Fr Josiah Trenham in Tbilisi: Homofascists not Welcome

Ainnir

Taxiarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 29, 2015
Messages
5,711
Reaction score
75
Points
48
Age
37
Eruvande said:
Wow. These threads are always so exhausting. Minasoliman as usual asks the compassionate questions. I will answer from my own experience. It helped to know what the church believes, as much as it stung. But I was never, never helped by angry denunciation, largely because I never believed those doing the denouncing actually gave a monkey's about me personally. It always seemed more about their own righteousness than lifting me out of my sin. But that is not to say that the compassionate and clear explanation of church teaching is, of itself, judgemental. It took a while, and lots of bad decisions on my part before I came to an understanding of that traditional teaching in such a way that meant I felt I could live a life congruent with Christianity. But that had to come from me, rather than externally imposed, iyswim. It helped enormously that I was blessed with good, kind Christian friends who didn't focus on one of my many sins to the exclusion of a)other sins I need as much help with and b)the fact that I am a whole human being.

I have attempted to word this post as carefully as possible to avoid offence and I apologise in advance if I have hurt anyone with my words, I just offer my experience as a constructive part of the conversation.
+1

I like Mina's posts, too.  There's so much pain in the world; we need more compassion like that.

I had other vices I was mired in, and I reacted the same way as you.  I was hateful and spiteful to any who dared question or criticize what I was doing.  I hated Christians anyway.  It took someone genuinely caring about the person buried under the dung heap for me to have the ears to hear and eyes to see the truth of how stupid, crass, and dangerous I was being.  And even when I was ready to confront Christianity again, was actually reading Scripture and seeking to understand, I resisted the people who during those months tried to pressure me into a conversion moment with "what if you died tomorrow" lines, but otherwise didn't have any sort of connection to me.  I told them I wasn't ready to accept Christ yet and at least I'd go to Hell honest.  Do I pretend to know how to interact with the many vices of our times that are popular and practically a cultural force?  No.  I have no clue--about much of anything, except how wretched I've been and am.  But I know what I didn't appreciate, so I endeavor to at least avoid doing the same thing to someone else.  If I can't help, I at least don't want to hurt.  Often the only thing I'm in a position to do is pray.
 

Onesimus

Elder
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
479
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
44
Mina.  Thank you for your post.  Quite a bit to take into our hearts.

Lord have mercy on us all.
 

Velsigne

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Feb 4, 2011
Messages
1,043
Reaction score
0
Points
0
...
Using your analogy on Nazis, let's consider an actual example of a political activist in the past, Martin Luther King.  I have never listened to him bashing against the white man, but rather looking forward to resist injustice while maintaining a love for your enemy.  Now, here's the amazing thing.  He's the minority.  We are the majority as you admit.  How much more then should we desire to speak out against whatever laws may do while we also maintain the desire to save ALL of God's children!
Hoorible example. MLK was attempting to unite people divded by race/culture for the right reasons, even from a Christian perspective. He was trying to overcome a prejudice system of Jim Crowe and cultural racism, not encourge people in their sin of sodomy and the unatural LBGT "lifestyle", you are comparing apples and oranges.

I think it's an insult to blacks whenever they bring up their struggle for equality in the South decades ago to the people who are trying tp push militant sodomy on our culture today. I have been personally told by many blacks through the years. It's offensive  to them.
....

Charles I don't know that I often agree with your exact take on things, but you've stated here exactly what I have heard from black people as well.  Part of the strategy of the prurient interest political group was to try to piggyback or hijack that Civil Rights movement as their own.  They tried to blur distinctions so that prurient interest was elevated to the status of skin color and slavery. 

To continue the analogy is to buy into the propaganda and perpetuate it.  Wag the dog.

It's insulting to many American black people whose ancestors arrived here as slaves and has been directly communicated to me as such by black people in real life, not on internet sites.



 

augustin717

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 15, 2006
Messages
6,850
Reaction score
0
Points
0
No kidding. What makes their opinions and situation being less black? If anything it compounds the level of discrimation.
Velsigne said:
...
Using your analogy on Nazis, let's consider an actual example of a political activist in the past, Martin Luther King.  I have never listened to him bashing against the white man, but rather looking forward to resist injustice while maintaining a love for your enemy.  Now, here's the amazing thing.  He's the minority.  We are the majority as you admit.  How much more then should we desire to speak out against whatever laws may do while we also maintain the desire to save ALL of God's children!
Hoorible example. MLK was attempting to unite people divded by race/culture for the right reasons, even from a Christian perspective. He was trying to overcome a prejudice system of Jim Crowe and cultural racism, not encourge people in their sin of sodomy and the unatural LBGT "lifestyle", you are comparing apples and oranges.

I think it's an insult to blacks whenever they bring up their struggle for equality in the South decades ago to the people who are trying tp push militant sodomy on our culture today. I have been personally told by many blacks through the years. It's offensive  to them.
....

Charles I don't know that I often agree with your exact take on things, but you've stated here exactly what I have heard from black people as well.  Part of the strategy of the prurient interest political group was to try to piggyback or hijack that Civil Rights movement as their own.  They tried to blur distinctions so that prurient interest was elevated to the status of skin color and slavery. 

To continue the analogy is to buy into the propaganda and perpetuate it.  Wag the dog.

It's insulting to many American black people whose ancestors arrived here as slaves and has been directly communicated to me as such by black people in real life, not on internet sites.
The black gay people I inow would be a bit more nuanced. Or do you think that being black and being gay doesn't overlap?
 

Velsigne

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Feb 4, 2011
Messages
1,043
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Eruvande said:
Wow. These threads are always so exhausting. Minasoliman as usual asks the compassionate questions. I will answer from my own experience. It helped to know what the church believes, as much as it stung. But I was never, never helped by angry denunciation, largely because I never believed those doing the denouncing actually gave a monkey's about me personally. It always seemed more about their own righteousness than lifting me out of my sin. But that is not to say that the compassionate and clear explanation of church teaching is, of itself, judgemental. It took a while, and lots of bad decisions on my part before I came to an understanding of that traditional teaching in such a way that meant I felt I could live a life congruent with Christianity. But that had to come from me, rather than externally imposed, iyswim. It helped enormously that I was blessed with good, kind Christian friends who didn't focus on one of my many sins to the exclusion of a)other sins I need as much help with and b)the fact that I am a whole human being.

I have attempted to word this post as carefully as possible to avoid offence and I apologise in advance if I have hurt anyone with my words, I just offer my experience as a constructive part of the conversation.
Thank you for going out on a limb and sharing your personal experience.  I think it is helpful to both sides of the argument:

1) That conviction of sin is a difficult  internal, individual process that not all will be willing to face.

A lot of the momentum now is that this political movement encourages people to assume an IDENTITY of this one tendency in themselves to define themselves in their totality.  In their mind it becomes the most important thing about themselves to which all others must bow. 

2) That screaming at people or violent action does no good on the personal level.

I do think that political push back is entirely warranted though, but never violence and never interpersonal. 

I found myself in the public facility last week washing my hands next to a man after relieving myself post-morning coffee.  So no more gender blurring for me, thanks.    What has happened now is that men take over the women's restroom.  So they have two restrooms right next to each other and I, and all the other women who don't want to share a bathroom with strange men, must walk to the other side of a rather large building to find one designated for ourselves. 
 

Velsigne

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Feb 4, 2011
Messages
1,043
Reaction score
0
Points
0
augustin717 said:
Velsigne said:
...
Using your analogy on Nazis, let's consider an actual example of a political activist in the past, Martin Luther King.  I have never listened to him bashing against the white man, but rather looking forward to resist injustice while maintaining a love for your enemy.  Now, here's the amazing thing.  He's the minority.  We are the majority as you admit.  How much more then should we desire to speak out against whatever laws may do while we also maintain the desire to save ALL of God's children!
Hoorible example. MLK was attempting to unite people divded by race/culture for the right reasons, even from a Christian perspective. He was trying to overcome a prejudice system of Jim Crowe and cultural racism, not encourge people in their sin of sodomy and the unatural LBGT "lifestyle", you are comparing apples and oranges.

I think it's an insult to blacks whenever they bring up their struggle for equality in the South decades ago to the people who are trying tp push militant sodomy on our culture today. I have been personally told by many blacks through the years. It's offensive  to them.
....

Charles I don't know that I often agree with your exact take on things, but you've stated here exactly what I have heard from black people as well.  Part of the strategy of the prurient interest political group was to try to piggyback or hijack that Civil Rights movement as their own.  They tried to blur distinctions so that prurient interest was elevated to the status of skin color and slavery. 

To continue the analogy is to buy into the propaganda and perpetuate it.  Wag the dog.

It's insulting to many American black people whose ancestors arrived here as slaves and has been directly communicated to me as such by black people in real life, not on internet sites.
The black gay people I inow would be a bit more nuanced. Or do you think that being black and being gay doesn't overlap?
Yes, there are gay black people, just not the majority of anyone is gay.  They are a subset of a subset of a subset and not appropriate to cite as indicative of "black" opinion. 
 

Ilyin

Jr. Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2015
Messages
53
Reaction score
0
Points
0
There are some very long posts in this thread. How do people get so much time in the burnt out West? My tuppence worth:
- Homosexual acts are sinful but they are not the only sexual sin
- The Homosexual MOVEMENT is another matter. It is HELL bent on the destruction of the Church and anyone who holds traditional values (which I am sure everyone here does as they are Orthodox, not liberal protestants)
- The Homosexual movement should be fought with every peaceful means possible - prayer, marches, legal means, petitions, pray-ins, the internet - everything at our disposal. The rainbow flag is the harbinger of the Antichrist.

As to Fr Josiah I think he should not have mentioned Islam because it makes Orthodox look like they also want to kill sodomites. I am not even sure that sodomy should be illegal (!) Anymore than i think marital infidelity should be ILLEGAL . But some things should be illegal - abortion, pornography, gay "marriage", sodomite propaganda and so on.
 

Hinterlander

High Elder
Site Supporter
Joined
Aug 21, 2012
Messages
862
Reaction score
1
Points
0
This article has led to a range of responses from different, mainly Evangelical, sources but is relevant to this discussion.

http://religionnews.com/2016/08/22/on-lgbt-equality-middle-ground-is-disappearing/

Middle ground is disappearing on the question of whether LGBT persons should be treated as full equals, without any discrimination in society — and on the related question of whether religious institutions should be allowed to continue discriminating due to their doctrinal beliefs.
A vast host of neutralist, avoidist or de facto discriminatory institutions and individuals will also find that they can no longer finesse the LGBT issue. Space for neutrality or “mild” discrimination will close up as well.
It seems this thread has its share of neutralists, avoidists and those, like Fr. Josiah, who are not trying to "finesse" the issue.
 

BrotherBoris

Jr. Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2015
Messages
62
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
South Carolina
All I will say on this issue is that Father Thomas Hopko, of blessed memory, could have addressed this group in Tbilisi and made the same overall point as Father Josiah did, but Father Hopko would have done it with gentleness, mercy, love and respect.  Father Josiah seems to come across angry and mean (he might not be that way at all, but that's how he comes across) and shows little love or restraint and often appears to go "over the top" on some issues.  If he could learn to speak with a gentle monastic-like humbleness he might get more people to listen to what he has to say.
 

FinnJames

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
1,124
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Age
73
Location
Finland
Hinterlander said:
This article has led to a range of responses from different, mainly Evangelical, sources but is relevant to this discussion.

http://religionnews.com/2016/08/22/on-lgbt-equality-middle-ground-is-disappearing/

Middle ground is disappearing on the question of whether LGBT persons should be treated as full equals, without any discrimination in society — and on the related question of whether religious institutions should be allowed to continue discriminating due to their doctrinal beliefs.
A vast host of neutralist, avoidist or de facto discriminatory institutions and individuals will also find that they can no longer finesse the LGBT issue. Space for neutrality or “mild” discrimination will close up as well.
It seems this thread has its share of neutralists, avoidists and those, like Fr. Josiah, who are not trying to "finesse" the issue.
I fear the churches may be overlooking a group who could be their greatest allies in reining in the excesses of the LGBT movement: homosexual Christians, most of whom are as appalled by the sort of abuses that have been talked about here as are some of the posters. Those denominations that stick to the 'you can be gay or Christian but not both' line are shooting themselves in the foot, and to the extent that Orthodox congregations make it uncomfortable for gay/lesbian members to be 'out' in the parish I'd include Orthodoxy here.

I'd say, too, that being crystal clear about what exactly it is that the churches want is tremendously important. I'd guess that most heterosexual people in the US (where I don't live, though I do follow US media) would like to see a return to civility but not a return to the days when gay/lesbian people had to stay 'in the closet' if they didn't want to be arrested and/or lose their jobs or homes.

To pick up on two phrases mentioned in a previous post in this thread, taking a stand against 'gay "marriage"' is certainly a good propaganda slogan (and the scare quotes make the sneer visible), but what in fact does the phrase mean? Is it a move to ban the use of the word 'marriage' for those in legally recognized same-sex partnerships, to ban legal recognition of any sort of same-sex partnerships, to make all same-sex relationships illegal? These are very different things.

Similarly, what exactly is meant by opposing 'sodomite propaganda'? Does this mean that gay/lesbian help lines should not be able to have their phone number listed, that sex education classes (do you have these in the US?) should not be allowed to mention homosexuality, that no novel with a gay/lesbian character should be allowed on the public library shelves?

Being clear about these definitions will allow people to stop treating this skirmish in the culture wars so emotionally and to instead think in concrete terms about what in the current climate should be changed and what societal gains currently enjoyed by LGBT people should retained.
 

hecma925

Stratopedarches
Joined
Jul 31, 2013
Messages
19,738
Reaction score
132
Points
63
Age
159
Location
The South
Picking and choosing sins to be mad about is silly.  Aren't we all called to holiness?
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Hinterlander said:
This article has led to a range of responses from different, mainly Evangelical, sources but is relevant to this discussion.

http://religionnews.com/2016/08/22/on-lgbt-equality-middle-ground-is-disappearing/

Middle ground is disappearing on the question of whether LGBT persons should be treated as full equals, without any discrimination in society — and on the related question of whether religious institutions should be allowed to continue discriminating due to their doctrinal beliefs.
A vast host of neutralist, avoidist or de facto discriminatory institutions and individuals will also find that they can no longer finesse the LGBT issue. Space for neutrality or “mild” discrimination will close up as well.
It seems this thread has its share of neutralists, avoidists and those, like Fr. Josiah, who are not trying to "finesse" the issue.
that normalcy is labeled "discrimination" is a clue.
 

biro

Protostrator
Site Supporter
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
23,219
Reaction score
31
Points
48
Age
47
Website
archiveofourown.org
hecma925 said:
Picking and choosing sins to be mad about is silly.  Aren't we all called to holiness?
Some sins are more fun to pick on others about. Keeps us from having to be sorry about anything in our own selves.

Sex is the worst, and gay sex is the worstest of the worst, so we get to beat up on them.
 

Hinterlander

High Elder
Site Supporter
Joined
Aug 21, 2012
Messages
862
Reaction score
1
Points
0
FinnJames said:
Hinterlander said:
This article has led to a range of responses from different, mainly Evangelical, sources but is relevant to this discussion.

http://religionnews.com/2016/08/22/on-lgbt-equality-middle-ground-is-disappearing/

Middle ground is disappearing on the question of whether LGBT persons should be treated as full equals, without any discrimination in society — and on the related question of whether religious institutions should be allowed to continue discriminating due to their doctrinal beliefs.
A vast host of neutralist, avoidist or de facto discriminatory institutions and individuals will also find that they can no longer finesse the LGBT issue. Space for neutrality or “mild” discrimination will close up as well.
It seems this thread has its share of neutralists, avoidists and those, like Fr. Josiah, who are not trying to "finesse" the issue.
I fear the churches may be overlooking a group who could be their greatest allies in reining in the excesses of the LGBT movement: homosexual Christians, most of whom are as appalled by the sort of abuses that have been talked about here as are some of the posters. Those denominations that stick to the 'you can be gay or Christian but not both' line are shooting themselves in the foot, and to the extent that Orthodox congregations make it uncomfortable for gay/lesbian members to be 'out' in the parish I'd include Orthodoxy here.
There are uncounted numbers of people attracted to the same sex who do not identify by terms like gay.  These people are rejected by the LGBT movement. These are people that the clergy and laity need to embrace as part of the body of Christ.

I'd say, too, that being crystal clear about what exactly it is that the churches want is tremendously important. I'd guess that most heterosexual people in the US (where I don't live, though I do follow US media) would like to see a return to civility but not a return to the days when gay/lesbian people had to stay 'in the closet' if they didn't want to be arrested and/or lose their jobs or homes.

To pick up on two phrases mentioned in a previous post in this thread, taking a stand against 'gay "marriage"' is certainly a good propaganda slogan (and the scare quotes make the sneer visible), but what in fact does the phrase mean? Is it a move to ban the use of the word 'marriage' for those in legally recognized same-sex partnerships, to ban legal recognition of any sort of same-sex partnerships, to make all same-sex relationships illegal? These are very different things.
I think it varies by place.  The issue right now in the United States is not about recognizing partnerships or civil unions but the actions of the Supreme Court in reference to marriage.
Similarly, what exactly is meant by opposing 'sodomite propaganda'? Does this mean that gay/lesbian help lines should not be able to have their phone number listed, that sex education classes (do you have these in the US?) should not be allowed to mention homosexuality, that no novel with a gay/lesbian character should be allowed on the public library shelves?
I don't know - it could be those things. Every society/culture/state is at a different point in these matters. 
Being clear about these definitions will allow people to stop treating this skirmish in the culture wars so emotionally and to instead think in concrete terms about what in the current climate should be changed and what societal gains currently enjoyed by LGBT people should retained.
Did you read the articles I posted?  In the United States its not a matter of LGBT's being legally tolerated but an effort to "progress" society to the point where LGBT expression is celebrated and accepted by everyone.  Gay wedding cake, etc. 

A major battleground will be the ability of Christian institutions like schools able to discriminate in their hiring and admission practices.  For example, a seminary of a denomination that views same-sex marriage as being contrary to God's design for human flourishing being forced to admit openly gay students.  Or a Christian institution not hiring openly gay teachers. Accreditation is going to be a part of this.  It could get to the point where if you went to a Christian college your credential will not be recognized by certain groups.  RE: issues in Canada with Christian lawyers and the BC bar. These are the sorts of issue that are on the front page in the papers in California where FR. Josiah is from.
 

Porter ODoran

Toumarches
Joined
May 8, 2014
Messages
12,135
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Eugene, OR
ialmisry said:
Hinterlander said:
This article has led to a range of responses from different, mainly Evangelical, sources but is relevant to this discussion.

http://religionnews.com/2016/08/22/on-lgbt-equality-middle-ground-is-disappearing/

Middle ground is disappearing on the question of whether LGBT persons should be treated as full equals, without any discrimination in society — and on the related question of whether religious institutions should be allowed to continue discriminating due to their doctrinal beliefs.
A vast host of neutralist, avoidist or de facto discriminatory institutions and individuals will also find that they can no longer finesse the LGBT issue. Space for neutrality or “mild” discrimination will close up as well.
It seems this thread has its share of neutralists, avoidists and those, like Fr. Josiah, who are not trying to "finesse" the issue.
that normalcy is labeled "discrimination" is a clue.
How did you think that worked?
 

Hinterlander

High Elder
Site Supporter
Joined
Aug 21, 2012
Messages
862
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Porter ODoran said:
ialmisry said:
Hinterlander said:
This article has led to a range of responses from different, mainly Evangelical, sources but is relevant to this discussion.

http://religionnews.com/2016/08/22/on-lgbt-equality-middle-ground-is-disappearing/

Middle ground is disappearing on the question of whether LGBT persons should be treated as full equals, without any discrimination in society — and on the related question of whether religious institutions should be allowed to continue discriminating due to their doctrinal beliefs.
A vast host of neutralist, avoidist or de facto discriminatory institutions and individuals will also find that they can no longer finesse the LGBT issue. Space for neutrality or “mild” discrimination will close up as well.
It seems this thread has its share of neutralists, avoidists and those, like Fr. Josiah, who are not trying to "finesse" the issue.
that normalcy is labeled "discrimination" is a clue.
How did you think that worked?
People could really just write a little more of a sentence and prevent a lot of confusion.
 

mike

Protostrator
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Messages
24,873
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
29
Location
Białystok / Warsaw
Hinterlander said:
There are uncounted numbers of people attracted to the same sex who do not identify by terms like gay.  These people are rejected by the LGBT movement. These are people that the clergy and laity need to embrace as part of the body of Christ.
So no Church for gays?
 

Daedelus1138

High Elder
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
991
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Orlando
Indeed, Fr. Hopko did deal with the issue better.  He was clear about the Orthodox theology of marriage, but also clear about the rights of gay persons.

I suspect Fr. Josiah and alot of other converts from conservative American evangelicalism are influenced by John Rushdoony and Christian Reconstructionism.  Disdain for democracy and hostility to human reason in the civil sphere were part and parcel of Rushdoony's thought, including the enforcement of Mosaic penalties upon sin.
 

NicholasMyra

Merarches
Joined
Sep 19, 2010
Messages
8,838
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
hyperdoxherman.tumblr.com

NicholasMyra

Merarches
Joined
Sep 19, 2010
Messages
8,838
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
hyperdoxherman.tumblr.com
wgw said:
Also, everything he said must be taken in the context of his speech last year on human dignity; those who he calls "homo fascists" still posess the image of God and are of sacred worth, even though they intentionally distort that image through abuse of the reproductive faculty.
As the late Fr. Hopko once said, there is a sophistry at work here: You can't love 'the image of God in people'. You can only love people---with whom Christ has personally identified i.e. especially the poor, the alien and the sinner. And we can only love through concrete activity in the world.
 

NicholasMyra

Merarches
Joined
Sep 19, 2010
Messages
8,838
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
hyperdoxherman.tumblr.com
Iconodule said:
However, as I witness the pain and exclusion which this teaching- however gently expressed- has brought to gay people trying to navigate their way into and in the Church, and when I see the good fruits that can be borne of these relationships, I am  beginning to think this position too is untenable. I cannot, in good conscience, stand before friends and acquaintances in such loving relationships and inflict my understanding of a few historically hazy precepts on them, convincing myself that I am somehow speaking the truth in love.
Well said, PotM.
 

NicholasMyra

Merarches
Joined
Sep 19, 2010
Messages
8,838
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
hyperdoxherman.tumblr.com
Hinterlander said:
There are uncounted numbers of people attracted to the same sex who do not identify by terms like gay. 
Are we gonna start saying Christian-affiliated instead of Christian or are you essentially a Christian?

A sort of Evangelical PC culture wordgame. It uses language very similar to identity politics culture. This selective subject-predicate skepticism or weird essentialism is not congruous to real peoples' lived experiences and will always be rightly rejected as absurd.
 

FinnJames

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
1,124
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Age
73
Location
Finland
Daedelus1138 said:
Indeed, Fr. Hopko did deal with the issue better.  He was clear about the Orthodox theology of marriage, but also clear about the rights of gay persons.

I suspect Fr. Josiah and alot of other converts from conservative American evangelicalism are influenced by John Rushdoony and Christian Reconstructionism.  Disdain for democracy and hostility to human reason in the civil sphere were part and parcel of Rushdoony's thought, including the enforcement of Mosaic penalties upon sin.
+1
And given the large number of converts from churches they believe to be too lax on social issues, I suspect this is something that has led to the special 'flavour' of US Orthodoxy.
 

Hinterlander

High Elder
Site Supporter
Joined
Aug 21, 2012
Messages
862
Reaction score
1
Points
0
NicholasMyra said:
Hinterlander said:
There are uncounted numbers of people attracted to the same sex who do not identify by terms like gay. 
Are we gonna start saying Christian-affiliated instead of Christian or are you essentially a Christian?

A sort of Evangelical PC culture wordgame. It uses language very similar to identity politics culture. This selective subject-predicate skepticism or weird essentialism is not congruous to real peoples' lived experiences and will always be rightly rejected as absurd.
I'm unenlightened and don't know what your talking about when you say "essentialism".

The word "gay" is at the center of "identity politics culture" like it or not and that is the reason why Christians, some of whom are Evangelicals, have sought other ways of trying to discuss the issue.  I see phrases like "homosexual tendencies" in some Orthodox statements.  How does that make you feel?
 

Jayden Blake

Newbie
Joined
Aug 15, 2016
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Twin Cities, MN, USA
FinnJames said:
I fear the churches may be overlooking a group who could be their greatest allies in reining in the excesses of the LGBT movement: homosexual Christians, most of whom are as appalled by the sort of abuses that have been talked about here as are some of the posters. Those denominations that stick to the 'you can be gay or Christian but not both' line are shooting themselves in the foot, and to the extent that Orthodox congregations make it uncomfortable for gay/lesbian members to be 'out' in the parish I'd include Orthodoxy here.

I'd say, too, that being crystal clear about what exactly it is that the churches want is tremendously important. I'd guess that most heterosexual people in the US (where I don't live, though I do follow US media) would like to see a return to civility but not a return to the days when gay/lesbian people had to stay 'in the closet' if they didn't want to be arrested and/or lose their jobs or homes.

To pick up on two phrases mentioned in a previous post in this thread, taking a stand against 'gay "marriage"' is certainly a good propaganda slogan (and the scare quotes make the sneer visible), but what in fact does the phrase mean? Is it a move to ban the use of the word 'marriage' for those in legally recognized same-sex partnerships, to ban legal recognition of any sort of same-sex partnerships, to make all same-sex relationships illegal? These are very different things.

Similarly, what exactly is meant by opposing 'sodomite propaganda'? Does this mean that gay/lesbian help lines should not be able to have their phone number listed, that sex education classes (do you have these in the US?) should not be allowed to mention homosexuality, that no novel with a gay/lesbian character should be allowed on the public library shelves?

Being clear about these definitions will allow people to stop treating this skirmish in the culture wars so emotionally and to instead think in concrete terms about what in the current climate should be changed and what societal gains currently enjoyed by LGBT people should retained.
I am one of those people.  I do use the word gay to describe myself, but among many other words.  I embrace it, the same way I embrace "Christian," which means something different to a lot of different people.  I also use the word "Orthodox" which I think at least helps to better describe my Christian beliefs, though many people know very little about Eastern Orthodoxy. 

I do not consider myself part of the "gay community."  I don't enjoy going to gay bars/clubs, going to Pride Parades, or any other LGBTQIUAA event. (I lost track of how long this alphabet soup word jumble is now, my apologies to whom this may offend if I left you out).  I have been to all of these, many times, when I was younger.  I do not anymore.

God is still the number one focus in my life (or at least I strive every day to make this so).  I am a gay Christian.  I do admit to my imperfect ways. 

I identify as an Orthodox Christian, as political independent/Libertarian, a homosexual, a young adult, and a philomath; always wanting to continue learning new things and hearing the perspective of others on all types of issues/subjects.     
 

Alpo

Merarches
Joined
Dec 9, 2007
Messages
9,878
Reaction score
0
Points
0
FinnJames said:
Daedelus1138 said:
Indeed, Fr. Hopko did deal with the issue better.  He was clear about the Orthodox theology of marriage, but also clear about the rights of gay persons.

I suspect Fr. Josiah and alot of other converts from conservative American evangelicalism are influenced by John Rushdoony and Christian Reconstructionism.  Disdain for democracy and hostility to human reason in the civil sphere were part and parcel of Rushdoony's thought, including the enforcement of Mosaic penalties upon sin.
+1
And given the large number of converts from churches they believe to be too lax on social issues, I suspect this is something that has led to the special 'flavour' of US Orthodoxy.
I wonder if anything similar can happen in Finland. From what I've heard our Lutheran converts are not anyhow super conservative but that might chance once the local Lutheran state church accepts same-sex marriage. Whih will probably happen eventually.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
NicholasMyra said:
Iconodule said:
However, as I witness the pain and exclusion which this teaching- however gently expressed- has brought to gay people trying to navigate their way into and in the Church, and when I see the good fruits that can be borne of these relationships, I am  beginning to think this position too is untenable. I cannot, in good conscience, stand before friends and acquaintances in such loving relationships and inflict my understanding of a few historically hazy precepts on them, convincing myself that I am somehow speaking the truth in love.
Well said, PotM.
The pot has found its ladle to serve up falsehood.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
NicholasMyra said:
wgw said:
Also, everything he said must be taken in the context of his speech last year on human dignity; those who he calls "homo fascists" still posess the image of God and are of sacred worth, even though they intentionally distort that image through abuse of the reproductive faculty.
As the late Fr. Hopko once said, there is a sophistry at work here: You can't love 'the image of God in people'. You can only love people---with whom Christ has personally identified i.e. especially the poor, the alien and the sinner. And we can only love through concrete activity in the world.
He visited the prostitutes, not the brothel.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
mike said:
Hinterlander said:
There are uncounted numbers of people attracted to the same sex who do not identify by terms like gay.  These people are rejected by the LGBT movement. These are people that the clergy and laity need to embrace as part of the body of Christ.
So no Church for gays?
you mean, like that chapel that hit men light candles at in Columbia?

Should those Russian Monasteries kept the money that they gave back, once they learned it was pimping?
 

Clemente

Elder
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
466
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Daedelus1138 said:
Indeed, Fr. Hopko did deal with the issue better.  He was clear about the Orthodox theology of marriage, but also clear about the rights of gay persons.

I suspect Fr. Josiah and alot of other converts from conservative American evangelicalism are influenced by John Rushdoony and Christian Reconstructionism.  Disdain for democracy and hostility to human reason in the civil sphere were part and parcel of Rushdoony's thought, including the enforcement of Mosaic penalties upon sin.
Fabulous point!

Thanks so much for coming. We have missed you boys and now have a lot of cleaning up to do.

As usual, we need to use our two-pronged strategy for whenever any priest speaks ill of homosexuality: attack and redefine.

1. Attack the person. We need to inundate this thread with personal attacks on the character of Father Trenham. I was hoping that something about Reconstructionism would come out. Let's try to tie him to Right Wing political groups or esoteric Protestant sects. No need to provide any fact-base for our assertions. Don't worry: we've got some of the cops on our payroll. The point here is to cast aspersions on the character of anybody that teaches traditional Orthodox sexuality. It will be insane!;

2. Redefine the subject.  Remember what Saul Alinsky has taught us:
I. Phase I. Change the subject. Complain about how the Church talks too much about sex.
II. Phase II. "Deemphasise" the subject. We acknowledge the sin of homosexuality, but talk about how it shouldn't be a priority of the Church.
III. Phase III. Redefine the subject. We reject the notion that homosexuality should be condemned. We refer a lot to how the Early Church condemned contraception and divorce as well. We talk from experience how homosexuality is actually a blessed thing.

OK, fellas. We are now in Phase III. I am calling on all of my Cosa Nostra Rosa brothers to jump in. With your help, we can continue to keep OC.net the most queer-friendly Orthodox site on the internet!
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
The forum is filled with folks of all types of views.  In the Religious Topics section especially, we have allowed people of all views, heterodox or orthodox, to discuss and debate.  I think your post is filled with unnecessary melodrama.  In any other section, like Faith Issues, only the Orthodox view is allowed.

Ideally, this section is supposed to be for those who hold orthodox views, like yourself, to be able to discuss and debate the issues with gentleness and consistency.  It is also a chance to learn about what the other side says or believes.  For you to continue to ramble on that oc.net is turning into a pro-LGBT agenda is like oc.net turning pro-Muslim at times when Muslims come to debate their beliefs. 

So, I ask you kindly, cut it out! Please!  Oc.net has clearly defined what it believes in the matter.
 

servulus

Sr. Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2015
Messages
166
Reaction score
0
Points
16
minasoliman said:
Oc.net has clearly defined what it believes in the matter.
Can you point me toward where this position is? Maybe my comprehension is bad but I haven't been able to see it through the bickering.
 

NicholasMyra

Merarches
Joined
Sep 19, 2010
Messages
8,838
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
hyperdoxherman.tumblr.com
Hinterlander said:
The word "gay" is at the center of "identity politics culture"
As is "same-sex attracted" "Christian" etc. nowadays. Evangelicals and other conservative groups got in on the ground floor of identity politics as much as your favorite pansexual community college english instructor. I'd wager you'd see "...as a Christian..." on Evo sources more than anywhere else.

Hinterlander said:
like it or not and that is the reason why Christians, some of whom are Evangelicals, have sought other ways of trying to discuss the issue.
...by playing weird predicate games.

Hinterlander said:
  I see phrases like "homosexual tendencies" in some Orthodox statements.  How does that make you feel?
That a bamboozle did not succeed in bamboozling; and that Orthodox especially in America are too willing to borrow uncritically from sectarian sources.
 

Clemente

Elder
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
466
Reaction score
0
Points
0
minasoliman said:
The forum is filled with folks of all types of views.  In the Religious Topics section especially, we have allowed people of all views, heterodox or orthodox, to discuss and debate.  I think your post is filled with unnecessary melodrama.  In any other section, like Faith Issues, only the Orthodox view is allowed.

Ideally, this section is supposed to be for those who hold orthodox views, like yourself, to be able to discuss and debate the issues with gentleness and consistency.  It is also a chance to learn about what the other side says or believes.  For you to continue to ramble on that oc.net is turning into a pro-LGBT agenda is like oc.net turning pro-Muslim at times when Muslims come to debate their beliefs. 

So, I ask you kindly, cut it out! Please!  Oc.net has clearly defined what it believes in the matter.
I haven't publicly criticised at all your decision to foment debate with the "heterodox" about established Orthodox doctrine.

Rather, I am simply highlighting the tired but effective tactics of the Pink Mafia here. I tip my hat to them and their success. They are indeed formidable opponents standing against Church tradition and I do not underestimate them.

I would note that you have chosen to label my post as "filled with unnecessary melodrama", so even the casual observer might question your neutrality in this debate. If my post seems "melodramatic", it is perhaps due to my profound respect for them and their potential to change Church doctrine.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
servulus said:
minasoliman said:
Oc.net has clearly defined what it believes in the matter.
Can you point me toward where this position is? Maybe my comprehension is bad but I haven't been able to see it through the bickering.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?action=rules
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
Clemente said:
minasoliman said:
The forum is filled with folks of all types of views.  In the Religious Topics section especially, we have allowed people of all views, heterodox or orthodox, to discuss and debate.  I think your post is filled with unnecessary melodrama.  In any other section, like Faith Issues, only the Orthodox view is allowed.

Ideally, this section is supposed to be for those who hold orthodox views, like yourself, to be able to discuss and debate the issues with gentleness and consistency.  It is also a chance to learn about what the other side says or believes.  For you to continue to ramble on that oc.net is turning into a pro-LGBT agenda is like oc.net turning pro-Muslim at times when Muslims come to debate their beliefs. 

So, I ask you kindly, cut it out! Please!  Oc.net has clearly defined what it believes in the matter.
I haven't publicly criticised at all your decision to foment debate with the "heterodox" about established Orthodox doctrine.

Rather, I am simply highlighting the tired but effective tactics of the Pink Mafia here. I tip my hat to them and their success. They are indeed formidable opponents standing against Church tradition and I do not underestimate them.

I would note that you have chosen to label my post as "filled with unnecessary melodrama", so even the casual observer might question your neutrality in this debate. If my post seems "melodramatic", it is perhaps due to my profound respect for them and their potential to change Church doctrine.
Who exactly are the members of the pink mafia?  Please answer this carefully if you do not want to be dinged for an ad hominem. If you can't name any specific person here (and I advise you not to), then knock it off.

Also you have made an implicit attach on oc.net as "queer friendly".  I have already mentioned that if we are not able to engage in a discussion in this section of the forum site in a more or less professional way, with some compassion, we turn this discussion toxic and what people of the opposing debate will see is how vile we react.  It doesn't matter how Orthodox you are.

If an LGBT person was coming with the same melodrama or a fallacy in the argument, I would also answer back as I have in this thread.  So your issue on objectivity in the debate is also unwarranted.  I am an equal opportunity criticizer.  I don't care whether one is my friend or enemy, heterodox or orthodox.  I am simply asking if you improve the tone of your arguments, this will be a better thread.
 
Top