Yet Another Gay Marriage Thread

[Heorhij]

But our perception is clouded.

Thus, we rely on the teachings of the Church!

But the Church is US, you and me...

 

[witega]

I understand that one must often say (and devoutly hope) that 'God knows better'. And you can strongly discipline yourself to try your hardest to examine your beliefs. But I do not understand how anyone can brainwash themselves into believing something they do not.

There are those things in faith that we accept knowing we cannot understand them, knowing that they simply cannot be completely comprehended by our reason. Then there are those things that are to do with morality, which are not inherently irrational. We are taught that it is wrong to murder; we (I hope!) accept this as something that is not only doctrine, but also something we can rationally and intuitively agree with. We are also taught, when someone we love dies or something terrible happens, that we do not and cannot let our own natural, sorrowful reactions outweigh our faith that God acts for the best.

But here, we are really being asked to accept the limitations of our own knowledge. That's easy. What I do not think is possible, is to truly eradicate a belief in one thing from your mind and replace it with the opposite. You might do it over time, by reason, but you can't just will it to happen.

I think the division you are making is somewhat artificial. Yes, there are things we will never understand (because of our limited, creaturely nature) and things we can, at least in theory, understand and its important to recognize when things fall into the first category. At the same time, it is the teaching of the Church that human nature is fallen and broken. Our will and our desires our corrupt, such that we desire things that are not good for us, and even when we desire to do good, our will is overcome by other desires and we do wrong. But a further consequence of the Fall, which is not as generally recognized, is that our intellect is also fallen and corrupt. We think things are a good idea when they are not. We think things make sense when they do not. There are human societies (fewer now, but their existence is well documented) where cannibalism or human sacrifice were considered completely rational and moral behaviors.

We look at a society like the Aztecs and are appalled. But based on what they knew, and the entire complex of beliefs and presuppositions their society had built up over time, the sacrifice of thousands of people was a perfectly rational behavior. We are not immune to this. If one does not believe the fetus is an actual human being, it makes sense (or is at the least reasonably arguable) to prioritize the rights of the woman over her body over the potential of any particular clot of cells inside her. Our societies come with their own inbuilt assumptions, mistaken perceptions, and biases which make what is 'perfectly obvious and reasonable belief' to you, decidedly questionable to me.

Thus submission to God (through the Church) involves a submission of not only the will but also of the intellect. I don't mean you turn off the intellect. But it does mean you do not presume that your intellect, your logical conclusions, your 'reasonable' beliefs, are superior (or even necessarily equal) to the intellect, logical conclusions and reasonable beliefs that the Holy Fathers and Mothers which preceded us where led into by the Holy Spirit.

I did not, btw, mean to imply that one can simply will the eradication of a belief. However, one can will to work towards that. One can by will, decide that one is simply not going to actively push back against the Church. One can pray for guidance--instead of praying that others see your point or that you are given the words to convince them, pray that you can be led to an understanding. One can repent (I though Thoughtful's priest was very wise).



Or, just to use a completely separate example: We know that you are in a long-term, committed relationship. This may well have already happened. If it hasn't, then I can guarantee you it will. At some point, you are going to have to decide that you believe your significant other, or you don't. That decision may be influenced by what has happened in the past, by the specific circumstances, etc. But in the end, that faith and trust will be a *decision* made by your will in the absence of enough information for it to be made simply by your intellect.

 

[Liz]

Thus submission to God (through the Church) involves a submission of not only the will but also of the intellect. I don't mean you turn off the intellect. But it does mean you do not presume that your intellect, your logical conclusions, your 'reasonable' beliefs, are superior (or even necessarily equal) to the intellect, logical conclusions and reasonable beliefs that the Holy Fathers and Mothers which preceded us where led into by the Holy Spirit.

I did not, btw, mean to imply that one can simply will the eradication of a belief. However, one can will to work towards that. One can by will, decide that one is simply not going to actively push back against the Church. One can pray for guidance--instead of praying that others see your point or that you are given the words to convince them, pray that you can be led to an understanding. One can repent (I though Thoughtful's priest was very wise).



Or, just to use a completely separate example: We know that you are in a long-term, committed relationship. This may well have already happened. If it hasn't, then I can guarantee you it will. At some point, you are going to have to decide that you believe your significant other, or you don't. That decision may be influenced by what has happened in the past, by the specific circumstances, etc. But in the end, that faith and trust will be a *decision* made by your will in the absence of enough information for it to be made simply by your intellect.

Thanks for replying, what you say is useful. I've quoted only some of it, just because threads get so long if we always quote everything. The point you make about the intellect is very good. But what I am asking is, how do we do this? So I am glad to find you saying that this is a matter for prayer. I pray, for example, that my own Communion will come to a better agreement amongst her members. I don't know how this will happen - and it may be that my own cherished views will be on the losing side - but I nevertheless pray for it.

Can I ask you to explain what you meant about my relationship? I didn't quite understand that and I'd like to know what you were saying.

God bless,

Liz

 

[ozgeorge]

Apokatastasis is a heresy condemned by the Church on the 5th Ecumenical Council.

There is some dispute about this:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xii.viii.html

 

[ialmisry]

IMHO, we need to love sinners and remember that we too are sinners, but let's not accept their sins.

As far as you becoming an Orthodox Christian. The Church is the One, Holy, and Catholic----Catholic meaning Universal and accpeting all who will accept Her.

However, you either believe that the the Church teaches TRUTH or NOT. We may not understand and agree with what the Church teaches, but if we believe it is TRUTH, then we must submit ourselves to those teachings and remember even the Apostle Peter was rebuked for not understanding Christ's mission and teachings, "Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. (Matthew 16:23)"

The Orthodox Church is not one of the thousands of Protestant denominations or a social club that we join membership in solely because it makes us fell happy, or because we enjoyed glittering censors, incense and beautiful vestments. No, Orthodoxy is not a set of doctrines and otherworldly services, Orthodoxy is life itself and it is something that is lived. When we are baptised and brought into the Church Militant we die to ourselves and live in Christ and "And He (Christ) is the of the body, the church (Col.1:18)." Alas, we must believe the Church as all TRUTH becuase the Church is Christ and we must follow Christ and his Church as commanded, "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself (and his will), and take up his cross, and follow me. (Matthew 16:24)"

I have wondered about this before. Without wanting someone to profess false belief, or to exert some kind of mental censorship on his or her own beliefs, how is a person who believes that the Orthodox Church is Truth but does not believe in one of her doctrines meant to proceed? It's all very well to say that a person must submit to the Church's teaching. And I accept that submission is possible when it applies to negative aspects (don't get into a homosexual relationship, for example), but how is it possible to force yourself into believing something you don't hold true?

When I converted I didn't believe in the Assumption of Mary, but went along anyway because it wasn't dogma.  It wasn't until I was in the Church that it made sense.  Certain things are not expressed in the rite of convertion, perhaps because until you are in the Church, there is no reason to go into them.

It's all very well to say that a person must submit to the Church's teaching. And I accept that submission is possible when it applies to negative aspects (don't get into a homosexual relationship, for example), but how is it possible to force yourself into believing something you don't hold true?

Pray... "with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief." (Mark 9:24)

Yeah, like that.

In my opinion (and that is all it is... my opinion since I'm not a clergy person nor have authority outside of what an Orthodox lay person may possess), it seems to me that you have established with your statement above, a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory. You say that you believe the Orthodox Church to be the... Church. But then you turn around and declare what you happen to believe. The issue is this: the Church and the Church alone has the authority to determine right belief, not the individual. When individuals find themselves at odds with Church teaching, then it is vital that they realign their thinking with what the Church teaches and not expect the Church to accommodate them. St Paul tells us that the Church (not the individual) is the pillar and foundation of truth. Thus, if the Church teaches that homosexual union is wrong (and it does), then it is a given that the individual must recognize that his belief, no matter how cherished and heartfelt it might be, is in error.

In short, you cannot come into the Church on your terms. You do not presume to sit in judgment upon the Church. In fact, the Church judges us and not the other way around. I know it's not a particularly popular or politically correct position to voice in this day and age, but the Church is the Truth and has not deviated from that position over two millennium.

I appreciated this post.  It made me think of a question I asked our priest during the inquirer's class this past week.  I asked how a former Protestant with no previous interest in (and in fact probably a negative reaction toward) the Theotokos gets over this resistance.  I was probably looking for something to think about, some Scriptures to look at (again), something that would change the way I thought.

His simple answer was, "Repent." There's nothing to figure out, and nothing to reconcile.  Just repent of an incorrect belief and submit to what the church teaches.  So to me that means just start honoring her, start bowing and crossing at the appropriate time in prayers, start including "Most holy Theotokos save us" in my prayers, etc.

I can only attest that even less worked for me. Getting into the life of the Church, it only made sense after a while.

 

[ialmisry]

You either accept the Church as a whole or you don't.

Are you sure, Maureen?

Christ established ONE Church body; either Orthodoxy is the true Church or it is not. There is no maybe.

Of course. But the views of the Church on matters of ethics and morals DO change. Again, just a couple of centuries ago it was UNTHINKABLE for a person who committed suicide to get an Orthodox burial. And it was a common understanding of everyone in the Church that fathers give their daughters in marriage. And a lot of Fathers wrote and preached that if you are having sex with your spouse without aiming at producing a baby, you are perverted and do abomination. (I can find you quotes.)

And there is nothing in the Nicene-Constantinople Creed about gay marriage. Nor there is much about gay marriage in the Bible.

LOL. I'd say there is nothing in the Bible about gay marriage, but lots on gay sex.

 

[Clancy Boy]

Thank you all for the helpful and informative posts.

Unfortunately I don't think anything is as simple or black-and-white as 'you either believe that the Church teaches TRUTH or NOT.'

No, it's as simple as 'you believe what the church teaches because it is truth.' 

 

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

Coming into Orthodoxy means humbling ourselves before infinite truths, even if those truths offend our own reasoning or our own subjective interpretations of God or the Bible.

I like women. I feel that it is almost impossible not to desire other attractive women that are not my wife. My own experiences, feelings, and reasoning would lead me to believe that if God exists, then He wouldn't create me with these sensual desires and subsequently ask me to forsake them. To do so would seem cruel and even sadistic.

But I am not God, and I dare not try to reduce Almighty God to the idol of my own mortal understanding. All the problems in the world ultimately stem from people living according to their own ideas rather than uniting in conformity to the teachings and Tradition of Christ and His Church.

No convert to Orthodoxy accepts everything the Church teaches with ease. But we prostrate our whole selves before Infinite Mystery, and defer to the Divine. And in this, there is the greatest liberation.

Peace to you my friend.

Selam

 

[Alveus Lacuna]

And I accept that submission is possible when it applies to negative aspects (don't get into a homosexual relationship, for example), but how is it possible to force yourself into believing something you don't hold true?

I do it.  I find the ever-virginity of the Theotokos difficult to swallow on historical and scriptural grounds, but I force myself to believe it because it is dogma.

 

[ms.hoorah]

I have wondered about this before. Without wanting someone to profess false belief, or to exert some kind of mental censorship on his or her own beliefs, how is a person who believes that the Orthodox Church is Truth but does not believe in one of her doctrines meant to proceed? It's all very well to say that a person must submit to the Church's teaching. And I accept that submission is possible when it applies to negative aspects (don't get into a homosexual relationship, for example), but how is it possible to force yourself into believing something you don't hold true?

If one values Jesus and His Saints' great spiritual wisdom/holiness and understands that they believed in the Church's truths, one will more easily accept the Church's beliefs.  (I cannot comprehend nanochemisty technology, but I believe in the concept because there are brilliant scientists, who are devoting their entire reputations/careers, to this technology.)

 

[Feanor]

I just came back from my first experience at an Orthodox church.

It was an Antiochian Orthodox Church. I arrived as they were beginning the Matins, an hour before the Divine Liturgy. The church was beautiful: the walls covered in colourful icons, elegant gold Arabic script above each painting and on the walls, stained glass windows, and candles everywhere. In the corner a small group of people in black robes stood around a 4ft-high marble pillar/table upon which there were several professional-quality microphones, chanting in a mixture of Arabic and English. Research had told me to expect no seats - that Orthodox worship was carried out while standing, and that people moved around the room and worshipped personally throughout the whole service. This wasn't the case at this church - there were rows of pews. When I entered there was no immediate response from anyone, which calmed me considerably - I had been expecting 'go away, you're too early,' or 'what are you doing here?' in the back of my mind, so it was a relief that I wasn't immediately chased out for not being an Arab.

I took a seat in one of the pews towards the back of the room. It was my plan to just pray silently until the Liturgy, and then just watch everyone else and follow what they did. I sat in silence for a few minutes before a nun (I later found out that she is a lecturer on Orthodox Theology for the University of Melbourne... wow!) greeted me and asked 'are you an Orthodox Christian?'
I said, 'No, I'm a former Roman Catholic, but very interested in Orthodoxy.' She handed me two booklets, with English on the left page and Arabic on the right. They were scripts for the chanting and prayers for the Matins and Liturgy. She told me to follow the chanting in the booklet, and join in if I wished to. Because the Matins and Liturgy were in both English and Arabic it was very difficult to follow in the book - a few lines would be read in English, and the next few lines in Arabic, changing back-and-forth. I got lost several times. A girl sat next to me and helped me throughout the service by explaining what to do, where we were up to in the booklet, etc.

The Matins and the Liturgy were both incredibly beautiful. The chanting in English and Arabic was beautiful and the smell of incense was a delight. I appreciated the fact that if I wasn't so distracted by trying to follow the chanting in the booklet, I would easily be able to enter into a higher state of consciousness through the atmosphere generated by these sensory wonders. By doing so, I could commune with God and feel his presence. Although it was impossible for me to do so this time, I figure that if I can get used to the format of the Liturgy and things like when to sit down, when to stand, when to recite the Nicene Creed or the Lord's Prayer etc., so that I wont be distracted by trying too hard to follow,  I could utilise this environment for personal meditation with God, in addition to the prayers of the Liturgy.

During the Liturgy everyone sat down, except during Bible readings and some other parts. Some of the parishoners in the pews sung along with the choir, others sat/stood in silence; some reading along with the booklet, others not. People were not conducting private conversations or private prayers, however, as I'd read that they would.

The only hesitation I have about this church is that I feel a bit isolated due to my ethnicity. There are a few converts, who (like all converts) had a genuine interest in spirituality and theology, and I had some great conversations with them afterwards. These include the nun, who was formerly an Anglican presbytera, who now teaches theology professionally and lives in a convent as the Superior. I hear she's the only nun in her convent, though. Perhaps the only Antiochian Orthodox nun in Melbourne, or even Australia, but I'm not sure. There's also a former Pentacostal minister, who is an extremely nice man and very interesting to talk to. When he converted, his family did also, but they are just good kids who participate but aren't interested in studying and discussing spirituality and theology outside of Church. There's also an Asian couple who are in the choir; I didn't talk to them but don't doubt that I will. The rest are Arabs who prefer to converse amongst themselves in Arabic. They are 'cradle Orthodox' who stay after the service to chat amongst their ethnic community, not to discuss theology.

It was an awesome experience, and I'll definately be back next week, and I look forward to becoming part of this community. How long should I wait before I request to be Baptised? Also, how does Baptism occur? - Does it form part of the Sunday service, or is a seperate private service organised for it?

 

[Friul]

Great to hear that you had such a positive experience!

Whenever you have the chance, I would speak with the Priest privately.  He will get a better sense of you, and you of him.  As you continue your journey, either though private meetings or classes (depends on the parish), your Priest will inform you about entrance into the Orthodox Church.  How, when, etc.  Depending on the jurisdiction, Bishop, Priest, and your personal spiritual state, the Catechumante can last from multiple months to multiple years.

 

[Asteriktos]

It was an awesome experience, and I'll definately be back next week, and I look forward to becoming part of this community. How long should I wait before I request to be Baptised? Also, how does Baptism occur? - Does it form part of the Sunday service, or is a seperate private service organised for it?

As Nebelpfade mentioned, the length of your catechumenate will depend on various factors. I've heard of everything from a couple months to a few years. My own time as a catechumen was about five months. Regarding being received, I've seen a number of different practices. I seem to remember a baptism on a Saturday, and I also was Chrismated on a Saturday to be brought into the Church. On the other hand, both my infant daughters were brought into the Orthodox Church on a Sunday after Liturgy.

 

[Jetavan]

Furthermore, I believe strongly in the infinity of God’s love, and that it is impossible for God to abandon any soul, no matter how wicked or faithless, for all eternity. I believe that through God’s love all beings shall eventually repent and reconcile and all creation shall one day exist in perfect harmony. Of course, there will be punishment, justice, etc, as part of a long spiritual journey that transcends mortal life, but it will all eventually lead to an incredible harmony for all creation. I believe this is called apocatostasis.

No, that's technically not apokatastasis. That's generic universalism. Apokatastasis is a specific type of universal salvation.

Even if we assume that Origen's apokatastasis was condemned at the 5th Ecumenical Council, Origen's apokatastasis was characterized by distinctive ideas, such as that the original state of humans as non-physically embodied spirits existing in communion with God, and the ultimate return of all such spirits back to communion with God. That's a literal "apokatastasis", or "restoration to one's previous condition".

Universalism, however, is simply the belief, or hope, that all will, or may, be saved. Universalism itself is not necessarily a "restoration to one's previous condition"; it might mean entering an even greater state of existence than the one I knew before. I might fall from a sail-boat, and then be saved from drowning by the captain of a yacht, who then lets me live on her yacht for a few days. In such a case, my being saved did not mean I was simply restored to where I was before (on a sailboat); I was actually given an even greater gift (living on a yacht).

Other Christian theologians, besides Origen, have taught some version of Universalism, different in various ways from Origen's distinctive version. Universalism as a hope for the salvation of all, has never, ever been condemned.

 

[Heorhij]

You either accept the Church as a whole or you don't.

Are you sure, Maureen?

Christ established ONE Church body; either Orthodoxy is the true Church or it is not. There is no maybe.

Of course. But the views of the Church on matters of ethics and morals DO change. Again, just a couple of centuries ago it was UNTHINKABLE for a person who committed suicide to get an Orthodox burial. And it was a common understanding of everyone in the Church that fathers give their daughters in marriage. And a lot of Fathers wrote and preached that if you are having sex with your spouse without aiming at producing a baby, you are perverted and do abomination. (I can find you quotes.)

And there is nothing in the Nicene-Constantinople Creed about gay marriage. Nor there is much about gay marriage in the Bible.

LOL. I'd say there is nothing in the Bible about gay marriage, but lots on gay sex.

Exactly. Similarly there is nothing in the Bible about automobiles, which does not mean that automobiles are evil. In the time when the Biblical canon was compiled, people could not yet have conceived of gay marriage. They saw gay sex outside of what they understood marriage was, and rightly judged it bad. We are different now, AFAIK. Our understanding of human sexuality, gender identity is different. Certainly we have a choice to reject all that and stick to "one man, one woman" paradigm, but is that a good thing to do? Don't we thus spit in the face, humiliate, dehumanize millions and millions of our homosexual brothers and sisters, impose on them something that as few of them can bear (i.e. lifelong chastity) as as few of us heterosexuals can bear?

 

[mountainman]

where does our different understanding of sexuality come from, and why should it trump the views held by  those in the church who have come before us?  My opinion is that our ideas of gender identity are different, but not in a progressive way but a digressive way.  As a culture, americans and by extension much of the world is "progressively" moving farther and farther away from what is natural to the human nature.  To lose the critical distinctions between the genders would severely undermine the christian faith. 

 

[Jetavan]

Don't we thus spit in the face, humiliate, dehumanize millions and millions of our homosexual brothers and sisters, impose on them something that as few of them can bear (i.e. lifelong chastity) as as few of us heterosexuals can bear?

Uh, life-long chastity is what heterosexual marriage is all about. If you mean "celibacy", then that's a different issue.

 

[Asteriktos]

I wasn't sure about that usage of the word either, but when I checked Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary and Dictionary.com I found that it can mean both "refraining from sexual intercourse that is regarded as contrary to morality or religion" and "not engaging in sexual relations".

 

[Heorhij]

Don't we thus spit in the face, humiliate, dehumanize millions and millions of our homosexual brothers and sisters, impose on them something that as few of them can bear (i.e. lifelong chastity) as as few of us heterosexuals can bear?

Uh, life-long chastity is what heterosexual marriage is all about. If you mean "celibacy", then that's a different issue.

Yes, of course, lifelong celibacy. Sorry, English is not my first language.

 

[Heorhij]

where does our different understanding of sexuality come from,

Science.

and why should it trump the views held by  those in the church who have come before us?

Not quite "trump" but, rather, complement, extend. The Fathers lived when science as such did not exist. They could not have possibly conceived that there exist things like genes, neurotransmitters, determination of sexuality in the brain, etc. Also, back in the centuries where the currently held views of the Church on marriage were formed, heterosexual mariage was to a very large extent a commercial venture: fathers "owned" their daughters and "gave" them in marriage; daughters had no status of their own, no rights, no property. Men "took" these girls to father children with them - which, again, was a common cultural thing of those times. So marriage was "one man, one woman" deal. Homosexual sex was by necessity (given the cultural and economical considerations) viewed as extramarital and therefore sinful. Not so now: there hardly exists an economical necessity for fathers to "give" their daughters in marriage and for bridegrooms to enter an essential socioeconomical contract by "taking" them; girls and women are now fully human with all the rights to choose whom THEY want or not want to marry; people are not under great economic pressure to fave children who will take care of them when they get old, etc. etc. etc. So, the world moves away from the "one man- one woman" paradigm. Of course, the Church is not "of" this world and is not under any obliogation to obey every single new trend in the world. Yet, including the small minority of people who are really homosexual and who can have lifelong monogamous relationships only with the persons of their own gender would be, I believe, a good, truly LOVING thing to do.