speaking from long experience and learning, not just throwing an opinion around. This is one of those things that I am REALLY, absolutely sure about, just as any professional is sure about anything they have long experience with.

But every time a thread comes up which had more of a pastoral question behind it, it comes around to this.

I also have some doubts about how the word "gay" came to mean what it now means. Because in between "we'll have a gay old time" on the Flintstones and gay pride and gay marriage we had "that's so gay..." where "gay" meant lame, stupid, or something to be ignored. I thin it more likely that the word was first used to keep from saying directly what someone was. We all know the Oscar Wilde life-of-the-party, a-little-too-festive stereotype. Then this became an insult and then was eventually embraced to take the sting out of the insult. If this is the case, it's less about an evil euphemism created with an agenda, and more about the need to not use euphemism even when it is supposedly benign euphemism because it becomes a means of gossip without feeling guilty. We see several words rehabilitated by those who have been called those things derisively. We need to stop tarnishing people with our idle talk. And calling them sodomites won't be the solution either. They'll end up taking that as a badge of honor eventually. Focus on your own plate. It may not be helpful in official statements to use the language of the world, but apart from official statements, but if properly redefined I don't think it has to be a problem. Most of us shouldn't be making pronouncements anyway because we'll often do more harm than good.

 

[nutroll]

By the way, I don't mean to imply that language isn't used as a weapon on a regular basis, or that we should embrace any change that society wants to put into our language. But I think that decades after a word is accepted with a new meaning, we often have to rework the argument to express the same thing but in new words.

I also don't like the phrase "suffering from same sex attraction" because often people don't think they're suffering at all from it. And it focuses on attraction which is not the problem for most people. For most people the problem is that with the permissiveness of our society they've moved beyond attraction. People enter relationships that feel important, feel satisfying, even feel like love. We have trouble telling people that their pets are not children, how do we tell someone who has had a relationship for 50 years that it's just about sexual attraction? These issues are complex, and the church has medicine for such, even when it struggles to find the words to talk about it.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Seems like we need a new word/phrase altogether. Not that I'm lobbying for that. Did we completely derail the thread?

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

Seems like we need a new word/phrase altogether. Not that I'm lobbying for that. Did we completely derail the thread?

Kind of...?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hello Father,

I must disagree with what you say about “suffering from SSA.” I think it’s the best way to describe it. Think of sin in general...it causes spiritual suffering. Take any of these....

Alcoholism
Gambling addiction
inappropriate contentography
Unwillingness to forgive
Drug addiction
Racism

.....and put “suffering from” in front of them. It works.

Most people who struggle with SSA know full well it’s a struggle and entails suffering. Hence the reason that so many of these folks commit suicide in disproportionately high numbers compared to “straight” normal folks. People who feel zero attraction to the opposite sex ask what’s wrong with them and they can get extremely depressed. It is suffering and most know it. However, because they don’t know Christ and most have a shallow knowledge of the Christian faith growing up in a post-Christian secular, empty world, they believe they cannot overcome this disorder. The logical next step for the atheist/agnostic/cynic is to try to embrace it and look to others with the same disorder and normalize it. But even at that point where they try to normalize it, they know it’s disordered. They do try to rationalize it, but in the end they still suffer.

I dont want to speak for Rus, with whom I passionately agree on this topic, but I feel like he’s saying we cannot compromise our use of language to be pastorally sensitive. We must call a spade a spade. We don’t have to be insanely blunt about it, but we need to be honest. If we water things down with the secular vernacular, we risk playing their game and subconsciously adopting their ideas over time.

I’m a stubborn son of a gun. I keep hearing people taking verbs and using them as nouns. Twenty years ago a technician would say, “That’ll be $200 for the installation.” Now it’s “That’ll be $200 for your install.” “Invitation” is now an “invite.” People used to say, “That’s an awfully big request.” Now it’s an awfully big “ask.”

I HATE THAT STUFF!!

English is quickly becoming a ghetto/hood tongue. We speak a language of slang. We cannot allow either our daily secular communications nor our religious outreach linguistics to be mutilated just to be hip, relevant, or sensitive.

I always tell my sixth graders, “This year I will NOT dummy down my vocabulary nor will I speak New Millennium hip hop speech. I will not lower my lexicon. Rather, you’ll raise your vocabulary and climb up to my level.” They always appreciate it actually. It’s a sign of respect.

“Trans” is an illegitimate, stupid term. It means quite basically “across.” Its so terribly un-Orthodox to think one can move across genders. It’s preposterous. “Gay,” unless it means “happy” is inane. A lesbian comes from a specific Greek isle, and that’s the only true definition. Non-binary is so patently stupid a term that the Ancient Fathers would have never accepted it. We use these dumb civil rights terms like “woke.” Its a lame term. For one thing, it’s grammatically silly, but now it has gone past racial connotations. The “LGBT” community has usurped it for their own whims.

We have to stay true to tradition not only with our beloved Liturgy, Vespers, Matins, Holy traditions, and prayers. We have to hold to Ancient understandings of verbiage in our daily lives as well.

By the way, I don't mean to imply that language isn't used as a weapon on a regular basis, or that we should embrace any change that society wants to put into our language. But I think that decades after a word is accepted with a new meaning, we often have to rework the argument to express the same thing but in new words.

I also don't like the phrase "suffering from same sex attraction" because often people don't think they're suffering at all from it. And it focuses on attraction which is not the problem for most people. For most people the problem is that with the permissiveness of our society they've moved beyond attraction. People enter relationships that feel important, feel satisfying, even feel like love. We have trouble telling people that their pets are not children, how do we tell someone who has had a relationship for 50 years that it's just about sexual attraction? These issues are complex, and the church has medicine for such, even when it struggles to find the words to talk about it.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Kind of...?

At least it's over a month old and I hope the OP got their answers. (There were good ones.) I feel a bit badly because it's a new member and someone new to Orthodoxy. And they haven't posted again.

 

[nutroll]

We don't generally say that we suffer from opposite sex attraction. We might say that we suffer from lust, inappropriate contentography addiction, or overactive libido. I don't mean to quibble, but I think that the suffering has more to do with the acting out of their passions than from their attraction. Attraction occurs before we embark on the sin of lust. And we are not better because we lust after, have impure thoughts about or engage in sexual activity outside marriage with someone of the opposite sex.

I agree, as I think I alluded to before, that the rapid change in terminology is difficult, it is like walking on constantly shifting sand. I think that to a certain degree we can hold fast to our ways of speaking about things, but when we realize that the ground is no longer under our feet, sometimes we have to find new ground. We need to not be constantly seeking to be relevant, but the church when it expresses the truth (in whatever words it needs to) will always be relevant because it is the encounter with Christ who is the truth.

I don't seek to use the hip lingo of today's youth either, but I would rather they speak in it than not speak to me at all. The OP mentioned a friend who is a lesbian. It may not be the term you prefer, but I'm sure you knew what it meant. By the context, it was clear that she is currently in a relationship. One can presume that it is a sexual and not platonic relationship. All this was conveyed clearly, and yet some feel the need to say that we shouldn't speak this way. I think it is fine to speak the way that Rus speaks, I just don't think that arguing over it on a thread asking for advice (and this happens pretty much every time the subject comes up) is the way to go. Speak as you wish to speak on a subject, but speak the truth in love always. If your manner of speaking appeals to someone they will likely use it without a lecture on why it is better. If they don't like the way you speak, a lecture is not likely to change minds.

 

[Anhelyna]

I would like to remind all posters that TAW is a non-debate area - a safe haven for Orthodox Christians [ meaning Eastern Orthodox etc].

Non- Orthodox posters are welcome to post in fellowship but should not attempt to give any advice that may be contrary to the teachings of Orthodoxy

I would be most grateful if Non-Orthodox posters would review the SoP for TAW The Ancient Way - Eastern Orthodox Statement of Purpose before posting here again.

Thank you for your co-operation in this.

Anhelyna - Senior Ambassador Member

 

[St. Helens]

MOD HAT ON
Thread cleaned up yet again. If you are not Eastern Orthodox please review the SoP of this forum before posting.
From the SoP:
Community Rules:

All posts within this faith community must adhere to the site wide rules. In addition, if you are not a member of this faith group, you may not debate issues or teach against it's theology. You may post in fellowship. Active promotion of views contrary to the established teachings of this group will be considered off topic.
MOD HAT OFF

 

[gzt]

Yes, I quite agree with the pastoral points here - further, for many people, coming to realize that they are gay (as they describe themselves) or bisexual (again, as they describe themselves) rather than a defective "straight" person find that freeing - in Christian contexts, for instance, to come to terms with what their sexuality is rather than trying to get it to fit into another mold.

 

[EmSully2002]

I would think as a Catholic, she should know that homosexuality is sinful. You wouldn't be telling her something she doesn't already know. However since she is likely living her life in willful opposition to the teachings of the Church, your words will likely be of no effect.

Pray for her. Tell her you are praying for her. Invite her to your baptism, and tell her why you are converting. Perhaps your witness of the faith will open her eyes.

Or. Think about this for a second. Let her be herself and continue helping the same way you would a straight relationship.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Or. Think about this for a second. Let her be herself and continue helping the same way you would a straight relationship.

but the thing is, to help in a same-sex relationship is to get it to end because is sinful and done in lust.

 

[EmSully2002]

but the thing is, to help in a same-sex relationship is to get it to end because is sinful and done in lust.

And you feel that way why?

 

[ArmyMatt]

And you feel that way why?

because that's what the 2000 year consistent witness of the Church teaches.

 

[InnerPhyre]

Hello, I am a new believer in the orthodox and unfortunately still unbaptized. I might make a new post as to why I still haven't fully joint myself to the body of Christ through baptism. However right now I'm worried about how I should respond to the troubles my best friend is having. She is a catholic and a lesbian. Since a couple of months she's in a relationship with another girl. She's very much in love and they already moved to a new flat together. Before I became orthodox in my faith I was very accepting to homosexuality and still am even though I recognise the orthodox position and want to be obedient to the church. Right now they are fighting a lot and on the brink of breaking up. How should I help now? I feel that if I told her that homosexuality was wrong I would jeopardise our friendship. Up to now I counselled her as if it was a heterosexual relationship. I would appreciate your advice on how to navigate this space.

Be a loving and caring friend. It’s not up to you to interfere in their relationship. If you were to tell her that homosexuality is wrong would you be doing that for her sake or yours? Would it make her say “oh I see the light now thanks!” and change her ways or would it be you covering your butt spiritually regardless of what it might do to her? It sounds to me like you already know what to do. Be a good friend and love her. Support her emotionally during the rough time she’s going through. Pray for her.

 

[Omah1970]

Love him or her unconditionally. Love Love Love Do Not Judge Judge Judge or you could be responsible of running this person off. Share the gospel when they are receptive and love them into the Kingdom

 

[rusmeister]

I’m not sure Panteleimon is ever going to respond, but I would say now, six months later, that in general, it’s not wise to start from talking about sexual sin as such, but about whether the friend believes at all, and has the slightest desire to live in accordance with those beliefs. The nature of the sexual sin is not number one here. It’s only when a person has first grasped the need to repent that one can start looking around and asking what exactly needs to change in one’s life.