Thank you, Hieromonk Mark. I concur with your encouraging words. I also think of that illustration of the frog in the bird’s mouth with his hand squeezing the bird’s neck whilst he’s being devoured with the caption underneath that says, “DON’T GIVE UP!” I can get a bit negative at times myself with this negative information overload, but the reality in the end when all is said and done, is that Jesus Christ conquers! IC XC NI KA! The Holy Scriptures already tells us how it is going to end. Praise be to the Alpha and Omega and His Most Holy Apostolic Orthodox Catholic Church!!

Mack, we get the government for which the most people vote (maybe). We get the cadidates with the most money to spend and who cover up their past the best and appeal in the (generally) most demogogic manner and, frequently, use tax payer funds to essentially buy votes.

At least one recent Presidential election was decided by the “votes” of dead people in Chicago cemetaries (Kennedy vs Nixon).

Who knows for sure what the vote was in Florida (Bush vs Gore).

While it is a dead issue since we have unconstitutionally opted for a democracy over a representative republic, it is nevertheless important to retain the distinction. Democracy is a spectator sport fueled by passions and ideology that eventually leads to a complete breakdown of legitimate governmental functions and a return to tyranny.

The ultimate Bread and Circus.

Sure, it’s always a possibility Michael but if it were to happen, I don’t see it happening at all in the Antiochian jurisdiction. In many ways this jurisdiction is very healthy. I noticed this at the Clergy-Laity Convention in Chicago this summer. Many priests, in addition to their parish responsibilities, have other projects on the side (translations, writing, blogs, and so forth) and there wasn’t even a question about it. Very encouraging, actually.

Father, I was not suggesting that any bishop has asked you to shut down merely that it is a possibility. If a truly repressed dhimmi or avidly secular bishop were your bishop (which we don’t quite have) then you, or any priest, might face the prospect of obeying the orders of the bishop or his own conscience. Not an easy decision to make and one that I hope you are spared.

“What I think you’re suggesting is a Christian civil servant ought to be free to enforce or not enforce any law they choose so long as it’s done under the guise of sincere religious belief.”

Actually I’m not. There are things that predate all forms of governments, such as marriages and parental relationships and there are other things that exist only with governments, such as common infrastructure, trash delivery, police forces, etc. This distinction needs to be made. In areas that are derived by governments, they made it, so they can make the rules and any civil servant that wants to pick and choose what he wants to enforce may rightfully be dismissed. But in the pre-government areas, the only reason government can legislate is precisely because it helps the government-derived areas work and it is only because “community standards” allow for such consensus to be made. As such conscious clauses are necessary precisely because community standards change. Take worship as an example. If there are a high percentage of Christians in an area “community standards” might define that only Christian worship is allowed. It’s similarly the case in a Muslim reason. But no government has the authority to legislate either “community standard” without providing conscious exceptions.

Anil: Is a Christian acting on behalf of the government morally obligated to disobey an unjust command of that same government when the opportunity presents itself? Further, what constitutes an unjust law which, in your mind, should allow for “opting out”, as you suggest? Do the parameters change depending on the gravity of the situation?

Complicating this question is whether a Christian is bound to obey the laws of the government which we acknowledge is ordained by God in this life as a means of establishing order in a sinful world. (Romans 13:3-4)

What I think you’re suggesting is a Christian civil servant ought to be free to enforce or not enforce any law they choose so long as it’s done under the guise of sincere religious belief. (Wasn’t this a criticism of Obama when he refused to enforce DOMA, by the way?) The problem is that religious beliefs differ, often wildly. Church members in Gulnare Free Will Baptist Church in Pike County, Kentucky, recently voted to ban interracial marriage and dating. Wrong-headed and unbiblical as those opinions may be, I’m unwilling to suggest these believers didn’t actually believe that this opinion reflected God’s will on the matter. Were one of those members a town clerk, should they have been free to “opt out” of granting a civil marriage license to the couple they ousted?

Thankfully, I work in a field where there is virtually no opportunity for these types of morally ambiguous situations to present themselves, but I find the topic intriguing, anyhow.

Michael, no bishop has ever asked me to shut anything down, not even intimated it. One bishop was threatened by my facility with internet communications but that was due more to his ignorance of the internet than anything else. He accused me of broadcasting a letter critical of him (something I would never do) because “you have a website and know all about the internet.” It took my best Byzantinesque appellations to dissuade him but I don’t think he was ever really convinced.

Chris so the question before us then is where did Anne Rodgers at the Post Gazette get the idea Met. Savas has a doctorate for he November 5th Article?

Hmmmmm…….

From a Catholic perspective it comes down to natural law.

It’s easy to explain to an objective atheist how gay marriages are objectively disordered and lead to the destruction of society, but without revelation, it’s not clear that interfaith marriages are (at least any more so than marriages between two people who have drastically different life goals). Historically and genetically no culture before our modern age has ever considered gay marriages, and those that allowed widespread non-state acknowledged and frowned upon but allowed gay unions fell apart quickly. Also polygamy and child brides are common in many cultures, yet both are taboo for politicians and judges and feminists, while the other is considered enlightened. This defies logic. Logically (without revelation), you can reject both or accept both, but you cannot accept gay marriage and deny either polygamy or child brides.

But in any case, if you wish to truly call yourself a tolerant culture, you must allow town clerks to reject marrying on the conscious grounds you suggest, or even if in good conscious, the town clerk believes that the marriage will be damaging to one or both parties. The key reason for this is that either the town clerk is either just a contract registrar or you are trying to register something with a concept that existed before the state and lawyers even existed (usually a religious concept). If the former, then any legal civil contract between any number or kind of people must be registered (e.g. people can have pets in their wills whether it is prudent or not) . If the later, you cannot avoid conscious exemptions and neither the state nor lawyers can pretend that one is the same as the other.

Andrew, Bishop Savas does not have a doctorate from Oxford. He only took a few courses at Oxford and never completed any kind of degree there.

He [Bishop Savas] served as the pastoral assistant at Holy Trinity/St. Nicholas in Cincinnati, Ohio from 1985-87 before resuming his academic studies at Oxford University, England, from 1987 until 1994, under the supervision of then Bishop Kallistos (Ware) of Diokleia, researching texts and persons of spiritual significance for the histoy of early Byzantine monasticism.
http://www.goarch.org/news/metsavaselection-11032011

Fr. Mark, thank you for the admonition. I am sure that I am too pessimistic at timesm and know that I need to do a far better job tending to the basics of my own life of faith. The only part of your statement to which I would disagree is that the bishops will follow. Its not up to the bishops to follow or the laity to lead.

I think that very unlikely. I think it much more likely that the Church will be split into a official church and a Church of those who acutally follow your directions. I don’t think the ethno-centric dhimmi’s, the secularist apostates and those who are living in a Chrisitan manner can long co-exist.

The Church, probably consisting of those who now call themselves Orthodox, Catholic and Proestant, will gather around the true bishops. The cathedrals with their glorious icons will not be in the hands of those who seek Christ. We will all (I pray that it does not come in my time) be in the desert.

Fr. Hans, if your bishop told you tonight to shut down your web site, you would be required to shut it down so you are only as free to speak out as you bishop allows. To not obey him would be a really tough line to cross. The point is that to the extent that we have dhimmi, secularist bishops, we are dhimmi and secularist at least to some degree. The dhimmi attitude has sunk deeply into the sinews of the the Church. Even in the unlikely event that we become really autocephalus, it will take generations before it begins to fade.