The Church in St. Maximus' Mystagogy

The Church in St. Maximus' Mystagogy
The Problem and the Orthodox Perspective

From "Theology", no 1, 1985

CONTENTS

Chapter 1 : Introduction

Chapter 2 : Saint Maximus' Mystagogy

Chapter 3 : The Church as the Eikon of God the Creator

Chapter 4 : The Church as the Eikon of the World

Chapter 5 : The Church as the Eikon of the Sensible World

Chapter 6 : The Church as the Eikon of Man

Chapter 7 : The Church as the Eikon of the Soul

Chapter 8 : The Bible as the Eikon of Man and the Church

Chapter 9 : The World, Man, and the Church

Chapter 10 : Epilogue

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Video: The Grave of Saint Maximus in Georgia

Read also: Grave of St. Maximus the Confessor Discovered in Tsageri, Georgia

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The Mystery of Holy Language

In the following discussion of the use of traditional languages in contemporary Orthodoxy, Sister S., a European Orthodox nun and experienced Greek-English translator, reflects with the editor of Road to Emmaus Orthodox magazine on the deep connection between holy language and an Orthodox worldview.

RTE: Sister, I’d like to begin with a quote from Gifts of the Desert in a discus­sion between the author, Dr. Kyriakos Markides, and a Cypriot abbot, Father Maximos (now Metropolitan Athanasios of Limassol, Cyprus).

[Fr. Maximos begins:] “We must avoid addressing ourselves to God in a superficial casual way. For this reason Elder Sophrony goes so far as to say that the language we use in prayer must be different from the ordinary language of everyday usage. That is why he insisted that the language of the liturgy should not be translated into the contemporary spoken vernacular.”

“A lot of people today would strongly object to that suggestion,” I pointed out. “They demand that church services be conducted in the spoken ordinary language so that they can understand what is being said. Why did Elder Sophrony hold to such a position?”

“Elder Sophrony claimed that when we conduct the liturgy using everyday language, we lower the level of our communication with God.”

“How is that so?” I asked.

“He believed that ordinary language carries meanings and images from our daily reality that usually lack the element of holiness and purity. On the other hand, when we address ourselves to God in a language that has, as it were, an exclusive usage within the boundaries of the Ecclesia, the very words and sounds of that language evoke sacred feelings and images that facilitate communication with God. A special language that offers precise and exclusive meanings can automatically be experienced as the language of the Ecclesia. It carries greater spiritual force.” [1]

This is an astounding statement at a time when western convert churches are eager to translate everything into contemporary speech. Of course, the desire to hear the services in one’s own language is understandable and necessary, but underestimating the importance of primary church languages such as Greek, Latin, Slavonic, Georgian, Syriac, Arabic, and perhaps even Coptic and Ge’ez, too often ends in ignoring them, or even in a kind of disdain for the living traditions and original languages. I am not a Greek speaker myself, but I’ve been told that a single word in Greek often has several different meanings but when translated this richness is almost always lost. Is this so?

SISTER S.: Yes, this occurs all of the time. The person who reads the services and the theological books in the Greek of the Church Fathers gets much more out of it than a straightforward translation in French, German, or English can provide. In Greek, these words and terms have a long cultural history and theological meanings that were hammered out by great saints and theologians. They have a precision, a depth of meaning, and a breadth of context that is almost impossible to capture in another language. Probably Slavonic comes the closest because the Russians, Serbs and Bulgarians have had centuries of lived Orthodoxy that fills the words with meaning. But even Slavonic is sometimes poor in comparison to Greek. It lacks articles, so words may not be as clearly defined as they are in Greek.

Counting both the ancient and modern versions, Greek has an immense vocabulary, many times the size of the English vocabulary. For example, in my limited experience of translating from modern Greek to English, I have often had problems in translating words having to do with light. Greek has many terms for the action of light, while in English we have only a few that have the dignity that would suit the church context … such as shine, radiate, or gleam. Flash, sparkle, glitter, and so on, are too common or shallow, but in Greek there is a whole range of vocabulary to speak about light and the way light acts—so when you translate it into English, the translation often sounds flat, or the same words are repeated too often. The word “joy” has the same problems. This is a very simple example, but when you try to translate theological terms, it is even more difficult. These are words that have a history, that have been used by the Church Fathers to mean specific things within a specific Orthodox theological-spiritual context. When you translate them into English, the words have a whole different context. In one language, a word has a certain circle of meaning, while in another, the closest word might have an overlapping circle of meaning, but it will never be exactly the same. It has other echoes and other connotations. (Like the use of “gay” now in English, to use a crude example.) In addition, English theological terms are often shaded by centuries of use in a Roman Catholic or Protestant context.

So translations can never be exact from one language to another because all the words will never have the same exact meaning. To make it worse, an English text is often not only a translation, but a translation of a translation. English translations made by people from the Slavic tradition are from Slavonic, which is already a translation from Greek. As good as Slavonic is, to translate from it is like making a xerox of a xerox; you lose resolution, you lose the quality of the image.

Of course, we must have translations, they are indispensable for us, but we mustn’t forget that there is a depth of meaning in the original that is inaccessible to us. We have to respect this, to see the the value of maintaining these old languages.

This difficulty in translation is not only a matter of vocabulary—there is also the grammar of the old languages. Both Greek and Slavonic are inflected languages, which means that while in English, we use strings of prepositions and strict word order to get our meaning across, in both Greek and Slavonic, the words themselves change—for example, according to whether they are the subject or object—which means that Greek and Slavonic have a great deal more flexibility. You can change the word order in the sentence to add extra nuances or emphases, while if you did that in English, it would change the meaning.

The Fathers who were masters of the Greek language used the structure of the language and all sorts of poetic rhetorical devices to add emphasis, meaning and beauty to their writings. They were trained rhetoricians. Much of this beauty, meaning and precision is simply lost in translation. A translation can have its own beauty, but it can never be the original.

RTE: One example of this would be “nous,” which is usually translated as “mind”, but is actually much deeper. When asked about this translation in a 2002 interview with Road to Emmaus, Metropolitan Kallistos Ware said, “If you just say “mind” that is far too vague. In our translation of The Philokalia, we, with some hesitations, opted for the word intellect, emphasizing that it does not primarily mean the rational faculties. The nous is the spiritual vision that we all possess, though many of us have not discovered it. The nous implies a direct, intuitive appreciation of truth, where we apprehend the truth not simply as the conclusion of a reasoned argument, but we simply see that something is so.”[2]

And this is the word that we often see simply translated as “mind”! It’s no wonder that we English-speakers often find ourselves going around and around, wondering what we are missing when we read Orthodox spiritual works in translation.

SISTER S.: In Greek there are also many words for love, while in English there is “love”, “liking”, “affection”, which really don’t differentiate the many different kinds of love as the Greek words do.

RTE: Yes. I recently read a book translated from Greek in which a well-known Greek elder talks about loving God with an “erotic” love (eros), which is sometimes surprising to non-Greek speakers, as “erotic” in modern English is so completely connected to the idea of lust. We’ve lost the meaning of the higher Greek term, which can mean a love for someone whom you love more than as a friend. I understand that this may or may not include romantic love; it can simply be an appreciation of the beauty within the other person.

Plato also said that eros helps the soul recall the knowledge of beauty and contributes to an understanding of spiritual truth; it inspires philosophers as well as lovers.

Another example that seems to have very wide implications is the Greek word logismos, which is usually translated in English spiritual texts as “a thought.” I’ve recently learned that the real meaning is much fuller.

SISTER S.: Yes, “thought” is the only single word equivalent we have in English. We don’t have a word that conveys the whole meaning of logismos. As it is used in spiritual and ascetic writings, a logismos is not a simple thought that comes to you, but a thought of particular intensity and power, especially one that can distract you and derail you from your spiritual path.

This isn’t something like, “Oh, the trees are changing color, it’s autumn, and soon the leaves will fall.” That’s skepsis—a simple thought, neither good nor bad. Logismos is something more like: “Oh, so and so was supposed to have raked up the leaves and he didn’t do it. Now, how am I going to deal with this, how am I going to speak to him about it? Is it up to me to do it? He never does what he’s supposed to do.” Also, a logismos is not only negative, it can also be a positive or seemingly positive thought, but it is a thought with consequences for your spiritual life, and you have to know how to face it and deal with it in the right way.

RTE: Do logismoi ever have demonic or angelic forces behind them, for good or ill?

SISTER S.: They can have either. A logismos can come from our passions, our own inner self, or it can come from the outside.

Elder Paisius of Mt. Athos dealt a great deal with the question of logismoi and the importance of confronting a negative situation with a good logismos. Of course, he said, this is not the highest thing. The highest thing is to have no logismoi and to be centered in God.

He gave an example: once a man came to him and was terribly upset because he’d had this nice house in the suburbs where his family was happy and his children could play in a quiet yard. Then some people came in and built a party center right next to his house and there was music, noise and partying day and night. He said, “Elder, I’m going crazy, I’m taking tranquilizers, my whole family is falling apart. We’re nervous wrecks, we’re yelling at each other all the time. I can’t sleep at night. What do I do?” Fr. Paisius said, “The only thing you can do is na valeis kalo logismo—to “put in” good thoughts. Imagine that you are in war time and the noise around you is tanks and shooting and bombs. Then, look at your situation now. Not only is there peace, but you aren’t in any danger, you aren’t being kicked out of your house, and even the people around you are so happy that they can have parties next door.”

Many people would have just dismissed this, but this man took it seriously, forming good thoughts about the people he saw and the noise he heard. He returned to Elder Paisius later and said, “Although I’d prefer to be in a quiet place, I’m no longer a nervous wreck. My family is better, I can live with it.”

RTE: So, a logismos is a thought with will behind it?

SISTER S.: It can be. The Church Fathers speak about different kinds of logismoi and how to deal with them, but to fully explain the idea in translation would take a much longer and more complex sentence than the word “thought” that we are usually left with. There simply aren’t equivalent words in English.

Also, in the Greek language, and probably in Russian and Slavonic too, certain words have a history. Parts of words have meanings, and if you know where a word comes from, its etymology, this helps you to understand the meaning of the word as the Church Fathers use it. Of course this is true in English too, but it’s far more true with Greek.

If we take a very simple word in English, like “sin,” we think we know what the word means—a transgression of God’s law. The Greek word amartia actually means “to miss the mark,” which helps us to understand what the Fathers meant when they used the word. This helps modern people also. Many people today have an aversion to a word like sin because for them it is a legalistic term that is used to pound people over the head. In its essence it means that your goal is union with God and anything that deflects you from that goal is a sin. If you understand this, it gives you a much deeper understanding of our relationship with God.

Another word that people react to is the word “heresy”—especially in the West where people immediately think of heretics being burned at the stake, which is what happened in some parts of Europe. The Fathers didn’t just come up with the word heresy to mean some kind of error of doctrine that will get you put on the bonfire. The root of the word is the Greek verb haireo which has a broad spectrum of meanings, but one of these meanings is to “choose your own idea.” The verb itself is not negative, it’s neutral. So, in this sense it means that you choose your own idea rather than that of the Church.

There is a depth and history to these words, that if you understand even a little, it helps you to understand the mind of the Fathers, the mind of the Church, and you can explain to people that a word like sin actually means missing the mark, missing the goal of your existence.

RTE: Then, when a language such as an Alaskan native dialect, or Spanish, or English doesn’t contain theologically precise terms for a word, it seems even more necessary for translators to use footnotes and commentary to explain the missing concept to a general reader or worshipper. Otherwise, it can end in the problems that eastern Christianity encountered where, at least partly, because of simplified equivalents of important theological terms in their native languages, some local churches veered off into unorthodox beliefs such as monophysitism.

Can we go on now to talk about the use of old languages in the liturgy?

SISTER S.: For traditional Orthodox Christians in Greece, their hair stands on end at the idea of doing the liturgy in the vernacular Greek. To them it is almost like blasphemy, because modern Greek is so flat and commonplace in comparison to the richness and beauty of ancient Greek. They feel the same about the translation of the New Testament Koine Greek, which is actually quite simple compared to the Greek of the Fathers.

RTE: Would this be as acute as the difference between the beauty of the King James Bible and one of the modern popular English versions incorporating slang?

SISTER S.: That’s perhaps a bit extreme, but something like that, although there are probably Christians in America who think that slang would be alright. Of course, many Greek people have the New Testament with the original Greek on one side and modern Greek on the other, to help them understand what they are reading, but there is no comparison between the two.

Even I, as a foreigner and not fluent in Greek, can feel the difference right away between the old language and modern Greek. The old is far more rich, dignified and beautiful.

RTE: I recently came across some interesting articles about Sir Thomas More, Erasmus, Colet, and their circle, who are remembered as the first European humanists. As it turns out, their aim was not at all to interest people in turning back to the classical period—they wanted to encourage a wider knowledge of Greek so that educated people could study the Church Fathers and the Bible in the original. They sensed that things had gotten off-track, even with the good Latin translations. Europeans after them took this in another direction, veering off into centuries of interest in classical Greek philosophical texts and pagan idealism.

SISTER S.: There was a reason why Greek was chosen as the language of the New Testament. In God’s providence, Greek was also the vehicle for the liturgy, and for the fundamental theological writings of many of the Church Fathers. Of course, in the West the Fathers also wrote in Latin, but Latin owes an incredible amount to Greek. I have heard that Latin has another feeling. It is more logical and has another spirit, and it doesn’t always capture the subtleties of the Greek.

RTE: Along with this, I don’t believe we can so easily dismiss this idea of “holy languages.” In their Lives and in contemporary accounts, Sts. Cyril, Methodius, and their disciples who assisted them with translation (several of whom were also saints) insisted that Slavonic was a gift from God: that He had revealed the formation of the early alphabet. Slavonic and Greek, as well as other traditional Orthodox languages have been hallowed by thousands of years of saint’s writings, liturgies, and prayer. If we disregard them as meaningless “ethnic accretions”, we are cutting ourselves off from our Orthodox roots.

I’ve often wondered if Protestant divergences from traditional Christian doctrine might partially have been a result of the King James and other English translations of the Bible not carrying the fullness of the Greek?

SISTER S.: That certainly could have played into it, because every translator, whether he knows it or not, injects his own views into the translation. You can see this in the Protestant King James version, in the incident where Christ is teaching the people, and “a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice and said unto Him, ‘Blessed is the womb that bare Thee, and the paps which Thou hast sucked.’ But He said, ‘Yea, rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep it.”[3] This is not correct. That “but” isn’t in the Greek. In Greek it is a continuation, as if it read, “And, he said unto her …” Also, the “yea rather” is better translated something like “yes, and even more.” It doesn’t have that feeling of contradiction and contrast. And we have to remember that this translation was done by people who were losing their veneration for the Mother of God, so whether intended or not, people’s views do enter into translation.

RTE: That’s very helpful. Another argument for widespread translation that western converts often raise is that “Orthodox tradition says that every country and people are to have the services and the liturgy in their own language. We are just following this tradition.” This is important as long as we understand that even a good translation is at best an approximation and that these translations took time. Many decades after the initial Valaam missionary effort in Alaska, St. Innocent was still requiring his missionary priests to translate one Gospel into each dialect (which often meant first creating an alphabet for the dialect), along with some basic catechetical books. At the same time, he strongly encouraged the learning of Slavonic and Russian, so that the native catechists and clergy would have a solid understanding of Orthodox belief.

In promoting this, I’ve even heard native English-speakers criticize Greeks and Slavic speakers for retaining Church Greek or Slavonic in services because it is hard for contemporary Greeks, Russians and Slavs to understand. They say, “It should be in modern Greek or Russian ….”

SISTER S.: Of course, Sts. Cyril and Methodius translated the Greek into the Slavic of the time, modifying it for different dialects, and as you said earlier, even developed the Glagolitic alphabet, because Slavic wasn’t a written language. Later, this alphabet was refined by their disciples, especially by St. Clement in Bulgaria, into what we now know as Slavonic. My understanding is that the Slavonic used in the Gospel and the services is a very literal translation of the Greek, where new words were composed to correspond to the Greek words. It was as exact as they could make it. Modern Russian speakers who haven’t studied Slavonic may only have a partial comprehension, yet it is very understandable that most Orthodox Christians in those countries do not want to throw out the richness of the Slavonic tradition for a necessarily inferior modern Russian translation.

RTE: As a vivid example of this, I recall that not long ago, an official in the Russian State Department told me that he had been present at a state function where an Orthodox bishop was asked to give a prayer. Wanting to “relate” to the mostly secular officials, the bishop gave the prayer in modern Russian. The whole contingent of diplomats were in agony trying to stifle their laughter, as everyone in Russia knows something of Church Slavonic through studying linguistics, history or literature, and even to the ears of secular civil servants it sounded deeply wrong. And, in fact, the officially secular Russian Federation celebrates the Church Feast of Sts. Cyril and Methodius as one of Russia’s national holidays. Everyone recognizes the importance of their contribution.

Russian friends say that when Cyril and Methodius introduced new Christian terms into the Slavonic language, rather than simply identifying existing words, finding a better or worse match, and supplying an alphabet, they put together existing Slavonic roots to mirror Greek terms. The most obvious of these root combinations (called “calques”) is the Greek word Orthodox, which in Greek means correct + glorification. In Slavonic, of course, this is Pravoslavie, composed of the same pair pravo (correct) and slavie (glorification).

There are calque equivalents for many Greek theological, aesthetic, and philosophical terms, such as speaking of Christ’s dual nature as ‘divine humanity’ (in Russian, Bogochelovechestvo), or the single Russian word Chelovekolyubets, which is the calque for the Greek word meaning “lover of mankind”. In this way, by using a language’s existing roots you can introduce terms for ideas or concepts that are previously completely unknown. For example, in English we simply don’t have the spiritual concept of “joy-making sorrow”, but this exists in both Greek and Slavonic.

SISTER S.: This results in Church Slavonic having an immediacy (and obviously it had even more in the past) for Slavic peoples because it is built using familiar root words. But it also conveys Greek meaning precisely and concisely, whereas English often needs a whole phrase or sentence, or has terms like “Orthodoxy”, whose meaning is not so immediate.

RTE: Interestingly, Chinese translators who are now working on translations of Orthodox books and services into Chinese are attempting to do the same as Sts. Cyril and Methodius. They are creating new words and characters to carry the full theological meanings of the Greek and Slavonic originals. Can you comment now on the current state of English translations?

SISTER S.: Most of the service books have been translated into English, which is a great blessing, but the quality of the translations is very uneven. Some are quite as good as we can get in modern English, while others are very inferior. Those who translate service books should have training in theology, including ascetic theology, a thorough knowledge of the Greek of the Church Fathers, and a good ear for English. There is also disagreement about which style of English is more appropriate for church use. Personally, I prefer the older Elizabethan style for its beauty and dignity as did Elder Sophrony, but only if it is well done—otherwise it sounds stilted and clumsy.

Elder Ephraim of St. Anthony’s Monastery in Arizona insists that all of his monasteries do all of the services in Greek. I don’t quite agree with this and I think it will eventually have to change—but I can understand that he wants the American novices who come to him to learn Greek so that they can read the Fathers, understand the services, and enter the mind of the Church through the language. Also, Greek monasticism is a whole culture in itself. The way people relate to each other in the monastery, the traditional Greek phrases they use, creates an atmosphere and relationship within the monastery that you simply don’t have with American converts using English. This all helps to bring people into the mind of the Church.

RTE: A few years ago I mentioned this language controversy to two British academics, both Orthodox converts, and they answered, “Well, there is only one real answer—everyone needs to learn Greek.” Although not of Greek heritage themselves, this is what they had come to, they felt it was of such importance. Obviously, this is not going to happen for most of us, who will continue to rely on our English translators. Yet, many of us are concerned that some of our English-speaking churches are moving towards adopting not the best of our translations, but colorless versions with distorted meanings. To be fair, this is often in an attempt to fit the English words to traditional music, but even so, we are in danger of losing whatever real beauty and meaning can be preserved in English.

SISTER S.: Yes, these original languages were formed by the mind of the Church, by saints, by great theologians who were saints, and by the practice of the people over two millennia. Even though the West has been Christian, it hasn’t always been Orthodox, so even words that might have originally corresponded to the Orthodox terms have acquired a different meaning or flavor and have to be reinterpreted and re-explained in light of the language of the Church Fathers and the New Testament. Many of these concepts have been lost and are now no longer intelligible to us.

Still, the Holy Spirit also helps, of course. You can be illiterate and become a saint, but these questions of language are certainly worth contemplating. I believe that we converts need to have a degree of humility towards the cultures that brought us Orthodoxy—to be grateful and humble that we are the recipients of these peoples’ centuries of piety and learning. And not to be like Jacob—a weaned child on his mother’s lap who grows fat, and kicks away. (cf. Deut. 32:15) Sometimes we read a few books and a smattering of Church history and think, “there we are”. Humility and gratitude towards these cultures are important in developing a truly Orthodox world-view.

[1]Markides, Kyriakos C., Gifts of the Desert: The Forgotten Path of Christian Spirituality, Random House-Doubleday, NY, 2005.

[2]Bishop Kallistos Ware, Becoming Orthodox: Thoughts on Personhood, the Philokalia, and the Jesus Prayer, Road to Emmaus, Issue #10, Summer 2002, pg. 49.

[3]Luke 11: 27-28

From: Road to Emmaus Vol. XI, No. 3 (#42).

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The Church Fathers’ High View of Marriage

Two votes at the Council of Nicaea (325 A.D.) underscored the Church Fathers’ devotion to marriage. The first vote maintained clerical marriage relationships, (1) the second defended surviving spouses’ remarriage. Though the latter was a clear indication of their esteem for the institution, in that they provided for widows and widowers who yearned for a new mate, it was actually a moderating vote. So high was the Church’s regard for a couple’s original vows that such prominent figures as Hermas, Justin Martyr, and Athenagoras argued that the bond outlasted death itself. (2) In the end, their stricture was not adopted, (3) but the very fact of its consideration showed the group was quite serious about marital vows. As one patristic scholar, Willy Rordorf, put it, “Concerning the conception of marriage as a total union of the couple implying a fidelity without reserve, there is unanimous agreement between the New Testament and the Early Church.” (4)

It may seem strange that the Council of Nicaea, known for affirming the divinity of Christ, also dealt with such matters. But, this is not so surprising given the context. According to Roman law (which applied throughout the empire) marriage was a private contract like any other contract—dissolvable by one or both parties. “Consequently, divorce was not difficult to obtain.” (5) So Church leaders took a counter-culture stance, at odds even with practice within their congregations. When Chrysostom preached on divorce, he noted that some members of his congregation “hung their heads in shame,” and Ambrose found it necessary to instruct his readers not to make use of the government’s divorce laws. (6) In fact (and likely with the empire’s toleration in mind), the Fathers were steadfast in their defence of marriage, which they saw both as a sacrament (symbolic of Christ’s relationship with the Church) and as a means of witnessing to God’s steadfast love for humanity.

The Fathers did disagree on the implications of adultery for remarriage and wrestled over interpretation of Matthew 19:9—“whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery” (ESV). Some, such as Augustine, prohibited remarriage under any circumstances, and others, such as Chrysostom, allowed for it when a spouse was the victim of adultery. (7) The Shepherd of Hermas took the stricter stance: If a husband finds that his wife has committed adultery and she is unrepentant—he must “dismiss her” and not remarry. (8) But Tertullian claimed exceptions: “Permanent is the marriage which is not rightly dissolved; to marry, therefore, whilst matrimony is undissolved, is to commit adultery. . . . Divorce, therefore, when justly deserved, has even in Christ a defender.” (9) In granting the marriage bond could be “rightly dissolved,” Tertullian suggested “the correlative right to remarry.” (10)

Of course, this disagreement mirrors contemporary debates within some parts of the Christian Church. Not surprisingly, those who reject remarriage—without exception—will point to the early Church’s strong defense of marriage. (11) But defenders of a biblical permission to remarry—under certain circumstances—caution us that the Fathers did not speak with one voice on this issue. (12)

How then are the Fathers to be understood? At the very least, they were staunch advocates of marriage in a civil society and culture in which the covenant of marriage could sometimes be seen as a little more than another legal contract—not unlike today. The early Church grappled with the biblical text, applying it to every aspect of their lives—from their doctrine of Christ to their doctrine of marriage. Since we live in a culture willing to throw out marriage, embrace divorce, and assume remarriage—in all circumstances—the Fathers may be worth another look.

The Orthodox Church does allow divorce and remarriage in some circumstances. It is an acknowledgement and allowance for human weakness and not something that the Church accepts lightly, because of it”s high view of the sanctity of marriage.

——————————————————————-

Footnotes:

1 Socrates, Church History from A.D. 305 – 439, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, vol. 2, eds. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983), 18. In other translations see Church History from A.D. 305 – 439, Book 1, Chapter 11.

2 As Athenagoras expressed his conviction, “For whosoever separates himself from his first wife, even though she be dead, is a somewhat disguised adulterer.” Quoted by J. P. Arendzen, “Ante-Nicene Interpretations of the Sayings on Divorce,” The Journal of Theological Studies 20 (1919), 231-232.

3 Pat Edwin Harrell, Divorce and Remarriage in the Early Church: A History of Divorce and Remarriage in the Ante-Nicene Church (Austin, TX: R. B. Sweet Company, 1967), 170-171.

4 Willy Rordorf, “Marriage in the New Testament and in the Early Church,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 20, no. 2 (October, 1969), 203.

5 Harrell, 173. The proscriptions against singleness, of course, were seen in light of the “sacred duty” of both Roman men and women to procreate, producing citizens for the empire.

6 Ibid., 174. Harrell noted that though Chrysostom and Ambrose ministered after Nicaea, what was true for them was likely true before their time as well.

7 Rodorf, 204. Rordorf also points to Augustine as objecting to remarriage under all circumstances. For those Fathers who allowed remarriage in the case of adultery, Rordorf cites Origen, Basil, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Lactantius, Jerome, Pollentius (adversary of Augustine), and Ambrosiaster.

8 Quoted by J. P. Arendzen, “Ante-Nicene Interpretations of the Sayings on Divorce,” The Journal of Theological Studies 20 (1919), 230.

9 Tertullian, Anti- Marcion, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, ed. Philip Schaff (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986), 405. In other translations, see Against Marcion, Book 4, Chapter 34. Italics added.

10 Harrell, 179. Harrell quotes from the same text of Tertullian. Though Harrell never explicitly states that Tertullian never mentions remarriage, Harrell is right to argue that “[t]he entire tenor of this passage is to suggest that divorce and remarriage are possible under proper conditions. These words of Tertullian provide an extreme difficulty for those who are committed to maintaining the impossibility of divorce with the correlative right to remarry.” Ibid.

11 For example, see William A. Heth, “The Changing Basis for Permitting Remarriage after Divorce for Adultery: The Influence of R. H. Charles,” Trinity Journal 11 (1990), 147: “For the first five centuries of the church the early Christian writers did not interpret the ‘divorce’ for immorality found in Matt 19:9 as one that dissolved the marriage.”

12 Craig L. Blomberg, “Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, and Celibacy: An Exegesis of Matthew 19:3-12,” Trinity Journal 11 (1990), 180.

Source

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The Tyranny of the Minority

How the Forced Recognition of Same-Sex "Marriage" Undermines a Free Society

By S. T. Karnick

From the beginning, the debate over "same-sex marriage" has been one of those topsy-turvy issues in which the side that is truly tolerant and fair has been characterized as narrow-minded and oppressive, while the side that is intolerant and blatantly coercive has been depicted as open-minded and sympathetic.

Favoring government-enforced recognition of same-sex "marriage" is not, as the media invariably characterize it, a kindly, liberal-minded position, but instead a fierce, coercive, intolerant one. Despite their agonized complaints about the refusal of the majority of Americans to give in on the subject, those who advocate government recognition of same-sex "marriage" want to use coercion to deny other people their fundamental rights.

The issue, it's important to remember, is not whether society will allow homosexuals to "marry." They may already do so, in any church or other sanctioning body that is willing to perform the ceremony. There are, in fact, many organizations willing to do so: the Episcopal Church USA, the Alliance of Baptists, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Presbyterian Church USA, the Unity School of Christianity, the Unitarian Universalists, the Swedenborgian Church of North America, the Quakers, the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches, and the United Church of Christ, among others. Such institutions either explicitly allow the consecration or blessing of same-sex "marriages" or look the other way when individual congregations perform such ceremonies.

No laws prevent these churches from conducting marriage ceremonies—and nearly all Americans would agree that it is right for the government to stay out of a church's decision on the issue. Further, any couple of any kind may stand before a gathering of well-wishers and pledge their union to each other, and the law will do nothing to prevent them. Same-sex couples, or any other combination of people, animals, and inanimate objects, can and do "marry" in this way. What the law in most states currently does not do, however, is force third parties—individuals, businesses, institutions, and so on—to recognize these "marriages" and treat them as if they were exactly the same as traditional marriages. Nor does it forbid anyone to do so.

An insurance company, for example, is free to treat a same-sex couple (or an unmarried two-sex couple) the same way it treats married couples, or not. A church can choose to bless same-sex unions, or not. An employer can choose to recognize same-sex couples as "married," or not. As Richard Thompson Ford noted in Slate, "In 1992 only one Fortune 500 company offered employee benefits to same-sex domestic partners; today hundreds do."

In short, individuals, organizations, and institutions in most states are currently free to treat same-sex unions as marriages, or not. This, of course, is the truly liberal and tolerant position. It means letting the people concerned make up their own minds about how to treat these relationships. But this freedom is precisely what the advocates of same-sex "marriage" want to destroy; they want to use the government's power to force everyone to recognize same-sex unions as marriages whether they want to or not.

The effects of such coercion have already been felt in some places. Adoption agencies, for example, like any other organization, ought to be able to choose whether to give children to same-sex couples, or not. But in Massachusetts, where same-sex "marriage" has been declared legal, these agencies have been forced to accept applications from same-sex couples or go out of business.

Minority Rule

What's at issue here is not whether people can declare themselves married and find other people to agree with them and treat them as such. No, what's in contention is whether the government should force everyone to recognize such "marriages." Far from being a liberating thing, the forced recognition of same-sex "marriage" is a governmental intrusion of monumental proportions.

Although pro-homosexual radicals continually refer to the forced recognition of same-sex "marriage" as a civil right, as well as a matter of liberating society from hidebound prejudices, such policies are actually the government-enforced imposition of a small group's sexual values on a reluctant and indeed strongly resistant population. That's why nearly all of the moves to legalize same-sex "marriage" have come from the courts, not the democratic process. After all, court cases would not be necessary if the public already agreed with the radicals.

This was made clear in the California Supreme Court's recent ruling that the state constitution's equal protection clauses mean that individuals have a fundamental "right to marry" whomever they choose and that gender restrictions in marriage are thus unconstitutional. The court, Republican-dominated and previously known as moderately conservative, voted by a slim 4—3 margin that sexual orientation would have to be treated just like race and sex in the state's laws. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Ronald M. George declared,

"Our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation. An individual's sexual orientation—like a person's race or gender—does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."

The court ruled that the state's law approving "domestic partnerships" for same-sex couples was not enough—only official recognition as marriage would do.

Note these words in the court's decision: "Our state now recognizes." Actually, the state did no such thing; the court did it for them. The decision struck down Proposition 22, a ballot measure approved by 61 percent of the state's voters in the year 2000, which stated that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California." Thus, four judges decided to impose their personal views over the people's clearly expressed will, shown powerfully in the state referendum. Nor does their decision reflect a changed social atmosphere. The issue will remain in contention through the November elections, as the ballot in California will include an initiative to amend the state constitution to prohibit the government from recognizing same-sex "marriages."

What that would mean, of course, is not that Californians would be barred from "marrying" people of the same sex, but that they could not use the government to force other individuals, businesses, and institutions to recognize those "marriages."

As this case shows, the people who seek to "impose their values" on others are those who support government recognition of same-sex "marriage," not those who oppose it.

Moreover, it is not correct to argue that government recognition of two-sex marriages is unfair or oppressive. If proponents of same-sex "marriage" ask why the government should be allowed to require people to acknowledge traditional two-sex marriages, the answer is simple: It does not. The institutions of society acknowledge heterosexual marriages on the basis of historical and cultural preferences dating back millennia. The government didn't decide this; society did. Government recognition of traditional marriage was not a change forced upon society, but rather a legal codification of what society had already established.

Moreover, even homosexuals agree that marriage is a valid institution. They confirm this powerfully by trying to alter the institution through force of law so that same-sex couples can be included in it. The key difference between traditional marriage and same-sex "marriage," however, is that the government, in acknowledging heterosexual marriage, does not force anything on society; it merely effects the enforcement of a contract that all—or nearly all—people accept as valid and sensible. Same-sex "marriage," by contrast, is not seen as such by most people; forcing individuals to recognize it is not the legal codification of an existing social reality, but instead a radical social change forced by a few on the many.

A Pew Research Center Survey released earlier this year noted in its title that "Most Americans Still Oppose Same-Sex Marriage." The survey reported that 55 percent of Americans oppose "allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally," while only 36 percent support such a policy. A table in the report noted that "Most Groups Oppose Gay Marriage," though the study observed that poll respondents approved of allowing civil unions for same-sex couples by a 54—42 percent margin. Clearly, this suggests that most Americans are willing to allow same-sex couples to formalize their relationships in some way, but they don't want to be forced to change the definition of marriage to include them.

A Sea Change

Even fewer people would support same-sex "marriage" if the full implications of laws allowing them were widely known. A few days after the California Supreme Court decision, conservative columnist Dennis Prager noted just how sweeping and anti-democratic the decision was, saying, "Nothing imaginable—leftward or rightward—would constitute as radical a change in the way society is structured as this redefining of marriage for the first time in history." Unless the decision is reversed by an amendment to the California or US Constitution, Prager argued, "four justices of the California Supreme Court will have changed American society more than any four individuals since Washington, Jefferson, Adams and Madison."

Prager listed some of the social changes he foresees resulting from the court's decision:

"Outside of the privacy of their homes, young girls will be discouraged from imagining one day marrying their prince charming—to do so would be declared "heterosexist," morally equivalent to racist. . . . Schoolbooks will not be allowed to describe marriage in male-female ways alone. . . .

Any advocacy of man-woman marriage alone will be regarded morally as hate speech, and shortly thereafter it will be deemed so in law.

Companies that advertise engagement rings will have to show a man putting a ring on a man's finger—if they show only women's fingers, they will be boycotted just as a company having racist ads would be now.

Films that only show man-woman married couples will be regarded as antisocial and as morally irresponsible as films that show people smoking have become.

Traditional Jews and Christians—i.e., those who believe in a divine scripture—will be marginalized."

Some might argue that Prager is indulging in hyperbole and will only cause unnecessary panic with these absurd hobgoblins, but it is difficult to see how the people of California would be able to stop sexual radicals from using the state's courts to implement all of these changes—and more—if the decision is allowed to stand. Yet, ironically, Prager notes, this far-reaching, radical decision has been deemed by the press as the compassionate, liberal-minded position on the matter. The mind boggles at the thought of what oppression might look like.

The libertarian writer Jennifer Roback Morse likewise notes that same-sex "marriage" is not a reduction of government intrusion into private lives, but an immense expansion of it. Writing in the National Catholic Register, she observes,

"Advocates of same-sex "marriage" insist that theirs is a modest reform: a mere expansion of marriage to include people currently excluded. But the price of same-sex "marriage" is a reduction in tolerance for everyone else, and an expansion of the power of the state."

Morse provides several examples that show how oppressive the same-sex "liberators" are in practice, including the following:

"Recently, a Methodist organization in New Jersey lost part of its tax-exempt status because it refused to allow two lesbian couples to use their facility for a civil union ceremony. In Quebec, a Mennonite school was informed that it must conform to the official provincial curriculum, which includes teaching homosexuality as an acceptable alternative lifestyle. . . .

And recently, a wedding photographer in New Mexico faced a hearing with the state's Human Rights Commission because she declined the business of a lesbian couple. She didn't want to take photos of their commitment ceremony."

This list could be expanded and will only grow, as sexual radicals across the nation increasingly use the government to break down all resistance to their agenda. Recognizing the vast implications of a successful movement to disallow anyone from recognizing any difference between the sexes, Morse sees who the real victims of oppression would be:

"Perhaps you think people have a natural civil right to marry the person of their choosing. But can you really force yourself to believe that wedding photography is a civil right?"

Maybe you believe that same-sex couples are entitled to have children, somehow. But is any doctor they might encounter required to inseminate them?

As Morse and Prager both note, what advocates of government recognition of same-sex "marriage" are after is not "tolerance and respect," but a forcible reordering of all of society along "gender-neutral" principles—and anyone who resists will face punishment by the government. In such an environment, it should hardly surprise us to see freedom of speech become a thing of the past.

Attitude Adjustments

An example of the suppression of dissent occurred in a debate last year in which the candidates for the Democratic party's presidential nomination discussed issues related to homosexual rights. When Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel came out explicitly for forcing all of society to recognize same-sex "marriages," and the audience erupted in cheers, the more prominent candidates kept their heads down and clearly tried to avoid making any big mistakes.

Two of them, however, were forced into Orwellian moments of self-abasement. Former Senator John Edwards felt compelled to apologize for once having said that he opposed same-sex "marriage" for religious reasons. He promised not to impose his "faith belief" on the American people—though he would apparently be willing to impose the radicals' unbelief on all of society.

Even more revealingly, New Mexico Governor William Richardson, a strong supporter of the homosexualist agenda, blundered when asked whether homosexual behavior is a biological imperative or a choice. Richardson said, "It's a choice." Some people in the audience gasped audibly. This was potentially catastrophic for him because the great majority of homosexual activists claim that homosexual behavior is biological in origin.

Richardson's campaign organization quickly issued a retraction of what he said in the debate. As Prager and Morse point out, this sort of forced "attitude adjustment" will become universal if the "same-sex marriage" agenda is embedded in the nation's laws.

The question of whether the definition of marriage will be made by the free choices of society or by government fiat is the central issue in the "same-sex marriage" controversy. To be sure, those who argue that the government should not discriminate between traditional and same-sex couples can make their case seem principled and liberal-minded. The truth, however, is that those who favor forced recognition of same-sex "marriage" seek to suppress freedom, and those who oppose these ideas represent real liberty. •

Still Illegal

Lost in the debate surrounding the forced recognition of same-sex "marriage" is that such unions are still very much illegal—and in every state of the union. Yes, it's true that the California Supreme Court did rule that the prohibition of same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, as well as that the language in Proposition 22, which limited marriage to one man and one woman, must be excised from the statute. It's just that the court had no authority to do the excising. According to the California Constitution, only the people within that state can revoke or amend an initiative statute, which is precisely what Proposition 22 is. And because 61.4 percent of California voters have already insisted that "only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California," it is unlikely that the people will take such action any time soon. Thus, it was the court's implication that its opinion had the force of law, not to mention Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's decision to enforce that opinion despite having no legal authority to do so, that was actually unconstitutional, not the ban on same-sex marriage. Interestingly enough, the same problem plagues Massachusetts' "legalization" of same-sex marriage by court ruling, which Governor Mitt Romney illegally enforced in 2004. In both states, gay marriage remains illegal, despite what the media may claim. Now if only we could get our government officials to fulfill their sworn obligation to

From Salvo 6 (Autumn 2008)

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The Bible and the 'Gay Marriage' Question

By Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.

What does the Bible actually say about “gay marriage”? That question is the title of a a recent op-ed piece in the Huffington Post written by Lee Jefferson, a visiting assistant professor of religion at Centre College. According to Jefferson the answer is: “Nothing,” or at least “Nothing negative.”

Jefferson used the recent passage of “gay marriage” by the New York legislature as a springboard from which to denigrate appeals to the Bible against homosexual practice. I will use Jefferson’s article as a springboard from which to answer the question that he and many others have raised.

It is of relevance that, though Jefferson gives the appearance of speaking with authority on the question, he has not (to my knowledge) published any academic work on the issue of the Bible and homosexual practice. His expertise is not in the Bible but in Christian art of Late Antiquity. Jefferson also shows little or no awareness in his article of the array of strong arguments against his claims.

In addition, Jefferson exhibits an unfortunate tendentiousness in his characterizations. He speaks glowingly of the “enlightening progress in our culture concerning the LGBT community.” Those who disagree represent a “cacophonous opposition” that uses religion as “a bruising hammer” and lobs “textual grenades”-as if the homosexualist advocacy groups have not been even louder and more belligerent and strident. The fact that the media is overwhelmingly on the side of promoting homosexual unions is not enough for Jefferson. He bemoans the fact that the media reports any dissent to this party line.

It should go without saying that upholding a male-female requirement for marriage can and should be a product of a loving desire to avoid the degradation of the gendered self that comes from engaging in homosexual practice. That it does not go without saying is due in large part to today’s charged political atmosphere where hateful characterizations of persons who disapprove of homosexual unions are commonplace among proponents of such unions.

This hateful reaction stems largely from a comparison of such persons to racists and sexists. Yet such a comparison begs the question of whether the comparison is accurate. If opposition to gay marriage is more like opposition to marriage between close kin and to marriage between three or more persons, than one arrives at very different conclusions about what constitutes love.

And now on to Jefferson’s arguments.

The ancient world and homosexual orientation

A linchpin of Jefferson’s case is his claim that no one in the Greco-Roman world had any knowledge of something akin to “same-sex orientation.” Jefferson ironically makes this claim while insisting on the importance of understanding the ancient context behind the biblical text.

The fact is that in the Greco-Roman world theories existed that posited at least some congenital basis for some forms of homosexual attraction, particularly on the part of males desiring to be penetrated. These theories derived from Platonic, Aristotelian, Hippocratic, and even astrological sources. They included: a creation splitting of male-male or female-female binary humans; a particular mix of male and female sperm elements at conception; a chronic disease of the mind or soul influenced indirectly by biological factors and made hard to resist by socialization; an inherited disease analogous to a mutated gene; sperm ducts leading to the anus; and the particular alignment of heavenly constellations at the time of one’s birth.

Some of the ancient theories are obviously closer to modern theories than others. What matters, though, is that many in the ancient world attributed one or more forms of homosexual practice to an interplay of nature and nurture. Many viewed same-sex attractions for some persons as exclusive and very resistant to change.

Jefferson gives no indication that he is aware of the literature that contravenes his claim. Contrast Jefferson’s remarks with the observation of Thomas K. Hubbard, a classicist at the University of Texas (Austin), in his magisterial book, Homosexuality in Greece and Rome: A Sourcebook of Basic Documents (University of California Press, 2003): “Homosexuality in this era [i.e., of the early imperial age of Rome] may have ceased to be merely another practice of personal pleasure and began to be viewed as an essential and central category of personal identity, exclusive of and antithetical to heterosexual orientation” (p. 386). Hubbard also points to a series of later texts from the second to fourth centuries that “reflect the perception that sexual orientation is something fixed and incurable” (p. 446).

Contrast it too with this assessment by Bernadette J. Brooten, professor of Christian Studies at Brandeis University and a self-avowed lesbian, in her important work, Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism (University of Chicago Press, 1996):

"Paul could have believed that tribades [the active female partners in a female homosexual bond], the ancient kinaidoi [the passive male partners in a male homosexual bond], and other sexually unorthodox persons were born that way and yet still condemn them as unnatural and shameful. . . . I see Paul as condemning all forms of homoeroticism as the unnatural acts of people who had turned away from God." (p. 446)

Other scholars who have written major works on the Bible and homosexuality make similar points, such as William Schoedel, professor emeritus of classics and early Christianity from the University of Illinois, and Martti Nissinen, professor of Old Testament at the University of Helsinki. Note too that all these scholars have written from a stance supportive of homosexual unions.

Although it is usually assumed that Paul in Rom 1:24-27 treats homosexual attraction solely as a chosen condition of constitutional heterosexuals, nothing in the wording of the text substantiates such an assumption. The expressions “exchanged” and “leaving behind” in 1.26-27 do not refer to a willful exchange of heterosexual desire for homosexual desire. Rather, they refer to a choice of gratifying innate homoerotic desires instead of complying with the evidence of male-female complementarity transparent in material creation or nature.

Furthermore, as with Philo of Alexandria (a first-century Jewish philosopher), Paul was probably aware of the existence of a lifelong homoerotic proclivity at least among the “soft men” (malakoi) who, even as adults, feminized their appearance to attract male sex partners (1 Cor 6:9). Paul viewed sin as an innate impulse, passed on by a foundational ancestor, running through the members of the human body, and never entirely within human control (see his discussion in Romans 7:7-23). So any theory positing congenital influences on homosexual development would obviously have made little difference to Paul’s opposition to all same-sex intercourse.

The evidence indicates that some Greco-Roman moralists and physicians, operating within a culture that tolerated and at times endorsed at least some homosexual practice, could reject even committed homosexual unions entered into by those with a biological predisposition toward such unions. What, then, is the likelihood that the apostle Paul, operating out of a Jewish subculture that was more strongly opposed to homosexual practice than any other known culture in the Mediterranean Basin or ancient Near East, would have embraced such unions?

It is important to bear in mind also that semi-official marriages between men and between women were well known in the Greco-Roman world (even the rabbis were aware of such things, as also Church Fathers). The notion that adult-committed homosexual relationships first originated in the modern era is historically indefensible. Consequently, it cannot be used as a “new knowledge” argument for dismissing the biblical witness. Even Louis Crompton, an historian and self-avowed “gay” man, has drawn the proper conclusion from this historical data in his highly acclaimed book, Homosexuality and Civilization (Harvard University Press, 2003):

"According to [one] interpretation, Paul’s words were not directed at ‘bona fide’ homosexuals in committed relationships. But such a reading, however well-intentioned, seems strained and unhistorical. Nowhere does Paul or any other Jewish writer of this period imply the least acceptance of same-sex relations under any circumstance. The idea that homosexuals might be redeemed by mutual devotion would have been wholly foreign to Paul or any other Jew or early Christian." (p. 114)

Genesis 2 and its implications for “gay marriage”

Another flawed argument that Jefferson makes is that “the Bible does not clearly endorse one form of marriage over another.” This would have been news to every first-century Jew, including the historian Josephus. Josephus explained to Gentile readers that “the Law [of Moses] recognizes only sexual intercourse that is according to nature, that which is with a woman. . . . But it abhors the intercourse of males with males” (Against Apion 2.199).

Jefferson tries to substantiate his claim by asserting that the story about Adam and Eve in Genesis 2 “is a gender creation story, not a creation of marriage story.” Yet Genesis 2:24 clearly extrapolates from the story about the creation of woman in 2:18-23 the marriage principle that “for this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and be joined to his woman (wife) and become one flesh.”

The narrative begins with an originally sexually-undifferentiated human (Heb. adam, “earthling”), from whom some indeterminate portion of bone and flesh is taken from one of the human’s “sides” (a better translation than “ribs” since it is the meaning given to this word, tsela, everywhere else in the Old Testament). This extraction is made in order to form a woman, thereafter turning the adam into a gender-specific man (Heb. ish). The woman is depicted as the man’s “counterpart” or “complement” (2:18, 20)-a translation of Heb. neged that means both “corresponding to” (denoting likeness as regards humanity) and “opposite” (denoting difference as regards sex or gender).

The subtext of the story is that man and woman may unite in marriage to become “one flesh” because out of one flesh the two came. This is a beautiful image of a transcendent reality: that man and woman are each other’s sexual “other half,” the missing element in the spectrum of sexuality. Clearly the story indicates a foundational male-female prerequisite for valid sexual unions, irrespective of (as Jefferson puts it) the absence of “a jazz band reception in Paradise.”

Jesus and “gay marriage”

Jesus apparently understood Genesis 1:27 (God “made them male and female”) and Genesis 2:24 (cited above) as implying a male-female requirement for marriage. Jesus cited these two texts back-to-back (Mark 10:2-12; Matthew 19:3-12) in order to make the point that the complementary twoness of the sexes, male and female, is the foundation for limiting the number of partners in a sexual union to two.

When man and woman unite in marriage, the sexual spectrum is completed such that a third partner is neither necessary nor desirable. Jesus applied this principle not only explicitly to a rejection of a revolving door of divorce-and-remarriage (a form of serial polygamy) but also implicitly to polygamy, which both in Jesus’ day and in ours is the easier prohibition.

We know that this was Jesus’ point because the sectarian Jewish group known as the Essenes (who regarded even the Pharisees as too lax in their observance of the Law of Moses) similarly rejected polygamy on the grounds that God made us “male and female” (zakar uneqevah). They connected this phrase in Genesis 1:27 to its occurrence in the Noah’s ark narrative where the twoness of the bond is stressed (“two by two”; Damascus Covenant 4.20-5.1). They then deduced that God’s will at creation was for marriage to be a partnership of two and only two persons.

Jefferson stresses Jesus’ silence on the issue of homosexual practice as “exhibit A” for his claim that “same-sex practice is a topic of little interest to the Biblical authors.” Yet Jesus also says nothing about incest or bestiality. Surely this “silence” does not suggest Jesus’ indifference. Why should Jesus spend time talking explicitly about offenses that no Jew in first-century Palestine is advocating, let alone engaging in, and that his Hebrew Scriptures already proscribe in no uncertain terms?

Clearly Jesus regarded a male-female requirement in marriage as an “irreducible minimum” in sexual ethics, the foundation on which other sexual standards are predicated, including monogamy.

A half dozen other historical arguments establish Jesus’ opposition to homosexual practice, including his adherence to the Law of Moses generally and his intensification of sexual ethics in particular (not only as regards polygamy and divorce-and-remarriage but also as regards “adultery of the heart”); the fact that the man who baptized him (John the Baptist) got beheaded for defending Levitical sex laws; and both early Judaism’s and the early church’s univocal opposition to homosexual practice as an egregious offense. Jesus wasn’t shy about expressing disagreement with prevailing norms. Silence speaks for his acceptance of the prevailing view.

Some texts that speak directly to homosexual practice

Jefferson characterizes the texts that speak directly to the issue of homosexual practice as “scant indeed.” Yet the number of biblical texts doing so is comparable to the number of texts addressing incest and greater than those prohibiting bestiality. If one looks at Scripture contextually (as Jefferson urges others to do) it will be evident that Scripture’s opposition to homosexual practice is deeply embedded in the fabric of its sexual ethics.

In fact, every text in Scripture treating sexual matters, whether narrative, law, proverb, poetry, moral exhortation, or metaphor, presupposes a male-female prerequisite for all sexual activity. For example, in Old Testament law there are constant distinctions between appropriate and inappropriate forms of other-sex intercourse but nothing of the sort for same-sex intercourse. The reason for this is apparent: Since same-sex intercourse was always unacceptable, there was no need to make such distinctions. Another example involves metaphor: Even though ancient Israel was a male-dominated society, it imaged itself in relation to Yahweh as a female to a husband, so as to avoid the imagery of a man-male sexual bond.

Jefferson’s interpretation of texts that more or less directly address homosexual practice is deeply flawed. He writes off the Sodom episode in Genesis 19 as a text concerned with hospitality, not homosexual practice. This makes an either-or out of a both-and. The episode at Sodom is viewed in early Judaism as a paradigmatic example of gross inhospitality to visitors precisely because the men of Sodom seek to dishonor the sexuality of the male visitors. By asking to have sex with them as though they were females they treat the maleness of the visitors as of no account. The fact that this is done in the context of attempted rape is no more an indication of the irrelevance of the homosexual aspect than is a story about incestuous rape (so, I would argue, Ham’s act against his father Noah in Genesis 9) irrelevant for indicting adult-consensual incest.

Jefferson dismisses the prohibitions of man-male intercourse in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 as limited to a particular time and place in Israel’s history, like dietary restrictions and the prohibition of cloth mixtures. But the prohibition of man-male intercourse is more closely related in its context to the prohibitions of other sexual offenses that we continue to prohibit today: incest, adultery, and bestiality. The Holiness Code in Leviticus (chaps. 17-26) specifically refers to these forbidden sex acts as “iniquity” or “sin,” not just ritual uncleanness (18:25). It does not allow absolution merely through ritual acts (such as bathing and waiting for the sun to go down). It does not treat these sexual offenses as making the participants contagious to touch (unlike some ritual impurity offenses). The penalty applies only to those who engage in these acts with willful intent (whereas ritual purity infractions encompass both advertent and inadvertent acts). Leviticus applies the prohibitions not just to Jews but to Gentiles inhabiting the land. For all these reasons the prohibitions of incest, adultery, man-male intercourse, and bestiality do not look like merely ritual offenses.

The prohibition of cloth mixtures is largely symbolic, since the penalty is only the destruction of the cloth (not the wearer) and since too some cloth mixtures are enjoined for the Tabernacle, parts of the priestly wardrobe, and the tassel worn by the laity (apparently on the assumption that cloth mixtures symbolized ‘penetration’ into the divine realm, which was inappropriate in non-sacral contexts). The prohibition of incest is a much closer analogy to the prohibition of man-male intercourse than dietary rules or rules against cloth mixtures, since both incest and same-sex intercourse involve sexual offenses between persons too much alike in terms of embodied structures-one as regards kinship, the other as regards gender.

As regards Paul, Jefferson provides an odd reason for discounting the offender list in 1 Corinthians 6:9, which includes an indictment of “soft men” (malakoi, see above) and “men who lie with a male” (arsenokoitai). His reason is that “these terms are injected along with” other sexual offenders, namely, “the sexually immoral” (pornoi, not limited to fornicators contra Jefferson), adulterers, and (in context) persons who engage in incest (chap. 5) and sex with a prostitute (6:15-17). “In other words, Paul is addressing ALL deviant sexual and immoral behavior, not just that of a same-sex variety.” To this argument I can only say: So what? Who ever claimed that Christian sexual ethics were opposed only to homosexual practice?

Jefferson then claims that “it is unclear whether [Romans 1:26-27] truly is a condemnation of a specific practice.” This is a bizarre claim. Paul specifically refers to females exchanging “the natural use [i.e. of the male] for that which is contrary to nature”; and, “likewise” to males “leaving behind the natural use of the woman” and becoming “inflamed in their yearning for one another, males with males.” That doesn’t sound ambiguous to me.

Moreover, there are eight points of correspondence, in the same tripartite order, between the creation text in Genesis 1:26-27 and Paul’s argument in Romans 1:23-27. This indicates that Paul is thinking of homosexual practice as a violation of the creation of “male and female” in Genesis 1:27. The nature argument is a common one for Greco-Roman moralists seeking to indict homosexual practice on absolute grounds. It seems to me that we should make a distinction between Jefferson wanting Romans 1:26-27 to be unclear and the actual clarity of the text itself.

Biblical arguments and our civil law

The final argument that Jefferson makes (which is listed first in his article but which I am treating last) is that “the institution of marriage is a secular and social institution.” As such, Jefferson argues, referring to what the Bible says about homosexual practice is irrelevant for civil law. There are two problems with this view. One is that people of faith are shaped morally by their religious beliefs and have a right to vote such beliefs, just as atheists or those philosophically inclined have a right to vote according to their respective ideologies. This is especially so in cases where these beliefs are not restricted to a single sectarian religious community and where what is “imposed” is not incarceration and fines but a withholding of public approval. On both counts opposition to “gay marriage” passes muster. The roots of moral reasoning in Western civilization derive largely from religious foundations. Indeed, discussion of “morality” seems out of place in a context where there is no higher power. Without God, ethics are reduced to utilitarian considerations.

An even more important point is that one can make a reasonable case against “gay marriage” on secular philosophical grounds; that is, by an argument from nature and by appeal to analogies already in place in our civil law. The Bible itself points in this direction with the argument from nature in Romans 1:24-27, an argument based on the compatible structures of male and female that should be obvious even to those without Scripture; structures that requires a deliberate suppression of truth to override.

Put simply, if the logic of a heterosexual union is that the two halves of the sexual spectrum, male and female, unite to form a single sexual whole, the “logic” of a homosexual union is that two half-males unite to form a single whole male or two half-females unite to form a single whole female. By implication homosexual unions dishonor the integrity of the stamp of maleness on males and of femaleness on females by effectively treating their sex or gender as only half intact, needing to be supplemented structurally by union with someone of the same sex. The closest analogies in civil law to a prohibition of “gay marriage” are laws prohibiting the marriage of close kin and the marriage of three or more persons.

As regards the incest analogue, homosexual unions are unions between persons who are too much structurally alike, in terms of sex or gender, much as an incestuous union is wrong because it involves two persons too much alike on the level of kinship identity. The analogy is often rejected by proponents of homosexual unions. They claim that incest is always harmful because it involves children and leads to birth defects. However, incest can (and has) been conducted by consenting adults. Moreover, many kinds of incestuous unions would not entail procreation: incestuous bonds where at least one party is infertile, active birth-control measures are taken, or the participants are of the same sex. In short, incest does not produce intrinsic measurable harm (not even when procreation occurs); disproportionately high rates, yes, but intrinsic, no.

Homosexual unions likewise experience disproportionately high rates of measurable harm, not intrinsic measurable harm. Moreover, this harm corresponds to gender type. Male homosexual activity, even relative to lesbian unions, is characterized by extraordinarily high numbers of sex partners lifetime and by extraordinarily high rates of sexually transmitted infections. Female homosexual activity, even relative to male homosexuality, is characterized by relationships of lower longevity and higher rates of some mental health problems (not surprising, perhaps, in view of the greater expectations that women generally place on relationships for self-worth and fulfillment). The existence of disparities of harm between male and female homosexual relationships, corresponding to gender differences, is a sign that some harm stems simply from the same-sexness of homosexuality. In homosexual relationships the extremes of a given sex are not moderated and the gaps in the sexual self are not filled, at least not as well, on the whole, as heterosexual relationships.

To withhold marriage from all near-kin unions (certainly between a parent and an adult child or between full siblings) one has to develop a philosophical argument about intrinsic harm. The only such argument of which I am aware involves the recognition that procreative difficulties are not the root harm of incestuous unions but only the symptom of the root harm. The root harm is the attempt to unite sexually with someone who is too much of an embodied same, not enough of a complementary other. If the procreative difficulties associated with incestuous bonds are the clue as to their root harm, so too the structural incapacity for procreation on the part of homosexual bonds should indicate to observers a similar root harm

As regards the polyamory (multiple-partner) analogue, we have noted above in our discussion of Jesus’ rationale that a prohibition of polygamy is grounded ultimately in the natural law argument that the existence of two and only two primary sexes-complementary to each other in terms of anatomy, physiology, and psychology-implies a limitation of two persons to a sexual union at any one time. If we don’t grant marriage licenses to three or more persons in a concurrent sexual relationship, why should we grant marriage licenses to homosexual unions that disregard the foundational twoness of the sexes on which the limitation of two persons is based? There are examples of polyamorous unions going on in the United States that are adult-consensual, loving, and without measurable harm.

Of course, my point here is not that the state should issue marriage licenses to close kin or to three or more persons concurrently. My point is rather that, since adult-committed incestuous unions and polyamorous unions are analogically related to adult-committed homosexual unions, one shouldn’t approve of granting marriage licenses to the latter case unless one is also willing to grant marriage licenses to the former two cases. People can choose to be inconsistent-perhaps, let’s hope so in this case. However, that doesn’t change their inconsistency into consistency.

And make no mistake about it: Homosexual unions are a more foundational violation of sexual ethics than incestuous or polyamorous unions since the latter two are logically extrapolated from the former rather than the other way around. The recognition of the need for embodied complementarity and acceptance of the essential duality of a male-female bond is prior to any conclusions that may or may not be reached about incest and polyamory.

This is certainly true about the development of sexual ethics in ancient Israel, early Judaism, and early Christianity. Loopholes for incest and polyamory were revoked over time. But in the biblical record there never were any loopholes allowable for homosexual practice. The most basic division for human sexual behavior is the differentiation of the sexes, not differentiation along the lines of kinship or limitation of number.

In conclusion, Lee Jefferson doesn’t want the Bible to have anything to “say” about “gay marriage.” His want then infuses his interpretation of the biblical text, skewing the results. He attempts to make his case by arguing that “the Bible is not specific, literate, or even concerned with what we call same-sex orientation or gay marriage,” when in fact we have seen the exact opposite to be the case. He blames proponents of a male-female requirement for not investigating the “ancient cultural context.” Yet he himself appears not to know it.

Jefferson thinks that people should “quit focusing on what the Bible didactically ‘says’”-a contention that ignores the helpful contribution of the Bible throughout Western civilization to a whole host of social justice issues. I suspect that what Jefferson is really upset about is seeing the Bible applied to the specific issue of homosexual practice. So applied it simply doesn’t cut in the direction that he would like to see it cut. Nor, I might add, do secular considerations suggest a need to divert from that witness.

Source

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Excerpts From the Letters of Saint Mark of Ephesus

On Those Who Accepted the Florentine Union

"These people admit with the Latins that the Holy Spirit proceeds and derives His existence from the Son. Yet, with us, they say the Spirit proceeds from the Father. The Latins imagine that this addition to the Creed is lawful and just, but we will not so much as pronounce it. They state that unleavened bread is the body of Christ, but we dare not communicate it. Is this not sufficient to exhibit that they came to the Latin council not to investigate the truth, which they once possessed and then betrayed, but simply to earn some gold and attain a false union? Behold, they read two Creeds as they did before. They perform two different liturgies - one on leavened and the other on unleavened bread. They perform two baptisms - one by triple immersion and the other by aspersion; one with Holy Chrism and the other without it. All our Orthodox customs are different from those of the Latins, including our fasts, Church rites, icons, and many other things. What sort of union is this then, when it has no external sign? How could they come together, each retaining his own?"

On Communion With the Latin Church

"Flee brethren! Flee communion with the incommunicable and the commemoration of the uncommemorative. Behold, I, Mark, the sinner, tell you that whoever commemorates the Pope as an Orthodox prelate is guilty. Moreover, one who minds the dogmas of the Latins will be judged with the Latins, and will be deemed a betrayer of the Faith."

On Latin Theology

"They desire also to preserve their own...and at the same time do not follow the traditions of the Fathers."

"If the Latins have not departed from the correct Faith, then we have cut them off unjustly. However, if they have departed from the Faith, regarding the theology of the Holy Spirit, to Whom to blaspheme is the greatest of all perils, clearly, they are heretics, and we have cut them off as heretics."

On Accepting Latin Converts to Orthodoxy

"We must not sanctify one of the Latin race through the divine and most pure gifts given by priestly hands, unless that one shall first resolve to depart from Latin dogmas and customs and shall be catechized and joined to the Orthodox."

On Essence and Energies of God in the Fathers

"We must not be surprised if we do not find among the ancients any clear and defined distinction between the essence of God and His energies. If, in our time, after the solemn confirmation of this truth, the partisans of profane wisdom have created so much trouble in the Church over this question - and have accused Her of polytheism - what mischief would not have been perpetrated in earlier times against this truth by those puffed up with vain learning. This is why our theologians always insisted in the simplicity of God more than the distinctions which exist in Him. It would have been inopportune to exhibit the teaching concerning the essence and energies before those who had enough trouble admitting the distinction of hypostases. Thus, by a wise economy this sacred teaching has become clarified in the course of time, God using for this purpose the foolish attacks of heretics."

On the Pope

"For us, the Pope is as one of the Patriarchs - and only if he is Orthodox; whereas, they proclaim him Vicar of Christ, Father and Teacher of all Christians. Flee from them, O brethren, and from communion with them. 'For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. Therefore, it is no great thing if even his ministers transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works'" (2 Cor. 11:13-15).

Source: P.G. 160 and translated by Holy Apostles Convent in The Lives of the Pillars of Orthodoxy.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Edgar Allen Poe As A Philhellene

Edgar Allen Poe was born in Boston on the 19th of January, 1809. In 1822 he entered the University of Charlottesville where he studied Greek and obtained distinctions in Latin and French in 1826. His love for the Greek language, Greek mythology and ancient Greece are clearly evident in his poetry.

One of Poe's biggest poetic influences was the Romantic poet Lord Byron. While Poe was a student in 1823 Lord Byron was venturing off to Greece to fight on behalf of the Hellenic cause against the Ottomans. This inspired many in the West towards a philhellenic spirit, especially when news spread of his death at 36 years of age from a fever contracted while in Missolonghi in Greece on the 19th of April in 1824. Among those inspired was Edgar Allen Poe.

In 1827, aroused himself by the heroic efforts of the Greeks and in emulation of Lord Byron, Edgar Allen Poe and an acquaintance, Ebenezer Burling, determined to travel to Greece and offer their aid to the insurgents. Burling dropped out of the adventure however, either due to parental urging or cowardice, thus forcing Poe to venture alone to Europe. Poe was absent for more than a year, but the adventure of his journey was never told. Something held him back from telling about this period in his life and various stories were invented to fill in the blanks. That he reached England is of little doubt, but whether or not he beheld what he called "The glory that was Greece and the grandeur that was Rome" is still uncertain. In his writings he does seem to allude to the scenery of Greece and Italy, but there is no reliable data to prove he ever reached there. The story that he arrived in St. Petersburg, Russia and extricated for his misbehavior is likely not true. In 1829 we find him again at home temporarily in Richmond, Virginia.

Poe may have never arrived in Greece nor have fought for the Hellenic cause, but his philhellenism is evident in at least his efforts and desire to make a similar sacrifice as did Lord Byron. Maybe one day we will find out what really happened to him in that silent philhellenic year.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

A Monastery Made of Six-Million Matchsticks

Michelangelo spent only three years carving David. Da Vinci’s depiction of The Last Supper required just three. This giant model of the Rila Monastery by Bulgarian artist Plamen Ignatov demanded 16 years of dedication.

Officially known as the Monastery of Saint Ivan of Rila, it is Bulgaria’s largest Eastern Orthodox Monastery. It was founded in the 10th century — reportedly growing from a cave that housed the monastery’s founder. After being rebuilt at the end of the 15th century, it long served as a repository for Bulgarian culture during times of foreign occupation — including nearly 500 years of Ottoman rule. The Rila Monastery is now protected as a UNESCO World Heritage site and receives nearly a million visitors annually.

The model is currently on display in the Bulgarian capitol of Sofia at the National Archaeological Museum.




Source

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Cosmologists Forced to “In the Beginning”

The late astronomer Robert Jastrow detailed in his 1978 book God and the Astronomers how cosmologists were repulsed by the idea the universe had a beginning. He found it quizzical that they would have such an emotional reaction. They all realized that a beginning out of nothing was implausible without a Creator. Since then, various models allowing for an eternal universe brought secular cosmologists relief from their emotional pains. It now appears that relief was premature.

In New Scientist today, Lisa Grossman reported on ideas presented at a conference entitled “State of the Universe” convened last week in honor of Stephen Hawking’s 70th birthday. Some birthday; he got “the worst presents ever,” she said: “two bold proposals posed serious threats to our existing understanding of the cosmos.” Of the two, the latter is most serious: a presentation showing reasons why “the universe is not eternal, resurrecting the thorny question of how to kick-start the cosmos without the hand of a supernatural creator.”

It is well-known that Hawking has preferred a self-existing universe. Grossman quotes him saying, “‘A point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God,’ Hawking told the meeting, at the University of Cambridge, in a pre-recorded speech.”

In her article, “Why physicists can’t avoid a creation event,” Grossman explains that “For a while it looked like it might be possible to dodge this problem, by relying on models such as an eternally inflating or cyclic universe, both of which seemed to continue infinitely in the past as well as the future.” These models were consistent with the big bang, she notes. Unfortunately, “as cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston explained last week, that hope has been gradually fading and may now be dead.” Here are the models in brief and why they don’t work:


1.Eternal inflation: Built on Alan Guth’s 1981 inflation proposal, this model imagines bubble universes forming and inflating spontaneously forever. Vilenkin and Guth had debunked this idea as recently as 2003. The equations still require a boundary in the past.

2.Eternal cycles: A universe that bounces endlessly from expansion to contraction has a certain appeal to some, but it won’t work either. “Disorder increases with time,” Grossman explained. “So following each cycle, the universe must get more and more disordered.” Logically, then, if there had already been an infinite number of cycles, the universe would already been in a state of maximum disorder, even if the universe gets bigger with each bounce. Scratch that model.

3.Eternal egg: One last holdout was the “cosmic egg” model that has the universe hatching out of some eternally-existing static state. “Late last year Vilenkin and graduate student Audrey Mithani showed that the egg could not have existed forever after all, as quantum instabilities would force it to collapse after a finite amount of time (arxiv.org/abs/1110.4096).” No way could the egg be eternal.

The upshot of this is clear. No model of an eternal universe works. Vilenkin concluded, “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” An editorial at New Scientist called this, “The Genesis Problem.”

Source

Read also: Vilenkin’s Verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”

Tweet

Share on Tumblr