The "H" word

[Alchemist]

Hi guys,

As one who is inquiring into Orthodoxy, it does seem a little odd posting in this part of TAW, but as I am not yet part of the Church and it is a somewhat controversial topic (at least outside of Orthodoxy) I thought it the best place to discuss this.

Growing up a conservative (though naïve) Christian, there was never any doubt in my mind that homosexuality was "wrong" - God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, as the saying goes, and that was that. Certainly, in the weltanschauung of Reformed Protestantism, in which a sin only separates one from God because God arbitrarily commands that something is indeed a sin and so throws the sinner into Hell, that homosexuality is wrong needs no justification - The Bible says it is wrong, hence it must be.

But Orthodoxy is not based on the Western concept of sola scriptura - Orthodoxy is not true because the Bible is true; the Bible is true because it is Orthodox. And the Orthodox concept of God is not that He randomly decrees that certain things are sinful and we will be punitively tormented eternally in Hell for transgressing them; we believe that things are sinful because they are selfish, hurting ourselves and others, and cause separation between us and the Church, others or God.



Which leads to the question: why is homosexuality sinful? I have heard numerous arguments during my experiences with the church, many which as a Protestant made sense, but in my understanding of Orthodoxy do not. Certainly, it is likely that this is because I do not fully understand the church's position on the topic, and really this is why I post, to try get a better understanding of Orthodoxy. But I've yet to hear an argument that really makes sense. Yes, if tomorrow I saw two guys / two girls kissing each other in a sexual manner, I'd feel awkward about it, being a strongly heterosexual male with a girlfriend of two years. But that said, I know several homosexuals who would feel equally awkward if they saw two people of the opposite sex kissing each other, so I don't really know if my fallible, personal opinions count for much. How many of us ex-Protestant converts once felt not just awkward, but disgusted by praying for intercession to the Theotokos, or venerating icons?

Likewise, I have heard repeated several times the argument that humans are supposed to be together for procreative purposes, and hence homosexuality, being reproductively unproductive, is a sin. But by the exact same reasoning, if I were to marry a member of the opposite sex who I knew was unable to have children, that too would be a sin, yet I am yet to see one Orthodox person that would make that claim, nor a priest who would not marry two, infertile Orthodox of opposite sex. And though Christians of all denominations point to examples both in and outside of the Bible of miraculous births after long periods of infertility, there are nonetheless numerous Orthodox heterosexual couples who have never had children, despite all of their prayers. On the contrary, from all accounts of Orthodox doctrine I have read, marriage in Orthodoxy is not really about children at all, but about committing yourself to another person and through your joined experiences developing a love for both one other and God; bearing children, for those who are able, is a beautiful and sacred part of this, but it is not the primary purpose of marriage in Orthodoxy, as far as I can tell.

So yes, I do see and accept why heterosexuality is "good"; men and women often (though not always) complement each other, and heterosexual relationships do have the potential to result in the birth of children, which can undoubtedly strengthen relationships and bring a couple and their offspring closer to God. Surely, if heterosexuality is (as I believe) the naturally more beneficial sexual orientation, then the Church should certainly stand up for that. But many homosexuals are in loving relationships, being as "compatible" emotionally as any heterosexual couple, and having no romantic nor sexual feelings for anyone else - though many, especially Christians, will deny it. Sure, they can't have kids. But they are as much in love as two people of the same sex without the potential to bear children or have "natural" heterosexual intercourse could possibly be. I'm sure that it was not God's desire for me as a human being to be short-sighted, nor have problems with my blood sugar levels, but that doesn't mean that I am any closer to God because I need to wear glasses, or because I drink Diet Coke instead of regular. So why would two homosexual people who be living in sin if they, like any married Christian heterosexual couple, decided to express their love for each other in a sexual manner? It's not "natural" heterosexual intercourse, true. And certain homosexual acts are plenty wrong for other reasons, so I understand that. But how could two people in a mutual, loving, and monogamous sexual relationship not be pleasing to God?

Forgive me,
Nick

 

[Lukaris]

St. Paul presents us with the consequences of sin & the enslavement to the passions that result from our fallen nature which we are born into (in Romans 1:18-32). It is not the disposition that anyone can judge but how one fails to respond in controlling their passions (hetero or otherwise) & many have greater burdens than others in this area. I guess this is why Orthodoxy understands sacraments as prescriptions that must be accompanied by a sincere effort to overcome our passions. It is really tough, St Ignatius Brianchaninov writes in the aptly titled: The Arena: "You will soon see that there is no agreement whatever between the good of the Gospel and the good of fallen human nature. The good of our fallen nature is mixed with evil, just as delicious & wholesome food becomes poision when it is mixed with poison." (Granted, The Arena is written for a demanding ascetism & to be taken in measure by us non monastics.). He goes on further to cite Mark 8:34-35 & John 12:25 as what our Saviour demands of us in distinguishing between the "good" of the Gospel vs. the "good" of man despite some interface between the two. (from chaptr 7 of the Arena). This is complete renunciation of our fallen nature; perhaps all an average person can do is strive towards this but also stumble on the way (how can we ever get it "right?"). Hope this helps.

 

[Thekla]

I can only offer an unsatisfactory answer: the Bible 'begins and ends with a marriage'. This is the model God gives us - like many other models in the Bible (and in spiritual life) it may not make "human sense", but nonetheless, there it is.

 

[Macarius]

Hi Nick,

I will do my best to answer your question, though as I am an untrained theologian who has not studied the church fathers on this subject, my reply will be somewhat speculative. That is to say - it makes sense to me, but I'm not confident enough to say that it is "the" Orthodox reply to this question. My conclusions are Orthodox, however, and perhaps that is in some way sufficient.

Our theology of marriage begins, as all things do, with the Holy Trinity. We profess that God is love in His essence - love within Himself. This, however, cannot be a narcissistic sort of selfish love of one monad unto Himself. Rather, as we are called to imitate that love, we know that love to be other-centric and self-denying. This is manifested in the great mystery of the Triune God. He is Father loving Son loving Spirit. While there is hierarchy in the relationships (Father as fountainhead of divinity) they are co-equal and of the same nature, fully God. One God, Three Persons, Perfect Hierarchy, Perfect Love.

We must understand this love to have any hope of understanding human love. We were made for relationship - specifically relationship which is ascetic (that is, teaches us to be other-centered and thus helps break down our own ego). Furthermore, we were made for relationships that, while having hierarchy, are so perfect in their love that the hierarchy fades to the background and we see functional (and true, thanks to the perfection of this love) equality. Human love can never achieve the fullness of union that the Divine Love has by essence, but we can begin to imitate it. This is what it means for us to become one with one another. Marriage is the divine sacrament in which these principles of love find fulfillment as an icon of the Divine Love.

There is another divine relationship, however, to which marriage is also an icon: that of Christ to His Church. Ephesians directly relates that to the marriage. We have, as prophecy, the words in Genesis that speak of a man leaving His father (in heaven) and His mother (on earth) to join with His wife that the two may become one flesh. This certainly speaks of earthly marriage, but you can see how it prophecies and finds fulfillment in Christ.

At what point do we understand ourselves to have become one flesh with our Lord and Bridegroom? Well, He became man in the Incarnation, joining the divine and human natures so that we may participate in His divine energies. We also enter, iconically, into His death and resurrection (and thus the energies of His resurrection - His saving grace) by baptism. We recieve the grace of His forgiving hand in confession. We recieve the Spirit - even as He had it (as a man) - in our personal Pentecost: Chrismation. Chrismation makes us into "little annointed ones" - we become little Christs. Those who are ordained become icons of Christ in His role as priest, revealing in the liturgy the things of heaven, serving the faithful as Christ served His disciples.

The fullness of our oneness with Christ, however, in this lifetime, is fulfilled in the eucharist. This is the eros love of this wedding between Christ and Church - the foretaste and full realization (for those who have eyes to see) of the feast of the bridegroom. Certainly we look forward to the 2nd coming, but the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand today - Christ came to save this world - and the eucharist is our full participation in that. Here, our Lord comes to us in the flesh, and we take the body of our Lord into ourselves, and we become one flesh with Him. If there is no physical union, there is no marriage (hence why we still call Mary the bride unwedded). We are Christ's bride. We are one with Him.

Marriage is, therefore, an icon of this love. Here we have the man, who is to be like Christ to His wife - so loving of her as to give the totality of his life to her benefit. He is to give her all his dreams, all his hopes. To make his life about her life. To serve and not to demand. To die to himself. This is to be done no matter what she does in return, for if we demanded that our wives reciprocated we would be hypocrites. Christ Himself has the worst bride possible - think of all the sins we commit! We must thank God that He has provided us with such a model of a husband, for we, as a bride, must be a hideous harlot and adultress, yet He dies for us.

Here also we have the woman - the one who recieves the body of her lord in that act of vulnerability and love, who embraces the totality of who he is and submits to him. That is both a physical and emotional recieving, embracing, and submitting. Here we have hierarchy, but hierarchy which, when lived out with the love that is the Divine Love, fades into non-existence and becomes perfect love.

Here is one level on which homosexuality is "wrong" (or spiritually unhealthy / not-an-icon-of-the-kingdom). Two men cannot represent Christ and the Church. The Church is uniquely feminine. To take that from her is to distort the image. Furthermore, Christ is uniquely male (in so much that He became a boy), and though God is in essence gender neutral (by human standards) within the context of this typology, God is the male. Two males or two females distorts the image and is, therefore, not the sacrament of marriage. With no sacrament, there is to be no sex. Therefore, since the Church cannot marry two men or two women (as they don't form the correct and given icon of Christ and the Church) two men or two women ought not to have sex outside of that marriage.

Another level exists to this, though. The eucharist is not just unitive in nature. It is life producing. We have Christ born in us by the grace of the sacrament, and by that birth we become more Christ like. In this, again, we have a woman as our model (for in so much as we are the Church, we are feminine). Mary, the Theotokos, is our model and hope. She, by the "yes" she gave to the incarnation, became one with the Holy Spirit, and by that union and at the good will of the Father, she bore the Son physically in her womb. She BORE Christ and had Christ BORN from her. By this union, she became more Christ like. She is truly the icon of the bride of God! In this way, she is an icon of the Church.

Homosexual union cannot produce life - not naturally, anyway - but heterosexual union (generally) can. It fulfills the eucharistic Christ-Church icon to its fullest. And by giving birth to children (the prayers for which, by the way, are all over the marriage sacrament - most who see an Orthodox wedding are suprised by how much focus is paid to having children) we learn, again, to be self-sacrificing in our love. It becomes about the child, not about 'me.' This again, goes back to our understanding of Divine Love within the Trinity. Because homosexual union can never produce such a miracle, it cannot recieve the prayers of the sacrament of marriage and, once again, becomes sex outside of marriage.

You brought up those who cannot have children from within hetero-sexual relationships. The first point about how man-woman = Christ-Church still suffices on its own, however, I also accept the idea of the miraculous births God accomplished for the infirtile. It fits so perfectly into this typological understanding. Who is it that produces life in us? Well, it may be explanable biologically, but ultimately it is a miracle of God. The "miraculous" births remind us of that. Keep in mind that Mary was celibate, yet was a perfect icon of marriage to God. There are celibate men and women in the Church for whom she is an icon of their life (along with John the Baptist and Christ Himself). Some marriages choose to live as brother and sister (St. John of Krondstadt did this).

I think the principle is this: the marriage sacrament, if we are going to make general rules about it, cannot be between man and man or woman and woman because no possibility of producing new life exists. Because it is possible (even if unlikely) between man and woman, the church can marry them. Beyond that, it is up to God.

Hope that helps!

In Christ,
Macarius

 

[kamikat]

For an in-depth discussion of this topic, I highly recommend you read "Christian Faith and Same Sex Attraction" by Father Thomas Hopko.

 

[buzuxi02]

For a short answer, only marriage which consists of one man and one woman joined together per life, is the Orthodox teaching.
As Christ said a man will leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife and the two shall become one.

Outside of this, only the monastic life is allowed (regardless if you live in a monastery or simply struggle to control your passions in a secular world)

 

[AureateDawn]

For an in-depth discussion of this topic, I highly recommend you read "Christian Faith and Same Sex Attraction" by Father Thomas Hopko.

It was a good read, but it didn't help me personally.

 

[rusmeister]

It was a good read, but it didn't help me personally.

In the sense of, "...didn't answer any questions or make things clearer?" or "...didn't solve my problem/cure my passion?"

To Alchemist: what the others said. We recognize that it is a destructive passion, just like alcoholism (also misuse of a good thing) and that people who suffer from it are in just as much need of love and pastoral care to help them fight it.

My little addition will be on the language you use when you speak of these phenomenon. Historically, the words you use are of very recent origin and were thought up to euphemize the concepts - make them pretty and acceptable. Historically, the word 'homosexual' is hardly 100 years old, 'heterosexual' even younger. Other changes in language, like 'sex' going from 'the division between man and women' (an objective reality) to 'the act of copulation' (an action) and 'gender' going from 'a grammatical distinction' (a social construct) to 'the division between man and woman' (hence, now also a social construct) have also fuzzied our understanding of objective reality (which for all of history until the 20th century almost all of humanity seems to have agreed upon the division of sex as an objective reality).
Modern usage carries a specific assumption that the phenomenon is natural, and anyone who uses these words and disagrees is already fighting upstream.

The trouble is, this is a passion that 'was a shame to speak of' and had no name. An excellent article tracing the creation of the modern euphemisms is here: http://touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=18-10-036-f

A modern term that does not contradict our understanding is 'Same Sex Attraction' (SSA); it also makes clear the nature of the passion. But for me, personally, the words my ancestors used work fine, I really like G. K. Chesterton's point that a tradition of the common people was to use uglier words to describe uglier things, that people might not (by using prettier words) excuse their indulgence in something.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

Hi Nick,

I will do my best to answer your question, though as I am an untrained theologian who has not studied the church fathers on this subject, my reply will be somewhat speculative. That is to say - it makes sense to me, but I'm not confident enough to say that it is "the" Orthodox reply to this question. My conclusions are Orthodox, however, and perhaps that is in some way sufficient.

Our theology of marriage begins, as all things do, with the Holy Trinity. We profess that God is love in His essence - love within Himself. This, however, cannot be a narcissistic sort of selfish love of one monad unto Himself. Rather, as we are called to imitate that love, we know that love to be other-centric and self-denying. This is manifested in the great mystery of the Triune God. He is Father loving Son loving Spirit. While there is hierarchy in the relationships (Father as fountainhead of divinity) they are co-equal and of the same nature, fully God. One God, Three Persons, Perfect Hierarchy, Perfect Love.

We must understand this love to have any hope of understanding human love. We were made for relationship - specifically relationship which is ascetic (that is, teaches us to be other-centered and thus helps break down our own ego). Furthermore, we were made for relationships that, while having hierarchy, are so perfect in their love that the hierarchy fades to the background and we see functional (and true, thanks to the perfection of this love) equality. Human love can never achieve the fullness of union that the Divine Love has by essence, but we can begin to imitate it. This is what it means for us to become one with one another. Marriage is the divine sacrament in which these principles of love find fulfillment as an icon of the Divine Love.

There is another divine relationship, however, to which marriage is also an icon: that of Christ to His Church. Ephesians directly relates that to the marriage. We have, as prophecy, the words in Genesis that speak of a man leaving His father (in heaven) and His mother (on earth) to join with His wife that the two may become one flesh. This certainly speaks of earthly marriage, but you can see how it prophecies and finds fulfillment in Christ.

At what point do we understand ourselves to have become one flesh with our Lord and Bridegroom? Well, He became man in the Incarnation, joining the divine and human natures so that we may participate in His divine energies. We also enter, iconically, into His death and resurrection (and thus the energies of His resurrection - His saving grace) by baptism. We recieve the grace of His forgiving hand in confession. We recieve the Spirit - even as He had it (as a man) - in our personal Pentecost: Chrismation. Chrismation makes us into "little annointed ones" - we become little Christs. Those who are ordained become icons of Christ in His role as priest, revealing in the liturgy the things of heaven, serving the faithful as Christ served His disciples.

The fullness of our oneness with Christ, however, in this lifetime, is fulfilled in the eucharist. This is the eros love of this wedding between Christ and Church - the foretaste and full realization (for those who have eyes to see) of the feast of the bridegroom. Certainly we look forward to the 2nd coming, but the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand today - Christ came to save this world - and the eucharist is our full participation in that. Here, our Lord comes to us in the flesh, and we take the body of our Lord into ourselves, and we become one flesh with Him. If there is no physical union, there is no marriage (hence why we still call Mary the bride unwedded). We are Christ's bride. We are one with Him.

Marriage is, therefore, an icon of this love. Here we have the man, who is to be like Christ to His wife - so loving of her as to give the totality of his life to her benefit. He is to give her all his dreams, all his hopes. To make his life about her life. To serve and not to demand. To die to himself. This is to be done no matter what she does in return, for if we demanded that our wives reciprocated we would be hypocrites. Christ Himself has the worst bride possible - think of all the sins we commit! We must thank God that He has provided us with such a model of a husband, for we, as a bride, must be a hideous harlot and adultress, yet He dies for us.

Here also we have the woman - the one who recieves the body of her lord in that act of vulnerability and love, who embraces the totality of who he is and submits to him. That is both a physical and emotional recieving, embracing, and submitting. Here we have hierarchy, but hierarchy which, when lived out with the love that is the Divine Love, fades into non-existence and becomes perfect love.

Here is one level on which homosexuality is "wrong" (or spiritually unhealthy / not-an-icon-of-the-kingdom). Two men cannot represent Christ and the Church. The Church is uniquely feminine. To take that from her is to distort the image. Furthermore, Christ is uniquely male (in so much that He became a boy), and though God is in essence gender neutral (by human standards) within the context of this typology, God is the male. Two males or two females distorts the image and is, therefore, not the sacrament of marriage. With no sacrament, there is to be no sex. Therefore, since the Church cannot marry two men or two women (as they don't form the correct and given icon of Christ and the Church) two men or two women ought not to have sex outside of that marriage.

Another level exists to this, though. The eucharist is not just unitive in nature. It is life producing. We have Christ born in us by the grace of the sacrament, and by that birth we become more Christ like. In this, again, we have a woman as our model (for in so much as we are the Church, we are feminine). Mary, the Theotokos, is our model and hope. She, by the "yes" she gave to the incarnation, became one with the Holy Spirit, and by that union and at the good will of the Father, she bore the Son physically in her womb. She BORE Christ and had Christ BORN from her. By this union, she became more Christ like. She is truly the icon of the bride of God! In this way, she is an icon of the Church.

Homosexual union cannot produce life - not naturally, anyway - but heterosexual union (generally) can. It fulfills the eucharistic Christ-Church icon to its fullest. And by giving birth to children (the prayers for which, by the way, are all over the marriage sacrament - most who see an Orthodox wedding are suprised by how much focus is paid to having children) we learn, again, to be self-sacrificing in our love. It becomes about the child, not about 'me.' This again, goes back to our understanding of Divine Love within the Trinity. Because homosexual union can never produce such a miracle, it cannot recieve the prayers of the sacrament of marriage and, once again, becomes sex outside of marriage.

You brought up those who cannot have children from within hetero-sexual relationships. The first point about how man-woman = Christ-Church still suffices on its own, however, I also accept the idea of the miraculous births God accomplished for the infirtile. It fits so perfectly into this typological understanding. Who is it that produces life in us? Well, it may be explanable biologically, but ultimately it is a miracle of God. The "miraculous" births remind us of that. Keep in mind that Mary was celibate, yet was a perfect icon of marriage to God. There are celibate men and women in the Church for whom she is an icon of their life (along with John the Baptist and Christ Himself). Some marriages choose to live as brother and sister (St. John of Krondstadt did this).

I think the principle is this: the marriage sacrament, if we are going to make general rules about it, cannot be between man and man or woman and woman because no possibility of producing new life exists. Because it is possible (even if unlikely) between man and woman, the church can marry them. Beyond that, it is up to God.

Hope that helps!

In Christ,
Macarius

Thank you Marcarius for your excellent post. I could have written the exact same OP (to the letter) because I have the same issues with this topic as the OP. I think I can pretty confidently say that this is the most frusterating issue for me in all of Christianity.

The only reason I ever agreed with it is "because the bible says so" and while that is enough for me PERSONALLY, that's not a convincing reason to give to someone who is already struggling with their faith because of the same-sex attraction they deal with.

I have some questions though and it is not to criticize but rather to ask you to clarify or further explain some concepts you brought up.

The first part of your answer I found very helpful, but I was wondering if you could expound on (or simply repeat if I missed it) in what way we as the Church are the woman? I understand that the bible refers to the Church always as feminine, but it would seem to me that for this to be so important that in a marriage there would necessarily HAVE to be a biological female involved that the Church must hold certain traits that are inherent to women. If my assumption is correct, what are those feminine traits we share? If my assumption is wrong and it is not about certain traits but rather role (that is, Christ is the Head of the Church as Man is the head of the Wife) why does it matter that the the "husband" be the only biological man rather than simply one of them naturally taking on more of a leadership role within the relationship (which, from what I understand, often naturally happens anyway).

Also, about children, I do have to say that while uncommon it is not unheard of that young women have had to have surgeries where their womb had to be taken out. And women who marry later in life have had to have their uterus removed as well (defintiely not unheard of at all) and I would suggest that it is just a big a miracle for them to have a child as it would be for a man to have a child. Neither one makes biological sense in anyway (although for different reasons). However, the Orthodox Church would have no reservation in marrying the two. I'm not saying that the children has nothing to do with it... but I think the explanation needs to go further to properly explain this.. it needs to go deeper, perhaps ontological. Also, if it weren't against the law while adoption doesn't create life, it certainly upholds it and, if the parents are good people, quickly takes care of any selfishness on their part. It is no longer about "me" but about the child. And Foster care, in many ways, is more selfless than having one's own child, because at any time you can decide that this is too difficult and give the child back, but many don't. I'm not trying to disparage those who have the own biological children, I am only trying to dispell any idea that perhaps the only way to have children and enter into that Godly parental selflessness is to have one's own biological child or that this specific aspect is somehow lessened by the struggle with or relationship of same-sex-attraction.

Practically speaking, it seems to me, all of the godly virtues (humility, selflessness, order in the relationship, etc) found in marriage can be achieved just as much in a same-sex union. The only difference is that they cannot procreate on their own, but as I've pointed out already, such is just as "impossible" for normal unions (ie women that do not have a uterus or men that do not have their testicals due to accidents or disease or birth defect... sorry to get gross here). it would seem to me that if procreation (or the possibility thereof) is so central to marital union as the Church says it is (Which I believe it is), then when the Church knowingly marries people who are missing actual organs necessary to create a life that a sort of economia is going on there. Just as we can realize that these issues are due to a fallen world, why is it wrong for the Church to say that although the situation of a same-sex union is not "perfect" we realize this marriage can have the same potential of love and selflessness and order as any marriage and therefore we sanctify it in spite of our fallen nature.

I am definitely playing devil's advocate here because in the end I believe that the Scriptures are quite clear on this, but it does, at times, seem arbitrary. When I see people who struggle with this issue, I say nothing, because I can say nothing of comfort to them. I don't understand their struggle and what I DO understand of it makes it all seem more arbitrary and harder to explain. Because the Bible said so offers no comfort to someone struggling with their faith.

I think your post has come closest to giving me something to start with if I were to ever speak of this issue with anyone. But I still have a ways to go.

Thanks for your time.

Xpy

 

[Macarius]

Thank you Marcarius for your excellent post. I could have written the exact same OP (to the letter) because I have the same issues with this topic as the OP. I think I can pretty confidently say that this is the most frusterating issue for me in all of Christianity.

Thank you! I agree - this is a challenging and difficult issue. I struggle in the way I phrase my perspective precisely because I want to avoid communicating any hatred or denigration of those who have same-sex attraction (whether they follow through on that attraction or not). It is a sensitive issue, full of difficult and powerful emotions - an issue which can strike to the core of people's identity (though sexual orientation strikes me as an odd source for one's identity; perhaps that's part of the problem?).

The only reason I ever agreed with it is "because the bible says so" and while that is enough for me PERSONALLY, that's not a convincing reason to give to someone who is already struggling with their faith because of the same-sex attraction they deal with.

I know what you mean...

I have some questions though and it is not to criticize but rather to ask you to clarify or further explain some concepts you brought up.

They are excellent questions! Like I said - this explanation is my own... so it's probably faulty in some ways. Perhaps we can strengthen it by discourse.

The first part of your answer I found very helpful, but I was wondering if you could expound on (or simply repeat if I missed it) in what way we as the Church are the woman? I understand that the bible refers to the Church always as feminine, but it would seem to me that for this to be so important that in a marriage there would necessarily HAVE to be a biological female involved that the Church must hold certain traits that are inherent to women.

I would focus on the Eucharist. There are two levels on which we as the Church are feminine. One is in our way of relating to our Lord - Jesus Christ. We submit to Him, He dies for us. That's the perfect, ego-less love I spoke of which is modeled in the Trinity and offered to us within the Church. Our duty is not to demand equality with God, but to submit to Him demanding nothing, and Christ, in His love, elevates us to "partake of the divine nature" (II Peter). We become as He is.

The second way, however, is physical. The eucharist is physical. Christ became man - He is a physical man. His bride is a woman. In what way does the Church physically show femininity? In the Eucharist. In the way that we become one body with our Lord (which, yes, is a reference to sex; to me sex is an icon of the Eucharistic union of Christ and Church). We accept Christ into ourself as a woman accepts her husband. We don't enter Christ's body with our body - Christ enters our body that we may become one with His body.

Does that help? I hope it does. It is that physical womanhood (along with the attribute of femininity) that so clearly ties the icon of marriage to the male-female relationship for me. It's about more than leadership within a relationship (since the Christian leadership is really about self-death and service anyway). It's about our way of loving Christ (submission in voluntary love) and our way of become one with Christ physically (by recieving His body into ourself).

Also, about children, I do have to say that while uncommon it is not unheard of that young women have had to have surgeries where their womb had to be taken out. And women who marry later in life have had to have their uterus removed as well (defintiely not unheard of at all) and I would suggest that it is just a big a miracle for them to have a child as it would be for a man to have a child. Neither one makes biological sense in anyway (although for different reasons). However, the Orthodox Church would have no reservation in marrying the two. I'm not saying that the children has nothing to do with it... but I think the explanation needs to go further to properly explain this.. it needs to go deeper, perhaps ontological.

I think you make a good point here. I see the childbearing issue as a secondary one, but let's see if we can't salvage it...

The Church, in the sacraments, is the immediate joining of this world to the New Kingdom. It is the invasion of this fallen world with that perfect one. In this sense, it is of itself a miracle that we have sacraments. They bring us into a unique state of being - into contact with Christ and His Heaven.

That said, I think the iconography of the Church, as a window into Heaven, is helpful here. You'll notice that most physical infirmities are absent from icons (unless those icons depict a specific historical event, in which case they aren't so much looking at the present state of Heaven as at Heaven's [real and present] remembrance of a key event of salvation). In heaven, such products of the fall as physical ailments will be absent. Human mortality will be no more.

The Church is, therefore, eschatalogical in it's approach to the sacraments, and, in being eschatalogical it is deeply optimistic. The sacraments are acts of hope. So when we marry a man and a woman, we do so because ontologically - in an unfallen world - they'd be able to produce life from their iconically-eucharistic union. That is to say, we don't take into account the failures of the fallen world when partaking of sacraments precisely because those sacraments are not the matter of the fallen world.

It is precisely by refusing to allow the evil and suffering of this world to compromise, in ANY way, our actions or eschatalogical optimism, that we imitate Chirst on the cross.

In other words, we must look at the potential marriage couple from the perspective of the Kingdom (Without the lense of the fall) and see them as man and woman, capable of producing life. From that, it is up to God. The fall is indeed real, so when the sacrament is complete, perhaps there will be no children. But in our eschatalogical optimism and kingdom-oriented view...

Also, if it weren't against the law while adoption doesn't create life, it certainly upholds it and, if the parents are good people, quickly takes care of any selfishness on their part. It is no longer about "me" but about the child.

Taking care of another life is certainly ascetic. In so much as it is ascetic it is for their salvation. However, it does not justify marriage on its own (given the nature of the sacraments and the iconic nature of man-woman relationships). I'm not entirely against allowing same-sex couples to adopt. The statistical evidence isn't overwhelming on either side.

But someone, somewhere, had to give birth to that child. The union is, ultimately, a male-female union first. That is the only sexual union that produces new life. It is, therefore, the only full icon of the eucharist.

Practically speaking, it seems to me, all of the godly virtues (humility, selflessness, order in the relationship, etc) found in marriage can be achieved just as much in a same-sex union.

If the criterion were merely the ascetic value of marriage then I'd agree with you. The same could be said of "really close friendship" or "monastic communities" or "taking care of my favorite pet dog." Any time we are asked to be selfless, we grow. And this is why there are so many wonderful people in same-sex unions - people who are full of life and love. I think God is such that, despite whatever sin may be present in our life, He will fill what space we make available for Him. In so much as relationships with other people clear away our ego, they make room for God (or potentially do so).

The only difference is that they cannot procreate on their own

I might rephrase that - the only difference is that they were never created nor intended to procreate on their own, in this fallen world or the world of the Kingdom. It's a key difference, I think.

I am definitely playing devil's advocate here because in the end I believe that the Scriptures are quite clear on this, but it does, at times, seem arbitrary.

On a personal level, perhaps this is an area where we must practice obedience. There are times when I struggle to understand why God would allow an infant to get molested or tortured - but it happens. I don't know the explanation, but I trust that God has His reasons, and my faith is sufficient (thank you God!!! ) to overcome that.

When I see people who struggle with this issue, I say nothing, because I can say nothing of comfort to them.

I just try to be a normal person with them - treat them as I'd treat anyone other sinner (which means, anyone else). I work with homosexuals - they're great people! I respect them, seek to love them (and not in an artificial "I wish you were more like me" sort of way, but to love them as people).

I don't know of any response to sin that is non-judgmental except love. If ever one of them asks my opinion, I explain it to them, and hope that my actions (of friendship and love) have communicated clearly enough. So far, so good.

I don't understand their struggle and what I DO understand of it makes it all seem more arbitrary and harder to explain. Because the Bible said so offers no comfort to someone struggling with their faith.

True. Though, if someone is sufficiently strong in their faith to begin with, it can reinforce their chosen course of action or turn them around.

I think your post has come closest to giving me something to start with if I were to ever speak of this issue with anyone. But I still have a ways to go.

Thank you! May God have mercy on us both

In Christ,
Macarius

 

[Xpycoctomos]

I would focus on the Eucharist. There are two levels on which we as the Church are feminine. One is in our way of relating to our Lord - Jesus Christ. We submit to Him, He dies for us. That's the perfect, ego-less love I spoke of which is modeled in the Trinity and offered to us within the Church. Our duty is not to demand equality with God, but to submit to Him demanding nothing, and Christ, in His love, elevates us to "partake of the divine nature" (II Peter). We become as He is.

The second way, however, is physical. The eucharist is physical. Christ became man - He is a physical man. His bride is a woman. In what way does the Church physically show femininity? In the Eucharist. In the way that we become one body with our Lord (which, yes, is a reference to sex; to me sex is an icon of the Eucharistic union of Christ and Church). We accept Christ into ourself as a woman accepts her husband. We don't enter Christ's body with our body - Christ enters our body that we may become one with His body.

Does that help? I hope it does. It is that physical womanhood (along with the attribute of femininity) that so clearly ties the icon of marriage to the male-female relationship for me. It's about more than leadership within a relationship (since the Christian leadership is really about self-death and service anyway). It's about our way of loving Christ (submission in voluntary love) and our way of become one with Christ physically (by recieving His body into ourself).

That made a lot of sense. With this alone, however, I would have a hard time accepting vast amounts of struggling for the sake of what seems to be wonderful and important symbolism.

I think you make a good point here. I see the childbearing issue as a secondary one, but let's see if we can't salvage it...

The Church, in the sacraments, is the immediate joining of this world to the New Kingdom. It is the invasion of this fallen world with that perfect one. In this sense, it is of itself a miracle that we have sacraments. They bring us into a unique state of being - into contact with Christ and His Heaven.

That said, I think the iconography of the Church, as a window into Heaven, is helpful here. You'll notice that most physical infirmities are absent from icons (unless those icons depict a specific historical event, in which case they aren't so much looking at the present state of Heaven as at Heaven's [real and present] remembrance of a key event of salvation). In heaven, such products of the fall as physical ailments will be absent. Human mortality will be no more.

The Church is, therefore, eschatalogical in it's approach to the sacraments, and, in being eschatalogical it is deeply optimistic. The sacraments are acts of hope. So when we marry a man and a woman, we do so because ontologically - in an unfallen world - they'd be able to produce life from their iconically-eucharistic union. That is to say, we don't take into account the failures of the fallen world when partaking of sacraments precisely because those sacraments are not the matter of the fallen world.

It is precisely by refusing to allow the evil and suffering of this world to compromise, in ANY way, our actions or eschatalogical optimism, that we imitate Chirst on the cross.

In other words, we must look at the potential marriage couple from the perspective of the Kingdom (Without the lense of the fall) and see them as man and woman, capable of producing life. From that, it is up to God. The fall is indeed real, so when the sacrament is complete, perhaps there will be no children. But in our eschatalogical optimism and kingdom-oriented view...

This, especially towards the end really spoke to me. Makes a lot of sense. I'm sure more devils-advocate questions will arise as I let it soak it, but it definitely made sense on a very practical and tangeable level.

If the criterion were merely the ascetic value of marriage then I'd agree with you. The same could be said of "really close friendship" or "monastic communities" or "taking care of my favorite pet dog." Any time we are asked to be selfless, we grow. And this is why there are so many wonderful people in same-sex unions - people who are full of life and love. I think God is such that, despite whatever sin may be present in our life, He will fill what space we make available for Him. In so much as relationships with other people clear away our ego, they make room for God (or potentially do so).

Just to point out here, there is a different kind of love in a marriage than in a close friendship. The intimacy expressed and shared takes a relationship to a different plane (even though all loving relationships share certain atrtibutes and virtues). My point is that I have met committed lesbian and gay couples that have had that "marriage" altruistic side to it that is not found in any friendship. It's definitely a love that is comparable to that between myself and my wife, or at least I have no reason to believe otherwise. In the same way, I would argue that a same-sex couple who adopts a child is just as prone to loving that child and caring for him/her as any adoptive parent would, even in a normal marriage.

However, your point about the escathological aspect as explained earlier still really speaks to me and trumps any disagreement I may have with you here.

I might rephrase that - the only difference is that they were never created nor intended to procreate on their own, in this fallen world or the world of the Kingdom. It's a key difference, I think.

I agree. thank you.

I just try to be a normal person with them - treat them as I'd treat anyone other sinner (which means, anyone else). I work with homosexuals - they're great people! I respect them, seek to love them (and not in an artificial "I wish you were more like me" sort of way, but to love them as people).

I don't know of any response to sin that is non-judgmental except love. If ever one of them asks my opinion, I explain it to them, and hope that my actions (of friendship and love) have communicated clearly enough. So far, so good.

It's not that I don't know how to act around "them". It's honestly quite easy for me to be totally normal in my interactions with them. I don't have to consciously try to be normal to a gay person (unless they are totally flamboyant like a drag queen... but that's not an issue of sexuality but just being plain odd... and it's hard to act normal around really odd people). What I was referring to was defending my beliefs regarding homosexuality because it does come up at times, although not often, and not by my choosing. I honestly prefer not to get into that conversation because, before this discussion, I couldn't give anything about why we believe it other than "the Bible says so" and that is the most efficient way to convince others that you have faith in an arbitrary God. My problem wasn't that I was afraid they wouldn't be convinced, but I at least wanted to give good solid reasoning for my belief even if it didn't make total sense from their world view. I wanted it to make sense to that at least an open-minded person of same-sex-attraction could say "Well, I don't agree at all with you, but I can see how that makes sense from your POV and it's not just some arbitrary "beacause God said so".

I mean, there're reasons for everything, but sometimes it suffices to say "becuase the Bible says so" because they aren't issues that cut to the very core of who one is or think they are. Sexuality does and so "because the Bible says so" can be a very calous answer to give.

Thank you for your help in this area.

Xpy

 

[Macarius]

Perhaps the point about the man-woman = Christ-Church would be strengthened by analogy.

Would one want to change the elements of the eucharist to koolade and a tortilla? Or coffee and a donut? The symbolic value of a sacrament cuts deeper than, well, symbolic value. The man and woman of marriage are the material of the sacrament (whereas in the West, they are seen as ministers of the sacrament). We cannot be minimalistic with regards to it, because that would be like asking why we don't sprinkle to baptize infants or use unlevened bread in the Eucharist (we use levened bread because we see Christ as being the leven, whereas the old covenant, without Christ, had to use unlevened bread in anticipation of Him).

I've heard that Fr. Seraphim Rose struggled with same-sex attraction - does anyone know if that's true? If so, did he write anything on the experience or his views on it? I'd love to read them.

I'm glad that, in whatever small way, my words have helped. May God have mercy on us both!

In Christ,
Macarius

 

[Xpycoctomos]

Perhaps the point about the man-woman = Christ-Church would be strengthened by analogy.

Would one want to change the elements of the eucharist to koolade and a tortilla? Or coffee and a donut? The symbolic value of a sacrament cuts deeper than, well, symbolic value. The man and woman of marriage are the material of the sacrament (whereas in the West, they are seen as ministers of the sacrament). We cannot be minimalistic with regards to it, because that would be like asking why we don't sprinkle to baptize infants or use unlevened bread in the Eucharist (we use levened bread because we see Christ as being the leven, whereas the old covenant, without Christ, had to use unlevened bread in anticipation of Him).

I've heard that Fr. Seraphim Rose struggled with same-sex attraction - does anyone know if that's true? If so, did he write anything on the experience or his views on it? I'd love to read them.

I'm glad that, in whatever small way, my words have helped. May God have mercy on us both!

In Christ,
Macarius

Well, I see your point for sure. However, I would say that if people were stuck on a boat that were sinking and there were a priest and only grape juice and wonder bread, I think it can be supported by precedent (or at least by the words of some Church Fathers in the past) that in such a case it would be fully Orthodox to use those items. Not ideal and does not fully meet the imporant symbolic issue at stake, but the situation itself is abnormal and God often works through what is available because of our fallen world.

I think perhaps the case could be made that (the escatalogical ontological issue aside which is important and what has helped me) in such a case the Church would say that the two people are a part of a fallen world but that God can bestow a sacrament on that which He feels necessary and if that be two men who (by nurture, nature or something else) are gay can enter into a relationship that is works to imitate the virtues of God, then such an exception could be made.

Obviously there are too many factors I am not taking into account here, but I my point is simply that we don't always work with ideal form or elements in our sacraments and exceptions (extreme excptions) in extreme conditions have been made in the past.

Anyway, thanks a lot for everything. I wonder how this has helped the OP.

 

[AureateDawn]

I'm learning a lot from this thread. And I thought I know it all on this issue. lol