Comments on: Orthodox Priest: Thieves Hijacking the Language of the Christian Moral Tradition

By: Fr. Johannes Jacobse

Fr. Johannes Jacobse — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 01:27:15 +0000

Robz, not really sure how you points relate to the article. There is no mention of “rebellious children” or authentic moral striving. You seem to be positing good motives as a response to my thesis that, frankly, has nothing to do with my argument. In fact, some of the people you describe may be confused because of the misuse of the language I described. I never said the confused were insincere, just confused.

By: RobZ

RobZ — Mon, 04 Oct 2010 21:51:18 +0000

In reply to Fr. Johannes Jacobse. I wasn't referring to any specific issue, honestly. While Orthodox and RCC moral theology have been generally quite consistent throughout the centuries, it has not been quite the same for our Protestant friends (liberal or conservative). It's not simply a matter of them chucking all of Scripture and their past traditions as irrelevant: rather, because the individual believer is ultimately the arbiter of the meaning of Scripture (though they won't often admit this), they have felt free to recast various Scriptural mandates in light of their own understanding of morality (which often reflects the culture they live in). A practical example: while divorce is clearly condemned in Scripture (with one exception), many believers undoubtedly found it to be in many cases a moral necessity, perhaps because of neglect, alcoholism or drug abuse, psychological problems or even physical abuse.* When faced with such situations, it's not surprising that many will appeal to the notion of what is "best" for the kids (or them), for their physical health or what is necessary for their own sanity. My point is that while you might call it a redefinition of sin, I don't see a sense of malice in it that some might. Why does this distinction matter? I think the Church is more likely to be successful in engaging people if it acknowledges that there could be a moral striving on their part, not that they are simply rebellious children looking to throw out the window all moral considerations (not that such people don't exist, of course). * Al Mohler takes note of some of this in his latest article:

While [no-fault divorce] laws have been devastating to families (and especially to children), Smith makes a compelling case that evangelicals began their accommodation to divorce even before those laws took effect. No fault divorce laws simply reflected an acknowledgment of what had already taken place. As he explains, American evangelicals, along with other Christians, began to shift opinion on divorce when divorce became more common and when it hit close to home.

By: Thieves Hijacking the Language of the Christian Moral Tradition | OrthodoxNet.com Blog

Mon, 04 Oct 2010 19:06:37 +0000

[…] AOI and Catholic […]

By: George Michalopulos

George Michalopulos — Mon, 04 Oct 2010 16:06:08 +0000

In reply to Fr. Johannes Jacobse. Homosexual "marriage" is an oxymoron. On the order of kosher pork or humane cannabilism.

By: Fr. Johannes Jacobse

Fr. Johannes Jacobse — Mon, 04 Oct 2010 14:17:48 +0000

Homosexual “marriage” is not a redefinition but merely a “reprioritization”?

By: RobZ

RobZ — Mon, 04 Oct 2010 11:12:28 +0000

I’m not sure it’s always a “redefinition” so much as a reprioritization of the same values. Many will simply place a greater emphasis on some attributes of goodness than on others: for example, one sees this in the total opposition to the death penalty held by some some who stress the importance of mercy over justice. It’s not that their opposition is in complete disregard of all moral traditions, but their outlook as a whole may lack the refinement of a more developed moral intellect in terms of being able to weigh various moral goods.