This forum was closed on October 1st, 2010. However, the archives are open to the public and filled with vast amounts of good reading and information for you to enjoy. If you wish to meet some Wardrobians, please visit the Into the Wardrobe Facebook group.

Edited Title: The war of modernity vs paradosis

Re: Edited Title: Beards

Postby rusmeister » 05 Jul 2009, 09:10

Bluegoat wrote:
rusmeister wrote:It's an aside, but all you have to do is stand in the back of a church during worship and watch prostrations to answer the question - why should women wear long skirts - at least during worship. Little by little (not all at once) these seemingly 'hidebound' traditions begin to make sense.



Do only women do prostrations? I may be missing your point, because personally, women's bums don't interest me other than academically, I'd much rather watch the men's. Perhaps they should wear skirts so as to not distract me?


You seem to be placing the nature of physical attraction between the sexes on exactly the same level, as if there were no differences. I would say that it could be a problem for a woman so inclined to that sort of visual attraction, but it is certainly an exception, rather than the rule. then she also has to fight that sexual lust/attraction thing - which is no fun if you get that it is distraction and sin. So, no, exceptions should not be allowed to determine the rule.
"Eh? Two views? There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there's never more than one."
Bill "The Blizzard" Hingest - That Hideous Strength
User avatar
rusmeister
 
Posts: 1778
Joined: Dec 2005
Location: Russia

Re: Edited Title: The war of modernity vs paradosis

Postby rusmeister » 05 Jul 2009, 09:17

cyranorox wrote:Rus, you think women ought to wear long skirts? pants are modest enough, and the skirts/pants divide is really no later than about 1400 a.d, - before that, we all wore gowns or very long shirts. for most of history, male and female silhouettes were about the same.

FWIW, I agree that transgender is a delusion - no one is the wrong gender relative to his body - and doctors are criminal in allowing such persons to be cut up or stuffed with hormones in pursuit of their delusive goals. But about 1 in every 10000 or so is born with some intergender structures and some do not know, as adults, that they were carved into one or the other shape as infants.

Of course I realize that. My response is that whatever men and women wear that differentiates them in a society ought to be held as, well, sacred - in the sense that it has been established, by a great many people over a large span of time long before we were born that this detail is the province of men, or of women, and that it is not up to us to determine social standards of decency. In our age, it was decidedly pants/vs skirts until very recently; and I believe that the imposed changes were brought on, not by generations of people who agreed on it, but encouraged by a small minority that really wanted to break down those visual symbols of difference - in short, that the best thing is to reject the modern (Lewisian: fashionable, temporary) standard, and that the women who walk into a church with long skirts and head scarves are on a track that is more right in that sense than one who does not. (Note: I didn't say 'more holy' or anything of the sort.)

I think I already responded on proper attitude toward those unfortunate enough to be born with an abnormality. I simply insist that we not try to treat it as normal - in all other things, charity is the rule.
"Eh? Two views? There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there's never more than one."
Bill "The Blizzard" Hingest - That Hideous Strength
User avatar
rusmeister
 
Posts: 1778
Joined: Dec 2005
Location: Russia

Re: Edited Title: The war of modernity vs paradosis

Postby rusmeister » 05 Jul 2009, 14:51

I think some good concerns are raised here.
cyranorox wrote:I grew up with pluralism, and on the whole it was salutary. my education did not prevent me from questioning pluralism, nor absolutism - questioning both, for me, was necessary. and pluralism expects to turn out a percent of absolutists, people who take one of the roads available.
for a critique of modernism that does not fall into neo-authoritarianism, conservatism, or the sort of remedies worse than the problem, read Yannaras, perhaps Person and Eros. He has no truck with the external moralism or the tough-love, strong-father, siege mentality common today. Fully and deeply Orthodox, he explains a way of freedom and authenticity in love, that can examine the faults of modernism and of conservative reaction.


My responses would start from language, and a request to define terms. I do not accept the modern terms "liberal" and "conservative", "reactionary" and "progressive" (and a good deal of other buzzwords), because I believe them to be false in their very beginnings. The label utterly misleads. Therefore, to me, your characterization of my view as "conservative" is a reaction set up by education, be it via schooling or media, that assumes certain positions without defining them.
I, too, believe in freedom and authenticity in love. Only as soon as we talk about "conservative reaction", we have parted ways. I don't see things in those terms at all.
It is true that Orthodox people can disagree on non-dogmatic issues. I think the thing I would say is that modern language, in its presentation of reality, leads us to assume positions that reject both Orthodox dogma and traditional views - and tradition is the very essence of Orthodoxy. In fact,
the current crop of traditional moralists
is an implied contradiction in terms.


cyranorox wrote:re: "our" society - problem is, it's "their" society, too. Should 'they' be forced to live under laws that contradict their beliefs? or should they refrain from making law to suit their views?

The first question is a good one. Frankly, societies always force people to live under their laws, and people who come with different ideas generally either assimilate or are marginalized. So what you are describing is the essential nature of conflict in politics - that people really do believe different things, and these beliefs do affect real life. So the question, as put, really means, should one view predominate? and the answer is, "Of course". A house divided against itself cannot stand. Slavery in the US is a glaring example of that.
The second question is not reasonable, as expressed. Obviously, people should attempt to enact their worldview. if something is wrong according to it, they should be expected to try to change it. So the struggle comes down to either persuasion of one side or the other, or the defeat in battle, political or literal - and no matter what, spiritual, of one side or the other. The defeated side then decides what to do further. If they cannot win, they go underground. if their beliefs are true, they may endure (like the catacomb Christians for 300 years. if false, they will die out, like the pagans.
But in all events, one side or the other must prevail. They may compromise, where that compromise does not compromise their core beliefs. Where they do, compromise is not possible. Only battle.

cyranorox wrote:the "family" has become an idol, partly in the process of defending it against phantom enemies; no, gay marriage does not threaten straight marriage. I see screwtape in the licence to anger, uncharity, malice, and rejection that the current crop of traditional moralists allow themselves. The idea that precious things are under attack [false, because these things are indestructible], and that a culture [that never existed] is under dire threat, make it seem like any tactic against the supposed enemy is justified - the stakes so illusorily high, the urgency so delusively great.
this can play out in as apparently benign an arena as beards and clothes. most people want to be normal: dress in normal gendered clothes, marry the opposite sex, have a kid or two, believe what their parents do. that has not changed, and will not change. What is really up for grabs is the view of, or treatment of, the few who don't follow the given path; who want to dress out of gender, marry the same sex, have no kids [or a great many], or generally find themselves not fitting, and not willing to fit. I, normal in most regards, feel completely safe in allowing such people to find whatever happiness they can, anticipating that they are no greater sinners than many a straight stiff.Nothing bad will happen if we all fail to disapprove.

As presented, this is a subjective point of view, and highly debatable. Where I do agree is on anger, uncharity, and malice. Mixing that with "rejection" (define, please) by no means follows.
It is false that precious things are indestructible. When your nation is raided, the men killed, the women taken as concubines and the children as slaves, I think the claim that precious things are indestructible falls apart. (I just finished reading a moving account, in Russian, about the life of a man, who as a boy had fallen under Nazi occupation. The thorough dehumanization described, and the complete destruction of all precious things, just reveals the fallacy of thinking them indestructible. They may be destroyed by brute force, or by force of law, but either way, you destroy them.)

I wonder what you mean by "a culture that never existed". (For some reason, the foolish modern idea that there is no such thing as American culture comes to mind, but it doesn't seem likely that that's what you mean). If the question of true/false is hashed out we might talk further. I'll say that the things that I HAVE said (as opposed to what I haven't) begin to make more sense - so that, obviously, is what we'd have to debate.

I agree that it is wrong to think that any tactic is justified (the ends justify the means) - only who's claiming that?

Finally, if you are saying that we are all sinners, and that we should not judge others or think ourselves better than them, then no argument. If you are saying that we should say that such things -
to dress out of gender, marry the same sex,
- which need to be completely separated from things that really are not being challenged
have no kids [or a great many], or generally find themselves not fitting
- are NOT sin or symptoms of sin/spiritual illness - then I'll challenge you to talk to your priest - better yet, a few (ordained, canonical) clergy, because that is un-Orthodox. We are not to judge others and not to display anger or malice. But charity also demands that we tell the truth, and not justify sin.

In short, I think you have taken some things that I do claim, and mixed them with things I do not claim, and thereby see me as a "conservative reactionary" (define, please). We don't know each other well, and can only react to what the other says, but that much, at least, is apparent to me.

We all come to the Church messed up in one way or another. The Church will cure us, if we let it.
"Eh? Two views? There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there's never more than one."
Bill "The Blizzard" Hingest - That Hideous Strength
User avatar
rusmeister
 
Posts: 1778
Joined: Dec 2005
Location: Russia

Re: Edited Title: The war of modernity vs paradosis

Postby cyranorox » 06 Jul 2009, 04:00

I'm saying that crossdressing, barrensess, contraception, desire to marry the same sex, etc are not symptoms of greater sin than banking, bloviating, unionbusting, speculation,, or any collection of respectable sins.

the reactionaries i have in mind, and whose rhetoric [a neutral word for me] has much in common with yours, feel that modernity is an assault on a Christian social order, which is characterized by a tight structure of authority flowing from rulers to fathers, subordinating women ['women should...'], demanding contentment of the poor, and dreaming of Absolute referents for its laws and punishments. It's to dream the dream of MacIan, from The Ball and the Cross - and all too often, they accept the diabolical twist that makes MacIan say 'no', as I say no. also such people frame the current sutuation as a war, or culture war; they want to control and govern in the name of natural law, or divine commission, or some fantasy of their own righteousness. Everything aggressive is framed as defense; the rhetoric always characterizes themselves as beleaguered, surrounded, and in peril - which is patent nonsense, and often functions as a cover for a good deal of hostility.

A remedy for death is the essence of Orthodoxy - a radical piece of Good News. It's just our distance in time from the dominical period that makes it seem that we are a traditional people.

Marriage is indestructible; the sacraments are indestructible; the Christian church is indestructible, thiough it shrink to two pregnant women -as it once was - or one last monk - because it is Divine.

there is always a current crop of moralists, each displaying the concerns and blind spots of its generation and culture, often ignoring the true besetting sins of its milieu for some faults more comfortable to concentrate on.
Apocatastasis Now!
cyranorox
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 274
Joined: Dec 2007
Location: a garret over a moonlit street

Re: Edited Title: The war of modernity vs paradosis

Postby rusmeister » 06 Jul 2009, 18:06

cyranorox wrote:I'm saying that crossdressing, barrensess, contraception, desire to marry the same sex, etc are not symptoms of greater sin than banking, bloviating, unionbusting, speculation,, or any collection of respectable sins.


That's good. Neither was I.
But once again, you are mixing issues that I was never talking about into the mix, as if I were. Barrenness is a cross to bear, contraception is that thorny place one discusses with one's priest, and don't fall into the same category at all.
It appeared from your previous posts that you were suggesting that the others, which I was referring to, were not sin at all, and that's what I was responding to.

cyranorox wrote:the reactionaries i have in mind, and whose rhetoric [a neutral word for me] has much in common with yours, feel that modernity is an assault on a Christian social order, which is characterized by a tight structure of authority flowing from rulers to fathers, subordinating women ['women should...'], demanding contentment of the poor, and dreaming of Absolute referents for its laws and punishments. It's to dream the dream of MacIan, from The Ball and the Cross - and all too often, they accept the diabolical twist that makes MacIan say 'no', as I say no. also such people frame the current sutuation as a war, or culture war; they want to control and govern in the name of natural law, or divine commission, or some fantasy of their own righteousness. Everything aggressive is framed as defense; the rhetoric always characterizes themselves as beleaguered, surrounded, and in peril - which is patent nonsense, and often functions as a cover for a good deal of hostility.

Since I don't speak of a specific "Christian social order" (which, unfortunately, is a myth and will be till the second coming, I suppose) but of the pre-existing social order that these particular aspects of modernity ARE an assault on - and it is not about defending 'subordination of women', etc. You're condemning something, once again, that I'm not talking about. Some of the things you list seem odd: "Contentment of the poor", for example. The issues you are probably referring to are complex, but can be boiled down to simple divisions: for example, oppression of the poor is wrong, but the Christian poor SHOULD strive to be content with their lot in life (as should we all). Our discontent should be preserved for wrongdoing and advocacy of sin, not for a simple lack of prosperity and wealth. (Maybe we agree on this.) Any dealings with real life requires reference to both absolutes and specific situations (relatives). The error of modernity is to attempt to completely eliminate the absolute, so in our age it needs special defense. In other ages, it might be the relative that stands in need of that special defense, but that is not so in our time.

I think dialog around peril and nonsense would require considerable clarification to make any kind of response. You have to define what the things (I have said, at any rate) are that you object to. That there is a spiritual war going on there should be no doubt. If you deny that (again, it seems that you do), then we must be living on different planets. Certainly I agree that there can be abuse, exaggeration, etc, when speaking of peril, and for the greater part, we should place our trust in God. But we are also to make a difference, and if there were no danger, then we would make no difference.

cyranorox wrote:A remedy for death is the essence of Orthodoxy - a radical piece of Good News. It's just our distance in time from the dominical period that makes it seem that we are a traditional people.

I would say that it is the faith that is traditional, not the people. In that sense, the Tradition is the virtue of the Church, not of the people.

cyranorox wrote:Marriage is indestructible; the sacraments are indestructible; the Christian church is indestructible, thiough it shrink to two pregnant women -as it once was - or one last monk - because it is Divine.

there is always a current crop of moralists, each displaying the concerns and blind spots of its generation and culture, often ignoring the true besetting sins of its milieu for some faults more comfortable to concentrate on.

In a spiritual sense, for the given Christian, their sacramental marriage IS indestructible, and the Church IS indestructible - but it can be broken, and a generation that allows things to slide to total faithlessness may learn the lesson of the Russian Church of the 20th century - which IS an example of catastrophic peril, calling for gargantuan sacrifice and heaps of martyrs. Since we do not desire those things, we should do what we can to ensure a preferable outcome. In that sense, there certainly IS peril.

Agreed on blind spots - although obviously we disagree on what exactly they are.

It seems evident that misunderstandings are occurring - at least from the things that you list vs what I list, we are talking at cross purposes to some extent.
"Eh? Two views? There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there's never more than one."
Bill "The Blizzard" Hingest - That Hideous Strength
User avatar
rusmeister
 
Posts: 1778
Joined: Dec 2005
Location: Russia

Re: Edited Title: Beards

Postby Bluegoat » 06 Jul 2009, 19:24

rusmeister wrote:
Bluegoat wrote:
rusmeister wrote:It's an aside, but all you have to do is stand in the back of a church during worship and watch prostrations to answer the question - why should women wear long skirts - at least during worship. Little by little (not all at once) these seemingly 'hidebound' traditions begin to make sense.



Do only women do prostrations? I may be missing your point, because personally, women's bums don't interest me other than academically, I'd much rather watch the men's. Perhaps they should wear skirts so as to not distract me?


You seem to be placing the nature of physical attraction between the sexes on exactly the same level, as if there were no differences. I would say that it could be a problem for a woman so inclined to that sort of visual attraction, but it is certainly an exception, rather than the rule. then she also has to fight that sexual lust/attraction thing - which is no fun if you get that it is distraction and sin. So, no, exceptions should not be allowed to determine the rule.


It seems to me, on the other hand, that you are wildly exaggerating the difference. It is a bit of a cliche that women are not supposed to be visually oriented this way, and the scientific research even seems to support it. However, I think this is a case of the laboratory not being an adequate substitute for real life.

Woman's attraction generally seems to require a context to be really interesting, which is why female erotica and romance novels spend much more time setting the scene than those things directed towards men. (Though a fairly large minority of women use men's pornography too.) But the ultimate context is real life, which is where most attraction takes place, and it would clearly include worship services.

I think I do have some actual experience of this outside of my own feelings; I've lived in women's and men's army barracks, and for a number of years in a women's university residence, and I can assure you that there was much discussion, more than anyone could ever want to hear, about the various physical attributes of men. Among the soldiers, the content wasn't even that different between the women and the men. In fact I lived for a year in a women's residence populated by Christian girls (called "The Nunnery') and there was much discussion about the fellows they saw at the university chapel. Priests and servers seemed to be the most admired specimens, logically enough I suppose as they were the easiest to see.
User avatar
Bluegoat
 
Posts: 205
Joined: Dec 2008
Location: Nova Scotia

Re: Edited Title: Beards

Postby Xara » 08 Jul 2009, 22:28

Bluegoat wrote:
rusmeister wrote:
Bluegoat wrote:
Do only women do prostrations? I may be missing your point, because personally, women's bums don't interest me other than academically, I'd much rather watch the men's. Perhaps they should wear skirts so as to not distract me?


You seem to be placing the nature of physical attraction between the sexes on exactly the same level, as if there were no differences. I would say that it could be a problem for a woman so inclined to that sort of visual attraction, but it is certainly an exception, rather than the rule. then she also has to fight that sexual lust/attraction thing - which is no fun if you get that it is distraction and sin. So, no, exceptions should not be allowed to determine the rule.


It seems to me, on the other hand, that you are wildly exaggerating the difference. It is a bit of a cliche that women are not supposed to be visually oriented this way, and the scientific research even seems to support it. However, I think this is a case of the laboratory not being an adequate substitute for real life.

Woman's attraction generally seems to require a context to be really interesting, which is why female erotica and romance novels spend much more time setting the scene than those things directed towards men. (Though a fairly large minority of women use men's pornography too.) But the ultimate context is real life, which is where most attraction takes place, and it would clearly include worship services.

I think I do have some actual experience of this outside of my own feelings; I've lived in women's and men's army barracks, and for a number of years in a women's university residence, and I can assure you that there was much discussion, more than anyone could ever want to hear, about the various physical attributes of men. Among the soldiers, the content wasn't even that different between the women and the men. In fact I lived for a year in a women's residence populated by Christian girls (called "The Nunnery') and there was much discussion about the fellows they saw at the university chapel. Priests and servers seemed to be the most admired specimens, logically enough I suppose as they were the easiest to see.


This reminds me of Christian discussion groups when I was 16 (decades ago) when adolescents with no carnal experience would sit around and ask adult leaders these kinds of questions: do boys and girls lust after the same things? are both sexes susceptible to desire? and my all time favourite; do both sexes have the same kinds of orgasm?

Now that we are all grown up, it seems a bit fatuous. As an Orthodox, there is no hard and fast line on these things. The Hard And Fast Lines are in stuff laid down by the 7 Councils. Tradition says that women should wear skirts to church, but there is no law about it. There is no law that says that you should wear clothes in church, but traditionally we welcome clothed worshippers.

Gay? Transgender? Crossdresser? Are you one? If not, why should one seek rules about it? If you are lucky enough to have a Spiritual Father, approach him with your own problems, not those that you perceive in others. that sort of stuff is between that person and God. If you're not invited, don't get involved.
Experience: that most brutal of teachers.
Xara
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Nov 2008
Location: Wales

Re: Edited Title: Beards

Postby Bluegoat » 09 Jul 2009, 12:47

Xara wrote:
Gay? Transgender? Crossdresser? Are you one? If not, why should one seek rules about it? If you are lucky enough to have a Spiritual Father, approach him with your own problems, not those that you perceive in others. that sort of stuff is between that person and God. If you're not invited, don't get involved.


I think this is generally good advice, other than in the context of thinking about how to treat other people who might appear in our lives. But I'm not sure why it was directed at me, since I'm not worried about transgendered people? I think Rus was the one convinced that it was a problem.

I suppose a church in the jungles of South America might have a naked or partially naked congregation. That would take some getting used to.
User avatar
Bluegoat
 
Posts: 205
Joined: Dec 2008
Location: Nova Scotia

Re: Edited Title: Beards

Postby rusmeister » 09 Jul 2009, 16:34

Bluegoat wrote:
Xara wrote:
Gay? Transgender? Crossdresser? Are you one? If not, why should one seek rules about it? If you are lucky enough to have a Spiritual Father, approach him with your own problems, not those that you perceive in others. that sort of stuff is between that person and God. If you're not invited, don't get involved.


I think this is generally good advice, other than in the context of thinking about how to treat other people who might appear in our lives. But I'm not sure why it was directed at me, since I'm not worried about transgendered people? I think Rus was the one convinced that it was a problem.

I suppose a church in the jungles of South America might have a naked or partially naked congregation. That would take some getting used to.

I think it's really important to clarify that I am NOT talking about judging individuals - we are ALL messed up in one way or another. What I AM talking about is accepting or treating the things I was speaking about as normal. That may mean a fine balancing act in our society, where all of the pressure is to approve of these things and declare them normal.

I guess I would ask how we should treat alcoholism - which is, according to Orthodoxy, an equally destructive passion and the people need to be treated the same way - with compassion, but not told that they are fine and there is nothing wrong with their passion.
"Eh? Two views? There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there's never more than one."
Bill "The Blizzard" Hingest - That Hideous Strength
User avatar
rusmeister
 
Posts: 1778
Joined: Dec 2005
Location: Russia

Re: Edited Title: Beards

Postby Xara » 09 Jul 2009, 16:35

Bluegoat wrote:
Xara wrote:
Gay? Transgender? Crossdresser? Are you one? If not, why should one seek rules about it? If you are lucky enough to have a Spiritual Father, approach him with your own problems, not those that you perceive in others. that sort of stuff is between that person and God. If you're not invited, don't get involved.


I think this is generally good advice, other than in the context of thinking about how to treat other people who might appear in our lives.


I would say ALSO in the context of thinking about how to treat other people who might appear in our lives.

Bluegoat wrote:But I'm not sure why it was directed at me, since I'm not worried about transgendered people? I think Rus was the one convinced that it was a problem.


Sorry, not supposed to be directed at any one person.

Bluegoat wrote:I suppose a church in the jungles of South America might have a naked or partially naked congregation. That would take some getting used to.


When they did prostrations you'd think they were all winking at you.
Experience: that most brutal of teachers.
Xara
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Nov 2008
Location: Wales

Re: Edited Title: Beards

Postby Xara » 09 Jul 2009, 16:40

rusmeister wrote:
I think it's really important to clarify that I am NOT talking about judging individuals - we are ALL messed up in one way or another. What I AM talking about is accepting or treating the things I was speaking about as normal.


But establishing what is normal is a form of judging.

I'm not arguing with you, I think I know what you mean. If someone turned up naked for church you'd want to have a word with them. But if a transgender turned up ("No one comes to the Father except by me" - XP) why would I want to say anything?

"Excuse me, pal. I can see you're really a bloke underneath. You'll have to leave *those* outside for a start."
Experience: that most brutal of teachers.
Xara
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Nov 2008
Location: Wales

Re: Edited Title: Beards

Postby Bluegoat » 09 Jul 2009, 19:07

Xara wrote:
When they did prostrations you'd think they were all winking at you.



:??: :stunned: :blush:
User avatar
Bluegoat
 
Posts: 205
Joined: Dec 2008
Location: Nova Scotia

Re: Edited Title: Beards

Postby rusmeister » 10 Jul 2009, 04:07

Xara wrote:
rusmeister wrote:
I think it's really important to clarify that I am NOT talking about judging individuals - we are ALL messed up in one way or another. What I AM talking about is accepting or treating the things I was speaking about as normal.


But establishing what is normal is a form of judging.

I'm not arguing with you, I think I know what you mean. If someone turned up naked for church you'd want to have a word with them. But if a transgender turned up ("No one comes to the Father except by me" - XP) why would I want to say anything?

"Excuse me, pal. I can see you're really a bloke underneath. You'll have to leave *those* outside for a start."


Hi Xara,
But establishing what is normal is a form of judging.
Judging sin, not people.

I guess that's the line I'm trying to define - I'm not saying anything about 'saying things to people who walk into church' or that we should think we know anything about a specific person's situation and judge them. But I am saying that such people should get, as soon as charitably possible, that what they are doing is not normal - that there is such a thing as sin, that we are all sinners, essentially, the need of modern society to hear the diagnosis, which is absolutely necessary to understand, before they are ready to see the Gospel as good news, as the cure.

I think that generally speaking, anyone who does anything like that (your hypothetical situation) will see for themselves that it is not normal - because they would stand out. If you had a regular 'invasion', so to speak, whether it be alcoholics getting drunk at a church feast, or a significant number of cross-dressers showing up in church - something visible, the priest might have to give a special sermon (or series of them), for example, addressing the given topic, or some way to transmit that our God-given state is one given by Him (a tautology, but perhaps necessary), and about the Christian virtues of humility and submission, rather than rebellion. In Orthodoxy, after all, we learn to shift the focus from 'what I think I should do' to asking the Church 'What should I do?'.

In a more normal society things like this would never need to be said - and even now, such radical situations essentially never crop up (yet), but the line is that we are neither to judge the sinner, nor approve of the sin. The message that we must not give is that sin is not sin; that's what I'm speaking to, and that's what I think a lot of Christians are actually doing.
"Eh? Two views? There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there's never more than one."
Bill "The Blizzard" Hingest - That Hideous Strength
User avatar
rusmeister
 
Posts: 1778
Joined: Dec 2005
Location: Russia

Re: Edited Title: The war of modernity vs paradosis

Postby Bluegoat » 10 Jul 2009, 12:14

Does the OC have any actual official position or direction on transsexual etc people? I know that the Catholics are very cautious but don't actually outright reject the possibility of medical intervention, and some Muslim nations will actually pay for it through their public health service. Neither suggest that it's not "normal" in quite the way you seem to mean Rus, and medicine doesn't seem to support that either. I guess I'm wondering if this is your interpretation of Orthodoxy by inference or someone has overtly set some kind of precedent or direction?
User avatar
Bluegoat
 
Posts: 205
Joined: Dec 2008
Location: Nova Scotia

Re: Edited Title: Beards

Postby Xara » 10 Jul 2009, 12:20

rusmeister wrote:I guess that's the line I'm trying to define - I'm not saying anything about 'saying things to people who walk into church' or that we should think we know anything about a specific person's situation and judge them. But I am saying that such people should get, as soon as charitably possible, that what they are doing is not normal - that there is such a thing as sin, that we are all sinners, essentially, the need of modern society to hear the diagnosis, which is absolutely necessary to understand, before they are ready to see the Gospel as good news, as the cure.

I think that generally speaking, anyone who does anything like that (your hypothetical situation) will see for themselves that it is not normal - because they would stand out. If you had a regular 'invasion', so to speak, whether it be alcoholics getting drunk at a church feast, or a significant number of cross-dressers showing up in church - something visible, the priest might have to give a special sermon (or series of them), for example, addressing the given topic, or some way to transmit that our God-given state is one given by Him (a tautology, but perhaps necessary), and about the Christian virtues of humility and submission, rather than rebellion. In Orthodoxy, after all, we learn to shift the focus from 'what I think I should do' to asking the Church 'What should I do?'.

In a more normal society things like this would never need to be said - and even now, such radical situations essentially never crop up (yet), but the line is that we are neither to judge the sinner, nor approve of the sin. The message that we must not give is that sin is not sin; that's what I'm speaking to, and that's what I think a lot of Christians are actually doing.


I've heard many Evangelical Christians quote the phrase "Hate the sinner, not the sin". This sounds similar to your point.

You rightly say that such examples that you gave don't oft occur. This would seem to make your point somewhat academic.

The thing that strikes me most is your secondary point about the Priest having the discernment to work something into the Synaxarion. Discernment is the important, and the most elusive spiritual gift of all.
Experience: that most brutal of teachers.
Xara
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Nov 2008
Location: Wales

PreviousNext

Return to Religion, Science, and Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered members and 1 guest