Homosexual Marriage and the Orthodox Church

Posted on April 14, 2017 by Kristofer Carlson

Saints Sergius and Bacchus. 7th Century icon. Officers of the Roman Army in Syria who were tortured to death for their refusal to worship Roman gods. Some scholars believe they were united in a ceremony called Adelphopoiesis, which is roughly equivalent to what we today call civil unions.

I wonder if one day the Eastern Orthodox Church will accept homosexual marriage as sacramental. I will not see it in my lifetime, and I do not expect it to happen for several hundred years. I am not arguing that this should happen, only that I see a path where it could happen. Let me explain.

Let me dispose of the most simplistic argument first, crassly phrased as follows: “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.” If you can make that argument with a straight face, you do not understand the scriptures.

First, it is not at all clear that Adam and Eve are proper names. Adam is a word that means “to be red”, referring to his skin color, and is a play on the Hebrew word ‘adamah’ meaning “earth”. Adam is also a term that could apply to humanity in general. ‘Eve’ means either ‘to breath’ or ‘to live’. Thus, the words Adam and Eve symbolize that we were made from earth, and that God breathed into us the breath of life.

Second, the creation accounts themselves are highly symbolic and spiritual in nature; they have a higher and deeper meaning than the crass literal interpretation. This ties in well with our first point, which is that the names Adam and Eve are symbolic of their natures, and describe the relationship between God and Man.

There is more to be said here, but let us move on.

You might argue from the nature of marriage as symbolic of the relationship between God and Man, particularly in the differing roles each plays. In this view, the husband symbolizes God and the wife symbolizes humanity. As a preacher once said, we are all female before God. However, this view is theologically incorrect. The married couple become one flesh; this symbolizes the distinction of persons within the trinity, while also symbolizing their essential unity. Each member of the trinity is consubstantial with the others; a married couple symbolizes this consubstantiality.

You might argue that gender distinctions themselves are symbolic of the distinction of persons within the trinity. It is true that we all share a single human nature, but that nature is the same regardless of gender. We are different persons sharing a common nature in the same manner as the trinity is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, one God. Gender is a characteristic of a human person, but is not an essential element of personhood. The apostle makes this clear by saying: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” This oneness is our common human nature; the other characteristics described make no difference in the human person.

You might argue from tradition, saying that no thriving society has ever allowed homosexual marriage. This is an argument I’ve heard from the pulpit, but it happens to be incorrect. Same-sex unions occurred in ancient societies such as Greece, Rome, and Mesopotamia. It has occurred in China and in medieval Europe, and in native American societies. These unions were at times informal, and at other times involved rituals analogous to marriage. It is true that homosexual unions were frowned upon in Judaism and early Christianity, but the existence of these prohibitions serve to reinforce our understanding of ancient Greece, Rome, and Mesopotamia.

You might argue from scripture. These are perhaps the strongest arguments. However, there are a lot of things in scripture that we no longer practice. The Old Testament is full of religious and civil practices we no longer practice. Both the Old and New Testament prohibit the loaning of money at interest. Being in business was frowned upon; selling things for more than you paid for them was considered a form of theft. In the Wisdom of Sirach, we read: “Many have sinned to make a profit, and he who seeks riches will turn away his eyes. As a stake will be driven between fitted stones, so sin will be wedged between selling and buying.” The bible condemns the practices that form the basis of modern economies, yet churches routinely borrow money from banks for building projects, and religious organizations create non-profit businesses to fund their activities. For example, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press is a profitable business and helps to fund the seminary. Priests routinely borrow money to buy houses, something the Wisdom of Sirach warns against.

While we claim to believe the Bible and to follow its teachings, it is clear that we creatively reinterpret (or spiritualize) certain passages when they no work for us. This is an ancient and time-honored practice. For example, in ancient Judaism the biblical injunction to stone a disrespectful son was rarely obeyed. The most extreme example of this is our changing attitudes towards slavery. The Old Testament permits slavery, and the New Testament never condemns it. In the American South, it was routine to use the Pauline epistles as endorsements of slavery. After emancipation, some former slaves loved the gospels but to the end of their lives couldn’t stand the apostle Paul. Other examples are the Old and New Testaments prohibitions against women wearing jewelry, styling their hair, and wearing fancy clothes. These were things the prostitutes would do. By biblical standards, modern women are adorned like harlots.

There are different ways of interpreting the biblical passages most often used as arguments against homosexuality. I do not argue the interpretations of homosexual clergy are always correct, but a number of them have merit. For example, in Middle Eastern cultures being hospitable to strangers is a social norm. Being inhospitable made one a pariah and, depending on the infraction, was sometimes punishable by death. It is argued that the punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah is more about the violation of this social norm than about homosexuality. Given that homosexuality and same-sex unions were widely practiced in the Middle East, it seems odd that Sodom and Gomorrah were singled out solely because there were homosexuals living there. I do not argue against the traditional interpretations of these passages, only that we give these alternate interpretations a fair shake.

Even if we accept all of the above, the argument could be that the Orthodox Church never changes. Strictly speaking, that is not correct. Today we all use the same creed, but in the ante-Nicene Church creedal variation was common. Today the Orthodox Churches all use a common liturgy, but this was not the practice for the first several centuries of Christianity. Even secular people know the saying “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.” What most do not know is this saying arose as a result of differences in liturgical practice in the early church. It is said that a nun was travelling to Rome, and asked St. Ambrose how she should behave. St Ambrose is said to have replied: “si fueris Rōmae, Rōmānō vīvitō mōre; si fueris alibī, vīvitō sīcut ibī; (if you should be in Rome, live in the Roman manner; if you should be elsewhere, live as they do there). Many of the liturgical practices we have today did not exist in the early church, at least not in their current form. For example, the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts is first mentioned by Pope Gregory I (560-604), and is mentioned in the canons of the Quinisext Council (692AD). It probably existed prior to this time, but in a variety of forms that were standardized. The prayer of Saint Ephraim is used in services throughout Lent. Scholars believe that this prayer was written in his name.

You say this is all true, but that the Orthodox Church never changes in the essentials of dogma. Thank you for making my point for me. The Orthodox Church has never defined its position against homosexuality in dogmatic terms. Yes, it is part of the general consensus of the church fathers, but there are no doctrinal formulas concerning this subject.

When a church father like Gregory of Nyssa endorses universalism (the idea that eventually all will be saved), we chalk it up as theologoumena (theological opinion). This is the same reason we accept Augustine as an Orthodox saint while rejecting his theological ideas that conflict with Orthodox teaching. The strength of Orthodoxy is its acceptance of agreement in essentials and diversity in non-essentials.

I contend (and this is my theological opinion) that eventually there will be an understanding that when the church fathers spoke out against homosexuality, this was their theological opinion. Just like we reject things like slavery and the subjugation of women that were common in biblical times, we will eventually reject the prohibition against homosexuality. But like I said, this will take time. A lot of time. Hundreds of years, in fact. But it seems likely to happen.

The Eastern Orthodox Church

Posted on February 26, 2016 by Kristofer Carlson

Eastern Orthodox Church

She is now, as she was from the beginning, multiplex in her arrangements, simple in her faith, difficult of comprehension to strangers, easily intelligible to her sons, widely scattered in her branches, hardly beset by her enemies, yet still and evermore, what she delights to call herself, One, Only, Holy, Catholic and apostolic.

Such she is: and yet being so, she has not escaped, any more than her great Head escaped, the tongue of calumny. Protestant controversialists attack her, because she holds uncorrupted the Faith of S. Athanasius and S. Chrysostom; Roman theologians condemn her as a withered and sapless branch, cut off from the communion of the first See, and now ready for the fire; infidel travelers contrast the ‘noble simplicity’ of the Impostor of Mecca with the ‘complicated superstitions’ of the Christian East. Everywhere is the cry against her, that her Priests are sunk in ignorance, her people enslaved to bigotry; that she exists only because she has so long existed, and acts with the mechanism of an automaton; that her want of missionary zeal proves her deficiency in vital energy, and that the hour of peril will crush her, like a hollow image, to dust.

For eighteen hundred years, it might be answered, this venerable Communion has fought the good fight, and born about in her body the marks of the LORD JESUS. Since she armed Athanasius against Arius, and sent forth Cyril against Nestorius, unnumbered heresies have assailed her; foes in every shape have surrounded her; without have been fightings, within fears; her existence itself has oftentimes been a very agony; yet the gates of hell have never prevailed against her.

Rev. John Mason Neale, M.A.

A History of the Holy Eastern Church: Part I; General Introduction

1850

General Introduction to the Eastern Orthodox Church

The Truth of Orthodoxy

Posted on May 25, 2015 by Kristofer Carlson

The Martyrdom of St Polycarp

My father is a fundamentalist, a dispensationalist, and an ordained minister. For many years he taught courses on a variety of subjects and has recently collected his lecture notes into a series of books. In one entitled The Kingdom of the Frauds, he describes a number of Christian and non-Christian religions. In the section on Eastern Orthodoxy he writes:

The Orthodox Church traces its development back through the Byzantine or Roman empire, to the earliest church established by St. Paul and the Apostles. It practices what it understands to be the original ancient traditions, believing in growth without change.[1]

Now if what Orthodoxy claims is actually true — if the Eastern Orthodox Church indeed descends from and continues in the teachings of the Holy Apostles — then its truth claims have to be taken seriously. It is not enough to dismiss them out of hand, as the historical evidence is all there. Nor is it enough to claim some great apostasy took place without pointing to evidence of the early church apostatizing.[2]

My sister recently encountered this all-too-easy dismissal of Orthodoxy. Not long ago she attended her class reunion at Colorado Springs Christian School (CSCS). She was sitting with some of her friends when a former classmate approached. When the subject of my sister’s recent conversion to Orthodoxy came up, her classmate snidely commented: “Oh, they’re the ones who think they are descended from the original Church.” After making this comment, her classmate turned and walked away. My sister’s friends then asked: “So why did you become Orthodox?” My sister replied: “Because I became convinced they are descended from the original Church.” [Cue rim shot.]

The historical evidence is all there. For me, there were perhaps three works that had the greatest impact upon me. The first was the Didache, aka the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.[3] This is an ancient church order, one which scholars now think could date between 50 – 120 AD, although it seems likely to have been written before the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D.[4] There is a clear continuity of thought and practice between the Didache and other ancient church orders such as the Didascalia Apostolorum, (c. 200-250 AD)[5], the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome (c. 215A.D., and written by Hippolytus)[6], and the Apostolic Constitutions (c. early 3^rd century, with interpolations dating out to 400 A.D.)[7] A comparison of these documents shows a certain creative elaboration, or as my father put it, “growth without change.”

The second major influence was the Commonitorium of St. Vincent of Lerins (c. 434 A.D.) St. Vincent wrote following his participation in the third Ecumenical Council in 431 A.D.; his Commonitorium was written to capture the methods used by the Ecumenical Council to define Orthodox doctrine over against error.[8] The famous rule of Vincent of Lerins is summed up on three words: catholicity, antiquity, and consent. St. Vincent writes:

This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.[9]

While the protestant translator chose to use the word “universality”, the actual word is “catholicity.” The term “catholicity” has to do with a faith which is whole, complete, and entirely sufficient.[10] This meaning is clearly different than the term “universal”, which term is generally used as a replacement for “catholic” or “catholicity.” The term “universal” has reference to the Protestant doctrine of the invisible church, that which is made up of all saints, whether dead or alive. This hidden or invisible church is by extension the “universal” church, as opposed to the sectarianism of the visible church. But the idea of catholicity is a rebuke to all schisms, sects, and denominations.

Following the rule of St. Vincent of Lerins, we must search out that which is whole, entire, and sufficient (catholicity); we must search out that which is from antiquity; and we must search out that which is of common consent (not new or innovative.) Thus a new doctrine — such as the Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, or the Dispensational Protestant doctrine of the secret return of Christ and the subsequent Rapture of the Church — is automatically excluded. By common consent we refer to the consensus fidelium — the widespread agreement, or the general consensus of the faithful.

The third major influence is The Martyrdom of St. Polycarp,[11] which is a rather obscure reference. St. Irenaeus, in his book Against Heresies, writes concerning St. Polycarp:

But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true.[12]

What I find most interesting is St. Polycarp’s response to the Roman proconsul who had asked him to recant his Christian faith. Polycarp replied: “Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me any injury: how then can I blaspheme my King and my Saviour?”[13] St. Polycarp, at that time an 86 year old man, proclaims himself to have been a Christian for 86 years. In other words, this man who was the companion and disciple of the apostles was baptized as an infant. By extension, then, the apostles practiced infant baptism.

In the Didache we see an ancient church order of the apostolic church, one untainted by the supposed “Great Apostasy.” This church order is liturgical, hierarchical, and sacramental, all of which are anathema to the Protestant church of my youth. In the Rule of St. Vincent we see the manner in which the ancient church determined and maintained the apostolic faith over and against all manner of theological errors and heresies. When applying these principles to the Protestant church of my youth, or the Lutheran church of my adulthood, I was forced to acknowledge them to be weighed in the balance and found wanting. And then the witness of St. Polycarp, while not conclusive in itself, was nevertheless the final straw.

The evidence was all there, right in front of me. I could no longer deny that the Orthodox Church was indeed the lineal descendant of the church of the apostles. The only question was whether I was going to accept the historical evidence and adapt myself to the church, or whether I was going to continue to try and get the church to adapt itself to me and my desires. Despite become Orthodox, this is a struggle that will be with me until the day I die.

Bibliography

Ancient Christian Writings. n.d. “Didache.” Ancient Christian Writings. Accessed May 25, 2015. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html.

Carlson, Norman. n.d. “The Kingdoms of the Frauds: The Major Religions And Cults Of The World.” The Colorado Free Bible College. Edited by Norman Carlson. Accessed May 25, 2015. http://www.thecfbc.com/sites/thecfbc.com/files/The%20Kindoms%20Of%20The%20Frauds60a.pdf.

Chapman, Henry Palmer. 1913. “Didascalia Apostolorum.” Catholic Encyclopedia. Accessed June 9th, 2013. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/Didascalia_Apostolorum.

Hippolytus. 1997. “The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome.” Kevin P. Edgecomb. July 8. Accessed May 25, 2009. http://www.bombaxo.com/hippolytus.html.

Martini, Gabe. 2015. “Vincent of Lérins and the Catholicity of the Church.” On Behalf of All. May 24. Accessed May 25, 2015. blogs.ancientfaith.com/onbehalfofall/vincent-of-lerins-and-the-catholicity-of-the-church/.

Schaff, Philip. 1884. ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Vol. 1. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

—. 2004. ANF07. Fathers of the Third and Fourth Centuries: Lactantius, Venantius, Asterius, Victorinus, Dionysius, Apostolic Teaching and Constitutions, Homily, and Liturgies. Edited by Philip Schaff. Vol. 7. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library.

—. 2004. NPNF2-11 Sulpitius Severus, Vincent of Lerins, John Cassian. Edited by Phillip Schaff and Henry Wace. Vol. 11. 14 vols. Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library.

Endnotes

[1] (Carlson n.d., 167)

[2] When I was a young man, I remember being taught that the “Great Apostasy” took place immediately after the death of the last apostle. The evidence for this was taken from Revelation chapter two, in the letter to the church of Ephesus, where it is stated: “Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.” (Rev 2:4) Additional evidence is from Paul’s second letter to the Thessalonians, where he says there will be “a falling away” before the “day of the Lord.”(2 Thes 2:1-3) No historical evidence was ever provided to back up this claim, even though those making the argument claimed to be using the “grammatical-historical method” of exegesis. As it turns out, the greatest proponent of the “Great Apostasy” occurring immediately after the apostolic era is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, aka the Mormons.

[3] (Schaff 2004, 552)

[4] (Ancient Christian Writings n.d.)

[5] (Chapman 1913)

[6] (Hippolytus 1997)

[7] (Schaff 2004, 573)

[8] (Schaff, NPNF2-11 2004, 207)

[9] (Schaff, NPNF2-11 2004, 214)

[10] (Martini 2015)

[11] (Schaff, ANF01 1884, 65)

[12] (Schaff, ANF01 1884, 688)

[13] (Schaff, ANF01 1884, 69)

On the Death of a Christian

Posted on November 21, 2013 by Kristofer Carlson

A fellow parishioner is being taken off life support soon, and we are beginning preparations for his funeral. I have begun looking at the funeral for an Orthodox Christian, and I am struck by how theologically rich the service is. Here is an excerpt of the Funeral Service (after the Greek Orthodox tradition).

Detail of the Dormition [falling asleep] of the Theotokos

Look upon me and have mercy on me, in accordance with the judgement of those who love your name. Alleluia.

I am young and despised; I have not forgotten your statutes. Alleluia.

Hear my voice, O Lord, in accordance with your mercy; in accordance with your judgement give me life. Alleluia.

Rulers have persecuted me for no reason; and my heart has been in awe of your words. Alleluia.

My soul will live and praise you; and your judgements will help me. Alleluia.

I have gone astray like a lost sheep; seek out your servant, because I have not forgotten your commandments.

Evlogitaria for the dead in Tone 5