Elijah,

Rich’s line of thought, like all pseudo-theological reasoning, is deeply flawed; and Vladimir Lossky would be horrified to see his work distorted in this way.

We cannot exceed (a better word would be “transcend”) nature apart from living in accordance with it. The Apostles, every Church Father, and Lossky himself taught that the keeping of the commandments is living in accordance with nature, as well as the prerequisite and only path to transcending it by grace. It is precisely not living according to nature subjects us to its limits. It is why God gave us the commandments. He wants us to be all that He created us to be, to be truly happy/blessed by being fully who we are. To sin is precisely to fail to be who we are according to nature. And though we are not subject to the law it nevertheless remains to reveal sin to be sin. “Do not think that I came to abolish the law…” “Do we therefore nullify the law through faith…? On the contrary; we establish the law.”

You are mistaken if you assume that by directing you away from such pseudo-theological reasoning by reason of its source I am engaging in ad hominem. Bryce makes it quite clear that he considers himself among the few ‘cutting edge’ theologians who will reveal to the Church what has (supposedly) been hidden from our eyes for over two millennia. He writes that change (acceptance of active homosexuality as a good gift of God) in the Orthodox Church is “glacially slow” and may not occur in his lifetime but that his ‘theological’ work is intended to bring it about.

Saint Jude speaks of such people.

“Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ… They are clouds without water, carried about by the winds; late autumn trees without fruit, twice dead, pulled up by the roots; raging waves of the sea, foaming up their own shame.”

Was the apostle engaging in ad hominem?

And what does the Apostle John, the theologian par excellence, tell us?

“Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness. And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin. Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him. Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God. In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother.”

My question, therefore, to you is this. If you accept the Church’s teaching as you say (and I believe you) and you are resolved to submit yourself to her (and here again, I believe you), what profit do you expect to find in sources that are manifestly not of the Church?

Elijah,

Forgive me. I am a bit short of time, so my reply will be brief.

When it comes to person/nature, there is no such thing as “human nature” in the way many speak of it. Human nature has no existence apart from specific human persons. Brian and Elijah and Sally (and Christ) all share human nature, but it doesn’t exist apart from real, concrete, utterly unique persons with names, faces, and personal wills. This is important to bear in mind when considering theological or anthropological matters of any sort.

I am less familiar with Rich’s portion of the book; but once again, I know who he is and have read through much of his other work. I also know what he continues to do (apparently without remorse) despite his outward “conversion” to Orthodoxy and where he, like Ms. McDowell, would like to lead you and the Orthodox Church. In this sense, my previous comment is equally applicable to him.

You mustn’t think that because I say this I believe they are inherently “bad people” or even that much of what they say isn’t true. They are merely deluded, as most of us are at points in our lives. And what is the cause of all delusions? Sin. They think the Church has the power to change reality itself which is something she cannot do even if she had the will to do so. Reality (which is what the Scriptures and the Church mean by the word “truth”) is simply what is, and what is is grounded in the Holy Trinity who is, in the words of Saint Basil’s Liturgy, “The only truly existing.”

I believe these last two sentences could also serve as an answer to your last question (3), though it doesn’t excuse ignorance and bigotry.

Sorry to be in such a rush. We can discourse further if you like.

Elijah,

I am very familiar with Maria Gwyn McDowell and her many works, including the one to which you referred.

If you don’t know who she is, her life history in her own words can be found here. I do not share this for the purpose of “outing” her. She has been very open about her rebellion against the Orthodox Church, although she, of course, doesn’t see it as such. I know her words can seem very reasonable, but I beg of you to remember the words of our Lord about how a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Nothing you have shared here about yourself is indicative of the path she herself has chosen or of the path down which she, in her subtlety, would like to lead you and the Orthodox Church she has chosen to reject.

I do not in any way deny your suffering or that of all those who bear your burden. I know, without any doubt, that there are all-too-many who view your particular burden as somehow ‘worse’ than their own. They are wrong. It is that simple, and little more needs to said. Nevertheless, I urge you as a brother in Christ to seek support and encouragement from those who remain in the Holy Church and hold fast to her Tradition (as it seems you otherwise do according to what you have written here) and to avoid sources such as she and those who share her academic interests and (so-called) religious pursuits. They are spiritual poison.

I am reminded of the wisdom of Sirach, “Do not consult a woman about her rival, or a coward about war, a merchant about prices, or a buyer about selling, anyone mean about gratitude, or anyone selfish about kindness, a lazy fellow about any sort of work, or a casual worker about finishing a job, an idle servant about a major undertaking– do not rely on these for any advice.” Nor, I would add, the rebellious and unchaste about obedience and chastity.

Allow me to add something. I once heard it said (simplistically, I admit) that sin is the choice we make, and iniquity is the mess created in our lives by those choices. The scenarios Ms. McDowell describes in the book you referenced all consist primarily of one thing: iniquity. People follow their ‘feelings,’ value them over obedience to the revealed will of God for our good, and get themselves into all sorts of tangled webs from which it is difficult to be extricated. And we all know that heterosexual folks are equally guilty of this.

“Father, we are pregnant out of wedlock. Will you marry us and baptize our child?”

“Father, we want to get married.”
“Wonderful! God bless you. Will you be attending our parish?”
Oh, yes. We live right down the street.”
“So you two are neighbors?”
Well…actually we’ve lived together for three years.”

“Father, you quickly married us ten years ago when I told you I was pregnant. We have three children now, and my husband has run off with another woman. What do I do now?”

…and so it goes. The reality is that there are far too many (forgive me) stupid and negligent priests who are quick to overlook the sin that created the iniquities in which we become more or less trapped. The idea that marriage alone is the solution to fornication and lust is both widespread and ludicrous. Apart from first leading us to repentance priests who overlook and “accept,” rather than seek to heal, the wounds of sin only compound iniquity by ensuring that there is no healing, no resolution, and no redemption because, though married, disobedience and lust remain unaddressed. Like such foolish priests, Ms. McDowell would have us believe that sin is a social construct, that it does no harm to us as persons, and that iniquity can be erased by acceptance alone. She is living in the realm of delusion, and her own life is proof of it.

In other words, in order for there to be any real healing (salvation) the distinction between acceptance of persons and acceptance of sin must be maintained. Otherwise the Church is nothing more than a social club and her sacraments become empty, meaningless, and even harmful to the unrepentant.

The words of our Savior cannot be rendered void.

“He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it.”

To be made “worthy” does not mean to earn or deserve. It means to be ‘capable’ or ‘able to bear’ It is not a matter of sin or even the degree of sin. It is a matter of love. To the harlot, our Lord said, “Her sins, which are many, are forgiven for she loved much.” Great sinners (and I am the first) find great forgiveness through love. But we cannot have divided loves as Ms. McDowell and her cohorts maintain. If we do not love Christ above everyone – even our closest companions with whom we are entangled, even in the midst of our weaknesses, struggles, and failures – we render ourselves incapable of bearing the weight of His glory.

There is simply no getting around it. “If you love Me you will keep my commandments” is another way of saying, “If you do not love Me you will not keep My commandments.” Everyone is welcome to love God – everyone. But sadly, not everyone wills to do so, and no person’s salvation is served by pretending otherwise..

Again, thank you for the reply. To be clear, I didn’t intend to imply anything improper on your part by using the term “community.” I am merely (and honestly) trying to understand how your (plural) struggles may – or may not – differ from my own. And, respectfully, you didn’t really answer my question. If you care to answer from within a different framework than the one within which I asked, that is fine. Or if you don’t care to answer at all, that’s fine also. My motivation is to learn, not to pry.

Elijah,
Thank you for the reply. A few thoughts and some more questions for you if you don’t mind.

You mentioned discrimination against who you/LGBT’s “are (orientation).” You also said that you yourself had not experienced it in terms of being denied confession, blessings, Communion, etc. but that you have heard of others who have.

In our modern culture “discrimination” is considered among the worst of offenses. Yet as Christians we are commanded to be discriminating when it comes to our participation in evil (of any kind). We are told, for example, to avoid those who do not walk “according to the pattern” set forth by the Apostles. I do not think this means we avoid repentant sinners or those who struggle with besetting weaknesses, but it does mean that in the context of the Church community we are to avoid those who call themselves by the Name of Christ while refusing to live according to the Tradition. This type of discrimination/avoidance that is commanded of us is not a sign of moral superiority (God forbid!) or a looking down upon those who have placed themselves outside the Church community. Rather, it is a common confession, in agreement with God, that sin is sin. Refusal to agree with God about the truth is what separates us from Him and His people.

The way of life that is the Church is so utterly contrary to the prevailing culture that it is inevitable that those who have no understanding of it will assume they are being “discriminated against,” judged, or even hated. There are many who have spent their entire lives ‘in the Church’ – to say nothing of the unchurched – who have no understanding of this whatsoever. Misreading of motives is nearly always encountered when, for example, one kindly refuses to allow an unmarried, even “Christian” relative and their significant other to share a bed while spending the night in one’s home. It is not hate, moral superiority, or even judgement; but it can rightly be called discrimination between what God says is permitted for the married and the unmarried. It is not allowing evil to be misunderstood as normal and good. It is agreeing with God, confessing His truth, and witnessing to it in action. It takes courage to be such a witness in our culture, but it is what real love looks like. Someone must speak and act in a truthful manner even if it hurts, and one’s own home should not become another province of this world. Neither is the Church a province of this world. But doing such things inevitably makes the person(s) feel “judged.”

In short, I wonder if this sort of thing is not what is being reported as “discrimination.” It is not only some Christians who fail to distinguish between sin and the sinner. Those who feel “judged” by Christians who confess the truth (gently, mind you) in love typically fail to make this distinction themselves.

What do you think?

Now to my primary question.

You seem (and I could be mistaken) to include yourself in the ‘category’ of LGBT, identifying yourself as such in that you experience SSA. Much has been said by the host of this blog and many others about the fallacy of saying, “This is who I am.” But I would like to approach this from a different angle.

I say (truly) that I am a sinner, and it is the confession of this truth that opens the pathway toward my healing. In a similar fashion, an alcoholic begins his healing by confessing, “I am an alcoholic.” Until one confesses the truth – agreeing with God about reality as it is – one cannot begin to heal. And yet to confess that I miss the mark (sin) is to acknowledge that there is a mark for which I was created – and that the “mark” is my true self, fully liberated from sin and fully the image and glory of God. In this sense my true self is not a sinner; I am not an alcoholic, etc. I would add that whether I miss the mark by choice or not is ultimately irrelevant. All of us are born with an inability to reach the mark on our own. It is our inheritance in Adam whether we like it or not, whether we choose it or not; and it is why Christ is come to save us.

It would seem to me, therefore, that if one says, “I am an alcoholic” or “I am SSA” or “I am gay” as a confession of the truth with an understanding that it is a missing of the mark, their confession in Christ becomes the pathway toward the fullness of life. If, however, one says these very same words with the intent of fully identifying one’s self with one’s passions it becomes a denial of who one really is, was created by God to be, and a willful thwarting of God’s good and loving purpose of conforming us to Christ who is the image and glory of God and who, interestingly, was/is Himself wholly unconcerned with His own “sexual fulfillment.”

You seem to be involved in a sort of “community,” be it via the internet or whatever, of those who consider themselves LGBT. Would you say that you and/or those in that community who consider themselves Christians – and more specifically Orthodox Christians – generally agree or disagree with these last three paragraphs?

I am very late in coming to this thread, so I hope you see this comment. I would like to ask you some honest questions.

Fr. Arida writes:

“In the struggle to maintain traditional values and teachings, LGBT Orthodox are denied confession, communion or blessings. Many face exclusion from parish life, and some face physical violence.”

Now I will admit that I haven’t been everywhere, but I have “been around” quite a bit. Yet I have never – ever – heard of folks such as yourself who struggle with SSA (or even those who, unlike yourself, have actually committed homosexual acts) being denied confession, communion, blessings, or being subjected to physical violence in the context of the Church community. The only things I have ever witnessed that even remotely approach this claim of his is the exclusion of the unrepentant from the Cup (until they strive for repentance) and the obvious refusal of the Church to “bless” same-sex unions. Fr. Arida’s claim thus strikes me as dishonest.

Has your own experience been different? And if so, how?

Also, based upon what you have written here, I assume you would agree that one cannot maintain an open resolution to continue in sin while at the same time considering one’s self to a repentant sinner, as all of us (hopefully) are. As a man who finds females attractive I cannot openly identify as a fornicator or adulterer with no intention of repentance and expect to be admitted to the Sacraments. Here, too, I find Fr. Arida’s claim that those who struggle (with emphasis on the word struggle) are ostracized to be dishonest. A priest who subjects illicit sexual behavior of any kind to discipline is simply following the prescriptions set forth for our healing; is he not?

How is the prescribed exclusion from the Sacraments of any openly unrepentant, obstinate sinner any different from what Fr. Arida claims LGBTs are uniquely subjected to?

And finally, we are constantly told (quite rightly) that these are “pastoral” issues – things that ought to be (again quite rightly) handled discreetly by one’s priest or Father Confessor. What purpose is served by discussing them in public forums? I can hardly imagine a less discreet and impersonal way of assisting pastors with the challenges of our time. Are these not topics that should be discussed among pastors in the privacy of clergy conferences?

It would be much more simple if upon entering the Church gays simply agreed to cease identifying as gay and accept the fact that, though they may still engage in same sex physical encounters, that this activity falls into the category of sin, then everyone could just move on. But it is the perversion or rationalizing of mutually exclusive propositions that attracts resistance. It is the sort of thing you would encounter if you simply kept insisting that 2+2=5.

One thing the homosexual debates have made clear to me is how similar the struggle for chastity is for all men. The lonliness we all face because we lack it.

There are differences to be sure but many similarities. The world will call that a lie.

The only appropriate dialog is “Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand”.
There is no fear in that.

I have been watching “dialog” since I was young beginning with the coalition governments with the Communists in Central America; the purveyors of sin in the sixties and the assualt on the Protestant assemblies.
In modernity dialog without repentance is a tool of the evil one.

Bill,

AXIOS!

THANK YOU for sharing that resource. I’m going to share it with as many Orthodox Christians as possible. Maybe some of them who manage Orthodox blogs and FB pages will publish it in full or portions of it or use it in other ways.

This is the kind of work the bishops in North America should REPEATEDLY be putting out as resources and even summarize in more concrete and direct Official Statements redressing the confusion of some priests, clarifying the teachings of the Church being deconstructed by the homosexual activists and refuting the escalating rebellion of the LGBT radicals (Fr. Trenham’s description of these groups).

None of the bishops in America (or their official spokespersons or staffs) seem to be speaking out publicly or preaching individually and regularly on many of these pastoral and theological topics. Yearly official statements are inadequate given the constant Gay Iconoclasts assault on the Orthodox Church and their defamation of Her right preaching priests, theologians, teachers and apologists. Our priests need to have their bishops leading them and supporting them in this serious war.

Only a handful of courageous Orthodox priests in America: Fr. Johannes Jacobse, Fr. Josiah Trenham, Fr. John Whiteford, Fr. Alexander Webster are fighting this battle in the public arena, frequently challenging the lies and distortions of the Gay Iconoclasts. There may be others, and I hope they forgive me for not remembering them. (Please add to this list if anyone knows of other Orthodox priests in America who have joined this effort.) They deserve our support and prayers! We need them and the Orthodox Church needs them!

Gay Iconoclasm: Holding the Line Against the Radical LGBT Agenda
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2017/07/gay-iconoclasm-holding-the-line-against-the-radical-lgbt-agenda/

“This ideology is a cultural and religious iconoclasm. The homosexual political agenda is anti-religion and anti-civilization at its core. There is no precedent in any religion or civilization for defining marriage as between two persons of the same sex or legitimizing same-sex eroticism. Such violent iconoclasm does not just hold in contempt classical religious and political philosophy, but it disdains and it claims superiority over all the great religions of the world, not just rejecting Judaism and Christianity but Buddhism and Islam as well.” — Fr. Josiah Trenham

AXIOS!

You’re welcome. I will.

May God’s grace, Christ’s love, and the wisdom and peace of the Holy Spirit open your heart and soul to the truth and help you walk on the narrow path of salvation.

Here’s some more wisdom and discerning insights from Huw that may help:

Sexual Identity & the Passions
https://huwraphael.blogspot.com/p/is-same-sex-attraction-passion.html

The pastoral wisdom and Orthodox Christian theological insights Fr. Jacobse shared with you either went right over your head or you rejected them without taking sufficient time to consider and reflect.

Regarding your un-orthodox self-description of yourself as a “gay man” maybe the proper and true Orthodox Christian understanding of this, as testified to by Huw Raphael, an Orthodox convert who had formerly been in ECUSA as (in his own words) “a sexually active gay man who wanted to be an Episcopal priest”, and was healed, will help clear the spiritual fog and confusion. You’re still dancing around with sin, hoping, in some way, to find a non-existent “3rd way” to deal with your passions. It’s impossible, it has never happened. You can’t serve God and mammon.

“Being gay” as a category of Revealed Ontology doesn’t exist. We are men and women. But as a category of distorted ontology, or fallen ontology – the things into which we are drawn – it is a real category. Those who experience same sex attraction may find in themselves the exact same patterns as others who engage in sex outside of the bonds of matrimony, indeed, as those who engage in matrimony. The pattern is only “tweaked” if you will, by the direction in which one is drawn to have sex. The seeking after that pattern is then faulted by our gender: homosexual relationships are painted by our genders.

Women tend to be domestic and caring and two women tend to fall into a odd pattern of “too much home”. There is much truth to the old joke, “What did the lesbians bring on their second date? A U-Haul.” Equally, for men, even long-term relationships tend to drift into polyamory. The lack of a domestic and stable influence – a woman – creates “open relationships” where even the most “monogamous” of men are allowed to “play” when they are away from home. A lesbian relationship can seem like the “inner circle” one met in High School, but could never get inside. A gay male relationship can seem, even in their most stable – like a night out with the college fraternity. Equally, “straight” men and women, when looped into non-sacramental relationships find themselves replicating the patterns of marriage anyway” the gender dance is created even without the “blessing of the church” or without the “having a piece of paper”.

Because we who experience same-sex attraction are in the same dance as the rest of you, because we are not dealing with something strange, alien and unknown, but rather with something predictable, seeable and no more strange than that for the rest of you, “gay” doesn’t exist as anything more than a distortion of who we really are: men and women.

None of this is to make light of the sin of sexual activity outside of marriage. It is to note that our “being” as men and women is what we are. Where our sins take us does not undo this. So here’s the rough conclusion of the first part of these notes – the pleasure seeking principle is distorted in all of us.

For those of us who experience same-sex attraction, it is equally distorted in seemingly the same ways with only one or two minor changes. We are pleasure seekers, the same as any others. By that I mean we are sinners, the same as any others. Thus I reject the classification of “being” gay. There is no such thing.
https://huwraphael.blogspot.com/p/ontology-i.html

The public rhetoric won’t change as long as the Orthodox activists (the ones who insist the Orthodox tradition must be retooled) continue operating in the categories of identity politics. The only (ostensible) moral power that approach holds is moralistic shaming (“You’re a hater!). It replicates the thinking and methods of the early Puritans because it is bound to the common zeitgeist and the deep structure of American culture.

Moreover, the activist demand that “dialogue” must change is disingenuous because it cuts off the opportunity for constructive dialogue before it begins, or more accurately it restricts “dialogue” to the false anthropological categories under the threat of public shaming. In other words, it is impossible to “dialogue” with the Orthodox activists because the Gay INC polemics they employ demands that no accord can be reached unless we first agree with the anthropological presuppositions. If it were otherwise, there would be no need for the public shaming.

No one is “actually gay.” That’s a false construct that restricts and can even prevent a person from experiencing life in Christ to the measure it is intended and can be experienced. This is not to say that the struggle disappears although I can testify that some people are healed from the passion while for others dealing with passion becomes the means of their sanctification (acquiring the freedom to become the person that God created him to be). Only Christ knows why it works this way.

The “cause” however is not the false categories. They exist as impediments to the development of the interior life and thus also the deeper understanding of one’s own manhood. False constructs, muddled conceptions, impede the work of the Spirit within man and thus restrict the healing — the salvation — that Christ offers. The actual cause is a deep yearning for authentic intimacy with other men. I have learned that this yearning is met concurrently with a deepening intimacy with Christ. It’s a dynamic, not static, enterprise. We must do what St. Paul instructs us to do:*

This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you no longer walk as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto licentiousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.

But you have not so learned Christ; If so be that you have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus: That you put off concerning the former way of life the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; And that you put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness (Ephesians 4:17-24).

*In my experience many young millenials have an easier time grasping St. Paul’s exhortation than their middled-aged and older counterparts. I think it’s because they are not bound to the static vestiges of our decaying culture in ways that their elders still are.

No, we didn’t get a response from Fr. Arida at all. His argument is that the proper response requires a retooling of the moral tradition. That’s been tried elsewhere and in all cases leads to sickness and death. He wants anthropological revisionism (see above) but those ideas arise from the political ground of identity politics; ie: the notion that passions and desire determine identity.

I’ve actually dealt with men dealing with same-sex attraction often. The restoration of the person begins by entering more fully into his self-identity as an adopted son of God. Men who have been active in the lifestyle for say a decade or more have internalized “gay” as a component of their self-identity. The truth is that because the categories of homosexual and heterosexual are a modern fiction, the internalization of the categories distort self-identity much in the way superstitions distort our understanding of nature. I always begin by asking their baptismal name and when the internalization surfaces I remind them of their true identity by saying something like, “No, you are John, son of the living God.” That’s how it begins.

Younger men, early twenties mostly, who struggle seem to have a lot less trouble emerging out of the homosexual self-identification if they discipline their interior lives so that they can hear and receive the transformative self-knowledge that comes only from God. A life of chastity is difficult but it is difficult for almost everyone in our sex-saturated and sex-obsessed culture. There is a dynamic at work here (ie: interior self-discipline and creativity work hand in hand) the substance of which I won’t go into although you can see it outlined in an editorial I wrote published in the Minneapolis Star and Tribune earlier this year: Pornography is an affliction for young men. And it’s been mainstreamed.

You imply that my earlier responses are not sufficiently pastoral. I hear this criticism frequently. In fact they are profoundly pastoral because healing begins by clarifying the anthropological confusion. These misconceptions hold the mind captive and prevent the insights (the self-understanding) that can only come from God (see the editorial) from reaching the soul. Fr. Aridia and others promote ideas that in fact function as a retroactive virus in the interior life and thus thwart and even subvert human flourishing. Those ideas cannot go unchallenged. Further, as I said upstream, most men struggling with same-sex attraction are not Gay INC activists and many resent the expectation that they should be. You won’t hear from them but I do.

Clergy are not “fearful that they would have to actually have deep conversations with LGBT persons.” This statement is the kind of moralistic shaming that arises from the demand that homosexual desire can only discussed in the framework of identity politics. Identity politics demands that we accept the anthropological revisionism as self-evident fact; as an assumption that cannot be challenged. Clearly I don’t and most clergy I know don’t either. “Deep conversations” ensue nonetheless. Often they go very deep.