But yes, your point is well-taken. Yet another reason I don’t expect anything worthwhile coming out of the EA as presently constructed. The doctrinal differences and moral discipline between some of the jurisdictions are vast and will only grow bigger in time. I just don’t see a worldly GOA in Chicago or one such Arab parish in Detroit submitting to a convert bishop from the OCA or a traditionalist from ROCOR. Ain’t gonna happen, not in our lifetimes. (Of course, I would love to be proven wrong, but as we recently saw from Damascus, my thesis of the inability of an American Church to form under the present regime of foreign entanglements is proven –sadly–yet again.)
]]>*(Feminism had a large role in this by redefining the feminine as barren and promiscuous, alongside the Playboy philosophy on the male end of the equation. Steinem, Freidan, and crew were soul-mates with Heffner. Many people bought into the philosophy, particularly cultural gatekeepers.)
See: Book Review: “The Politics of Deviance” by Anne Hendershott.
]]>… I see. Thank you Father.
The truth was spoken gently. His words may seem shocking, even offensive, but they can be viewed as a result of a logical thinking process.
The same one Holy Spirit cannot be acting in different denominations and inspiring them to develop different theologies and different morals. Political leaders also mix a little of the Holy Spirit’s inspired teachings with suggestions of false spirits to meet their own needs. The spirit inspiring the mainstream media pro-gay/lesbian marriage propaganda can’t be the Holy Spirit.
Eliot, the reason is that the cultural prejudices against people who hold to conservative (traditional) morality runs very deep. It is hard to penetrate the prejudices if the speaker comes from the same neighborhood (a prophet has no honor in his own country). That’s changing somewhat, but those who hold to those prejudices hold them tenaciously. On the other hand, having someone speak from a place where we don’t even know what the neighborhood look like opens a space for hearing what he has to say. Fr. Hardun discerned this, as did Dr. Bouteneff hence his distinction.
]]>… if his same words were addressed by ” American born, Western-educated theologian, they would be criticized for ignoring crucial subtleties, such as what genuinely constitutes “Paganism,” perhaps”.
Why is that?
]]>