Unfortunately Fr. Hans, you’re spot on.

Solicitor General Verrilli basically confirmed that chilling reality in his response to Justice Alito’s question on the tax exempt status of those institutions that oppose same sex marriage. . .

I never thought I would see this. Government institutions on the brink of turning society upside down to placate a micro minority. It’s been noted how small that minority is in this blog. What’s even more ridiculous is that fewer than 10% of that minority is going to exercise this right if given to them. Big Gay has done an amazing job in putting down any opposition to their agenda.

Brian,

As your brother will be (and is, right now) first in the Kingdom, ask him to pray for the likes of you and I who, God willing, will be bringing up the rear…

The problem comes when reading these stories afresh without the presuppositions and bias that inevitably exist from years of exposure. In a Christianized culture such as ours, this is difficult, but it seems an interesting and worthwhile endeavor nonetheless.

I absolutely agree with you here. In our culture, a “post-protestant modernist” culture, one is wise to ask “from where do the common ‘presuppositions’ and ‘bias’ come from, and what is their history and character?” Almost without exception, they come from a “sola scriptura” philosophy on how to approach Holy Scripture and understand its inner meaning and purpose. This philosophy has its start in the RC middle ages with scholasticism, so to a lessor extant our culture is also influenced by the counter-reformation philosophy (though RC themselves appear to be going through a process of leaving behind/reevaluating their own scholastic/counter reformation heritage).

Your original post is an excellent example of “sola scriptura” – you open your scripture, and assuming a good translation you can read and understand (you are after all a capable person of at least average intelligence) something about what you are reading and what it means. Sola scriptura rejects a key aspect of the scriptures themselves and the Patrisitic consensus – That Christ Himself has to “open the scriptures” (that is give them the meaning) for even His closest disciples. Sola scriptura (most famously perhaps) rejects the humility of the eunuch of Acts 8. Indeed, humility is a central weakness of the whole protestant project (and of course for modern man, who truly knows nothing of it as he has made a God of the SELF – its intellect, its desires, etc.).

One might say “But notice what Brian did, he used James 1 to “interpret” Genesis, so one need not look outside the SELF with his own bible in hand”. Except that is not really what Brian did, as this particular understanding or “interpetation” is informed and grounded in the Patristic consensus, which is grounded in Christs original “opening of the scriptures” (Luke, 24:45).

Certain protestant sects try to defend sola scriptura with a claim that Holy Scripture is absolutely “literal”, but this is not true. While it does have its literal and “historical” aspects, it is actually something all together different than this. I would not want to discourage the very worthwhile endeavor of understanding Holy Scripture, but to get past those very “presuppositions and bias” that you have, you will have to remember that Holy Scripture itself, by its very nature, does not allow for a “solo”, rational, self directed reading (it explicitly states this repeatedly). If you are not grounded in Tradition, then Scripture simply becomes a blank slate of sorts where one projects ones own bias into it. I am glad to see you reject the God of Genesis that results from such a reading…

Brian and Christopher, I really am aware of the narratives that seek to give meaning to the stories of Genesis. These narratives have been accepted for centuries (though they don’t all agree), so they carry a lot of weight.

I get that.

The problem comes when reading these stories afresh without the presuppositions and bias that inevitably exist from years of exposure. In a Christianized culture such as ours, this is difficult, but it seems an interesting and worthwhile endeavor nonetheless.

Mr. Bradshaw,

I, too, smiled inwardly as I read your post above. I find your cynicism, if not your knowledge of Orthodoxy, to be worthy of the utmost respect. Bad theology so-called (for which I do not fault you) is far less about faulty reasoning that it is about the idea that one can come to knowledge of the Truth (Who is a Person) through reason alone. One does not come to know a person – any person – through reasoning about them or even by reading what they may have written. My younger brother who was born with Downs Syndrome has more knowledge of the sort of which I am speaking than anyone I know, including me.

In the story referenced by Christopher we are told of the entrance of the Accuser, the Slanderer who attempts to bring man into darkness and death by calling into question the goodness of God in giving the commandment. In his malice and envy he seeks to destroy man’s unhindered communion in the eternal life of God by proposing the lie that God is not love, that His motives are selfish, that He wants to prevent us from being like Him. Many mistakenly believe that only we who have sinned must have faith in God in order to be ‘saved,’ but it must be understood that our first-formed ancestors also lived by grace through faith, which is to say that sharing in the eternal life of God (which primarily understood as a quality, not a duration) is grounded in a communion of personal trust. They, too, were faced with questions of belief and trust when they were tempted. Is God good? Can He be trusted? Is it true that His commandments are given from selfish motives? Is He trying to prevent us from having all that life has to offer? Here for the first time humanity is faced with these questions of personal faith in God. Satan begins by approaching the woman, questioning the very words of God. “Hath God said…?” At first, she replies with the truth over which the darkness of lies has no power. He then proceeds to deceive her with the impossible notion that creatures can have life in themselves, by themselves, saying, “ye shall be as gods…” – not as a gift of grace, not through union with the only truly Existing One, but by severing themselves from the only Life that is, or ever will be.

“And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat…”

“…every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust (saw that the tree was good for food), and enticed (and that it was pleasant to the eyes… to be desired to make one wise) . Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin (she took of the fruit and did eat): and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren. (Trust God alone, for) Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” (Seek good in God alone, and accept only His gifts, for His motives can always be trusted).

The mystery of freedom itself and what you describe as a supposed ‘free will’ of man that can only repeat itself and bring about an endless cycle of disaster is not something about which I will not comment directly for fear of misleading you with poorly chosen words. Suggested reading would include St. Maximos the Confessor. Maximos is dense reading, but you are obviously an intelligent man. What we generally call “free will” is not quite what it is commonly supposed it to be, nor are we doomed to the endless scenario you describe even though our freedom in the truest sense of the word is fully affirmed by our Creator.

James,

I have to be honest, I found this post of yours to bring a smile to my face. This is a bit at your expense I am afraid, as it reveals just how ignorant (I am using this term in it’s dictionary sense – not as a pejorative) you are of Classical Christian theology (i.e. Patristic theology), though you claim otherwise.

You do know a bit of several Protestant dichotomies, but that does not get one very far – particularly when they are processed through an “agnostic” and purely logical point of view – it does lead to exactly the “perplexing” Genesis that you know. When Good and Evil are logical assertions, then they lead to their own absurdity (and thus, you rightly reject them). The thing is, they are not what you think they are, thus you are rejecting an idealism/fantasy. I would not discourage you from this however, it is a good place to start to reject the “God’s Providence/Will/Goodness” vs. “Mans freedom to choose” dichotomy that is so at the heart of that shallow protestant understanding that is the inheritance of so many people in our culture.

You might like:

http://preachersinstitute.com/2012/09/19/a-christian-understanding-of-freedom/

As Archbishop Dimitri is talking to our culture yet coming from a completely different place than the Protestant rabbit hole of “free will vs predestination”…

If you are seriously interested in a Patristic understanding of Man, freedom, Good and Evil, etc. there are some seriously good Orthodox scholars out there that have written some very readable books that can be recommended…

Christopher asks: “Let’s be honest, it all truly started when our first mother gave that serpent the time of day – I mean really, why did she do that?”

Genesis is far more perplexing – and less straight-forward – than people acknowledge.

Scripture says that man did not know good from evil. What does this mean? We did not have an experience of evil or that we didn’t know the difference? If the latter, the placement of the tree sounds like an elaborate trap to me. You can’t very well choose rightly if you don’t know what “right” means.

Further, the first man and woman must have been created with the capacity for evil, no? If they had not, they wouldn’t have sinned in the first place. Yet, we are told that we will be eventually returned to this original “blameless” state. That’s no good, though, if that capacity will still exist. Someone will once again eat the apple and we’ll be back at square one only to start the whole miserable thing over again.

Ponder this too long and you will have to resign yourself to Calvin’s (and I think Luther’s) assertions that we have no free will and that God will ensure that His “chosen” won’t stray.

Fun stuff, theology is. I think this is why the seminaries have a reputation for putting out agnostics.

Brian says:

…The battle for the culture and marriage’s place…because we were largely asleep…Rather than cherish the gift we’ve been given, most have been busily pursuing other agendas… we shouldn’t be surprised if we lose the battle…the same ideological enemy that we have casually watched growing in strength for well over a century and to which we have thoughtlessly conceded ground at almost every turn…

This is all absolutely correct. In fact, it is much worse than this:

https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/glory2godforallthings/2014/07/15/tolkiens-long-defeat/

This long defeat did not start just a 100 years ago, one has to look at least to the whole protestant revolution and its project of atomization and subsequent secularization of man. Even that’s not really the beginning, as we can go back at least to when “the west” lost the patristic consensus starting at least with “the Franks” in the 8th century, really going back to St. Augustine. When you think about it, you can really point to when they hung our Lord on the Cross. Let’s be honest, it all truly started when our first mother gave that serpent the time of day – I mean really, why did she do that?

We all “suffer and die” as Fr. Alexander Atty of blessed memory used to remind us. This world has no where to go but down “… in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.” (2 Peter 3:10). There really is no point in trying to “fix” anything in this world, as its future is known to us and it in the end, quite literally, is “burned up”. Even the modernists agree with us on this point, as in their mythical cosmology the “universe” (as they understand it) either contracts and explodes again or dissipates into absolute zero.

And yet…

Christ is risen, truly risen, from the grave. And we rise each morning to the futility of it all, and make the sign of the Cross, and say “This is a day the Lord has made, let us rejoice and be glad in it”. We go into this long defeat joyfully, JOYFULLY, shouting “Hoseanna in the Highest!”

We can not cynically dwell on the sins and mistakes of the past, or of the present, or of the future, and say “what’s the point”? I could do the same to what Mr. Stankovich said originally:

“I emphatically state that I will not be with you. I will be customarily delivering collected soda cans, recyclables, warm blankets, taking blood pressure, washing wounds, suturing wounds, applying bandages, calling ambulances when appropriate, and simply being human with the loathsome of the earth”

To which I could say:

“Really Mr. Stankovich, what’s the point. We have been “waging a war on poverty” in one form or another for 5000 years. Even our Lord admitted that the poor we will always have with us. Surely now is the time to admit we have lost this battle…etc. etc.”

And Mr. Stankovich and everyone else would rightly point out the error in my cynical thinking.

We don’t do this however, we see this long defeat for what it is and with the power of Pascha in our hearts we “march on”, knowing that death is truly defeated…

Whether we care to admit it or not, Michael S. is correct about this: The battle for the culture and marriage’s place within it in matters of law was lost long ago, regardless of how the courts rules, because we were largely asleep, secure in the notion that such things could never happen. Rather than cherish the gift we’ve been given, most have been busily pursuing other agendas, both economic and ‘theological.’ The moment we conceded that marriage could be separated from childbearing, the legal rationale that heretofore existed for marriage as we know it ceased to exist, and this was the inevitable result.

While it can certainly be said that the Roman Catholics (as a nominal group, not as the truly faithful) have been equally as negligent in their surrender to secularism, the Protestants, Evangelicals, and yes even we Orthodox have largely participated in conceding the disconnect between marriage and childbearing out of an almost irrational disdain for all things that seem to smack of Rome. True, the Orthodox rightly do not view marriage in quite the same terms as the ‘official’ teaching of Rome. But in our misguided zeal to affirm that the purpose of marriage and the sexual union of husband and wife consists of more than procreation, we essentially wound up falsely asserting (against our own received Tradition) that marriage consisted of less, that marriage and procreation could be separated altogether.

Arguments, indeed very good arguments, can nevertheless be made that the traditional definition of marriage should be protected in law, but they pertain mainly to what is good for society. Unfortunately, questions of law, concerned as they are ‘rights’ and ‘equal protection,’ are rarely adjudicated with this in mind.

Certainly we should care (as I know Michael does), but we shouldn’t be surprised if we lose the battle when we have chosen to mobilize against the enemy only at this late date, the same ideological enemy that we have casually watched growing in strength for well over a century and to which we have thoughtlessly conceded ground at almost every turn. Even now, many Christians will concede many of the premises of the arguments made by militant progressives, if not the goals themselves. Should it shock us, then, when they gleefully storm the gates of our city?

If pointing out that we have no voice of moral authority to prevent being held captive by 1.8% of the population – according to the CDC – Christopher, don’t bitch to me. I heard it from Fr. Hans.

I listened to the arguments. Twice. I felt that both sides failed to address the concerns of the Court sufficiently. They were both asked pointed and direct questions, and both resorted to vague and/or emotive appeals (although I thought John Bursch seemed the most well-prepared).

I’m expecting a “slice the baby in two” sort of judgment that will please no one, but this is how I would rule (based on the arguments presented): the Court sees no Constitutional mandate requiring states to construct a new definition of marriage that includes gay couples, but it also sees no rational justification presented that would permit states to invalidate the legal marriages of couples from states where gay marriage is legal. I’m not saying this is without its own issues, but I’m going by the testimony presented.

I pretty much choose to turn my head…

Mr Stankovich,

I have been wondering at your “niggling disdain” (as I think it can be rightly described) for your fellow Orthodox brothers and sisters who, following the simple command of Christ and His Gospel, attempt (however imperfectly) to speak to the wider, secular culture – as well as to those Orthodox within our Churches who are otherwise seduced by the spirit of the age.

Recently, I have had reason to read a few essays by Fr. Schmemann, and I don’t think you can find support in him (or any genuine Orthodox writer/theologian) for the disdain you show to those who make (granted, imperfect – but then that is our existential situation as Orthodoxy teaches us is it not) efforts to witness to the culture. Indeed, he explicitly rejects the (frankly Protestant) opposition/dichotomy you are making between “theology” and any other aspect of the universe/humanity (in this case, the false dichotomy you are setting up between “theology” and “law”). I could quote him but you seem sufficiently familiar with his writings.

Now, I agree with you, there are an almost infinite number of ways we as Orthodox fall short, but this is all quite beside the point, because the Holy Apostle themselves fell short and yet our Lord commanded them to go and preach His Gospel. IF you are going to draw some sort of line, a defined level of piety, purity, and morality that Orthodox must attain to before we can speak to the culture then you should explicitly state what that is. You will of course then have to demonstrate why Holy Tradition has been wrong not to draw this line yet, and indeed why it has been wrong to explicitly deny this line should exist at all.

Also, you really should go and read what Justice Kennedy said in oral arguments – even he seems reluctant to redefine marriage in the radically utilitarian and narcissistic way that the New Anthropology wants him to…though I think he will in the end.

If natural marriage is culturally destroyed, the Rainbow Jihad will feel vindicated and the day after the ruling the soft persecution will begin. What the baker in Oregon suffered will become commonplace. Christianity will find itself in the cross-hairs much more often since it is the only cultural institution which will not grant its blessing to the reworking of the cultural structures.

The hatred and intolerance will now become manifest since it no longer needs to be hid.

As I noted in the previous thread, readers view our theological arguments spoken or submitted as amicus briefs as “fanatical” in the context of a court of law.

You are asserting caricature as fact and obviously have not read the briefs. Nor do you seem aware of the questions the Justices are asking in oral arguments.

Unfortunately, because everything is so ideological-driven, compromise seems near impossible. Why compromise if you see those who disagree as not just wrong, but evil (and I’m talking about this tendency on both sides)?

Well, this is exactly what religious liberty is for. Religious liberty as has been practiced in the American experiment up until the day before yesterday, recognized that not everything is subject to the democratic process (what you are calling “comprise”). In fact, the really important things can not be subject to the democratic process, which is to say democracy does not “work” for the really important things. This was recognized in several ways in our system of government: government was to be limited, certain aspects of life were “rights” and were not subject to “compromise”, etc.

This American experiment began breaking down quite early however – certainly with the civil war, accelerating in the 1930’s. Now that the Constitution is “living”, it is meaningless, thus we get the persecution of Christians and other religious minorities that we have today…