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

[rusmeister]

A person with no knowledge of Russian walks into a 4th year Russian course and is disappointed that the instructor doesn't address the declension of nouns - a first year issue.

The idea that Fr Josiah should have spent his time discussing how the Orthodox Church understands same-sex relations is like that.

Expecting that all talks touching on same-sex relations should focus on our basic teaching effectively forbids discussion of any other aspect of it. Yes, I agree that one wants to know how we see marriage and the family, and why sodomic relations are wrong in the first place. But knocking Fr Josiah for addressing the aspect of the organized movement known as "LGBT" (yet another euphemism that refuses to say what it means) and its impact on Christians is unreasonable. It's like saying that the Russian teacher "missed the opportunity to speak about noun declension", and complaining about negativity is like being in France in 1940 and complaining about a report on the Nazi invasion as "negative". Of course it's negative! As if the occupation, Vichy government and collaboration could be characterized positively. Yes, the one produced heroes of the French Resistance, as the persecution of Christians produces martyrs and saints. But we can hardly rejoice in the even temporary triumph of evil, but always ought to look to the Lord for deliverance.

I'm glad at least that no one is contending that choice of words doesn't matter. If I seem recalcitrant, it's because I've seen too much ground given and lost over my lifetime in the name of tolerance and a misplaced conception of love that has no room for tough love.

Speaking the truth in love is a skill I'm still trying to learn. But I know that it requires both truth and love. Truth without love is pitiless, like the tinkling cymbal, useless. Love without truth is not love at all, but wild indifference to the good of others.

 

[All4Christ]

Speaking the truth in love is a skill I'm still trying to learn. But I know that it requires both truth and love. Truth without love is pitiless, like the tinkling cymbal, useless. Love without truth is not love at all, but wild indifference to the good of others.

It is a difficult balance. I think we all are still learning it - but it is a worthwhile goal!

 

[rusmeister]

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.

And you don't see anything wrong with that couple going to the same person four times instead of just going to another office?

You seem to hold what is legal as higher than what is moral, to be saying that if it is the law, it is right to obey it. You don't seem to see that someone ELSE put her in an adversarial position. You are saying, whether you mean to or not, that all Christians should quit their jobs and withdraw from public life as soon as they are told to support something immoral, that they should not refuse and stand up for what is right.

I was a teacher in California. Gurney still is, last I heard. I can see clearly how such things must be forced on everybody, not only county clerks. Do you honestly not see that this must affect everybody, including you, sooner or later? Are you ready to quit your job, quite probably without any unemployment benefits the first time you are ordered to do something immoral? It's easy enough to tell somebody else to do it. What about when ALL jobs require the acknowledgement of sin as not-sin and you can't go and get another job?

 

[ArmyMatt]

I was a teacher in California. Gurney still is, last I heard. I can see clearly how such things must be forced on everybody, not only county clerks.

and to add to this point, and also maybe to explain some of Fr Josiah's spitfire, he is a California teacher as well, and has been for a while.

 

[rusmeister]

I should have added that, in my analogy, naturally the person who hasn't taken the lower level courses is going to have a hard time understanding why things are the way they are in the upper-level courses.

 

[FenderTL5]

And you don't see anything wrong with that couple going to the same person four times instead of just going to another office?

Sure, I see the contentiousness in the action here. It's obvious.
However, unless I'm mistaken, they weren't claiming their actions were for religious, particularly Christian, reasons.

You seem to hold what is legal as higher than what is moral, to be saying that if it is the law, it is right to obey it.

In the Davis example, yes but it is more unique. This is why I said earlier that all of the examples are not equal.
The reason is very straightforward - that was a government position, representing the government. Her obligation was to uphold the government position, she took an oath to do so. She does not have a right to establish her, personal, religious conviction on others as a representative of government.
I think that as Christians we need to be extremely careful in what we pursue in the public sector - for this very reason.

You don't seem to see that someone ELSE put her in an adversarial position.

Yes, I do but they weren't claiming Christianity, iirc.
Davis had an accommodation offered to deescalate and chose not to. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that there was other, external provocation as well.

You are saying, whether you mean to or not, that all Christians should quit their jobs and withdraw from public life as soon as they are told to support something immoral, that they should not refuse and stand up for what is right.

No, what I'm saying is our faith holds us to a higher standard than the general public.
It's not our place to "judge" those outside our ranks, only ourselves and those within our churches. (1 Corinthians 5-6). Unless I misunderstand scripture, Christ example, and the teachings - we are under no obligation to disassociate with 'sinners' or withdraw from a society that can be sinful. We are told to live without reproach within it. The challenge was that she was also very inconsistent in her application. It was destined for failure and that was exploited.
Apparently, where we disagree is where the line is drawn and I think public service brings a whole new set of challenges that are different from the private sector or as individuals.

I was a teacher in California. Gurney still is, last I heard. I can see clearly how such things must be forced on everybody, not only county clerks. Do you honestly not see that this must affect everybody, including you, sooner or later? Are you ready to quit your job, quite probably without any unemployment benefits the first time you are ordered to do something immoral? It's easy enough to tell somebody else to do it. What about when ALL jobs require the acknowledgement of sin as not-sin and you can't go and get another job?

I have nothing but respect for those who take on this challenge.

 

[rusmeister]

Sure, I see the contentiousness in the action here. It's obvious.
However, unless I'm mistaken, they weren't claiming their actions were for religious, particularly Christian, reasons.

In the Davis example, yes but it is more unique. This is why I said earlier that all of the examples are not equal.
The reason is very straightforward - that was a government position, representing the government. Her obligation was to uphold the government position, she took an oath to do so. She does not have a right to establish her, personal, religious conviction on others as a representative of government.
I think that as Christians we need to be extremely careful in what we pursue in the public sector - for this very reason.

Yes, I do but they weren't claiming Christianity, iirc.
Davis had an accommodation offered to deescalate and chose not to. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that there was other, external provocation as well.
No, what I'm saying is our faith holds us to a higher standard than the general public.
It's not our place to "judge" those outside our ranks, only ourselves and those within our churches. (1 Corinthians 5-6). Unless I misunderstand scripture, Christ example, and the teachings - we are under no obligation to disassociate with 'sinners' or withdraw from a society that can be sinful. We are told to live without reproach within it. The challenge was that she was also very inconsistent in her application. It was destined for failure and that was exploited.
Apparently, where we disagree is where the line is drawn and I think public service brings a whole new set of challenges that are different from the private sector or as individuals.

I have nothing but respect for those who take on this challenge.

1) People generally take an oath to support and defend the Constitution, not "the government position". If there is such an oath, I'd like to see exactly what the text is. But it would still be invalid for the Christian called to uphold an immoral act, which includes affirmation of immorality as a good thing.

2) Let me ask you something. Is the concept of sin only your personal religious conviction, or is it a fact; ie, is it true, a thing that affects everybody regardless of their beliefs?

3) The only intelligent meaning of the word "judge" is to determine someone else's standing before God. What "judge" CANNOT mean is "say that a certain action is a sin". If I say "murder is evil", I am not "judging" anyone; if someone asks me to sign something approving murder under whatever name it is not "judging them" to say that I cannot do it because it is evil.

I'll repeat that you are saying, whether you mean to or not, that all Christians should quit their jobs and withdraw from public life as soon as they are told to support something immoral, that they should not refuse and stand up for what is right. You didn't respond when I said that earlier, nor did you answer my question. I don't think that surrendering to the demands of evil is loving your neighbor. I think loving your neighbor demands a greater degree of resistance when the world and the devil want to destroy his soul. That includes your children. It's Christians without children who tend to push monastic values on ones who do. Try raising kids and the idea that you should let people do whatever they want and justvworry about yourself goes out the window real fast.

 

[All4Christ]

It's Christians without children who tend to push monastic values on ones who do. Try raising kids and the idea that you should let people do whatever they want and justvworry about yourself goes out the window real fast.

I believe Fender has kids.

 

[rusmeister]

I believe Fender has kids.

I made a generalization, and can imagine exceptions to the rule. The chief point is that the person who says we should turn the other cheek (true in application to the individual Christian), reject ownership of personal goods, stay out of politics altogether, live a monastic life, etc. has not raised children very far in life. Having one's own teenagers puts an end to such preaching for the person with common sense.

We may turn our own cheek but must not turn the cheeks of those under our care. We may deprive ourselves but have no right to deprive others beyond the normal prescribed ascetic practices of the Church, and sometimes not even then.

 

[FenderTL5]

1) People generally take an oath to support and defend the Constitution, not "the government position". If there is such an oath, I'd like to see exactly what the text is. But it would still be invalid for the Christian called to uphold an immoral act, which includes affirmation of immorality as a good thing.

the oath Davis would have taken in Rowan County KY:
“I, _____, do swear that I will well and truly discharge the duties of the office of _____ County Circuit Court clerk, according to the best of my skill and judgment, making the due entries and records of all orders, judgments, decrees, opinions and proceedings of the court, and carefully filing and preserving in my office all books and papers which come to my possession by virtue of my office; and that I will not knowingly or willingly commit any malfeasance of office, and will faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality, so help me God.”

Davis was also quoted saying, " "My words can never express the appreciation but I promise to each and every one that I will be the very best working clerk that I can be and will be a good steward of their tax dollars and follow the statutes of this office to the letter."

2) Let me ask you something. Is the concept of sin only your personal religious conviction, or is it a fact; ie, is it true, a thing that affects everybody regardless of their beliefs?

Sin is sin and no man is an island.
I don't think you have grasped my point. It's not that we disagree in principle, merely in some specifics.

3) The only intelligent meaning of the word "judge" is to determine someone else's standing before God. What "judge" CANNOT mean is "say that a certain action is a sin". If I say "murder is evil", I am not "judging" anyone; if someone asks me to sign something approving murder under whatever name it is not "judging them" to say that I cannot do it because it is evil.

I've posted the relevant passage from 1 Corinthians a couple of times. The key part is in chapter five. The Apostle Paul has been made aware of immorality in the Corinthian church.. gross, unrepentant, immorality. He says, quite clearly, that they are to expel the brother for his own good from the congregation, to not associate with him, not even to eat with him. However - and this is to my point, when saying that, he stresses that those without are treated differently, otherwise you'd have to leave this world. We don't apply our moral values to those who do not claim Christ. To do so is not only futile but could be counter-productive. This is the crux of the Davis issue, she was trying to enforce the church's moral code to unbelievers.
(NKJV)
" I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world.. since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person.
For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? But those who are outside God judges."

I'll repeat that you are saying, whether you mean to or not, that all Christians should quit their jobs and withdraw from public life as soon as they are told to support something immoral, that they should not refuse and stand up for what is right. You didn't respond when I said that earlier, nor did you answer my question.

I disagree as it applies to absolutes. There are times to fight and times to choose your battles. I don't see any grounds where Davis wins this one. I think it could have, and mostly did, do more for the LGBT movement than it did for morality or the church. YMMV
I've said it several times, this example is somewhat unique in that the job is specifically placing the clerk in a role that could be difficult, primarily because it is public service as a representative of government. We could debate the constitutionality, but the reality we live in is that government can not discriminate based on a set of values (race, age.. etc) which includes sexual orientation.
Take the religious accommodation and don't draw undue attention.

I don't think that surrendering to the demands of evil is loving your neighbor.
I think loving your neighbor demands a greater degree of resistance when the world and the devil want to destroy his soul. It's Christians without children who tend to push monastic values on ones who do.
Try raising kids and the idea that you should let people do whatever they want and just worry about yourself goes out the window real fast.

As already pointed out, I have three kids. There could be a lot of discussion here as there are multiple factors in play.

The key factor as I see it is whether or not you participate or encourage the sin in others.
Where do you draw the line? Is there a clear line? Is there one standard for monastics and differing one for a man with a family? Are there separate requirements for a rich young rulers in the Bible and a middle-class family man today? Was Obadiah participating in Ahab and Jezebel's sins by being in charge of their household (1 Kings 18)? Was Christ himself complicit by associating with known sinners?

In my job, am I to refuse technical, audio/video engineering support to someone who is homosexual? If I were to refuse support, would I be drawing anyone toward Christ or just bringing attention to myself in a bad way? If I pin a mic on a lesbian speaker at a corporate event, am I committing sin? Should I drop anchor and fight it?

My Antiochian Prayer Book has a section listing nine ways we participate in other's sin. I don't see a one size fits all answer, maybe you do. As I see it, it's case by case and needs discernment.

 

[Lulav]