After reading your letter in defense of the action of the Archbishop Elpidophoros, in opposition to all the critics who have condemned his actions, this unworthy servant was extremely surprised to see all the serious errors you have asserted. You would have the entire Church change the Faith we have always held, and which are expressed clearly in the Holy Scriptures and in the teaching of the Church, concerning which Jesus Christ told us to "Go therefore, and teach all nations… to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" (Matthew 28:19-20). I am completely astonished to read your arguments that we should change our Faith and to follow yours – and especially that we change our "rituals [which are an expression of our Faith] and flamboyant vestments.”
You said that all the criticism Archbishop Elpidophoros has received is only another episode in the “culture wars” and you accuse the church of living in a bubble. Archdeacon, that kind of response to the criticisms that the Archbishop actions have justly brought upon himself are extremely simplistic. The Church is not in a bubble. I think it is more likely that you and the ones who think like you are the ones living in bubbles. The criticisms of the Archbishop’s actions have come from everywhere in the Church, throughout the world. Archdeacon, the Church is and always will be down the streets of the big cities and little towns of the world teaching what Jesus sent us to teach – which is the Truth, and the eternal life which is Jesus Christ Himself according with St. John 17. Archdeacon the Truth is that God create man and woman. Do you remember – you should as an Archdeacon – what He did right after He made Man in His image, as male and female (Genesis 1:27)? He blessed them and then He told them: “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it” (Genesis 1:28). To put it in words more down to earth, he said: “Go and make babies,” which is something only males and females can do, and so it is only in the context of lawful marriage between a man and woman that two human beings can have sexual relations in a way that is blessed by God, and it is only this kind of sexual activity, which has the capacity of procreation in love, which can be holy and blessed by God. Can we say God married Adam and Eve with the sacrament of Matrimony? Yes, because He blessed them and made them one flesh, and so He made their sexual relationship holy and blessed. So what the Archbishop did was absolutely wrong, and there is no excuse possible. The Holy Scripture is clear, and this is not an ambiguous question, subject to various interpretations. There is no sexual “love” outside of the love of a male and female, in the context of marriage. “Same sex unions” are only a perversion, as the Holy Scriptures make clear (e.g. Romans 1:20-32; Leviticus 20:13). You know there are more texts but, natural law also makes this clear enough, as we see simply by the configuration of our bodies.
You quoted St. Porphyrios, who went to bless a brothel as saying that those women are in “a better spiritual state than other people.” Reverend deacon, I agreed with that, I do not doubt that those women suffer a lot doing what they do to make some money to bring food to their kids, and of course any of those women may open the Gates of Heaven for me, but are they sinning? According to the law, yes, they are, but whether they understand that this is wrong, only God knows. But what did Christ say to the woman caught in adultery? He had mercy on her, but said “Go and sin no more,” but, Deacon, we are talking of a sin according to nature, female and male ....not a perversion of two people of the same sex, which St. Paul says is “against nature” (Romans 1:26).
You said the children are entitled to be baptized. This is true, but this also depends on the circumstances, because there are quite a few requirements that have to be met, the most basic of which is a promise by the parents and godparents that the child will be raised in the faith, and only Orthodox Christians in good standing can make such a promise, and this requirement was not met in this case. It is amazing the archbishop disregarded this most basic requirement, and that is why he is absolutely wrong, and why he has been condemned for it. It is also important that children have a proper home to grow up in, with their father and mother, in order for them to grow with a proper balance in life. Fathers and mothers are both essential, and neither is dispensable. How then can we encourage homosexual couples to produce children with surrogate mothers, and raise them without the benefit of their mothers? Men cannot be mothers, and mothers cannot be fathers. A human being needs to have one of each, even if one of them is only a memory handed on to them after they have died. Furthermore, this sacred ceremony was made into a celebration of a perverse relationship, and this overshadowed the actual baptisms which united these children to Christ and His Church. This was a sacrilegious abuse of Baptism. It made a mockery of this most important Sacrament, because through Baptism all the other sacraments are made available to us as members of the Church.
What makes this event even worse, is that these children were produced as a business transaction which made use of surrogate mothers, and so the children were produced by unnatural means, in the absence of love. It is not an exaggeration to call this “satanic." And so Archbishop Elpidophoros not only participated in the celebration of a perverse lifestyle, but also was by his actions endorsing the trafficking of poor women who are compelled by their poverty to rent out their wombs to produce children for wealthy gay men.
Deacon, don’t you know that Morality cannot change? In the final analysis if our actions are not in agreement with the Faith and Tradition of the Church that action is wrong... it is as simple as that. Do you think we change Christian Morality every few decades or so, because society thinks we should? No, Deacon, you are as wrong as the Archbishop, Morality does not change.
Rev. Deacon, this unworthy priest has spent fifty years in Christian ministry. You don't seem to understand the tremendous harm the Archbishop has done to the simple people down the street. Society is so confused today with all the different types of problems people face, and such people often don’t know what to do. They need to hear a clear voice from the Church to guide them, but that is not what they heard from the actions of Archbishop Elpidophoros in Athens. I am inclined to think he doesn’t have very much experience with the regular and simple people, how they live, or the problems they have, and probably you are in the same boat. Go to the streets, go do some prison ministry. There you find life in the real world, and those people need the Church to seek them out and bring their souls back to God. When Jesus Christ changes a person’s heart, there is no need for the Church to change Christian morality to conform to his former ideas and desires, because Christ will help him to change, and will instead conform such a person to the moral teachings of the Church.
When Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) received a letter, the first thing he would do is look for a signature. If he saw that the letter was unsigned, he would throw the letter away without reading it, because if someone was unwilling to sign a letter, it was not worth reading. Unfortunately, in this case, the unsigned letter is also an "open letter," splashed across the internet. Given that many will read this letter, I feel the need to respond to it, because a great priest is being slandered, but the fact is that Metropolitan Anthony was quite right, and no one really should give such a letter any credence.
If someone is standing for the Truth, and they believe something needs to be said in public, they should have the courage both to say it, and to own it. The martyrs of the Church laid down their lives for the truth of the Faith; the least that we can do have the courage to speak up in an honest and forthright manner, and to do so like men.
What is interesting about this letter, is that there is very little that is actually cited in terms of things that Fr. Josiah has taught, which are alleged to be in error. Mostly, the author attributes malicious intentions that he believes lie behind what Fr. Josiah has said and done, and suggests that perhaps Fr. Josiah holds views that he fails to actually provide evidence for.
"I’ll get straight to the point of this article—on issues related to homosexuality, politics, and the Church, Father Josiah Trenham of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese (AOCA) has done incalculable damage. As I will highlight in this article, not only has this damage led to numerous people leaving the Orthodox Church, but it also seems to have spurred a discussion going in the opposite direction of his approach, with arguments being made to accept same-sex marriage as a norm."
It is difficult to imagine that the anonymous author really believes that if Fr. Josiah had kept quiet about homosexuality in the last ten years, that there would now be no voices pressing for the Church to accept it.
"Most importantly, this uncharitable approach has deeply wounded many of our faithful who struggle against same-sex attraction and try to lead a godly life. If we Orthodox are to care for all people who come to us in a way that allows us to stay true to our Holy Tradition, our hierarchy must ensure that priests like Father Josiah are tempered in the same manner as others who have spoken out on opposite sides of the spectrum."
Does the anonymous author agree with St. Paul that those who are homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)? If so, how is it more charitable to not tell homosexuals that this is the case, so as not to offend them, and let them die without repentance and fail to inherit the Kingdom of God?
"My purpose in writing this article is to bring attention to Father Josiah’s words and actions because I am quite certain that my brother clergy and the vast majority of the faithful are unaware of these things. Certainly, had they been aware, there would have been an effort to speak with him privately to remove his material from the internet and to cease speaking and teaching in the manner outlined below. Related to that, I wish to state at the outset that I do know Father Josiah personally, and we have spoken about our disagreements. (Unfortunately, with the current climate on this topic in the Antiochian Archdiocese, I feel forced to publish this article anonymously).) I have even worked with him towards common goals on issues where we are like-minded. I am not calling for Father Josiah to be “punished;” I simply want his teachings that are contrary to the Orthodox faith and witness to be corrected and for those materials to be removed from the public sphere."
When St. Paul said his final farewell to the leaders of the Church of Ephesus, with whom he had invested so much, he said:
"Wherefore I call you to witness this day, that I am innocent of the blood of all men. For I did not shrink from declaring unto you the whole counsel of God" (Acts 20:26-27).
St. John Chrysostom comments on these verses as follows:
"So that he may well say, "Wherefore I take you to record -- seeing I shall be with you no more -- “that I am pure from the blood of all men.” (v. 26.) Do you mark how he terrifies them, and troubled and afflicted as their souls are, how hard he rubs them (ἐπιτρίβει)? But it was necessary. “For I have not shunned,” he says, “to declare unto you all the counsel of God.” (v. 27.) Why then, he who does not speak, has blood to answer for: that is, murder! Nothing could be more terrifying than this. He shows that they also, if they do it not, have blood to answer for. So, whereas he seems to be justifying himself, in fact he is terrifying them. “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Spirit hath made you overseers to feed the Church of God, which He hath purchased with His own blood.” (v. 28.) Do you mark? he enjoins them two things. Neither success in bringing others right of itself is any gain -- for, I fear, he says, “lest by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a cast-away” (1 Cor. 9:27); nor the being diligent for one’s self alone. For such an one is selfish, and seeks his own good only, and is like to him who buried his talent. “Take heed to yourselves:” this he says, not because our own salvation is more precious than that of the flock, but because, when we take heed to ourselves, then the flock also is a gainer. “In which the Holy Spirit hath made you overseers, to feed the Church of God.” See, it is from the Spirit ye have your ordination. This is one constraint: then he says, “To feed the Church of the Lord.” Lo! another obligation: the Church is the Lord’s. And a third: “which He hath purchased with His own blood.” It shows how precious the concern is; that the peril is about no small matters, seeing that even His own blood He spared not. He indeed, that he might reconcile those who were enemies, poured out even His blood: but thou, even when they are become thy friends, art not able to retain them" (Homily 44 on Acts).
There are a number of important implications from this passage. First of all, it is clear that to fail to declare the whole counsel of God would make a clergyman guilty of the spiritual deaths of those they fail to fully instruct. Secondly, St. Paul is saying that he did not allow fear to prevent him from declaring the whole counsel of God. How would fear have prevented him? One might infer that this was in reference to the external threats he faced, but it likely also is in reference to the fear one might have within the Church, of telling people things that they don't want to hear. Often when that happens, unpleasantries ensue, and if one just wishes to avoid conflict, it is far easier not to say such things. But Christian clergy are called to not take the easy, gutless way.
Then the anonymous author calls on people to harass Metropolitan Joseph, in hopes of forcing them to silence Fr. Josiah on the issue of homosexuality, and the LGBTQP+ agenda. So while the author is unwilling to sign his own name to his letter, he is hoping to inspire a social media mob against Fr. Josiah.
"I also want to state at the outset that this essay is not an endorsement of the controversial and recently retracted article by Father Aaron Warwick of the Antiochian Archdiocese [Pastoring LGBTQ Individuals in the Orthodox Church and Public Statement]. I have several substantial disagreements with that article, but elucidating those is not my point in writing here. My point is to call attention to the fact that there is a reason priests and laypeople are reacting to Father Josiah Trenham: he has been implicitly endorsed by our church hierarchy who allow him to keep his un-Orthodox and uncharitable material available online—even promoting some of it for sale. My hope in writing this article is very simple. I do not wish to “tar and feather” Father Josiah: I simply hope that our clergy and laity will encourage our hierarchs to privately instruct Father Josiah about the damage he is causing and will have him retract and take down his deeply offensive and un-Orthodox material."
On the one hand, the anonymous author doesn't want to have to defend Fr. Aaron Warwick's words, or actually come clean on his own positions, but he labels Fr. Josiah's work as "un-Orthodox." However, as we will see, he never identifies a specific teaching of Fr. Josiah's that he both demonstrates Fr. Josiah actually holds, and which is in fact "un-Orthodox."
"I should note that I personally know a number of people who have left the Church not only due to Father Josiah’s behavior, but, even more specifically, because of the Church’s silence and inaction, which they believe implicitly condones this behavior. I wish I could wholeheartedly disagree with them. I still want to believe that the hierarchy simply don’t know the extent of what he is doing or saying, or perhaps they just don’t understand the cultural impact of his actions. But it is becoming increasingly difficult for me to do so."
The fact that people leave because they don't like what they hear is actually not a real argument regarding the question of whether they needed to hear what offended them or not. In the Gospels, we are told that quite a few people were offended by what Christ taught, and said "This is a hard saying; who can accept it?" (John 6:60). And then we are told that "From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him" (John 6:66). What was Christ's reaction? Did he call a Church Growth Consultant to find out where He had gone wrong? No. He turned to the disciples that hadn't left yet, and said "Do you also want to go away?" (John 6:67).
As a matter of fact, however, if you look at every denomination that has embraced the LGBTQP+ agenda, they have been on downward spirals. When I made this point in my response to Fr. Aaron Warwick, the editor of "Orthodoxy in Dialogue" quipped:
"Father Whiteford gloats that all the liberal Protestant churches have emptied out. By this metric, such a righteous, right-teaching priest as himself must have grown his parish to a European-sized cathedral by now. We eagerly await a full report, complete with photos."
In response to this, I would note that the fact that these denominations are emptying out is no guarantee that the Orthodox Church will be the ones who pick those people up. But given that 20 years ago my parish was holding services in a room that is now my study, and we had about 20 people, if they all showed up at the same time; and that now we are typically running around 100 people on Sundays, we have a purpose built Temple (although one getting too small for us), and that our property is current debt free, we are not doing badly, and certainly are not shrinking. But Fr. Josiah Trenham actually has a parish that has a lot more people than most European cathedrals have these days, so obviously Fr. Josiah is not chasing people away from the Church. I would also note that Islam is growing very quickly in the west, and obviously, they haven't changed their views on the LGBTQP+ agenda to make that growth possible.
"I will outline below, in chronological order, four egregious instances (there are many more) in which Father Josiah’s behavior and words related to same-sex issues have done significant damage to the spiritual well-being of many of our parishioners, as well as irreparable harm to the Orthodox Church’s reputation as a loving hospital for sick souls. Because of his actions, he is now listed as a religious figure promoting hate by both the Southern Poverty Law Center and People for the American Way."
"Whatever one’s opinion of either of these groups may be, it is important to note that they do not label churches or individuals as hate groups simply for being morally opposed to homosexuality. Rather, they identify figures who, through their words or actions, harmfully disparage and contribute to the persecution of marginalized groups. Sadly, I must agree with them that Father Josiah’s words and actions, both of commission and omission, have clearly crossed these lines. And in each of the following four cases, he has harmed the faith of many Orthodox Christians, a number of whom have left the Church."
What exactly did the Family Research Council or Focus on the Family do that warranted these groups hating on them?
"Father Josiah posted to his parish’s website an announcement that they would begin praying the paraklesis on a regular basis in order to “stem the rising tide of sodomy in our state.” The subtext for this announcement was California’s ballot proposition to amend the state constitution in order to prohibit state recognition of same-sex marriage. (Note: The parish website has been significantly reworked since then and this page can no longer be found.) At the time, I was pastoring ten college students who had recently converted to the Orthodox faith, several of whom even were planning to vote in favor of this prohibition of same-sex marriage (i.e. they were opposed to same-sex marriage being legalized). Nevertheless, Father Josiah’s announcement scandalized all of them for two main reasons. The first was his use of the heavily charged term “sodomy.”"
"Sodomy" and "sodomite" are perfectly good English words, which are often used in well known and highly used translations of the Bible, including the text found in the Orthodox Study Bible (e.g. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11). In our time, the term "homosexuality" is often defined, not in terms of the sin of falling into homosexual passions, but as the inclination itself, and so to be clear about what we are referring to, "sodomy" is a useful term which keeps the focus on the sin, rather than on a person who might be tempted to commit it.
"The second reason the students were scandalized, however, struck me even more deeply. They wanted to know why, out of all the social ills going on in the world, from famine to homelessness to wars that our own hierarchs correctly and bravely oppose as unjust, Father Josiah was singling out the LGBTQ community as a menace worthy of special prayer services. One of these young people, who knew the Bible and church history like the back of his hand, wanted to know why Father Josiah was using a politically-charged term like sodomy, and not focusing on what the Bible indicates was the sin of Sodom: “Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy” (Ez 16:49). As this student correctly noted, this is the underlying sin of America."
I don't believe anyone who actually listens to Fr. Josiah's sermons could honestly say that he does not talk about things like feeding the poor and helping the homeless. Those matters are obviously not subject to the same kind of controversy either. But our society's surrender to the LGBTQP+ agenda has already had a lot of real world consequences that hit very close to home for us all. We now have LGBTQP+ propaganda regularly taught to children in public schools. We have Christian adoption agencies that have been forced to close because they refuse to adopt children to homosexuals. We have seen Christians who oppose that agenda forced out of business, and fired from their jobs. We have seen groups as benign and respectable as the Salvation Army labeled as a hate group simply because they hold to Biblical teachings on homosexuality. And we have by no means seen the last of where this shift will ultimately take us as a society. We won't know that for sure for many decades. So Fr. Josiah's concerns are absolutely justified. And it should be noted that the proposition against gay marriage that he supported passed by a healthy margin, even in the far left state of California, and gay marriage was only imposed upon that state by activists judges abusing their power.
As for the idea that the sin of Sodom was merely that they were not nice to visitors -- that is absolute nonsense. Not only is this clear from the passage in Genesis itself (Genesis 19), but it is even made clear in the very context of the passage our anonymous author is referencing. Ezekiel 16:49 does indeed say:
"Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy."
But that's not all Ezekiel said. In the very next verse, we read:
"And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good" (Ezekiel 16:50).
The word "abomination" in Hebrew is "tô‛êbah," which was discussed in some detail in a previous article (Stump the Priest: Shrimp and Homosexuality). In every other case in the book of Ezekiel in which the singular of tô‛êbah is used, it is in reference to sexual immorality (Ezekiel 22:11; 33:26). Clearly, the abomination that is referred to here is that of sexual immorality in general, and homosexuality in particular. This is how the famous medieval Jewish commentator Rashi understood that text as well (see Robert Gagnon, Why We Know That the Story of Sodom Indicts Homosexual Practice Per Se). Likewise, the Jewish philosopher Philo, who was a contemporary of Christ, understood the sin of Sodom to be homosexuality (Abraham 133-141).
Furthermore, the Epistle of St. Jude makes it clear that the sins of Sodom included sexual immorality chiefly among them:
"...as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire" (Jude 7).
"The unnatural lust in which the Sodomites indulged was homosexuality..." (Commentary on Jude, quoted in Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament, Vol. XI, Gerald Bray, ed. (Downers Grove, IL: Intervasity Press, 2000) p. 251).
St. John Chrysostom likewise connects the sin of homosexuality with the condemnation of Sodom in his homily on Romans 1:26-27.
The sin of Sodom was not that they were rude to strangers. They were sexually perverse, and this led them to the attempted rape of the two angels that visited Lot in Sodom. This sexual perversity is not merely incidental to this story. Dr. Robert Gagnon spells out the reasons for this in great detail in the following video:
"I assured this young man that Father Josiah’s views were not representative of the Orthodox Church as a whole. But gradually, over the next decade, because no one challenged Father Josiah’s attack on the LGBTQ community, because no one redirected him to Ezekiel’s and Jesus’ attacks on those who fail to care for the poor and needy, over half of these young people no longer attend Orthodox churches, despite the fact that they are still fully committed to living out the Gospel teaching."
Perhaps if our anonymous author had actually declared the whole counsel of God to these young people, the results world have been different. The fact that he clearly agreed with them, contrary to the Tradition of the Church and the Scriptures themselves, that the sin of Sodom had nothing to do with sexual perversion shows that he not only failed to teach them the Truth, but actually confirmed them in their error.
"On June 26, 2015, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges. Faithful Orthodox Christians have been understandably divided on their reactions to this ruling, and I have my own mixed feelings. What is undeniably clear, however, is that Father Josiah’s ensuing behavior the following Sunday was deeply offensive and in flagrant violation of church traditions. At the Sunday Divine Liturgy of June 28, 2015, Fr. Josiah vested in black vestments and preached a sermon entirely focused on the Supreme Court and its ruling, with no reference to the appointed Gospel for that Sunday. (Ironically, he could have easily preached on the appointed Gospel, Mt 8:5-13, and indicated that Christ could heal people struggling with their sexuality just as he healed the centurion’s servant.)"
Had Fr. Josiah been on the Old Calendar, he could have preached from the Prophecy of Amos, since that Sunday was his feast -- which is what I did, but I applied what the Prophet Amos had to say to the results of that same Supreme Court decision (God's Plumbline). I doubt that Fr. Josiah and I were alone on that Sunday in feeling the need to address this issue. There are times during the life of St. John Chrysostom, for example, in which his preaching departed from the lectionary readings, and he felt the need to speak about a burning issue that needed his attention.
"I was, of course, serving at my own parish that Sunday morning and not in attendance at Father Josiah’s parish; but there was a text message on my phone that afternoon from someone who was there and was concerned. I was somewhat in disbelief and assured the parishioner that Father Josiah had simply overreacted and this issue would “blow over.” But then, two days later, Father Josiah proudly published the transcript and audio of his sermon (with description of his actions) on Ancient Faith Radio (listen here). It should be noted that, according to its website, “Ancient Faith Ministries is a department of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America with a pan-Orthodox outreach.” Since this material was posted on a website that is a department of the AOCA, I thought for certain that these actions and comments would be chastised. I felt confident that the transcript would, at the very least, be removed, and, hopefully, an apology issued. And yet, more than four years later they remain in a public location, and one that is often a first stop for inquirers, catechumens, and the faithful. Sadly, I have received many more concerned questions about these remarks and actions since they were published, meaning people are still viewing this uncharitable material."
You will note that there is actually nothing in Fr. Josiah's sermon (A Black Day: Supreme Folly from the Supremes) that the anonymous author has actually pointed out as being false, or in need of retraction.
"It should be pointed out that black vestments are used so rarely in services that many priests/parishes do not even own any. They are for use only in the first week of Lent and Holy Week, and often are reserved solely for Great and Holy Friday. Yet Father Josiah wore them (and instructed all of his concelebrants to wear them) at a Sunday celebration of the resurrection of Christ! To replace festive gold with the black of mourning on a day celebrating the resurrection is inexcusable and disrespectful to the symbolism and tradition of our Church. Father Josiah further explained that what had happened that day in America was worse than if a parishioner had died: “You’re wondering, probably, who died, and I haven’t told you yet. Much, much worse than that, brothers and sisters. I wish that, instead of the cause for wearing black vestments today, I had only the sorrow to tell you that one of our beloved passed away….” Father Josiah has never worn black vestments when American bombs have rained down killing innocent children (many of them Orthodox) in the Middle East—in wars that our hierarchs have vocally and correctly opposed as unjust. Father Josiah has never worn black vestments to mourn the homeless crisis in California that a UN inspector has deemed one of the worst situations in the world. Instead, a Supreme Court ruling that did not directly affect the life of the Church warranted this action in his eyes."
So now we are concerned about liturgical color schemes. As a matter of fact, no one used black vestments in the Orthodox Church prior to the funeral of the Emperor Peter II in 1821. It became the Russian practice to use them on most of the weekdays of Great Lent and Holy Week. It is certainly out of the normal order to wear black vestments on a Sunday, but if you read the Prophets in the Old Testament, they more than a few times did unusual things to get people's attention.
Unfortunately, the United States has been at war on some level or another for most of its history -- and so if we wore black every time our military did something that resulted in the deaths of innocent civilians, we would be wearing black more often than not. And, at least in most cases, there is no reason to think that we are currently targeting innocent civilians on purpose. But I also know that there is a special sensitivity to the political issues in the Middle East within the Antiochian Archdiocese, and I know that at least some clergy have been told not to make statements on their own, because of the negative impact that those statements (coming from clergy that the Antiochian Patriarchate is responsible for) might have on the Christian population in the Middle East who live in very precarious political situations. Not being part of the Antiochian Archdiocese, I have written and spoken on the immoral policies of the United States in the Middle East. Fr. Josiah probably does not have as much liberty on that issue, and I can understand the concern about blow-back that the Antiochian bishops have.
"If he did these things without the blessing of his bishop, there should have been a sharp reprimand and his sermon should have been removed from Ancient Faith Radio—and it still should be removed now. If he did these things with the blessing of his bishop, then we have an even bigger problem, and the Antiochian hierarchs themselves need to be called out for their hypocrisy and the pastoral harm they are actively countenancing. It is well past time for this rebuke to come, an apology to be issued, and for this sermon to be taken off of a prominent Orthodox website. It continues to do damage to our faithful, as well as to our reputation as a place of love and healing."
Keep in mind in reading these words that the only thing specifically that Fr. Josiah did that the anonymous author thinks should warrant him being disciplined and being forced to issue an apology is to wear the wrong color vestments at a Liturgy.
"Because Father Josiah’s behavior was not disciplined, he went on to catch the attention of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) for his disturbing remarks at the World Congress of Families in the nation of Georgia. The SPLC characterized the gathering as a whole a showcase of “anti-LGBT rhetoric and conspiracy theories,” but described Father Josiah’s address as “one of the more virulently anti-LGBT speeches” at the four-day event."
And if Fr. Josiah sued the SPLC for defamation, he might have won 3.4 million dollars too.
"Some lowlights include Father Josiah’s declaration that “today the USA has a national ambassador for the promotion of sodomy,” and his dire warning that the “lavender mafia, these homofascists, these rainbow radicals” will turn Tbilisi into a city like San Francisco, “where there are 80,000 more dogs in the city limits than there are children.” Most horrific of all, Father Josiah—who ordinarily has nothing but mockery and scorn for Muslims, Muhammad, and their sacred texts—referred to the Qur’an with implicit approval, stating, “Muhammad is recorded as ordering the execution of anyone practicing sodomy.” Several in the crowd actually applauded this comment—applause that Father Josiah did not reprimand during the speech, and applause that he danced around when interviewed about the topic, as I will show below."
Rather than focus on the characterizations of Fr. Josiah's speech on the part of those who hate the teachings of the Church, I would recommend that everyone listen to the actual speech in its entirety and judge for themselves whether he said anything untrue or contrary to the teachings of the Church. I would argue that the only people who will object to this speech are those who would object to any speech that insisted that homosexuality really is a sin, and that it is incompatible with the Christian life.
It happens to be a fact that the United States has used its power and influence to promote the LGBTQP+ agenda around the world. Our embassies regularly fly the rainbow flag, our ambassadors regularly march in "gay pride" parades, and we threaten any country with sanctions if they do not play along -- with the curious exceptions of countries like Saudi Arabia, who put homosexuals to death according to Sharia Law.
What Fr. Josiah said about the Quran happens to be true. No one who is trying to be fair here would seriously argue that Fr. Josiah supports putting homosexuals to death.
"The use of such extreme, conspiratorial, and apocalyptic language—in a nation like Georgia, where violence against LGBT individuals remains quite high—is at the very least wildly irresponsible. Groups like the SPLC and People for the American Way are understandably concerned that it can incite violence. Journalist Natalia Antelava gave Father Josiah the opportunity to clarify his position and asked him specifically if he had considered that it could incite violence in Georgia. While he claimed he did not approve of the death penalty for homosexuals, he gave literally no answer for why he did not rebuke the crowd for their applause, only noting that he disagreed with it and so just continued his speech without much pause. You can hear this interview for yourself here: the segment on Father Josiah begins at the 36:45 mark. The applause can be heard at 38:05. There is also a transcript of the interview towards the bottom of the linked webpage."
You will note that if you listen to this speech on YouTube, the applause is not even audible. Furthermore, I doubt he expected that there would be any applause, and so his reaction of just continuing to speak is understandable. When something unexpected happens when you are speaking it's easy to later think of what you might have said or done in response, but it is a lot harder to come up with something in the few seconds you have to process it.
"With complete disregard to widely available statistics and well documented news reports, Father Josiah told Antelava (in the recorded conversation linked above) that he does not believe violence against homosexuals is of any significant concern. He even went so far as to suggest—with no evidence whatsoever—that it is the LGBT community who is a violent threat to religious conservatives!"
Interestingly, I was looking at an old post of mine, which had links to two YouTube videos of LGBT mob violence targeting Christians, and I see that YouTube has removed them both, which underscores the fact that the media skews reporting on this issue. I did a Google search to see if I could find links to articles about the incidents shown in those videos, and Google's algorithms being what they are, nothing turned up. That certainly doesn't mean that it hasn't happened. "Act Up" use to disrupt Roman Catholic Masses on a somewhat regular basis. As I mentioned before, the Southern Poverty Law Center's labeling of the Family Research Council as a hate group inspired a homosexual activist to attempt to kill the staff at its headquarters. And at least in the current climate today, here in the US, where Fr. Josiah lives, it is far more likely that any organized violence is going to be directed by pro-LGBTQP+ activists against those they see as "the haters" than the other way around. Obviously any violence directed at anyone should not be encouraged, but rather condemned. Nowhere has Fr. Josiah ever suggested that violence against homosexuals was a Christian response. His point was simply that the religions that have adherents among the majority of the worlds population all agree with St. Paul that homosexual sex is contrary to nature and a grave sin -- Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism.
Furthermore, we have already had intellectuals on the left making the case that conservative Christians should be treated like Nazis, and not allowed to participate in polite society. So there is no reason to think that the current level of hostility that they show towards those who do not approve of their views is as far as things will go. If they have the power to do it, things may get a whole lot worse for those unwilling to bow the knee to Baal.
"If there were any hopes that Father Josiah may have been privately reprimanded after his remarks in Georgia, they were dashed by his speech at the Parish Life Conference in Portland, and his subsequent audio series on his website Patristic Nectar Publishing, entitled “Patriotism: The Duty of a Christian to His Nation.” This five-part series is riddled with conservative Presbyterian theological concepts that have dubious place in Orthodoxy. It is worth noting here that Father Josiah has degrees from two Protestant institutions, the evangelical Westmont College and the Presbyterian Westminster Seminary, but no academic degrees from any Orthodox institution."
Of course, since our anonymous author has failed to put his name behind his words, we have no way of measuring his credentials against Fr. Josiah's, but if you want to accuse him of saying something that is contrary to the Tradition of the Church, you would normally need to actually cite something specific which he has said, which this anonymous hit-piece has been very short on even attempting to do.
I would simply note that if you read what the Fathers and Saints of the Church have to say about the commandment to "Honor thy father and thy mother," you will find that they teach that this extends to honoring one's country. As citizens of a country, we do have obligations to that country.
"There is no room here to tackle the numerous problems throughout this series, but a few quick observations are important. First, Father Josiah adopts a stance throughout this lecture series that America is a “Christian nation,” and that its identity as such derives from its enshrinement of Christian morality in our laws. In order to make this claim, one would expect him—especially as an academic—to at least address the racism, misogyny, slavery, Indigenous genocide, and countless other immoral actions and beliefs of the majority of the founding figures of this country. Instead of making any such argument, Father Josiah waves off concerns about these aspects of American history as “nonsense.”"
The fact that the United States was founded almost exclusively by Christians is beyond dispute. That one can point to short-comings among the founding fathers is no less true than the fact that most children can identify many short-comings in their own parents. Unless one commits the sin of Ham, however, we don't magnify their short-comings and ignore their virtues. And it is bad history to judge the people of the past by the standards and conditions that prevail today. We should judge people in the past by the standards and conditions that those people would have known. And if you compare the United States to almost every other country at the time of the founding, it comes off looking pretty good, even if comparing the United States at that time with contemporary standards and conditions is another matter. We wouldn't have gotten to where we are on the issues mentioned had we not had those people then, establishing a government based on principles of God given rights and individual liberties. They had short-comings then, and we certainly have them now. They are not the same short-comings, but as we continue to kill nearly a million innocent babies a year, since Roe v. Wade, we are in no position to pat ourselves on the back too much.
"Second, Father Josiah’s argument fuses classic Protestant theological affirmations of America with anachronistic readings of the Bible and the church fathers in order to endorse American exceptionalism from a Christian perspective and to claim that we now live in a “degraded” and “post-Christian” society. For Father Josiah, a culture that has abandoned the horrors described above, given women equal rights to men, abolished slavery, and ended racial segregation and Indigenous genocide has somehow become degraded and post-Christian because it has legalized same-sex marriage."
I rather doubt that Fr. Josiah praised any of the ills in American History. I remember having a lengthy conversation with him about some of the crimes the United States government has perpetrated in its history, and he did not deny in way, shape, or form, that such crimes had been committed. I am sure that he would agree that killing a million innocent babies a year is worse than allowing gay marriage -- in fact, a good case can be made that the sin of abortion has gotten us to where we on the question of sexual immorality -- but condemning one abomination doesn't prevent us from condemning any other abomination.
"Father Josiah thus makes arguments that come close to theonomy, a form of Christian totalitarianism popular in conservative Presbyterian circles. Theonomists hold that there should be no distinction between Christian morality (Christian law) and secular law. The most extreme adherents claim that all criminal punishments in Leviticus should still be in effect. Father Josiah does not explicitly go this far, but he adamantly defends the idea that Christians have the right to “impose their morality” on others because “all legislation is imposed morality.” America’s status is once again exceptional as a Christian nation, despite centuries of genocide and slavery, but will now bring the curse of the prophet Isaiah (Is 5:20) upon us because we now are practicing the “exaltation of sexual anarchy and sexual perversion.”"
This is a very cheap shot, for which no actual evidence is being provided. And indeed all laws reflect someone's morality (or immorality). Why should Christians not try to have the laws reflect Christian morality? Of course we do not want to impose our faith on anyone, but there is no reason why the laws should not reflect Christian principles of morality.
"Relying on these deeply problematic misrepresentations of history and on non-Orthodox theological “foundations,” Father Josiah feels confident enough to openly mock a gay California politician for stating that he has struggled with his sexual orientation and his spirituality. He cackles at this same man for his “intellectual deficiency,” for being “against nature,” and “for living in open sodomy.” He endorses conversion therapy (which is not and never has been a part of the Orthodox response to same-sex attraction), and he audaciously conflates it with Orthodox conversion and repentance."
Since when has it been contrary to the teaching of the Orthodox Church to provide counsel to someone who comes and asks for help overcoming their sin? Whether any approach is actually effective or not is a question of wisdom, but why should we not encourage those struggling with homosexuality to not allow that sin to be their identity, and to see what can be done, with God's grace to overcome it? There are certainly some people who struggle with homosexuality who are probably never going to have a healthy marriage with someone of the opposite sex, but on the other hand, there have been many cases in which someone has fallen into that sin, and yet gone on to do just that. As I have said many times, I think it would be a great service if those who really want to help homosexuals overcome their sin, wrote articles, held conferences, and conducted studies in which they examined what can and should be done to help people who have this struggle. I am sure Fr. Josiah would agree. The issue of principle here, which cannot be denied without denying the Scriptures and the teachings of the Church, is that the homosexual lifestyle is incompatible with the Christian life.
"Once again, our bishops continue to do nothing. In fact, Father Josiah is allowed to charge $15 just to listen to his hateful and condescending nonsense. The offensive and destructive implications that these attitudes have for marginalized groups throughout American history is massive. Our college-educated young people are rightfully disturbed. I have witnessed significant numbers of people have crises of faith and simply withdraw. I have seen so many others leave altogether. But perhaps most importantly, I have seen our brothers and sisters, faithful Orthodox Christians who struggle against same-sex attraction and work tirelessly to commit themselves to celibacy, be deeply harmed by Father Josiah’s words, and by the implicit condoning of these words by our hierarchs who allow this material to be publicly available or even sold as valuable Orthodox insights. I will conclude by asking my brother clergy and my fellow faithful of the Antiochian Archdiocese and the broader Orthodox Church here in North America: What kind of Church do we want? Is it a Church that alienates the spiritually thirsty from what we all so desperately need? Do we really want to implicitly (or worse yet, explicitly) endorse the words and actions of Father Josiah Trenham as they relate to same-sex attraction, relationships, and marriage? Or is it an open, confident, warm, and loving Church that teaches a message of hope and a path to salvation that is relevant to all? Is it a Church that stands by its traditional teachings in a loving and welcoming way, or is it a Church that allows its priests to incite violence against marginalized groups and to deeply wound its faithful who are doing their best to live according to the fulness of the Gospel?"
In order to stand by the Traditional teachings of the Church in a loving way, or in any way at all, one needs to actually teach them. One needs to have the courage to deliver the whole counsel of God, and not shrink from doing so out of fear that many people do not want to hear it. It is clear that the anonymous author not only has in mind not teaching the Traditions of the Church on these issues, but is content to misrepresent them. Again, if you really believe that active homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9-11), then failing to convey that fact is the least loving thing you could possibly do for a homosexual. Shrinking from delivering the whole counsel of God will make your life easier. You will have fewer people who will be offended by what God has to say on the matter, but that is the cowardly approach. But of course, someone who would write an anonymous open letter has already shown the approach they prefer. If it was up to me, the Christian life would be the easy way, but unfortunately, it is the straight and narrow way... the difficult path, that the Lord says is the only path to salvation (Matthew 7:13-14). We don't get to pick the Truth, our job is simply to teach it and to live it, and I believe Fr. Josiah Trenham has been doing an admirable job of that very thing.
Whatever one might say about the Antiochians, they can't say that they are squishy when it comes to those promoting the LGBTQP+ agenda. That's why it was somewhat of a surprise to see that an Antiochian Priest, Fr. Aaron Warwick, had written a pro-homosexual article and published it via a notoriously pro-homosexual website "Orthodoxy in Dialogue." When I first saw it, I sent a message to an Antiochian priest who is a close friend to ask if Fr. Aaron really was an Antiochian priest, and was told that indeed he was.
I expected to see the other shoe drop before too many days passed, and I was not disappointed. Fr. Aaron posted an apology and retraction (of sorts), and then it was announced that his upcoming elevation to the rank of archpriest has been postponed indefinitely.
The Original Article
Fr. Aaron's article contains a number of errors that need to be addressed:
"I will discuss below how the Church deals with these shortcomings for heterosexual couples. It will be apparent that our approach to dealing with heterosexual sins in the Church is quite different from our approach to homosexual sins. With respect to the class of heterosexual sins, we are forgiving, understanding, and pastoral. Following that discussion, I will outline how we generally treat homosexual sins in the Church, which is primarily not pastoral."
I am not sure what sort of pastoral applications Fr. Aaron has seen on the ground that leads him to this conclusion, but I don't know of any priests who do not treat those struggling with homosexuality with pastoral understanding. I have had parishioners who have fallen into heterosexual fornication, and also those who have fallen into homosexual fornication, and I treat the sins themselves in the same way, though how it would apply in a given case depends on more factors than just the nature of the sin. And I have a great deal of compassion for anyone who is sincerely struggling to overcome a sin that is difficult to triumph over, and most sexual sins fall into that category.
"I am unaware of any Orthodox priest who has ever informed a heterosexual that he/she has one option: lifelong celibacy. However, that is exactly what many homosexuals have heard. I will begin with this double standard. Can we as pastors imagine the looks we would get—the complaints of difficulty, of loneliness, etc.—from heterosexuals if we informed them this was their only path to salvation?"
But of course lifelong celibacy is not the only option for those struggling against homosexuality -- they may marry someone of the opposite sex. If they do not wish to do so, that doesn't make lifelong celibacy their only option -- it makes it the only remaining option if they choose not take the other option. And there are heterosexuals who have no other Christian option than celibacy for very long periods of time, for any number of reasons. My wife's Godmother was from the Soviet Union, and she and her three children ended up in a displaced persons camp in Germany at the end of World War II. Her husband had been drafted by the Soviets, and she never heard from him again. She remained celibate for the rest of her life as a result. She could have asked for the Church to declare her husband dead after seven years, but that still would have required at least seven years of celibacy. Even in peace time there are situations in which spouses are separated for very long periods of time, and yet the Church doesn't suggest that maybe it would be OK for them to fool around because celibacy is too much to ask. And of course there are many single Orthodox Christians who are not married, and may have to wait many years before they are able to be married, and yet the Church doesn't suggest that having sex outside of marriage would be OK, because celibacy is difficult.
"In fact, in my experience, the person who has no sexual contact with anyone throughout their life besides their spouse (and only after marriage) is by far in the minority. And by this I do not mean the split is like 51-49, or even 75-25 or 90-10, but more like 99-1—as in, for every one person who lives up to this ideal, 99 fall short."
While this may generally be true in our time, that does not make falling short of the teachings of the Church no big deal. Perhaps the numbers would be less lopsided if we made more of an effort to teach our children to not conform to the world. The solution to this problem is obviously not to say that conforming to the world is acceptable.
"We do not find it necessary to issue statements repeating the fact that we as a Church are opposed to masturbation, fornication, adultery, and divorce. Yet, we do find it necessary to continually repeat that we think homosexuality is a sin and we are opposed to gay marriage. And then we wonder why we have so few homosexuals in our pews or why our young children (who notice the hypocrisy) end up leaving our churches and/or complain about our lack of acceptance of homosexuals."
The reason why this is so, is because no one in the Church is trying to argue that masturbation, fornication, adultery and divorce are not really sins. We do find people arguing that homosexuality is not a sin, and so we have to send our forces to where the war is actually being fought, not to where it isn't. Although, speaking for myself, I have preached many times on these issues too, and certainly deal with them in the context of confession regularly.
And if you want to see churches with more than their fair share of empty pews, take a look at those Protestant churches that have raised the white flag on this issue. Those churches have been emptying out at staggering rates. It turns out that Churches that don't believe anything have a hard time convincing people that they ought to get up on Sunday morning and come to Church.
"In this self-justification, we completely ignore the fact that there is no movement to promote masturbation, or fornication, or adultery, or divorce because these sins are completely normalized not only in our culture, but in our churches. If we held heterosexuals to the same standard to which we hold homosexuals, then my communion line would be very short on Sundays."
If someone commits fornication, adultery, or is the guilty party in a divorce, they are normally going to be denied communion for some period of time. And generally speaking, I think most priests would handle someone falling into those sins pretty much the same way that they would someone falling into homosexual fornication.
"... homosexual acts are one of the least penalized sexual sins in the canons of our Church. The sins of fornication and adultery are treated much more harshly, and the reasons for this are obvious" [emphasis added].
I happened to speak recently to an expert on canon law, and mentioned this ridiculous assertion, and he laughed out loud in response. There is in fact no basis for this claim.
Here is likely the canon that inspired Fr. Aaron's misunderstanding:
"As for sexual intercourse of men with one another, such as practicing double masturbation, it received the stated penance of up to eighty days" (the 9th canon of St. John the Faster).
This canon references the preceding canon, which states:
"Anyone having committed masturbation is penanced forty days, during which he must keep himself alive by xerophagy and must do one hundred metanias (prostrations) every day."
It should be noted that the canon for double masturbation is precisely twice the penance prescribed for solo masturbation because, as St. Nicodemos of the Holy Mountain notes: "each of these offenders is not only hurting himself, but is also hurting his brother, and this makes the sin a double sin" (The Rudder, p. 938).
But St. John the Faster has more to say about homosexual sex. If you keep reading through his canons until you get to Canon 18, he states:
"It has seemed advisable to exclude any man who has been so mad as to copulate with another man from Communion for three years, weeping and fasting, and towards evening confined to xerophagy, and doing two hundred metanias. But as for one who prefers to take it easy, let him fulfill the fifteen years."
So he is saying that by economia, a man who actually copulates with another man might be allowed to be ex communicated for a mere 3 years, with weeping, fasting, eating dry vegetarian food (with no wine or oil), and doing 200 hundred prostrations a day, but if they do not do so, then they should fulfill the strict 15 years of ex communication. The penance for adultery in the 20th Canon of the Council of Ancyra is 7 years, though St. Basil appointed 15 years. It is a principle of applying the canons that you do not want the medicine (the penance) to kill the patient, and so in our times, we would not impose a penance that was even close to the lighter penances, but the point here is that the canons do not treat homosexual sex with less severity than they do fornication or adultery. It is considered to be equal to adultery, in terms of the penance, and generally fornication is given a penance of half the time given to adulterers or homosexuals, and so it actually is treated less severely, though no at all lightly.
"If a homosexual parishioner struggles with remaining sexually chaste, we should treat them no differently from how we treat the heterosexual fornicator. There is no need to shame and guilt them; we should instead work to better align them with the Church’s ideal. We should give them many opportunities to repent and to make sincere efforts to remain sexually chaste. Ultimately, if a homosexual parishioner finds it too lonely and too burdensome not to have a significant other, there really is no reason we cannot treat them the way we treat unmarried heterosexuals. Specifically, we should encourage them to refrain from sexual acts with that significant other, while realizing they may very well fall short of that goal, as do 99% of our most devout and pious heterosexual parishioners."
Are there priests in the Orthodox Church that encourage unmarried heterosexual laymen, who find celibacy too hard, to find and then live together with a "significant other"? If so, I haven't met them.
"In reality, I believe we should also accept that, like most heterosexuals, most homosexuals will find lifelong abstinence to be impracticable. In such cases, it is my strong conviction that we should encourage homosexuals to find a lifelong partner. While I understand this offends the sensibility of many Orthodox Christians, I again point to how our Church has dealt with the sin of divorce and remarriage. Namely, we do not enforce the strict legal and scriptural injunctions of our Church; rather, we act in a pastoral manner, allowing people an opportunity to continue working out their salvation within the Church. We never ask a remarried individual to eventually, some day leave their new spouse so their sin will not persist. We simply recognize this person needs compassion and a chance to do as well as they possibly can. Furthermore, we realize that the best way to encourage this is for an individual to belong to some form of community that requires mutual submission and the restriction of one’s sexual life to focus on no more than one person" [emphasis added].
The equation of homosexual sex with those who are divorced and remarried is a false one. The Church recognizes two biblical reasons for divorce, and then makes some extrapolations from them -- Christ stated that one could divorce for the cause of fornication (i.e. a spouse who is unfaithful), and St. Paul also adds that if one has an unbelieving spouse who abandons them, then this is also a justification for divorce. The Church makes some extrapolations based on these two reasons, and so, for example, if one has a spouse that beats the snot out of them and refuses to stop doing so, the abusive spouse has abandoned them, and they may legitimately divorce them. Divorce is always a sin on the part of at least one spouse, and often on the part of both. A second marriage for any reason is less than the Christian ideal. However, the Church does not consider someone who has been divorced (in a divorce recognized by the Church) and who has been remarried by the Church, to be living in perpetual sin. There have certainly been sins committed that got them into their current situation, but after some penance, there is restoration to communion (see The Basis of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church, Section X.3).
Homosexual sex, however, is inherently sinful, and there is no situation in which it ceases to be sinful. St. Paul says that those who engage in homosexual sex will not inherit the Kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). He also says this is true of those who continue to engage in adultery, fornication, idolatry, thievery, drunkenness, covetousness, reviling, and extortion -- but not inheriting the Kingdom of God is a pretty big deal, and it is a grave sin for any priest to give his parishioners the impression that maybe it is not such a big deal after all. That is in fact pastoral malpractice.
The Non-Apology Apology
As I had hoped, Fr. Aaron was clearly told to issue a retraction, and to ask that his article be taken down (which "Orthodoxy in Dialogue" chose not to comply with). The unfortunate aspect of his letter of retraction is that he actually did not retract anything he said. He merely expressed sorrow that some people were confused and misunderstood what he actually had said. The problem was not that people didn't understand what he had said -- the problem is that what he said was wrong. But I am glad that his bishops didn't simply ignore it, but instead took swift action.
Furthermore, Fr. Aaron had been scheduled to be elevated to the rank of archpriest on January 19th. The service for the making of an archpriest asks that God may "adorn him [the priest who is being elevated] with virtue to stand at the head of the Presbyters of Thy people, and make him worthy to be a good example to them that are with him..." (The Order of the Office for the Making of a Protopresbyter (Archpriest), vol 1, Book of Needs, (South Canaan, PA: St. Tikhon Seminary Press, 1998, p. 258). This is an honor given to priests after many years of service, and it does suggest that they have been a good example, and should be leaders among their brother priests. Had the Antiochian Archdiocese gone ahead and made him an archpriest after this scandalous article, it would have added insult to injury. Fortunately, they have decided to postpone his elevation indefinitely.
I take no delight in the personal anguish this has no doubt caused Fr. Aaron and his family, but Bishop Basil and Metropolitan Joseph had no good choices here, and they have done the only thing they could have done without the flock being harmed more than they already have been.
It is certainly a good and necessary thing for clergy to consider how best to pastorally deal with those struggling with homosexuality, or any other sexual sin. Suggesting that continuing in that sin might not be so bad after all, however, is not the answer.
Bishop Basil (Essey) of Wichita
Several years ago, an OCA priest published a somewhat similar letter, and the Orthodox Clergy Association of Houston and Southeast Texas wrote a response to that letter. I well remember Bishop Basil, when he visited Houston after this had happened, publicly thanking our clergy association for having done so. I am glad to see that he remains strong in the Faith, and is willing to make difficult decisions to defend that Faith. Many Years to Bishop Basil, and Many Years to Metropolitan Joseph! I only hope that other bishops will take note, and follow their example. The only way to prevent an ever increasing number of such scandalous statements being issued in the future, is to deal swiftly and surely with those that make them.
Aristotle Papanikolaou has just had two articles posted on the misnamed "Public Orthodoxy" website. If you had any remaining doubts that they really intend to push for the full acceptance of sodomy by the Church, these articles should remove them. I will respond to the second one in a separate article. This article is in response to ""Orthodox Morality" On Sex or an Ethics of Sex?"
Misusing the Writings of the Fathers
Papanikolaou begins his piece with this anecdote:
"Perhaps my point is best illustrated through a story: During the fall 1999 semester, I taught at Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology in Brookline, MA, a course on Ethics. We were discussing St. Maximus the Confessor on virtues and how the development of virtues enables relations, and in so doing, makes space for the presence of God. I then asked the students that if two people (I did not mention gender) were living together in friendship for fifty years and manifesting the virtues, would this be an example of communion and participation in God. They all said yes. I then asked whether the fact that they had sex would negate the good resulting from their virtuous friendship: half said it would, while the other half got the point that I will try to articulate in this short, two-part essay.
As this story illustrates, ecclesial ethics on sexuality have been primarily about sex and the criteria for establishing a morally right sex act."
It seems almost every article recently published by "Public Orthodoxy" makes some reference to St. Maximus the Confessor. One would almost get the impression that St. Maximus was some pot smoking hippie, who advocated free love, and sodomy. However, in a recent Twitter exchange on the subject, Papanikolaou acknowledged that in fact St. Maximus believed that any sex that was not for the purpose of procreation, and within lawful marriage, was sinful. That would obviously preclude homosexual sex, and yet these people continue to disingenuously appeal to his authority as if he supported in the slightest their agenda. Why do they do this? Because St. Maximus was a very deep thinker, and many of his writings sound very obscure to the casual reader... and so they use this obscurity as a smoke screen, since they cannot honestly cite either Scripture or the Fathers in support of their renovationist and homosexualist agenda. More on this when we deal with the second article by Papanikolaou.
"From the start, someone might argue that there is nothing to talk about, as the Church’s teaching on sex has been clear and succinct from the beginning. It must be admitted that the overwhelming body of shared authoritative sources of the Orthodox Tradition—Scripture, Councils, Writings/Sayings of Saints, Canons, Liturgy—does limit sexual activity to marriage, with some even restricting the performance of the sexual act for procreation. This raises the question of what can or cannot be talked about in the Church; it is a question of how we should interpret these shared authoritative sources."
For starters, as we decide how to interpret these shared authoritative sources, the "overwhelming body" of which teach that sex outside of lawful heterosexual marriage is sinful -- which of them do not teach that? The verdict is not just "overwhelming," it is unanimous. They have literally nothing to support their position, and so they can only try to use specious arguments which appeal to obscure texts, while ignoring all we know about the Fathers who wrote them.
"Recently, the phrase “Orthodox morality” has been invoked to name a definitive and unchangeable body of teaching on moral rules, but one cannot find such an expression in any of the languages—Greek, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian—used for the texts that have been constitutive for the Orthodox Tradition."
"Morality" is certainly not a new concept in the Church. The only reason why one would perhaps not have needed to use the term "Orthodox" to modify "morality" in the past is because in the history of the Church, even among heretics, few have ever challenged what everyone has always understood as Christian morality -- and within the Church, this was unheard of. Now, however, we have people who claim to be Christian and even claim to be Orthodox who would have us believe that it is acceptable for a Christian man to have sex with another man, not repent of that, and still receive communion. So now, what is Orthodox morality is a matter in dispute, at least by some.
The Nicolaitans and Moral Heresy
"Some even argue that the word “heresy” was used for moral infractions and bring up as proof the Nicolaitans. The Apostle makes passing reference to the Nicolaitans for both their works and teaching (Rev. 2.6, 15), after which they are mentioned only rarely and linked to Gnosticism (St. Irenaeus, Against the Heresies, 3.11). They came to be included in the lists of “heretics” as a result of this affinity with Gnosticism and not for the acts of eating food sacrificed to idols or sexual immorality."
Here Papanikolaou is referencing exchanges he and I have had on this subject, but he is misrepresenting what I have said. I never said that moral infractions (i.e. the actual sins) are heresies. I said teaching that a sin is not really a sin is a heresy. I in fact have repeatedly clarified that this is what I was saying, and so to continue to misrepresent what I have said is simply dishonest.
The Nicolaitans were not heretics because they struggled with certain sins -- they were heretics because they taught that one need not struggle with certain sins, namely with regard to sexual immorality. Papanikolaou claims that they were condemned because they were Gnostics, and not because of their teachings on sexual immorality, but he cannot cite a single Father who would support his claim. The Fathers consistently taught that the Nicolaitans were indeed heretics, because of their teachings on sexual immorality and eating meat sacrificed to idols. Not a single Father gives any description of their teachings as involving any other specific heresy. So Papanikolaou is simply making things up here, because he does not want to have to deal with the implications of a clear example of a moral heresy.
He references St. Irenaeus, but what does St. Ireneaus say about the Nicolaitans when he actually describes why they are heretics, and what they taught?
"The Nicolaitans are the followers of that Nicolas who was one of the seven first ordained to the diaconate by the apostles. They lead lives of unrestrained indulgence. The character of these men is very plainly pointed out in the Apocalypse of John, [when they are represented] as teaching that it is a matter of indifference to practise adultery, and to eat things sacrificed to idols. Wherefore the Word has also spoken of them thus: “But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate" (Irenaeus. Against Heresies, 1:26:3).
It is also interesting that he claims "The Apostle" makes reference to the Nicolaitans in Revelation 2:6,14-15, when in fact if you look up the text, in a red-letter edition of the Bible, you will see that these words are indeed in red. Christ Himself condemned this heresy, and not just in passing, but rather quite directly.
"...thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication."
The Fathers consistently describe the heresy of the Nicolaitans in precisely these terms.
"For the Church, actions were never labeled with the adjectives of “Orthodox” or “heretical,” only beliefs centered around the Trinity or the person of Christ (the dogma on the icon is an extension of the debate on the person of Christ). As St. Basil argues in his “Letter to Amphilochius, Concerning the Canons,” “by heresies they meant those who were altogether broken off and alienated in matters relating to the actual faith” (Letter 188). The dogmatic proclamations of the Council were always separate from the canonical proclamations. Morality was codified in the canons of the Church. Yes—there must be a consistency between theology and ethics, between dogma and canons, but while dogmas are non-negotiable, canons are part of the ongoing discernment of the Church."
It is not the actions of the Nicolaitans that made them heretics, but their teachings about sexual immorality. Teachings are not actions, and teachings can be heretical, and teaching that a sin is not a sin is heretical. That the Nicolaitans were heretics is repeated throughout the Fathers. The nature of the heresy is only described in terms of their teachings on sexual immorality and eating meat sacrificed to idols. Therefore, continuing to claim that there is no such thing a heresy when it comes to teachings on morality is false.
For more information on this subject, see: Moral Heresy?
Red-herrings
"While the Church has always condemned both beliefs and actions, moral infractions are dealt with through penances: a sanction is imposed for breaking moral rules, whereas rejection of the divinity of Christ qualifies for “heresy.” This also explains why, as is readily evident, there are ample examples of once morally forbidden actions that the Church now allows. One of the clearest examples is usury, but the Church has also revised its guidance on divorce, slavery, consulting Jewish physicians, and other canonical matters."
These are red-herrings, but let me address them briefly:
Usury: It is certainly true that as times and circumstances change, how the Church applies unchanging principles to different situations will vary... but that does not mean that the principles are up for grabs. In the case of charging interest, the Church was opposed to charging interest... in the context of a society that had currencies that did not inflate in value (being based on things like gold, silver, and copper that tended to either retain their value or increase in value over time), and in which individuals lent money to people without regulation, usually at exorbitant interest (i.e. actual usury), and in a context in which debtors who could not pay their debts ended up in prison or being sold into slavery (and quite likely their wives and children along with them). In our current context, in which the value of our money decreases with inflation, money is lent in a regulated fashion, in a context in which people who cannot pay their debts can walk away not only without paying the debt but in many cases without losing all that they have purchased with the money they borrowed, and without any fear of jail or slavery, things are just a wee bit different. In the former context, to lend money to the average person with interest was exploitative, and could lead to their complete and utter ruin. In our current context, when a bank refuses to lend to someone because the bank doubts their ability to repay the debt, this is considered to be an injustice. Anyone lending money at no interest today will not only not have the use of their money in the mean time, but will be repaid with money that is worth less than it was when it was lent in the first place. And of course they also run the risk of not being paid back at all, and without that risk having any potential benefit to themselves. To argue that the fact that the Church does not treat these very different circumstances in the same way therefore means that gay sex may not really be a sin is not an argument made by a person who desires to illuminate the truth -- it is the argument of one who willfully obscures the truth.
Divorce: Has the Church "revised" its stance on divorce? Christ taught that one should not divorce except for cases of infidelity (Matthew 19:1-10). St. Paul speaks of one further reason for divorce, and that is abandonment, in which case he says "A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases" (1 Corinthians 7:10-15). All the legitimate reasons for divorce are extrapolations from these two teachings. For example, if a husband beats the snot out of his wife or abuses their children, this is taken to be a form of abandonment, even though the husband may not desire to leave the home, because his actions force the wife to leave the home, if he cannot otherwise be made to change his behavior. Divorce is in fact provided for in the canons, and even for those who are the guilty party in a divorce, there is a path to restoration in the Church. Divorce is always a sin on the part of at least one of the spouses. It is not an unpardonable sin.
Now are there bishops who are too lax when it comes to dealing with divorce? Probably so, but that actually is a pastoral matter, not a matter of a change in principle. In other words, you don't hear bishops or clergy teaching that divorce is no longer a sin. Likewise, when it comes to dealing with homosexuals, there are some clergy who may be too strict, and some who may be too lax, but so long as they all treat it as a sin, this is a matter of pastoral discretion. However, if a clergyman tells people that this sin is not really a sin, he is guilty of teaching error, as well as pastoral malpractice, because he is deluding his flock and giving them a bum steer on the path of salvation.
Slavery: I have addressed this previously in "What about Slavery in the Bible?" But in short, the Church has not reversed any principle here. No one was ever commanded to own slaves, and slavery was never seen as a good thing. Circumstances have changed. We still have some forms of involuntary servitude that are allowable by law (as a punishment for a crime, and in the form of the military draft). In the future, perhaps these will no longer be permissible by law. And perhaps in the future, society may decide that paying someone to flip hamburgers for only $7.25 an hour is immoral too. None of this changes the principles of Scripture or the canons.
Jewish Physicians: In the ancient world, there was no such thing as secular medicine as we know it today. At the time of the canon in question, Non-Christian Jewish doctors mixed their beliefs with their practice of medicine and so it was a religious issue for a Christian to go to such a doctor. Going to see a modern secular physician is an entirely different matter. If one went to a Jewish doctor who mixed faith healing into his practice, then this canon would apply, but I don't know of any modern examples of such things.
Unlike these red herrings, there is nothing about sodomy that has changed since the times the Scriptures and canons of the Church were written. Only if you don't really believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures, or the guidance of the Holy Spirit over the Church would you think that we might need to revise the teachings of the Church on an issue about which the Church has been so clear.
Biblical Morality
Papanikolaou argues that speaking of "biblical morality" muddies the water, but then proceeds to muddy the water himself by trying to conflate Old Testament ceremonial law, and the moral law:
"How can we be sure that our ongoing discernment within the Church is faithful to the Tradition? Some might define this faithfulness in terms of “biblical morality” or in terms of length of time the Church has proclaimed a particular moral principle, moral rule, or canonical prohibition. Phrases like “biblical morality” muddy the waters as it gives the impression that morality is reducible to literal interpretation of injunctions from the Bible. One look at Leviticus would dispel such a way of interpreting the Tradition of our Church, not to mention the New Testament prohibitions that the Church today does not follow to the letter (Mk 10:11-12 [depending on how one interprets this obscure passage]; 1 Cor 11:6, 14:34). Orthodox Christianity is a religion of the person, not of the book, and the Scriptures, which are foundational, authoritative, and sacred, point to the person of Christ who becomes the hermeneutical key for how to read Scripture."
He brings up Leviticus, and obviously is referencing the many ceremonial laws that we in the Church do not observe. The Fathers make a distinction between the moral law of the Old Testament, ceremonial laws, and purely civil laws. Even in the Old Testament, you never hear of a Prophet condemning non-Israelites for things like eating shrimp, or having garments made from different kinds of cloth. I have addressed this question in more detail in "Shrimp and Homosexuality" and "The Continuing Validity of the Moral Law of the Old Testament."
He then again brings up slavery, and laws and canons that regulate it. I have already addressed the question of whether such things constitute an endorsement of slavery in "Laws about Slavery." If there were laws and canons that required one own slaves, and then the Church later reversed them, or if there were laws and canons which prohibited slavery, but then the Church later reversed them, Papanikolaou would have an argument. But this is not the case.
Scaffolding
"Some might argue that to say that ethical norms and practices are subject to discussion is a form of relativism and a result of being influenced by secular, modern, liberal discourse that is diametrically opposed to Orthodoxy. First, discernment is part of the Tradition of the Church and it does not involve relativism since there is a clear telos in sight for this process of discernment—theosis. Second, “diametrical opposition” is itself a form of dualism that is theologically problematic, since the Holy Spirit is “every present and fills all things.” In fact, all heresies are a form of dualism, and the dogmatic Tradition around the person of Christ resisted this absolute dualism between the created and the Uncreated. Moreover, the Fathers and Mothers of our Tradition have always identified what is good in Greek pagan philosophy. Is recognizing what was right in Platonism a capitulation to Greek pagan thought? The very structure of the soul used by St. Maximus (see part 2) to make sense of a life in theosis is itself an appropriation from Greek pagan philosophy. Does that invalidate the theological anthropology of St. Maximus? Finally, why is discerning ethical norms in light of new information a surrender to a diametrically opposed form of discourse? Could not the absolute rejection of modern, liberal discourse itself be a form of defining Orthodoxy in light of this self-opposition? And if the opposition itself is what is defining Orthodoxy, is this distorted apophaticism—we are what we are not—really being faithful to the Orthodoxy that in the end is about our ascent toward union with God?"
So we have a moral issue that Papanikolaou admits the Scripture and Fathers "overwhelmingly" address in a very clear manner. In other words, God has spoken. And yet Papanikolaou says we nevertheless need to use "discernment" on this issue. So he wishes to put a question mark where God has placed a period, if not an exclamation point. This, he wishes to argue, is how the Church "does theology." This is in fact not how the Church has ever done theology, but it is how the devil does it.
"Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil" (Genesis 3:1-5).
Papanikolaou and his fellow travelers say "We're just asking questions." The devil was just asking questions too. "Did God really say that?" And then after "just asking questions" the devil went on to undermine what God had said, in order to persuade Eve that it was actually OK to do precisely the opposite of what God in fact did say. This call for "dialogue" and "discernment" is not being called for because these folks aren't sure where the "dialogue" will lead. This "dialogue" is just the scaffolding necessary to construct the edifice they already have designed.
We have seen this movie before, and we know how it ends. No thank you.
