The Gospel, Fear, and Politics

[gzt]

I'm no secularist. I'm simply very concerned about faithful Christian brothers and sisters who happen to be attracted to people of the same sex and when this becomes known they are in some ways no longer welcome in the Church - I have listed a couple circumstances in which this has happened - one of which you echoed the concern of when presented with it. You can take my suggestion or leave it.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

They may have formal learning, but that's not the kind of knowing that matters if we are talking about the practical living out of that faith.

Converts tend to be more scrupulous as well. Besides, "formal learning," as far as Orthodox theology goes, is mostly concerned with practical application. Even theory (theoria) as distinct from practice (praxis) in Orthodox theology, doesn't mean what it does in the West. Theoria is literally Greek for "contemplation", and in Orthodoxy, that means prayerful contemplation of the divive. The Orthodox definition of theology is very different from the West's, and the term "theologian" is especially different: "If you are a theologian, you will pray truly. And if you pray truly, you are a theologian."

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

I need to note that this needs more nuance - homosexuality isn't a sin any more than heterosexuality is a virtue (or a sin, or whatever). Homosexuality is itself morally neutral. The Orthodox faith teaches that certain behaviors are sins, namely but not exclusively limited to, sexual activity outside of the bounds of a heterosexual marriage. It is sometimes the case that LGBTQ Christians are told they're not welcome in the Church even if they are not engaging in sexual activity merely because they are LGBTQ. There are people who have been told, "I cannot give you communion if you continue to say that you are gay." This is simply wrong. So here at times we are extending more compassion to heterosexual fornicators and adulterers than to homosexuals who are following the Law (and the Gospel, too, for good measure). Just for being gay, which is not a sin.

The idea that someone "is" homosexual, is entirely modernist, and therefore foreign to Orthodoxy. People can be called sodomites, but not homosexuals, properly speaking. We all have issues with temptation, but those don't define being, actions do (including actions of the heart). Take, for example, gluttony: whether or not you are a glutton isn't defined by "orientation", it's your acts. Father Seraphim Rose, prior to his rebirth in Christ, slept with a lot of men. Do you think, after he found Christ, he referred to himself as "gay"? Of course not.

If you are actively sensually longing, outside of wedlock, it's a sin. But this is dealt with through Holy Confession and repentance, not by saying it's your "orientation". Other problems with lust aren't called "oriented" to fornication or adultery, as identities to be accepted. If we are "oriented" to sin (which we really all are in a way), we don't accept it as our "orientation" to be embraced, we reject this orientation to sin as something wrong and something to be overcome, vanquished and done away with.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

I didn't read the OP article or watch the video response to it either. Have any of you ever interacted or dealt with the LGBT community? Yes, homosexuality is a sin, but those folks need more of our compassion. It seems we extend more understanding and compassion to heterosexual fornicators and adulterers than to others, whose sins are listed right alongside homosexuality. You'll see those folks (fornicators and adulterers) even standing next to you in church any given Sunday.

I also dislike any arguments that bring up a false dichotomy between so-called cradle Orthodox and converts. If everyone isn't a daily convert to Christ, there's a real problem.

Nominal Orthodox are a real problem.

 

[gzt]

The idea that someone "is" homosexual, is entirely modernist, and therefore foreign to Orthodoxy. People can be called sodomites, but not homosexuals, properly speaking. We all have issues with temptation, but those don't define being, actions do (including actions of the heart). Take, for example, gluttony: whether or not you are a glutton isn't defined by "orientation", it's your acts. Father Seraphim Rose, prior to his rebirth in Christ, slept with a lot of men. Do you think, after he found Christ, he referred to himself as "gay"? Of course not.

Okay, but let's set the terminology question aside and go to the final scenarios I have discussed where the issue wasn't calling themselves "gay", but rather that they were at the parish at all as people who experienced attraction to the same sex - they were told they were not welcome in one case because it would make other parishioners uneasy (perhaps, say, the other men) and in one case one was warned away because they were concerned that it would corrupt the children by appearing to condone homosexuality (even though this was a faithful Christian). Is this reasonable in your mind? Shouldn't we stand against such intolerance of our fellow faithful Christians?

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Okay, but let's set the terminology question aside and go to the final scenarios I have discussed where the issue wasn't calling themselves "gay", but rather that they were at the parish at all as people who experienced attraction to the same sex - they were told they were not welcome in one case because it would make other parishioners uneasy (perhaps, say, the other men) and in one case one was warned away because they were concerned that it would corrupt the children by appearing to condone homosexuality (even though this was a faithful Christian). Is this reasonable in your mind? Shouldn't we stand against such intolerance of our fellow faithful Christians?

Who did they tell?

 

[gzt]

We are quickly going beyond my knowledge of the situation. Frankly, at some point it becomes common knowledge, especially if one is a repentant sinner, as it were. After all, you're aware of Rose's former life. I'm saying there are some places where that would make him, if he were alive today, suspect and perhaps not welcome.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

We are quickly going beyond my knowledge of the situation. Frankly, at some point it becomes common knowledge, especially if one is a repentant sinner, as it were. After all, you're aware of Rose's former life. I'm saying there are some places where that would make him, if he were alive today, suspect and perhaps not welcome.

I'm also aware that Father Seraphim did not identify as gay, and certainly was not telling random people, "I'm gay," after his conversion. The facts of his life prior to conversion come purely from his posthumous biography (written by his pupil).

 

[Orthodoxjay1]

Who did they tell?

This is a good point shouldn't this be confined to one spiritual father/confessor and not telling people in the parish? How would the parish know?

 

[gzt]

All right, so, your solution for anybody who, to use your preferred term, experiences same-sex attraction is to be deeply closeted and not talk about the experience except perhaps in a pastoral context and perhaps with close friends, and to not refer to oneself gay, lesbian, homosexual, etc., and if these checkboxes are met these people have nothing to fear as they will then be welcomed with open arms in the congregation. However, if they refer to themselves as gay, they may be excommunicated or no longer welcome in the parish, and if they discuss that they experience same-sex attraction with the wrong people, they may no longer be welcome in the parish. Further, the fact they are attracted to the same sex is something to be repented of and perhaps overcome. Do I understand you right?

 

[rusmeister]

OK no your full of crap, where did I say they aren't welcome.

#1- I brought up the question of the safety of the kids, never said gay's aren't welcome, however I also said it best if they are still LGBT not to receive communion

#2 - I explicitly said there gay people in Orthodox Churches, provided they are celebate, and repentant.

#3 - your attempts to smear me won't work little boy

Hi Jay,
I'd ask you to read MY posts as well. You fall into the same trap as GZ when you do what our misguided and lost culture is doing when you call them "gay". If you want to know, in detail, why it really is bad language, just ask.
Second, it is really unwise to insult others, even when you are right. It doesn't help your cause, and it lacks the love we are supposed to try to have for each other when it's difficult.
Please forgive me if that seems offensive, but I think we have to say publicly that polite speech must be the rule for us.

 

[rusmeister]

Nominal Orthodox are a real problem.

Which is a constant danger to us all.

 

[rusmeister]

Converts tend to be more scrupulous as well. Besides, "formal learning," as far as Orthodox theology goes, is mostly concerned with practical application. Even theory (theoria) as distinct from practice (praxis) in Orthodox theology, doesn't mean what it does in the West. Theoria is literally Greek for "contemplation", and in Orthodoxy, that means prayerful contemplation of the divive. The Orthodox definition of theology is very different from the West's, and the term "theologian" is especially different: "If you are a theologian, you will pray truly. And if you pray truly, you are a theologian."

Hi, Constantine,
I like a lot of what you say, and you're generally right about theory, practice and theology. But I really don't think being a convert gives any special superiority. Yes, converts (like me) are more zealous, and in trying to adopt the Orthodox life, more scrupulous, especially early on. But equal and opposite errors can develop. If I take the spirit of the law vs the letter of the law, I see that the scrupulous convert who (for example) tries to apply all fasting rules or every letter of every canon to everyone falls into the error of the Pharisee, and generally in the desire to combat the error of the often lazier cradle Orthodox, who gets so caught up in the spirit of things that in the desire to avoid the error of the Pharisee, they wind up following a wrong and even evil spirit that the canons and rules are designed to protect us from.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

All right, so, your solution for anybody who, to use your preferred term, experiences same-sex attraction is to be deeply closeted and not talk about the experience except perhaps in a pastoral context and perhaps with close friends, and to not refer to oneself gay, lesbian, homosexual, etc., and if these checkboxes are met these people have nothing to fear as they will then be welcomed with open arms in the congregation. However, if they refer to themselves as gay, they may be excommunicated or no longer welcome in the parish, and if they discuss that they experience same-sex attraction with the wrong people, they may no longer be welcome in the parish. Further, the fact they are attracted to the same sex is something to be repented of and perhaps overcome. Do I understand you right?

No, you shouldn't refer to yourself as those, because it is reasonable that will make people uncomfortable. A lot of people have fleeting impulses to kill, but they don't say, "My orientation is killing." Why would you do that? Even if you're straight, it's reasonable to assume that if a man tells a woman, "I'm sexually into women," it's going to make her feel really uncomfortable. You don't need to share these things.

 

[rusmeister]

Okay, but let's set the terminology question aside and go to the final scenarios I have discussed where the issue wasn't calling themselves "gay", but rather that they were at the parish at all as people who experienced attraction to the same sex - they were told they were not welcome in one case because it would make other parishioners uneasy (perhaps, say, the other men) and in one case one was warned away because they were concerned that it would corrupt the children by appearing to condone homosexuality (even though this was a faithful Christian). Is this reasonable in your mind? Shouldn't we stand against such intolerance of our fellow faithful Christians?

Yes, this should be said...alongside the teachings of the Church forbidding it. The point that must be emphasized is that we are called to struggle against our passions, not celebrate them, or even air them for the world to see. This is why the terminology matters. If you say they "are gay", it literally means that it ceases to be a passion to struggle against, and becomes who they are. So yes, again, we welcome all, with our various broken passions. But if I am a murderer, it only means that I have done murder, and must repent. But that's not what people mean at all when they say "I am gay". They mean it is an integral and inalienable part of who they are, which is why they insist ( without any evidence whatsoever) that it is a condition from conception/birth, and fight so hard against "therapy" and efforts (however misguided they may be) to help the person cease experiencing it as a desire.

In the beginning was the Word; in the beginning is the word. Words shape our thoughts and how we think about things, and people can shape new words to get us to think differently about things, for good or evil. "Suffering from same-sex attraction" is modern language that is good, that conforms to Church Tradition. "Be gay" is evil (unbeknownst to us), formed to fight Church Tradition.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Hi, Constantine,
I like a lot of what you say, and you're generally right about theory, practice and theology. But I really don't think being a convert gives any special superiority. Yes, converts (like me) are more zealous, and in trying to adopt the Orthodox life, more scrupulous, especially early on. But equal and opposite errors can develop. If I take the spirit of the law vs the letter of the law, I see that the scrupulous convert who (for example) tries to apply all fasting rules or every letter of every canon to everyone falls into the error of the Pharisee, and generally in the desire to combat the error of the often lazier cradle Orthodox, who gets so caught up in the spirit of things that in the desire to avoid the error of the Pharisee, they wind up following a wrong and even evil spirit that the canons and rules are designed to protect us from.

That can absolutely happen, and does happen. But this issue was brought up in pertinence to the topic of this thread: the issue originally being that there are cradle Orthodox who don't like to condemn homosexuality for fear it would make them unpopular with gay friends or relatives.

 

[rusmeister]

All right, so, your solution for anybody who, to use your preferred term, experiences same-sex attraction is to be deeply closeted and not talk about the experience except perhaps in a pastoral context and perhaps with close friends, and to not refer to oneself gay, lesbian, homosexual, etc., and if these checkboxes are met these people have nothing to fear as they will then be welcomed with open arms in the congregation. However, if they refer to themselves as gay, they may be excommunicated or no longer welcome in the parish, and if they discuss that they experience same-sex attraction with the wrong people, they may no longer be welcome in the parish. Further, the fact they are attracted to the same sex is something to be repented of and perhaps overcome. Do I understand you right?

I've mostly answered this: we should not, in general, air our passions or dwell on them. In private, yes, we might, to close friends or trusted priests (for we do not trust all equally, and rightly so), share our struggles. But yes, the fact that they are attracted to the same sex is a passion, and must be struggled against, always. An alcoholic, in most cases, needs to forswear drinking altogether, to turn away even when offered a beer harmless to most. A man who is attracted to beautiful women and experiences the desire to lust after every attractive female form must struggle against that passion. The person experiencing same-sex attraction must do so as well, and the Church must teach this.

 

[rusmeister]

You have a string of assertions, I'm not required to assent to them. Anyway, we've moved on to a different pathological case, I'd be interested in your input on that. I'm also interested, I suppose, in this same case: do you think it's right to refuse communion to somebody who says they are gay, at least until they cease to say that? eg, say, "I am not gay" perhaps.

It is true that you don't HAVE to agree with me. You can choose to err, just like we can choose sin over virtue. You have free will. The question is whether I am right or not. If I am, you ARE required to assent to them.

The vital thing about communion is that a person repent of their actions. But that's not the issue. The issue is one of what words mean, or whether euphemisms make evil easier to do and spread. Do you admit that there is such a thing as euphemisms, and that euphemisms can be used to make a bad thing sound nice (or at least not-so-bad)? Or not?

 

[Orthodoxjay1]

Hi Jay,
I'd ask you to read MY posts as well. You fall into the same trap as GZ when you do what our misguided and lost culture is doing when you call them "gay". If you want to know, in detail, why it really is bad language, just ask.
Second, it is really unwise to insult others, even when you are right. It doesn't help your cause, and it lacks the love we are supposed to try to have for each other when it's difficult.
Please forgive me if that seems offensive, but I think we have to say publicly that polite speech must be the rule for us.

Hi Rus,

1. What should they be called, it seems gay is not right, then what is the appropriate term?

2. While it is never right to insult someone, and I am totally wrong to insult GZT,it very difficult with someone who not being very clear about their intent, and who seem to be playing semantics and word games, take for example this below if you will sir:

All right, so, your solution for anybody who, to use your preferred term, experiences same-sex attraction is to be deeply closeted and not talk about the experience except perhaps in a pastoral context and perhaps with close friends, and to not refer to oneself gay, lesbian, homosexual, etc., and if these checkboxes are met these people have nothing to fear as they will then be welcomed with open arms in the congregation. However, if they refer to themselves as gay, they may be excommunicated or no longer welcome in the parish, and if they discuss that they experience same-sex attraction with the wrong people, they may no longer be welcome in the parish. Further, the fact they are attracted to the same sex is something to be repented of and perhaps overcome. Do I understand you right?

Is this not a little disturbing? Isn't one sins that is confessed suppose to be dealt within the setting of pastoral care? Not flaunted openly, I don't see people say "hey brothers and sisters I'm a theft, a Cheater, or inappropriate content addict" these are dealt with privately through repenting, overcoming sin, and Confession, not expecting everyone to approve of it in the parish.

Also I know we are suppose to be polite, and respectful, yet look at that paragraph, it being implied I would call for excommunicating, and not welcoming those folks into the Church, I never said such a thing. How is one suppose to respond to such a charge?

3. Also GZT called Gurney a joke in another thread, he should be held accountable too. Anyways I will do better to be respectful, and charitable to other brothers, and sisters in Christ.

 

[gzt]

So what happens if it gets out that the parishioner is gay - mind you, that's the term that's going to be used for them, whether they describe themselves that way or not. Are they then liable to be expelled from the congregation? There's now an issue that people, especially the children, might think they're condoning homosexuality by letting this person remain in the parish.