"On The Church" by Fr. John Romanides

On the Church

by Rev. Dr. John Romanides

The Church is the body of Christ, which is comprised of all those faithful in Christ; of those who participate in the first resurrection and who bear the betrothal of the Spirit or even those who have foretasted theosis (deification).

The Church has existed even before Creation, as the kingdom and the glory that is hidden within God and in which God resides, along with His Logos and His Spirit. By a volition of God, the aeons were created, as were the celestial powers and the incorporeal spirits or angels therein, and thereafter, time and the world within it, in which man was also created, who unites within himself the noetic energy of the angels with the logos-reason and the human body.

The Church is both invisible and visible; in other words, She is comprised of those who are enlisted (in active duty) on earth and those who are in the heavens, that is, those who have triumphed in the glory of God.

Among the Protestants there prevails the opinion that the Church is invisible only - where the sacraments of Baptism and the Divine Eucharist are merely symbolic acts - and that only God knows who the true members of the Church are. The Orthodox Church, on the other hand, also stresses the visible aspect of the Church. Outside the Church, there is no salvation.

The Church, as the body of Christ, is the residence of God’s uncreated glory. It is impossible for us to separate Christ from the Church, as it is to separate the Church from Christ. In Papism and Protestantism there is a clear distinction between the body of Christ and the Church; that is, one can participate in the body of Christ, without being a member of the Papist church. This is impossible for Orthodoxy.

According to the Calvinists, after His ascension, Christ resides in heaven, and consequently the transformation of bread and wine into the actual Body and Blood of Christ is impossible. A complete absence of Christ. Approximately the same thing is highlighted in the Papist church, because Christ is regarded as absent, and through the minister’s prayer, He descends from the heavens and becomes present. This implies that Christ is absent from the Church. Members of the Church are – as mentioned previously - those who have received the betrothal of the Spirit and the deified ones.

When the ancient Church referred to the body of Christ as the Church, and Christ as the Head of the Church, they of course did not mean that Christ was spread out bodily all over the world and that He – for example - had His Head in Rome, the one hand in the East and the other in the West, but that the whole of Christ exists in every individual church with all its members, that is, the Saints and the faithful of the universe. In this way, according to the teaching of the Fathers, when we perform the Divine Eucharist, not only is Christ present, but all His Saints and the Christians of the Universe are present, in Christ. When we receive a tiny morsel of the Holy Bread, we receive all of Christ inside us. When Christians gather together for the same reason, the whole Church is gathering together, and not just a fraction of it. This is the reason that it has become predominant in Patristic Tradition to refer to the church of a monastery as the “Katholikon”.

The destination of all the faithful is theosis (deification). This is everyone’s ultimate objective. This is why a Christian must proceed “from glory to glory”; in other words, the slave must first become a salaried worker, then a son of God and a faithful member of Christ. There cannot be salvation outside the Church. Christ offers redemptive grace to all people. When one is saved outside the visible Church, it means that Christ Himself has saved him. If he is a heterodox member then he is saved because it was Christ who saved him, and not the religious “offshoot” that he belongs to. His salvation therefore is not effected by the ‘church’ he belongs to, because One is the Church that saves - and that is Christ.

Wherever the Orthodox dogma does not exist, the Church is in no position to opine on the authority of the sacraments. According to the Fathers, the Orthodox Dogma never separates itself from spirituality. Wherever there is an erroneous dogma, there is an erroneous spirituality and vice-versa. There are many who separate the dogma from piety. That is a mistake. When Christ says “become ye perfect, as the Father is perfect” it implies that one must be familiar with the meaning of perfection. The criterion for the authority of the sacraments for us Orthodox is the Orthodox dogma, whereas for the heterodox, it is Apostolic Succession. For the Orthodox Tradition, it is not enough to trace one’s ordination back to the Apostles, but to possess the Orthodox dogma. Piety and dogma are one identity and cannot be separated. Wherever there is upright teaching, there will be upright action. “Orthodox” means:

a) upright glory
b) upright action

The terrestrial, actively engaged Church is the Orthodox Church. “Orthodox dogma” and “Scriptural teaching” are one and the same thing, because the dogma exists, and it comes from within the Holy Bible.

Taken from a students’ audiotaped notes on Dogmatics, recorded during the lessons delivered by Professor Fr. John Romanides, Thessaloniki, 1972.

Source

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Are Holy Icons ‘Idols’?

Many are the accusations that Satan has accumulated with the passing centuries against the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ. By taking advantage of certain people’s ignorance on the matter, he convinced them that certain objects -normally venerated by the Church- are idols, and therefore all those who likewise venerate them, are idolaters.

We intend to reveal here the lameness of this viewpoint, along with the arguments that latter-day iconoclasts resort to.

When Is an Icon Considered an Idol?

It is true, that there are numerous passages – especially in the Old Testament, but also in the New - that condemn the worship, even the manufacture of idols. We shall therefore examine certain characteristic Scriptural passages, in order to comprehend the true meaning of this prohibition, and the significance of the words “idol” and “image”.

One specific passage that is persistently maltreated by modern iconoclasts, is Isaiah 40:18-20, where it says the following: “With what, therefore, shall you equate God? Or what likeness shall you adapt Him to? The craftsman forges a sculpted image, and the goldsmith spreads gold over it, and forges silver chains. The poor, when making an offering, selects the finest quality wood, and finds for himself an able craftsman, in order to make a sculpted image that does not stir.”

In this passage, we observe the following: The word “likeness” is used in the same sense as the word “image”. However, we must underline here, that the above lines are opposed to the making of likenesses of God, and not likenesses of creatures.

This is the spirit that permeates all of the passages of the Holy Bible that condemn the idols. The manufacture and the veneration of images of creation are not condemned, unless those images are intended to depict the uncreated and invisible God, and are subsequently venerated as God. Only then, are they considered to be idols.

Let’s take a look at a few more passages:

Isaiah 44:9-20 - “Those who manufacture idols, do so in vain.... Who made God?... He chops down a cedar tree...and takes it and warms himself. Even more, he burns it and bakes bread. Then he also makes it into a god, and worships it. He makes it into an idol, and kneels before it... And the leftovers of it, he makes into a god, into a sculpture of Him. He kneels before it, and worships it, and prays to it, and says: ‘Redeem me, for you are my god’”.

Here again, reference is made to the depiction of a god, and not the images of saints, as in all the related passages of the Holy Bible.

Romans 1:23-25 - “And they altered the glory of the imperishable God, into the likeness of a perishable man’s image, and that of fowl, and of quadruped beasts and of reptiles...and they (thus) revered and worshipped creation rather than the Creator.”

No-one can accuse the Orthodox Church that it worships the saints as though they are gods. Saints are not worshipped; they are merely honored as select people of God. Consequently, these passages apply only to those who manufacture images of God and worship them accordingly.

Since, therefore, an idol is only a depiction of God, it is an outright lie and an unfair accusation that the Church apparently worships idols; furthermore, the accusers will eventually have to account for the mistrust that they have shown towards God’s Church.

The 10 Commandments and the Portrayal of the Saints

Let’s take a look at another maltreated passage, which is used by those opposed to icons. It is in Exodus 20:4 and it is one of the Ten Commandments: “Thou shalt not make unto thyself any image, nor any likeness, of anything that is in the sky above, or in the earth below, or in the waters below the earth. Do not prostrate yourself before them, nor worship them, for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God.”

The deniers of icons say: “Here is a passage that forbids the depiction, even of creatures!” Our reply to this, is as follows. Even this passage refers to the depiction of creatures as gods; and we can verify this, in Deuteronomy, 4:12-19: “And (although) the Lord spoke unto you...yet you did not see any likeness (of Him). You only heard a voice. And He revealed to you...the ten commandments.... So, guard well your souls, (for you have seen no likeness on the day that the Lord spoke to you in Horeb, amidst the flames), lest you corrupt yourselves, and make unto yourselves any idol, an image of any form - of a male or female likeness, or of beast, or of vulture, or reptilian, or fish-like,...lest you lift up your eyes to the sky, and, upon seeing the sun and the moon and the stars and all the components of the firmament, and thus stray, and prostrate yourself and worship them."

Here we see very analytically what was forbidden for depiction “as likenesses of God”. Once again, this is proof that there is no prohibition for the depiction of saints; only of God.

Here we also see that the reason it was forbidden to depict God, was “because there was no likeness of Him”.

Now, it is our turn to ask: How is it, that inside the temple of Solomon there were likenesses of oxen? How is it, that above the Ark of the Covenant there were likenesses of angels? How is it, that there were likenesses of angels inside the inner sanctum of the Tabernacle? (Exodus 25:18; 36:35; and II Chronicles 4:3-4)

Can we therefore assume that only the likenesses of saints bother contemporary iconoclasts?

The Portrayal of Jesus Christ

Let’s look at something else now. Today, after so many years, do we Christians - who are no longer under Mosaic Law - have the right to depict God? As we noted previously, at the time the Ten Commandments were given, God had given no likeness of Himself. However, when the time had come, God revealed His image to us, in the person of Jesus Christ, as noted in Colossians 1:15: "...who is the image of the invisible God; the firstborn before all creation." Also, in John 14:9, Jesus Christ says: "Whomsoever has seen Me, has seen the Father."

Therefore, today, we can see (and therefore also depict) God, in the person of Jesus Christ; we do not depict God in His divine nature, but only in His human nature, since we have never seen His Divinity.

Portrayals of God

The only other instances that the divinely-inspired Church of the Lord allows us to depict God, is in the icon titled “Abraham’s Hospitality”, where the three angelic messengers are portrayed, not as an image of God, but as a symbolism of the Holy Trinity; also, in the icon of Christ’s baptism, where the Holy Spirit descends from heaven in the form of a dove. And of course, this does not imply here that the Holy Spirit has the actual form of a bird; the Holy Spirit simply took on that form at the time. In both of these icons, we depict only that which we - as humans - can perceive. We have no intention of portraying the invisible and indescribable nature of God.

At this point, the reader will most probably wonder why there is a (so-called) “icon of the Holy Trinity” in Orthodox Churches. We must unfortunately agree with him, inasmuch as this icon should not exist, and that its origin is Papist. The Seventh Ecumenical Synod forbade it, subsequently, those in charge of the churches that allow this icon, bear a huge responsibility, because they become the cause of idolatry (Acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Synod). This however does not mean that the entire body of the Church is to blame; only those specific people who are held accountable for those churches, who show no respect, or, through negligence, are ignorant of the basics of the Faith. Those who venerate this icon are also to blame, for not bothering to learn the details of their Faith, and while they are under the impression that they are acting in an Orthodox way, they are in fact acting like Papists. This specific icon, apart from its being an idol, is also heretical in its portrayal of the personae of the Holy Trinity, in many ways that deviate from the subject of our study. (“Forbidden Portrayals”, George E. Gavriil).

The Honoring of a Persona

Another issue that the Church is accused of, is that we apparently honor a piece of wood! This is totally false!! What is being honored in reality, is the portrayed person and not the wood, just as in a photograph of an acquaintance, we do not show respect to the paper, but to the person depicted on it.

“But then, how come some icons are miraculous and others aren’t?” one might ask.

This is a case where the wooden material of the icon plays no role; only the will of God. He alone knows for what purpose He chooses a specific icon. It might be, for the sake of the piety of the artist who painted it; it might be, for the sake of the specific location that the icon rests in; it might be for numerous other reasons, which only He knows. Besides, if we refer to the Holy Bible, not all the pools of Israel were miraculous, like the pool of Bethesda! (John, 5:2-4)

So, how do we know what the features of the saints were like, after so many centuries?

Every generation of Christians ensured the preservation of their contemporary saints’ features. But even in cases where their image was not preserved, we give them an appearance that resembles Jesus Christ’s image, inasmuch as they were virtually images of Christ. The importance lies in the saint, and not in his accurate portrayal. This is the reason we observe differing representations of certain saints. Not to mention, that saints no longer look like they did when they lived on earth!

It is for this reason that the Byzantine, rich-in-symbolism, iconography is preferred, where the characteristics of the person portrayed do not attempt to faithfully portray the exact likeness of the saint’s features; only to symbolically depict certain of the saint’s characteristics.

Shadows, Images and “Things”

Last of all, we shall examine a certain difference between the Old and the New Testaments, which pertains to our subject.

In the Epistle to Hebrews 10:1, the Holy Bible mentions the following: “The Law is but the shadow of the riches to come; it is not the (actual) image of things.”

According to these words, we can see that the Old Testament (Law) was only the shadow, while the New Testament is THE (THE PRESENT) image of the things to come.

The Old Testament spoke enigmatically of God, in a shadowy way, and was therefore unable to utilize images. The New Testament however showed us the image of exactly those celestial things, in other words, a clearer aspect of them.

Now that we have truly seen the image of God in Jesus Christ, and those who were sanctified in Christ’s image, we can depict them, until the moment comes when we shall meet them face to face; when we find ourselves within those things to come.

Source

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Sermon for the First Friday of Great Lent

Catechesis 55: On Decorating our Incorruptible House Through the Assumption of the Virtues

by St. Theodore the Studite

Given on Friday of the First Week.

Brethren and fathers, people in the world when they erect a luxurious house give themselves no rest at night and at the end of the day they toil and plan, labouring until they have achieved their object; and such is the longing that fills them that their mind is wholly occupied in this and in considering how the roof may be well-covered, how the floor, adorned with many different marbles with every other form of elegance, will offer lovers of fine sights the most pleasing appearance. But if someone were to wish to tear them away from that care, they would be most distressed, as though they were being seriously wronged. But we, when we are building not a corruptible house but an incorruptible, not one made out of stones and wood but one skilfully constructed from spiritual graces, how can we be idle and come far below these others in zeal? How should this not be the greatest of wrongs? That other house harbours people who love the flesh and when it has passed through many masters it will be pulled down and deserted. The other knows that it welcomes the Holy Spirit, since "we are a temple of the living God and the Spirit of God dwells in us", as the divine Apostle says. Moreover with those who depart from things here it leaves too and abides in heaven intact and eternal. What is the material of this building? The assumption of the virtues. Take first, if you will, as a foundation stone, the fear of God, since "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom". Next understanding, courage, sobriety, justice; and so with one attached firmly to the other and fitted together with the bond of love it will "grow into a holy temple of the Lord," as it is written. Let us be building this temple, brethren, at every moment, and let us not fail to adorn it with the beauty of the virtues, so that we may have the Holy Spirit for its inhabitant, so that by the pleasantness of our life we may turn the attention of angels and men to ourselves. But since one of the virtues is self-mastery, and we are more closely concerned about this one, let us give glory to God that we have arrived at the one stadium for it. Your faces have been changed from what they were before, but they shine with a fair change: the pallor that comes from self-mastery; your mouths have become embittered, filled with the bile of eating late, [The only reference in the lexica for this word is the Greek Ephrem, where Lampe translates ‘eating slowly’, but the meaning here is surely ‘eating late’, that is after Vespers in the late afternoon, when the only meal is eaten on fast days] but your spirits have been sweetened, flying on wings of hope. And these things are opposed to one another, and by mastering the one the other has become weak; so that we may rejoice for we are sided with the stronger. Perhaps some one will say that to eat every day is a failure of perfection. Not at all! Otherwise our Lord would not have ordered us to ask each day for our daily bread; the prophet Elias would not have been nourished each day in the desert by a raven; Paul, who dwelt in the desert before the godly Antony, would have received bread from God every day; Antony the Great preferred as almost necessary eating daily to a fast of above a day or for a week. And this is how it seems to me; for since our body is physically exhausted through its toil for the whole day, like a racing colt, and needs its rest, so necessarily the creator of our nature has arranged for it to be strengthened by its daily nourishment so that it might run well for the future, but not be exhausted and fading, which what they suffer who drag out their fast over two, three and five days. Nor would they be able to prostrate more frequently, not to join more lustily in psalmody, nor to accomplish their other services easily, unless something truly extraordinary happens. And so daily nourishment is not simply for the imperfect, but very much for the perfect by the traditional definition and canon. And thank goodness these things have been laid down by the fathers. And may you be granted again and again both health of body and strength of spirit to serve the living and true God and to await the last day, in which may you shine out like the sun as heirs of the kingdom of heaven, in Christ Jesus our Lord, to whom be glory and might, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, now and always and to the ages of ages. Amen.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

34 Holy Martyrs of Valaam Monastery

These thirty-four venerable Fathers of the Monastery of the Transfiguration at Valaam on Lake Ladoga bravely offered their lives for the holy Orthodox Faith, on 20 February 1578.

They were massacred by a company of converts to Lutheranism, who, after beleaguering the monastery, had vainly tried to make them renounce Orthodoxy.

Since the day of their martyrdom an office of commemorationhas been celebrated for them each year in the katholicon of the monastery.

The names of these holy confessors and martyrs are: Hieromonk Titus, Tikhon (Great Habit monk), and the monks Gelasius, Sergius, Barlaam, Savvas, Conon, Sylvester, Cyprian, Poemen, John, Simon, Jonas, David, Cornelius, Niphon, Athanasius, Serapion, and the novices Athanasius, Luke, Leontius, Thoma, Dionysius, Philip, Ignatius, Basil, Pachomius, Basil, Theophilus, John, Theodroe, and John.

Their memory was officially recognized by the Patriarchate of Moscow in August 2000.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

A Strange Custom Related to St. Theodore the Tyro

Many cultures have various customs to help young girls find a future husband. This has been going on since ancient times and back then often pagan rituals were incorporated. When these cultures drifted away from paganism toward Christianity, it was often quite natural to christianize these customs of their pagan past as much as possible, though they still can be quite dangerous and should be avoided if possible. One such example was a strange occurrence that happened to my sister in 1996 when she was 23.

My sister was a single young woman at the time and her godmother told her about a custom she had learned while in Greece by which method she would be able to know the name of her future husband. She was told by her godmother to go to the Divine Liturgy on the First Saturday of Souls which is dedicated to the miracle of the kolyva performed by St. Theodore the Tyro. When she got there, she was to place some wheat behind the icon of St. Theodore in the narthex, then after the Liturgy remove it. That night my sister was informed to read a customary prayer to St. Theodore, place the wheat under her pillow, and by doing this she would be able to see the name of her future husband in her sleep. My sister did all of this and slept.

That night, as she related to me the next morning, she had an incredibly vivid dream like she never had in her life. An image of the face of my uncle Jimmy, whose baptismal name is Dimitrios, appeared in an almost heavenly and peaceful form. As she saw this she heard the voice of a man clearly saying the name "Dimitri" over and over again. When she woke up it had made such an impression on her that it was as if she had received a divine revelation.

A year later she met a man named Dimitri, they got married in October of 1998, they are still married and have a beautiful daughter named Christiana.

Ironic? Coincidence? Miracle? Demonic? I'll leave it to the reader's concience to decide.

Though I ordinarily discourage such customs, I also am honest enough to acknowledge their empirical validity if they have any. This is something my sister's godmother whole-heartedly believes in and she whole-heartedly considers this to be a miracle of St. Theodore. The danger in such practices is that it could lead to a belief in astrology, fate, and the interpretation of dreams, all of which are highly discouraged and even forbidden in the Orthodox Church with good reason, as they are means of opening oneself up to demonic influence. But something like this, much like belief in the evil eye, can be tolerated by the Church as long as it is not paganized.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Lyudmila Yanukovich – Godmother of Forty Orphans

Kiev, 19 February 2010, Interfax – The Ukrainian President‘s spouse Lyudmila Yanukovich is known for her active work in church charities.

The religiosity of the Ukrainian first lady is legendary. It is also known that she often comes to orphanages incognito and once baptized forty children there, the Kiev edition of the Komsomolskaya Pravda daily has reported on Friday.

Lyudmila Yanukovich's church life started from her church wedding with her husband in 1997 after twenty five years of family life.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Three Little Bops: A Warner Brothers Conspiracy?

Before reading, make sure you watch entire video.

One of the most surreal experiences I ever had was watching the Warner Brothers episode titled "Three Little Bops". I loved it as a little kid and to this day remains a Warner Brothers classic. But my experience occurred one day while sitting alone in my college dorm room, chilling out in front of my TV watching Warner Brothers cartoons.

My surreal experience occurred precisely at the 3:42 mark in the above video. You will notice at this precise point it shows how the three pigs are now in a house made of bricks...a house which we are to believe just happened to be built on May 1, 1776. Seeing this, my mouth just about dropped on the floor and I truly had what is classically defined as a surreal moment.

Some background information is in order to understand my bewilderment. At about this time in college I befriended a fellow student named Jake. Jake's mother was big time into conspiracy theories, and this sort of rubbed off on Jake to the point where we would often talk about various conspiracy theories. I thought I knew the subject until I talked to Jake, and then I realized how ignorant I was. One of the first things he gave me was a book on the history of Masonry and the Illuminati. I knew a lot about Masonry already, but it was the Illuminati that I knew hardly anything about. And one of the first things I read about was its founder, Dr. Adam Weishaupt.

Adam Weishaupt (1748-1830) was a German philosopher and professionally a professor of Canon Law. On May 1, 1776 Weishaupt formed the "Order of Perfectibilists". He adopted the name of "Brother Spartacus" within the order. Though the Order was not egalitarian or democratic, its mission was the abolition of all monarchical governments and state religions in Europe and its colonies. He coined the phrase: "The ends justified the means."

So at the same time I was reading this history, I watched "Three Little Bops" and up pops this shot of a cornerstone with the date of May 1, 1776. Some may think this is a coincidence, but May 1, 1776 is a significant date in Illuminati history, and nothing else of much significance historically happened on that day.

When you couple the date with the fact that it is inscribed on the cornerstone of the building, that is when all coincidence must be thrown out the window. Freemasons sometimes perform the public cornerstone laying ceremony for notable buildings. For example, the cornerstone of the Statue of Liberty was laid by Freemasons. In Freemasonry, which grew from the practice of stonemasons, the initiate (Entered Apprentice) is placed in the north-east corner of the Lodge as a figurative foundation stone. This is intended to signify the unity of the North associated with darkness and the East associated with light. Some interpret this as a reversal of the concept expressed in Ephesians 2:20 where Christ is described as the chief cornerstone.

Put in the context of the story, one can unravel a possible theory why this Illuminati symbolism has any significance. Interpreting the whole story from the end, we see the wolf emerging from hell and finally allowed entrance into the brick building. "You gotta get hot to be real cool" is sung at this point, which can be logically interpreted to mean that unless you sell your soul to the devil you won't be able to play the instrument and allowed access into the brick building. Could this be Masonic symbolism for the ceremony of the Entered Apprentice? Could it be something even deeper? Or could it all just be a cute cartoon for kids and just filled with Masonic coincidences?

I think not on that last question.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Three Miraculous Athonite Akathist Icons

Holy Monastery Dionysiou - Panagia of the Salutations the Myrrhgusher

According to an inscription on the back of this icon, it was given as a gift to Saint Dionysius, founder of the Holy Monastery of Dionysiou on Mount Athos, by Emperor Alexios Komnenos, upon his visit to Trebizond in Asia Minor. According to Holy Tradition, this is the same icon that Patriarch Sergius processed around the walls of Constantinople in 626 A.D. during the reign of Emperor Heraclius. At that time Constantinople was attacked by the Persians and "Scythians" (Avars and Slavs) but saved through the intervention of the Most Holy Theotokos. A sudden hurricane dispersed the fleet of the enemy, casting the vessels on the shore near the great Church of the Theotokos at Blachernae near the Golden Horn. The people spent the whole night in front of this icon thanking her for the unexpected deliverance. In memory of this event the Akathist Hymn is chanted in the Orthodox Church.

In 1592 Algerian pirates stole the icon, but after a fierce storm, a frightening dream, and a great miracle, the leader of the pirates was forced to return it to the monastery. They had hid it in a chest, but the icon shattered it and it was drenched in myrrh. Because of this miracle, some pirates repented and entered the monastery to become monastics.

In 1767 certain theives from Dalmatia stole the icon, and upon their return to Dalmatia were apprehended by Greek shepherds who took the icon and brought it to Skopelos. On Skopelos island the Greek community leaders elected by the Turks, known as Dimogerontes, denied to the Dionysian monks from Mount Athos the return of the icon when they came to request its return. After three months Skopelos was punished by a plague which brought great tragedy to the island, and the Dimogerontes repented and had the icon returned to Dionysiou Monastery and also established a metochion for the monastery on the island.

The icon is small and darkened by time. It is housed in a chapel dedicated to the icon at Dionysiou Monastery where the Akathist Hymn is sung daily.

Holy Monastery Hilandar - Panagia of the Akathist

The icon is on the iconostasis of Hilandar Monastery on Mount Athos. In 1837 a fire occurred at this monastery, and the monks were chanting the Akathist Hymn in front of this icon. Though the fire caused great destruction around it the icon itself remained untouched by the flames. The feast day of the icon is celebrated on January 12.

Holy Monastery Zographou - Panagia of the Akathist Proangellomeni (the Notifier) or "Chairovo"

You can read the full account and historical background behind this miraculous icon here. The feast of this icon is October 10.

Kontakion (Plagal of the Fourth Tone)
O Champion General, we your faithful inscribe to you the prize of victory as gratitude for being rescued from calamity, O Theotokos. But since you have invincible power, free us from all kinds of perils so that we may cry out to you: Rejoice, O Bride unwedded!

Theotokion (Tone Three)
Seeing the beauty of your Virginity, and how resplendently shone forth your chastity, amazed was Gabriel who cried to you thus, O Theotokos: What shall I present to you as a worthy encomium? What shall I address you as? At a loss and perplexed am I. As ordered, therefore, thus do I shout to you: Rejoice, O Maiden who are full of grace!

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The Philanthropy of Saint Philothei the Athenian

Holy Martyr Philothea the Athenian (Feast Day - February 19)

Saint Philothei was born in Athens in 1522 to an illustrious family. Against her will, she was married to a man who proved to be most cruel. When he died three years later, the Saint took up the monastic life and established a convent, in which she became a true mother to her disciples. Many women enslaved and abused by the Muslim Turks also ran to her for refuge. Because of this, the Turkish rulers became enraged and came to her convent, dragged her by force out of the church, and beat her cruelly. After a few days, she reposed, giving thanks to God for all things. This came to pass in the year 1589. She was renowned for her almsgiving, and with Saints Hierotheus and Dionysius the Areopagite is considered a patron of the city of Athens.

From a Greek biography of the Saint:

Certainly philanthropy was one of Saint Philothei's main motives. At a time when there were no hospitals, no shelters for the poor, no homes for the elderly, no asylums, and no shelters for the protection of women, their place was taken by monastic institutions.

In addition to her dedication to a virtuous life, practicing philanthropy by offering protection, giving alms and ministering to the poor and sick, providing Christian education by teaching everyone ecclesiastical letters and liturgical knowledge, the holy woman contributed the following:

First, she founded schools for the children of the Athenians, to open their eyes to the tradition and renown of their ancestors. 'Lay hold of instruction, lest at any time the Lord be angry' (Ps. 2:12). Philothei brought this scriptural quotation to reality. Within her flickered the hope of the rebirth of the Byzantine Empire and...the early deliverance from the bestial yoke of the conquerors.

Second, Philothei aimed at protecting the daughters of Athens from the disgrace of conversion to Islam.... The danger of being subjected to conversion existed not only for the noble daughters who were forcibly abducted by the Turks because of their beauty and grace, but also for the simple ones, the peasant girls, who were forced to work in Turkish homes and farms in order to sustain themselves. Pressure, necessity and ignorance (the great deceiver) were causes in forcing the maidens into submission.

However, Philothei, with her convent of virgins (Παρθενώνα), her schools, her convent's metochia, and family ties, was capable of either strengthening those under duress or sending them away and hiding them. This was done until their consciences recovered or the danger subsided; and until fear was replaced by a spirit of faith and sacrifice for the sake of the Christian Faith.

N.B. Tomadakis, The Life and Service of Saint Philothei, University of Athens.

Apolytikion in the Plagal of the First Tone
The famed city of Athens doth honour Philothei, the righteous Martyr, whose relics it now revereth with joy; for while living in sobriety and holiness, she hath exchanged all earthly things for the everlasting life through great contests as a Martyr; and she entreateth the Saviour to grant His mercy unto all of us.

Kontakion in the Third Tone
We all honour Philothei with jubilation of spirit, as this day we rev'rently worship her ven'rable relics. For she lived her whole life working kindness and mercy; and the righteous one, receiving a martyr's ending, is deemed worthy to entreat God that all be granted eternal life with the Saints.

Procession with the incorrupt relics of St. Philothei in 2007

Church of St. Andrew, founded by St. Philothei after a vision

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Woods Apology Clinton-esque

Woods Apology: Buddhist, Biblical and Bill Clinton-esque

By Cathy Lynn Grossman
USA TODAY
February 19, 2009

A deeply apologetic Tiger Woods today added to his lengthy litany of sins, regrets and promises of repentance that he needs to return to Buddhist traditions.

His mother taught him the traditions and moral philosophy but as an adult, he says, he drifted away. Now it's time to return to finding balance and being centered again.

Buddhism, he said, teaches that "a craving for things outside ourselves" can only lead to "unhappiness and a pointless search for security. Woods said he needed to stop "following every impulse" and "learn restraint."

Then, with several gulps and a weary, steady sad face, he said he was heading back to continue his therapy.

While his pledge is to return to Buddhist ways, his point-by-point apology was classically biblical -- it's the same "turning" process that Bill Clinton cited, reading from a Jewish prayer, when he apologized for his Lewinsky affair in 1998:

Admit your wrongs, take responsibility for them, express your regrets to all who were harmed, and spell out your path to return to integrity and righteousness.

Whether that's enough for Brit-Hume-Christian-style forgiveness -- or everyone else's -- remains to be seen.


Read full Tiger Woods apology here.
Read full Bill Clinton apology here.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Elton John: 'Jesus was a compassionate, super-intelligent gay man'

By Soraya Roberts
New York Daily News
Friday, February 19th 2010

Elton John has never been a big fan of religion.

“Religion promotes hatred and spite against gays," the openly gay performer told the Observer's Music Monthly magazine in 2006. “From my point of view, I would ban religion completely."

So it comes as a surprise that in Parade magazine this week, John claims that one of the central figures of Christianity is in fact a homosexual.

"I think Jesus was a compassionate, super-intelligent gay man who understood human problems," he tells Parade. "On the cross, he forgave the people who crucified him."

In the same breath, John renounces celebrity. The man who at the Grammys wore soot on his face and performed opposite the ultimate exhibitionist, Lady Gaga, says he is done with fame.

"Fame attracts lunatics," he tells the magazine. "I never had a bodyguard, ever, until Gianni [Versace] died. I don't like celebrity anymore."

John made headlines at the beginning of the year when it was announced he staged an intervention to help designer Donatella Versace kick her drug habit. Prior to that he had revealed he was also supporting rapper Eminem in his fight against substance abuse.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

"Obedience" by St. Nikolai Velimirovich

Obedience without murmuring, salvation complete,
Among the spiritual, the first pearl; stone most precious.

This pearl, from Eve's necklace, unraveled,
And after it, all the goods, by God, bestowed.

The devil speaks both then and now: 'To God, do not listen,
Rather, according to the thoughts of your mind, live only!'

Thus speaks the devil from time immemorial who detested the light,
Thus speaking, the disobedient with his noose he fitted.

Christ came, to the people cried out: the obedient He summoned,
To every call, the disobedient did not respond.

The scene of Paradise from Christ until now, repeats itself,
The obedient to Paradise is raised; the disobedient falls.

To his spiritual father, the true monk is obedient,
The father to the Church, the Church to Christ, her Lord.

Obedience, the reliable path toward salvation is,
Of the spiritual necklace; the first light, the first pearl.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Codex Sinaiticus Controversy Resolved

Controversy Over Ancient Greek Bible Resolved in Russia

18 February, 2010
RT

A document which confirms the British Library’s ownership of Codex Sinaiticus, an ancient hand-written copy of the Greek Bible, has been found in the archives of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The agreement was signed in 1869 by the archbishop of the St. Catherine Monastery at the foot of Mt. Sinai and a representative of the Russian Empire.

In the document, Sinai archbishop Kallistrat, on behalf of the monastery confirms that the manuscripts of the Old and the New Testament from the monastic library were officially handed over to the Russian Emperor. The monastery was paid 9,000 roubles for the scripture.

In 1933, Stalin sold the Bible, written in the 4th century in uncial letters, to the library of the British Museum for £100,000. A month after the transfer to London, the St. Catherine Monastery declared that it is the only rightful owner of the manuscript which, according to the statement, was taken from their library by deceit.

Recently, the monks have stopped pursuing ownership of the scripture, but still continue “to mourn its loss.” Now that the transfer of Codex Sinaiticus from the monastery to the Russian Empire has been officially proved legitimate, the rights of the British Library for possessing the ancient Bible are indisputable.

The document confirming the purchase of Codex Sinaiticus by the Russian Empire was allegedly rediscovered by an employee of the Russian National Library, who had been researching the story of the manuscript and had access to the Foreign Ministry’s archives.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Wife of Televangelist Benny Hinn Files for Divorce

February 18, 2010
Los Angeles Times

The wife of faith healer and televangelist Benny Hinn has filed for divorce in Orange County Superior Court.

Suzanne Hinn filed her divorce papers Feb. 1, according to the court website. Her attorney, Sorrell Trope, could not be reached for comment Thursday afternoon.

The couple married in 1979 and have three daughters and a son, according to a biography on posted on the website for Benny Hinn Ministries.

The silver-haired Hinn is one of the world's most financially successful faith healers.

He lives in a multimillon-dollar home near Salt Creek Beach Park in Dana Point. And he has flown around the world in a leased Gulfstream jet to lead his "Miracle Crusades," during which tens of thousands of followers have packed stadiums and auditoriums to hear Hinn preach about the Gospel and God's healing powers.

Hinn has been a pastor for more than 30 years but remains committed to "winning the lost at any cost," his website says.

Hinn's ministries are headquartered in Grapevine, Texas, and operates a television studio in Aliso Viejo.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Dumped But Dispassionate

A humorous article from The Onion Dome...

Single Orthodox Men Find Help in Dumped But Dispassionate

February, 2010

TROUGHWOOD, New York -- St. Vladyka's Press has released a new book, Dumped But Dispassionate: Orthodox Men Recovering From Rejection, a spiritual advice book on how to recover from the loss of being told to take a hike by lovely Orthodox women. The book encourages men to have unwavering faith in God, try to learn from the experience, and resist the urge to shout "IS OUTRAGE! I WANT TO BE ENGAGED!"

The book includes dumping diaries, in which men relate how, exactly, their sweeties gave them the boot. Here are some of the things they said:

"I'd rather be a virgin martyr than marry you."

"You and I together make as much sense as a Lenten cheesecake."

"Our relationship has me so depressed I'm inhaling incense."

"You said that you share my love of Orthodox music, but all you can sing is ninth tone."

"Go to the outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth!"

"Send me postcards from Athos."

"If you don't leave me alone, I'll make you like Origen. I've got an oyster shell and I'm not afraid to use it!"

"The way you look at me makes me want a full-body headscarf."

"I kissed you on February 14th because it was Forgiveness Sunday, not because I'm your Valentine. Get over it!"

"The lives of saints tell of Fools for Christ, but you're just a Fool for Everything."

"You'd be cute in a klobuk."

"I do love you, but it's just agape now."

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Five Rare Icons Stolen in 1978 Return to Greece

Five Rare Byzantine Fresco-Icons Stolen in 1978 Return to Greece

02/19/2010
ana-mpa.gr

Five rare Byzantine hagiography frescoes stolen in 1978 from the Palaiopanagia Church in Steni, Evia, returned to Greece from Basle, Switzerland at dawn Thursday.

The priceless fresco-icons, dating from the 13th and 16th centuries, stolen by Greek antiquities smugglers from the church in August 1978 and illegally sent out of the country were traced by the Greek authorities (Athens Security Police Antiquities Smuggling unit) in 2006 to a well-known Italian antiquities dealer, at a gallery he ran jointly with his German wife in Basle.

The Greek judicial authorities launched legal procedures for the return of the precious icons, on behalf of the Greek state, which lasted more than two years, instituting charges against the Italian antiquities dealer and all others involved, and sought the judicial assistance of the Swiss authorities for confiscation of the stolen icons. The Basle prosecutor's office in December 2009 issued a final judgement ordering the unconditional return of the frescoes to Greece.

The frescoes depict Saints Ermolaos, Nikitas, Makarios of Egypt and Nestor, and are unique examples of the school of painting prevalent in the 13th and 16th centuries on mainland Greece.


Palaiopanagia is a 12th century cross-shape roofed Byzantine church renowned for its exceptional art hagiographies that are distinguished for their precision of proportions and colors.

The five stolen frescoes are a point of reference in international and Greek studies, outstanding among which is a 1971 study co-authored by the present Archbishop of Athens and All Greece, Ieronymos titled "Medieval Monuments of Evia", which has been awarded by the Academy of Athens.

The study, in fact, was a key factor in definitively identifying the frescoes and positively establishing before the Swiss authorities that the five icons are protected Greek cultural monuments.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

A Challenge to Anti-Dialogue 'Fanatics'

Ecumenical Patriarch Challenges Anti-Dialogue 'Fanatics'

February 19, 2010
Ekklesia

Indifference in regard to Christian unity is not an option for the disciples of Jesus, the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew has stated in an encyclical issued on the occasion of the Sunday of Orthodoxy.

"It is not possible for the Lord to agonise over the unity of His disciples and for us to remain indifferent about the unity of all Christians," Bartholomew wrote in the encyclical. The Sunday of Orthodoxy is commemorated this year on 21 February 2010.

The encyclical refutes "fanatical" challenges brought against theological dialogues among different Orthodox churches and against ecumenical contacts with the wider community of Christians by "certain circles that exclusively claim for themselves the title of zealot and defender of Orthodoxy."

"They speak condescendingly of every effort for reconciliation among divided Christians and restoration of their unity as purportedly being 'the pan-heresy of ecumenism' without providing the slightest evidence that, in its contacts with non-Orthodox, the Orthodox Church has abandoned or denied the doctrines of the Ecumenical Councils and of the Church Fathers," Bartholomew criticises.

"The truth does not fear dialogue, because truth has never been endangered by dialogue," the encyclical letter states. "When in our day all people strive to resolve their differences through dialogue, Orthodoxy cannot proceed with intolerance and extremism."

"I am very grateful to the Ecumenical Patriarch for his strong commitment to dialogue and the unity of the church, despite the many pressures from fundamentalist circles among Orthodox believers" said the Rev Dr Olav Fykse Tveit, General Secretary of the World Council of Churches, (WCC) in response to the encyclical on 18 February.

"This encyclical," Tveit said, "reminds me of another famous text: the 1920 encyclical letter in which the Ecumenical Patriarch proposed the foundation of a fellowship of churches, providing a major impulse for the formation of the WCC."

The Feast of Orthodoxy is celebrated on the first Sunday of Lent in the Eastern Orthodox tradition. Originally commemorating the defeat of iconoclasm in the 9th century, the Sunday of Orthodoxy has gradually come to be understood in a more general sense as a feast in honour of the true faith.

The full text of the Patriarch's address is here: http://www.patriarchate.org/news/releases/orthodox-sun-2010

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Defense of Bishop Artemije of Kosovo

Statement by James George Jatras Regarding Allegations of Misuse of Funds to Support Lobbying in the United States on Behalf of Serbs in Kosovo and Metohija

February 18, 2010
Washington

In connection with the suspension of His Grace, Bishop ARTEMIJE, from supervision of his Eparchy, allegations have been made to the effect that funds allocated for other purposes (variously reported as earmarked for humanitarian relief or for repair of churches) instead were used to pay for lobbying service by two firms with which I have been associated, Venable and Squire Sanders. To the best of my knowledge, this was first raised in Blic yesterday. Later that same day, an item appeared in a website purporting to be that of the Diocese of Ras and Prizren and Kosovo and Metohija, denouncing me for beginning circulation of an open appeal in defense of Vladika Artemije, which started yesterday.

I will address the accusation of the alleged misuse of funds in due course, below. But first it needs to be made clear what is going on here: that a concerted effort is being made to destroy the man who, more than anyone else, has become the symbol of Serbia's resistance to amputation and annihilation of Serbia's most important spiritual and national patrimony. Can anyone doubt that should it succeed what would be the consequence for the Serbs of Kosovo and Metohija and for the whole Serbian nation? Even if there are legitimate questions to be asked about administrative matters in the Diocese, everyone can see the methods being used to obliterate Vladika Artemije's public witness and to terrorize and intimidate his supporters. Who benefits from that?

This continues at:

http://benkovackoguvno.yuku.com/reply/59693/t/SPC-removes-Bishop-Artemije-from-power.html#reply-59693

Ethnic Cleansing - destruction of the church @ Yahoo! Video

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Religion Among the Millennials

Faith Of Our Fathers? Survey Says Not So Much

Tom Henderson
Feb 18th 2010
Parent Dish

Young Americans are less religious than their parents, a new study shows.

"Faith of our fathers, holy faith, we shall be true to thee 'til death."

Maybe so. Maybe no. The old hymn might not ring true anymore.

A study released Wednesday by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life concludes that young Americans are significantly less religious than their fathers, mothers and grandparents.

Pew researchers interviewed more than 35,000 Americans about their religious views.
They found one in four "millennials" (that is, people born after 1980 who came of age around the millennium) characterize themselves as atheist, agnostic or nothing in particular. Fewer than one in five members of Generation X (born between 1965 and 1980) expressed similar religious doubts when they were in their early 20s.

Only 13 percent of baby boomers (born between 1946 and 1964) were unaffiliated with a religious tradition when they were young adults, according to the survey and comparison with past data.

None of this means the younger generation doesn't have a prayer.

In fact, 45 percent of the millennials surveyed say they pray daily -- about the same percentage as generations past. They also believe in an afterlife and concepts such as heaven, hell and miracles at roughly the same percentages.

"While growing numbers of people are unaffiliated, it's not necessarily a sign that they're committed secularists," Greg Smith, a senior researcher at the Pew Forum, tells CNN. "We're seeing among young people that there are ways of practicing faith and being religious outside" of church.

Roughly two in three millennials surveyed say they believe in God with absolute certainty, similar to the number of Gen Xers who reported such certainty about God a decade ago.

People tend to get more religious as they get older, Pew researchers tell CNN. A third of baby boomers attend church at least once a week these days. Only a quarter of them did in the 1970s, according to Pew.

The Rev. J. Hill Jr. of New York's Riverside Church admits to CNN that church can be a hard sell sometimes for young folk. But he tells the news network he gets a big response when he rallies young people to help Hurricane Katrina victims in Louisiana.

"Church is difficult because young people today want to engage actively," Hill tells CNN. "They just want to experience God."

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Health Benefits of Fasting Seen in Dolphins

[Be sure to check out these amazing pictures of dolphins in South Africa as well. - J.S.]

Dolphins Have Diabetes Off Switch

By Victoria Gill
Science reporter, BBC News
February 19, 2010

A study in dolphins has revealed genetic clues that could help medical researchers to treat type 2 diabetes.

Scientists from the US National Marine Mammal Foundation said that bottlenose dolphins are resistant to insulin - just like people with diabetes.

But in dolphins, they say, this resistance is switched on and off.

The researchers presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in San Diego.

They hope to collaborate with diabetes researchers to see if they can find and possibly even control an equivalent human "off switch".

The team, based in San Diego, took blood samples from trained dolphins that "snack" continuously during the day and fast overnight.

"The overnight changes in their blood chemistry match the changes in diabetic humans," explained Stephanie Venn-Watson, director of veterinary medicine at the foundation.

This means that insulin - the hormone that reduces the level of glucose in the blood - has no effect on the dolphins when they fast.

Big brains

In the morning, when they have their breakfast, they simply switch back into a non-fasting state, said Dr Venn-Watson. In diabetic people, chronic insulin resistance means having to carefully control blood glucose, usually with a diet low in sugar, to avoid a variety of medical complications.

But in dolphins, the resistance appears to be advantageous. Dr Venn-Watson explained that the mammals may have evolved this fasting-feeding switch to cope with a high-protein, low-carbohydrate diet of fish.

"Bottlenose dolphins have large brains that need sugar," Dr Venn-Watson explained. Since their diet is very low in sugar, "it works to their advantage to have a condition that keeps blood sugar in the body… to keep the brain well fed".

But other marine mammals, such as seals, do not have this switch, and Dr Venn-Watson thinks that the "big brain factor" could be what connects human and dolphin blood chemistry.

"We're really looking at two species that have big brains with high demands for blood glucose," she said.

"And we have found changes in dolphins that suggest that [this insulin resistance] could get pushed into a disease state. "If we started feeding dolphins Twinkies, they would have diabetes."

Genetic link

Since both the human genome and the dolphin genome have been sequenced, Dr Venn-Watson hopes to work with medical researchers to turn the discovery in dolphins into an eventual treatment for humans.

"There is no desire to make a dolphin a lab animal," she said. "But the genome has been mapped - so we can compare those genes with human genes."

Scientists at the Salk Institute in San Diego have already discovered a "fasting gene" that is abnormally turned on in people with diabetes, "so maybe this is a smoking gun for a key point to control human diabetes", Dr Venn-Watson said.

If scientists can find out what switches the fasting gene on and off in dolphins, they may be able to do the same thing in people.

Lori Schwacke, a scientist from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in Charleston, South Carolina, said that the work demonstrated that there are interesting similarities between dolphins and humans.

Dr Schwacke, who is studying the effect of pollution on dolphins along the coast of the US state of Georgia, is also interested in the links between dolphin and human health.

"There are several interesting diseases that you only see in humans and dolphins," she told BBC News. In this case, Dr Venn-Watson said, "the fundamental difference is that dolphins can switch it off and humans can't".

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Sexual Reorientation Therapy: An Orthodox Perspective

by Clark Carlton

Abstract
This article evaluates the phenomenon of sexual reorientation therapy from the standpoint of Orthodox Christian theology. It is argued that homosexual desire is the product of the fall of mankind and cannot be considered “normal.” At the same time, however, reorientation therapies, whether secular or Christian, are inherently reductionistic and fail to address the underlying spiritual pathologies involved in homosexual desire (or any other deep-seated passion). The purpose of therapeia in the Orthodox Church is the psycho-somatic transfiguration of the whole person into the image of Christ, not merely the cessation of homosexual activity or the “reidentification” of one's “lifestyle.”

I. INTRODUCTION

We are, so social conservatives tell us, in the midst of a “culture war,” and there is no public issue that sends more rhetorical lead flying than homosexuality. The year 2004 is a long way from the 1950s, with Ward and June Cleaver leading a traditional “nuclear family.” Much to the chagrin of Pat Buchanan and Cal Thomas, things that were once spoken of in hushed tones—if at all—are now public issues. Homosexuals are no longer willing to hide their identity and what is to them a basic fact of their lives; and social conservatives, both Christian and secular, can no longer pretend that homosexuals do not exist at every level of society. Americans have entered the twenty-first century pondering questions that would have been unimaginable to Ward and June: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry? Should they be allowed to serve openly in the armed forces, or even in the Boy Scouts? Should civil rights legislation be expanded to include “sexual orientation”? Or—and this is potentially the most explosive question of all—should homosexuals be offered the opportunity to change their orientation, to go “straight”?

Inasmuch as most of these questions are public policy issues that are to be decided either by the body politic or the courts, the historic position of the Christian Church on homosexuality is of little consequence for the general public. Regardless of the Church's view of the morality of homosexual acts, in a constitutional democracy such as ours, persons who identify themselves as homosexuals1 cannot be denied the basic civil rights guaranteed to all citizens. The question of reorientation therapy,2 however, is not only one that comes within the Church's purview; it is one that demands a response from the Church. This issue involves the determination of “normality” and the role of “therapy” in our modern culture.

I know of no one who suggests that homosexuals be forced into therapy against their will. All the literature that I have read explicitly states that desire for change is the crucial element in the success of reorientation therapy—so the question of the ethics of such therapy must turn on the propriety of the enterprise in and of itself. The dominant position of the secular therapeutic community is that such therapy is unethical because 1) it does not work, and 2) it may actually harm the patient. There is more to this approach, however. In its position statement on the issue, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) stated:

"Therefore, the American Psychiatric Association opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as “reparative” or “conversion” therapy which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon thea priori assumption that the patient should change his/her homosexual orientation."3

A priori assumptions work both ways, however. This rejection of “conversion” therapy is clearly based on the a priori assumption that change is not possible, that homosexual orientation is in some sense “normal” for some people. In contrast to this presupposition, the position of the Orthodox Church in regard to homosexual activity is that homoerotic desire is the result of the fall of man and that homosexual activity is a sin.

Thus, Orthodoxy approaches the question from a position that is diametrically opposed to that of the secular therapeutic community. One might expect, therefore, a positive evaluation of reorientation therapies from an Orthodox perspective. This, however, is not the case. While the Orthodox would certainly agree with advocates of such therapy that homosexual desire is not natural and is curable—to deny this would be tantamount to denying the power of God—the nature of reorientation therapies is in many respects at variance with the Orthodox understanding of therapy. In short, in spite of whatever religious motivations and trappings that may be added to popular reorientation therapies, they remain fundamentally secular enterprises. From an Orthodox perspective, this, in and of itself, is enough to guarantee that genuine healing does not take place. In what follows I shall endeavor to explain this.

II. THE ORTHODOX UNDERSTANDING OF HOMOSEXUALITY

To understand the Orthodox Christian approach to the question of homosexuality, we must turn to the first chapter of Romans. To be sure, there are many passages in the Scriptures in which homosexual activity of one sort or another is condemned; yet these passages fall short of providing a sound theological basis for addressing the issue. For one thing, there is no biblical word for “homosexual,” and the words translated as “homosexual” in some modern translations are problematic and open to varying interpretations. In the Old Testament (OT), homosexual acts are clearly and unambiguously condemned as “an abomination.” However, lots of things are condemned in the OT as an abomination, including falsifying weights and measures and (heterosexual) adultery. One cannot help but feel some sympathy with homosexuals who argue that the Christian use of the OT is highly selective. At any rate, no real theological reason is given in these passages; that homosexual acts are a sin is simply presented as a fact.

In Romans 1, however, St. Paul provides precisely a theological analysis of the phenomenon of homosexuality. Indeed, it would not be an overstatement to say that the two thousand year history of the Christian proscription against homosexual acts stands or falls with Romans 1. Of course, this chapter is not about homosexuality per se; it is about the fall of man. Whatever else one may wish to say about the subject, if one is to approach it from within a genuinely Christian standpoint, homosexuality must be placed within the context of the fall of man and its aftermath.

"For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." (Romans 1:20-27)

This passage is most often interpreted from the standpoint of natural law theory. Homosexuality, according to this approach, is sinful because it is unnatural. Interestingly, contemporary homosexual apologists have turned this argument on its head. What St. Paul is condemning here, so the new theory goes, is someone who is naturally heterosexual performing homosexual acts. To the person who has a genuine homosexual orientation, however, homosexual desire and acts are perfectly natural. Therefore what St. Paul is condemning is not homosexuality per se, but those who act contrary to their own sexual nature.

Admittedly, this new twist on Romans 1 shows imagination. Indeed, were this passage really about natural law, this new interpretation would have to be given some credence. However, St. Paul's point in this chapter is not about natural law, but about the nature of the fall of man. From an Orthodox interpretation of this passage, three things become clear: First, homosexual desire is a result of the fall. Second, in a very real sense, homosexual desire is an image or icon of the fall itself. Third, homosexual desire is a passion, which can only be overcome through genuinely Christian—that is to say churchly—therapy.

Throughout both testaments the disexuality of human nature is presented typologically. That is, the difference between male and female is presented as a type of man's relationship with God. The male—the husband—is the type of God or Christ, while the female—the wife—is the type of humanity, Israel, or the Church. In Ephesians, St. Paul describes Christian marriage and then says that it is a great mystery, but he goes on to say that he is talking of the mystery of Christ and the Church. In Romans 1, St. Paul presents homosexual desire as the type of the fall itself; it is the type of creation's attempt at self-deification.4 Thus, homosexual desire is not only a product of the fall, the desire for “another of the same kind” instead of “another of a different kind” is an image of the very nature of the fall.5

III. THE ORTHODOX UNDERSTANDING OF THE PASSIONS

It is often argued that the writers of the Scriptures and the Fathers of the Church considered homosexual acts to be simply a choice, much in the same way that one chooses whether or not to cheat on one's spouse. While there is a good deal of truth to this—certainly neither St. Paul nor St. John Chrysostom knew anything of “homosexuality” as it is conceived in modern terms—we should not be too quick to dismiss the biblical and patristic injunctions against homosexuality as simply being the fruits of an unenlightened age. In Romans 1, St. Paul refers explicitly to homosexual desire, not merely homosexual acts. The point is that homosexuality is a lust; that is, a perversion of man's natural sexual energies. In other words, it is a passion.

For the most part, the Church Fathers adopted a three-part division of the soul common among Greek philosophers. In Book IV of The Republic, Plato speaks of the soul as divided into the rational, appetitive, and excitable parts.6 In the normally functioning soul, the rational aspect seeks the good and leads man toward it. Reason keeps the appetite under control, with the aid of the excitable power. For example, a married man notices a beautiful woman and feels the pangs of lust. He immediately reproaches—gets angry—with himself and reminds himself that he is married and that adultery would jeopardize his marriage. Thus rebuked, he fends off the lustful thoughts, and justice is established within his soul.

In a diseased or unjust soul, however, the appetites overrule reason and man lives not for the sake of the good, but for the sake of the gratification of desires. To use a modern example, consider someone who is addicted to cigarettes. The person surely knows by now that smoking is bad for the body. It has been clinically connected with emphysema, heart disease and cancer. The smoker knows smoking is bad, but continues to do it because he or she is in the control of the desire for nicotine. The appetites have charge of the person's life. When the appetite cannot be satiated—think of a smoker forced to endure an eight-hour smoke-free flight—he or she becomes irritable. Instead of siding with the reasoning aspect of the soul, the excitable faculty is employed by the appetites. This is why smokers, alcoholics, and drug addicts are willing to go to extraordinary means to satisfy their craving. The same aspect of the soul that gives courage to the hero in battle gives energy and determination to the soul enslaved to the appetites.

The Fathers generally adopted this Platonic schema, but went much further than Plato in elucidating how the soul works—developing a true psyche-ology. The passions, according to Orthodox tradition, are natural faculties and energies of the soul and body that have been corrupted, deformed, and diverted from their original—natural—purpose. This means that for the Orthodox, the healing of the passions involves not the eradication of the passions but their transformation—their transfiguration.7

Just as there are physical energies and faculties and spiritual energies and faculties in man, so there are passions of both the body and soul. Furthermore, the Fathers speak of both voluntary and involuntary passions. In other words, there are some passions that are so ingrained within us they are beyond our conscious decision-making power. This is a very important point for our present discussion.

Homosexual desire must be classed among the involuntary passions. It is commonplace among conservative Christians to treat homosexuality as if it were simply a matter of choice. Yet anyone who actually knows homosexual persons, and certainly anyone who has counseled them, knows this is not the case. One does not wake up one morning and suddenly “decide” to be attracted to persons of the same gender. However, to say that homosexual desire is an involuntary passion is in no way to diminish the fact that it is a passion—a corruption of man's natural sexual energies.

It is widely accepted in scientific circles that there may be a biological (genetic) predisposition in some people toward alcoholism or obesity. This does not change the fact, however, that drunkenness and gluttony are passions. Even if a genetic basis could be found for homosexuality, one could not then argue that homosexual desire is “normal” any more than one could argue that being an alcoholic or seriously obese is “normal.”

While the Orthodox Church has never accepted the idea of original sin prevalent in Western Christianity,8 Orthodoxy certainly realizes that we are born into a fallen world—a world that does not function as it was originally intended. Although we often speak of “fallen nature,” this term needs further refinement. According to St. Maximus the Confessor, it is not the principle (logos) of nature that is fallen, but rather nature's mode (tropos) of existence.9 God's creation is entirely good and remains so even after the fall of mankind. There is no place for the Calvinistic doctrine of total depravity in Orthodox theology. It is the way nature now operates that is affected by the fall.

The tragedy of man's predicament—and this has direct bearing on the topic of homosexual desire—is that we are so used to this fallen manner of existence that we take it for granted. The natural man, or the “fleshly man” as St. Paul would have it, considers his fallen mode of existence to be normal. Thus what we consider to be “natural” is from a biblical perspective unnatural or sub-natural, and what we consider to be “supernatural” is, in fact, the natural or normative state of existence. The homosexual feels that his desires are natural because that is all he has ever known, and no amount of “natural law theory” will convince him otherwise.

It is significant that there is no biblical word for “homosexual.” Indeed, there is no such word in either Latin or Greek; it is of modern origin. From this bit of linguistic archeology, we are able to draw a theological conclusion: for the writers of the Scriptures and for the Church Fathers, there is no “ontology” to homosexuality. This view is normative for the Christian Church. To be sure, there are persons who have a homoerotic orientation; this orientation may be exclusive and it may very well have some basis in genetics. But, from a genuinely biblical perspective, there is no such thing as “a homosexual.” For a man to describe himself as “gay” (or a woman as a “lesbian”) is to grant ontology to his desires and define himself according to his passions.

This self-identification is, of course, at the heart of the contemporary gay movement. This is precisely the one point where the Christian Church cannot deviate from Her historical stand without changing Her entire theology. For the Church to accept someone as “gay” would be to accept the fallen state of man as the natural state. The gay anthem, “I am what I am,” from the musical La Cage aux Folles, is instructive here. What a person is is a matter of biology and genetics; it is an objectification of human life based on the givenness of (fallen) nature. Who a person is—and this is what concerns the Orthodox theologian—is the product of man's freedom; it is the subjective realization of what it means to have been created in the image of God.

Like the inhabitants of Plato's cave, however, we are unaware of our true nature. We take the shadows for reality and define ourselves according to our passions. It is only when we encounter someone who is free of the passions, someone who lives life according to true nature, that we begin to realize our true situation. This realization, however, is at first traumatic. We refuse to believe it.10 A person truly free of the passions seems to us to be inhuman, a creature from another world. The world could not deal with Christ—the first authentically human person—and it has not dealt much better with His Saints. Yet, Saints there are, even today. The Saints are those who have been healed of the passions and who live life according to nature—what we mistakenly consider supernatural existence. They are living revelations of God, living revelations of what human life is supposed to be.

IV. ORTHODOX THEOLOGY AS THERAPY

According to the Greek bishop Hierotheos Vlachos, the Orthodox Church is a spiritual hospital, and its purpose is the healing of the human soul.11 Orthodoxy is a therapeutic science designed to heal the passions and lead man to his natural state in communion with God. The Orthodox Church honors the Saints because they are the living proof (martyrs—witnesses) that the therapy works, that it is possible for man to be healed.

Given this Orthodox insistence that Christianity is first and foremost a therapeutic science, one might reasonably expect a positive evaluation of Christian reorientation therapies. Sadly, however, this is not the case. While there are obvious parallels, the similarities between the Orthodox notion of therapy and that which is practiced within the Protestant world are superficial. To understand this, we must first take a closer look at the Orthodox understanding of therapy and cure and then examine current reorientation therapies in light of the Orthodox standard.

To understand the Orthodox notion of therapy, one must understand that for the Orthodox, sin is not God's problem, but man's. This may seem axiomatic, but in reality it is not. Since at least the time of Anselm's Cur deus homo, Western Christianity has been saddled with the notion that man's sin somehow affects God—it insults His infinite honor and calls forth His wrath. Such anthropomorphic notions are unacceptable to Orthodox theology, however, because they violate the first principle of theology, namely that there is no analogy of being between God and man. God is impassible and unchangeable. He has no pride to wound. Sin, therefore, does not affect God's ability to relate to man (as if God were an upper caste Hindu prevented from coming into contact with an Untouchable); it affects man's ability to relate to God.

In the Scriptures we are told that no one has ever seen God and lived and that God is a consuming fire, yet we are also told that the pure in heart shall see God, that Christians are called to become partakers of the divine nature. The difference is not that God hates sinners and loves the righteous (He loves both without differentiation), but that the sinner is prevented by his sin from experiencing God as light and life. For him, God's presence is fire and judgement. The Saint, on the other hand, is cleansed of his passions and, therefore, open to God's love. For him, God's presence is light and life. Metropolitan Hierotheos describes what the Orthodox mean by the cure of the soul:

"We are not struggling simply to become good people, adjusted to society. The aim of therapeutic treatment is not to make people sociable and to be an anthropocentric exercise, but it is to guide them to communion with God, and for this vision of God not to be a fire that will consume them but a light which will illuminate them." (1994, p. 270)12

One must understand that the passions are not merely bad habits, and the cure of the soul is not merely a matter of behavior modification. The passions are a spiritual pathology. They are deviations and malfunctions of man's most basic bodily and spiritual faculties. They are so ingrained within us that they appear quite natural. Furthermore, the passions are related to one another in very complex ways. To give but one example, the passion of anger is frequently tied to the passion of lust. For every passion that comes to the surface, manifesting itself in outward behavior, there is probably a complex of related passions at work in the deepest recesses of the soul.

How then are these passions cured and the heart cleansed? A person with cancer would not go to a university or a mall for treatment, but to a hospital, because that is where he or she will find treatment appropriate to the disease. In a hospital there are doctors who have knowledge of the disease and, through experience, have learned the best way to treat it. The hospital also contains the facilities and medicines needed to treat the disease.

According to Metropolitan Hierotheos, the Church is a spiritual hospital. The doctors are the spiritual fathers and mothers (usually, but not exclusively, monks and nuns). Their qualification is not an academic degree, but their experience of having undergone spiritual treatment themselves. They are at varying degrees along the way toward the cure of the soul, and they are able to direct others because of their own experience. The medicines and facilities of the hospital are the Holy Mysteries (sacraments). In Baptism, man is regenerated, is “born from above.” In the Holy Eucharist, man receives, according to the phrase of St. Ignatius of Antioch (1999, p. 151), the “medicine of immortality.” Confession and penance are the spiritual equivalent of surgery. It is in confession that the hidden tumors of the soul are laid bare for treatment. In addition to all of these, the physician will prescribe various therapies, much in the same way that a cardiologist will prescribe cardiac rehabilitation therapy. These therapies are the Church's ascetic disciplines: prayer, fasting, vigil, and obedience.

From the above, it is evident that the cure of the soul requires both the grace of God and the cooperation of the one seeking the cure. As the author of the Makarian Homilies puts it, “We do not reach the final stage of spiritual maturity through divine power and grace alone, without ourselves making every effort; but neither on the other hand do we attain the final measure of freedom and purity as a result of our own diligence and strength alone, apart from any divine assistance.”13 To return to the medical analogy, what good would it do for a doctor to prescribe expensive drugs to a bad cardiac patient, if the patient insists on smoking, continues to eat food with high levels of salt and cholesterol, and refuses to exercise?

I cannot stress enough the importance of ascetical effort. When confronted by obstinate demons whom the Apostles were not able to exercise, Christ exclaimed that such demons can be expelled only through prayer and fasting (cf. Mark 9:29). Of course, it is not beyond the power of God to simply remove passions or inordinate desires from us, but almost two thousand years of Christian history teaches that this is not the usual modus operandi. Indeed the ascetical Fathers repeatedly say that there is great virtue in the struggle itself.

Furthermore, simply refraining from outward sin is insufficient. In the context of homosexual desire, refraining from committing physical homosexual acts may not be terribly difficult for many homosexuals, but this is not the same thing as healing. For the Orthodox, the purpose of all spiritual effort is true God-likeness, not mere moral improvement. Indeed the passions of the soul are more insidious and dangerous than those of the body. Even if one has been able to manage one's bodily passions, that does not necessarily mean one has conquered all passions. Nor, indeed, does ascetical effort guarantee sanctification if there is no accompanying union with God. Ilias the Presbyter (1986, p. 55) writes:

"Bodily passions are like wild animals, while passions of the soul are like birds. The man engaged in ascetic practice can keep the animals out of the noetic vineyard; but unless he enters into a state of spiritual contemplation, he cannot keep the birds away, however much he strives to guard himself inwardly. The man engaged in ascetic practice cannot rise above ethical propriety, unless he goes beyond the natural law—as Abraham went forth from his own land—and beyond his own limited state of development—as Abraham left his kinsmen (cf. Gen. 12:1). In this way, as a mark of God's approval, he will be liberated from the all-embracing hold of pleasure; for it is this veil of pleasure, wrapped around us from our birth, that prevents us from receiving complete freedom."

The goal of Orthodox therapy, therefore, is dispassion, which opens the soul to the possibility of communion with God. As Bishop Hierotheos is at great pains to point out, however, this is not the same as the stoic concept of dispassion. The goal here is not an insensate state of apathy, but rather the redirection of man's natural energies (Hierotheos, 1994, p. 296). To put it another way, the goal is transformation rather than eradication. Bishop Hierotheos goes on to state that there are different levels of dispassion:

"St. Maximus sets out four degrees of dispassion. The first type of dispassion is observed in beginners and is “complete abstention from the actual committing of sin.” In this stage the man does not commit the acts outwardly. The second dispassion, which occurs in the virtuous, is the complete rejection in the mind of all assent to evil thoughts. The third dispassion, which is complete quiescence of passionate desire, is found in the deified, and the fourth is the complete purging even of passion-free images, in those who are perfect. It seems from this passage that according to the degree of a man's purity, the corresponding dispassion is manifested." (1994, pp. 299-300)

There is no way to adequately explain Orthodox ascetical theology in a few paragraphs. Allow me to conclude this section, however, with a brief summary that will at least provide some background for the critique of reorientation therapy that follows. (1) The goal of human life is union with God. This is conceived not in terms of moral imitation, but of genuine God-likeness (theosis, in Greek): to become by grace what God is by nature. (2) Sin is the barrier between God and man not because it offends God, but because it cripples man's ability to relate to God. (3) With the fall of man, sin becomes ingrained in man like a second nature. Sin is not merely the result of bad choices, but is rooted in the passions, which are the malfunctioning of man's natural capacities. (4) Salvation is not access to a cosmic theme park (the popular view of heaven), but union with God. Salvation presupposes, therefore, the healing of man's passions and the restoration of his natural faculties. (5) Salvation is, therefore, a process of healing—a therapeutic process. (6) In keeping with the original goal of creation (1, above), this therapeutic process has as its goal not moral improvement, but the total transformation of the passions and, ultimately, the transcendence of man's natural capacities.

V. REORIENTATION THERAPY

With this background let us consider why modern reorientation therapy fails to “measure up,” as it were, to the Orthodox standard of therapy. There are two separate, albeit related, aspects of reorientation therapy that demand our attention. First of all, there is the psychological explanation that lies behind most versions of this therapy. This explanation seems to be shared by both secular and religiously oriented therapists. Second, there are specifically Christian programs that combine such therapy with prayer and support. I shall address each of these aspects in turn.

Not all reorientation therapists agree on the ultimate causes of homosexuality.14 However, it is safe to say that the predominant theory is that homosexuality is a developmental disorder regarding gender identity. For whatever reasons—and therapists who hold this view acknowledge that each case is different—the homosexual fails to identify properly with the same-sex parent, prompting a crisis of his or her own gender identity.15 This may or may not be accompanied by an overbearing relationship with the opposite-sex parent.16 This failure to identify with the same-sex parent occurs in very early childhood.

There are two problems with this theory. The first problem has to do with the determination of causality. As in many cases of concomitant variation, it is not immediately evident which is the cause and which is the effect. Even assuming that the majority of homosexuals have not properly gender identified with the same-sex parent, this may well be the effect of a prior disposition, rather than the cause of later homosexual desire.17 If this were the case, then gender identification therapy would be treating a symptom rather than the underlying cause.

The second problem is the sufficiency of this profile in explaining the origins of homosexuality. Quite simply, not all homosexuals fit the pattern. The stereotype of an effeminate man with an overbearing mother is just that, a stereotype. Furthermore, there are heterosexuals who fit the pattern to a tee. Part of the problem here is that therapists only work with a minute minority of homosexuals, namely those who are unhappy and come to the therapists for treatment. It may well be that a high percentage of those who come for treatment fit the profile, but that does not mean that all or even a high percentage of the homosexual population as a whole fits the pattern.

If I may be permitted to address the problem as a logician for a moment, I would put it this way: Let y stand for the occasion in question; in this case, homosexual orientation. Let A, B, C, D, E, and F stand for subjects, where half of the subjects are homosexual and half are not. Thus, we have Ay, By, Cy, D, E, and F. If we say that x is the determinative factor for occasion y in any given subject, then we should see this pattern: Ayx, Byx, Cyx, and D, E, F. However, the reality is more like this: Ayx, Byx, Cy, D, E, Fx. If this is indeed the case, what conclusions can be drawn? First of all the presence of factor x in a subject that does not exhibit occasiony tells us that whatever the relationship between xand y, x cannot be considered a sufficient cause for y. In other words, the instance of a heterosexual who fails to properly gender identify with the same-sex parent—and surely there are many—negates the possibility that failure to gender identify is the sole cause of homosexuality.18 In the same way, the absence of factor x in subjects with occasion y negates the possibility that x is a necessary cause for y. Thus, the failure to gender identify can be considered neither a necessary nor sufficient cause of homosexuality.

This does not mean that the failure to gender identify is not a possible cause (among many). From what I have read and observed, I would argue that homosexual orientation is a multifaceted phenomenon with perhaps a multitude of possible causes, some psychological and some, perhaps, genetic or biochemical. This is perfectly in keeping with the Orthodox view that the passions are a complicated complex of factors. The problem with reorientation therapy, however, is that it operates with the assumption that a gender-identity deficiency is the primary, if not the only, cause. Reorientation therapy is, therefore, reductionistic.

If Orthodox Christian theology is true, that is, if God has indeed created man in His image, and if, as St. Paul says, the union of man and woman in marriage is somehow related to the mystery of the union of Christ with His Bride, the Church, then homosexual desire must be as much of a spiritual condition as a psychological or physical condition. Thus, to treat homosexuality as merely a psychological developmental disorder is to ignore what may very well be the most important aspect of the issue. The case is somewhat analogous to the modern attitude toward demonic possession. As far as secular—and a great many Christian—therapists are concerned, “possession” is nothing more than some sort of psychotic episode or disorder. That one might actually be possessed by demons is never even considered. Now I am not suggesting that homosexuality is caused by demons, merely trying to point out that gender identity theory, whatever limited merits it may have, is at root a secular and reductionistic explanation for a phenomenon that is to a large degree spiritual and complex.

This brings us to specifically Christian therapeutic programs, such as those promoted by Exodus International. Although Exodus refers homosexuals to a variety of different ministries, there does seem to be a general acceptance of the gender-identity theory. This is evidenced most convincingly by the fact that Exodus and many of its partner ministries insist on the importance of non-sexual, same-sex relationships as a key factor in the healing process. However, these Christian therapies at least recognize the spiritual dimension of the problem.

Perhaps it is because of this realization that Christian reorientation theories are generally less bold in their claims of success than their secular counterparts. While all affirm that healing is possible, it is not so clear that all believe that homosexuals can be converted into fully functional heterosexuals without any remaining homoerotic desires. An Exodus FAQ puts it this way:

"What's your “success rate” in changing gays into straights?

"What you are really asking is whether there is realistic hope for change for men and women who do not want their sexual orientation to be homosexual. And the answer to that is yes!" (www.exodusnorthamerica.org)19

Further on in the same FAQ, it is stated: “Studies suggesting change rates in the range of 30-50% are not unusual, although 'success rates' vary considerably and the measurement of change is problematic.” On the face of it, there should be little problem in measuring success: one is either completely free of same-sex desire or one is not. But things are not that clear-cut and Christian reorientation advocates seem to realize this.20

The fact of the matter is that the number of people who claim to have lost all same-sex desire is very small—certainly less than 30%-50% of those who have undergone therapy. For the secular reorientation therapists, the primary goal seems to be functional heterosexuality, with a corresponding decrease in homosexual desire. This decrease, however, need not be complete for most theorists to claim “success.” Religion-based therapy programs, however, seem to focus more on behavior modification (avoiding sinful acts) and identity (disavowing the “gay” self-image). Indeed, when groups such as Exodus offer deliverance from homosexuality, it appears that they really mean deliverance from the “homosexual lifestyle.” This is not, however, the same thing as deliverance from a true homoerotic orientation.

I would argue that the closest analogy to Christian reorientation therapies would be Alcoholics Anonymous. The alcoholic is not said to be completely “cured,” but is helped to stay “on the wagon” and put his life back in order. Similarly, Christian programs provide the wherewithal for a person to leave the “homosexual lifestyle” and find a new identity as a Christian within a loving community that will reinforce positive behavior and inhibit negative behavior (sin).

No Orthodox Christian would deny that homosexual acts are sinful or that the “homosexual lifestyle” is self-destructive. Furthermore, the question of identity is of paramount importance: a Christian may certainly have homosexual desires, but a Christian cannot identify himself as “gay” and remain Christian. Thus, an Orthodox Christian would be hard pressed to find anything necessarily wrong with such an approach. Certainly it is better to abstain from sin than commit it. However, this is a far cry from dispassion, which is the goal of Orthodox therapy.

My problem with reorientation therapies, whether secular or Christian, is not that they are incapable of producing some change, but that this change is less than the healing of the passions. Where secular therapy is concerned, simply replacing homosexual lust with heterosexual lust is but a shallow victory. Christian therapy, on the other hand, seems much less concerned with producing functioning heterosexuals than with healing emotional wounds and providing the person struggling with homosexuality the support needed to “re-identify” himself as a Christian and to avoid the commission of homosexual acts (in thought as well as deed). To this end, Christian therapy is much to be preferred over secular therapy. Yet, at the risk of beating a dead horse, this is not the same as dispassion and union with God.

Why are the Orthodox so insistent on this point? The answer lies in the Orthodox understanding of salvation outlined above. Sin is not a legal barrier between man and God; it is a disease that renders man incapable of receiving God's love as light and life. The Orthodox do not assume, as do many Evangelical Protestants, that because one had initiated a “relationship with Christ” one is definitively and irrevocably “saved.” On the contrary, salvation is viewed as a process. The transfiguration of the passions is a necessary element of this process. Thus, ethics, for the Orthodox, is a matter of salvation.

The Orthodox Church fully agrees with St. Cyprian's famous statement that there is no salvation outside the Church. This is a confession that the Church—and the Church alone—possesses the therapeutic science necessary to heal man of his passions. Admittedly, this is not a very “ecumenical” sentiment, but it is the belief of the Orthodox Church. When, therefore, an Orthodox Christian is asked to evaluate sexual reorientation therapies from an ethical perspective, he is bound to do so against the backdrop of his own Orthodox understanding of sin and salvation.

There is nothing inherently wrong with either the secular or the Christian reorientation therapies. Surely it is ethical to offer those struggling with homosexual desire the opportunity to find healing. Thus, all of these therapies are fine as far as they go; it is just that from the standpoint of eternity, they do not go very far.

NOTES

1 For reasons that shall become apparent, I am reluctant to use the term “homosexual.” At this point in the discussion, suffice it to say that the more correct term would be “person(s) with a homosexual orientation.” As this phrase is exceedingly cumbersome, however, I am yielding to the modern convention of using the term “homosexual.” My use of “homosexual” as a substantive, however, should not be construed to imply any “ontology” of sexual orientation.

2 Alternate terms are “reparative” and “conversion” therapy.

3 The statement was prepared by the APA Committee on Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues and is dated September 11, 1998. The statement was unanimously adopted by the APA's Board of Trustees during its meeting of December 11/12, 1998.

4 Notice that St. Paul mentions women turning away from the natural desire for men before speaking of male homosexual desire. This is the only place I know of where the writers of Scripture mention lesbianism. This makes perfect sense in this context, however, for in the Pauline typology it is creation—the female—that has turned from its natural desire for God—the male. Paul mentions male homosexual desire almost as an afterthought. This is not to suggest that male homosexuality is less sinful or somehow less of an image of the fall—no doubt St. Paul wanted to avoid that interpretation—but it does explain why St. Paul mentions lesbianism here.

5 There is an inherent narcissism in homosexual desire, but is this not also an image of the fallen state of humanity—human nature obsessed with itself?

6 Plato (1968, 435a-445e). For a detailed discussion of the patristic appropriation of this schema see Staniloae (2002, pp. 96-108).

7 Some Fathers treat the passions as an inherent evil to be eradicated. I would argue, however, that this is a minority viewpoint. See Bishop Kallistos Ware's definition of “passion” in The Philokalia, Vol. 1, pp. 363-364. Boston: Faber and Faber, 1988.

8 Cf. Romanides (2002, esp. pp. 17-39).

9 Cf. Maximus the Confessor, Opscula Theologica et Polemica 20 (PG 91, 236C-D). “Pure and simply human, our will is not in any way impeccable, because of its inclination which is produced sometimes in one sense, sometimes in another. This inclination does not change the nature, but it detours the movement, or to speak in a manner more correctly, it changes the mode. It is clear in fact that the one who does many things contrary to reason never transforms his rational nature into irrational.”

10 In Book VII of The Republic (515c-e), Plato states that the man suddenly released from his fetters and turned toward the reality of life outside the cave would not, at first, believe his eyes.

11 In this section, I have drawn heavily from the writings of Metropolitan Hierotheos. I particularly recommend The Illness and Cure of the Soul in the Orthodox Tradition (1993) and Orthodox Psychotherapy: The Science of the Fathers (1994).

12 Cf. this passage from the Makarian homilies: “What is the will of God that St. Paul urges and invites each of us to attain? It is total cleansing from sin, freedom from the shameful passions, and the acquisition of the highest virtue. In other words, it is the purification and sanctification of the heart that comes about through fully experienced and conscious participation in the perfect and divine Spirit.” (St. Makarios of Egypt, 1986, p. 285).

13 St. Makarios of Egypt (1986, p. 285).

14 Some therapists are agnostic on the subject, tailoring their therapy to the desire of the patient. If the patient is unhappy as a homosexual and wants to change, the therapist will act accordingly. This is done without any prejudice as to the normality of homosexuality.

15 One of the chief proponents of this theory is an Orthodox Christian, Dr. Elizabeth Moberly. Cf. Moberly 1982 & 1983.

16 The overbearing mother and the “momma's boy” is a common stereotype. However, the point of the gender identity theory is that it is not the relationship with the opposite-sex parent that is determinative, but the failure to identify with the same-sex parent.

17 Andrew Sullivan (1995, p.10) makes this point. This is perhaps the most cogently presented argument for the rights of homosexuals.

18 Lest I be accused of sleight of hand here, while a sufficient cause need not be the sole cause, the sole cause must be the sufficient cause.

19 I am normally loath to reference internet sites in formal papers. I am making an exception in this case because this material is not scholarly material available from a library. Those who wish to view Exodus materials may do so at www.exodusnorthamerica.org

20 This same ambiguity as to what constitutes success is to be found in Orthodox writers as well. Fr. John Breck (1998, pp. 116-117) lauds organizations such as Exodus as “invaluable” and affirms the possibility of true change, yet in the very next paragraph he writes, “It is clear, however, that the homosexual condition is often irreversible: the orientation is permanent.”


REFERENCES

1. Breck, Fr. John (1998) The sacred gift of life: Orthodox Christianity and bioethics SVS Press , Crestwood, NY
2. (1999) Epistle to the Ephesians. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek texts and English translations Baker Books , Grand Rapids
3. (1986) Gnomic Anthology IV. The Philokalia 3 , Faber and Faber , Boston
4. (1986) Spiritual Perfection. The Philokalia Faber and Faber , Boston
5. (1857) Opscula Theologica et Polemica; Patrologia Graeca 91 , pp. 9-285.
6. Moberly, E. (1982) Psychogenesis: The early development of gender identity Kegan Paul , London
7. Moberly, E. (1983) Homosexuality: A new Christian ethic James Clarke , Cambridge
8. Plato (1968) The Republic of Plato Basic Books
9. Romanides, J. (2002) The Ancestral Sin Zephyr , G. S. Gabriel, Ridgewood, NJ
10. Staniloae, D. (2002) Orthodox Spirituality St. Tikhon's Seminary Press , South Canaan, PA
11. Sullivan, A. (1995) Virtually normal: An argument about homosexuality Vintage, New York
12. Vlachos, Hierotheos. (1993) The illness and cure of the soul in the Orthodox tradition Birth of the Theotokos Monastery , Levadia, Greece
13. Vlachos, Hierotheos. (1994) Orthodox psychotherapy: The science of the Fathers Birth of the Theotokos Monastery , Levadia, Greece

Christian Bioethics, Volume 10, Issue 2 & 3 January 2004 , pages 137 - 153.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr