Puhalo rants again... on Transgenderism and Intersexuality

On his Facebook page, the retired vagante Archbishop, Lazar Puhalo, has decided to attack me and attribute to me things that I have not said, in order to cover up the things that he has in fact said.

In a youtube video, dated March 18, 2011, Puhalo expressed his views that it is perfectly acceptable for those who wish to identify themselves with the opposite sex to do so, or for them to actually have a sex change operation. It is very clear from his comments that he is not speaking about those born with ambiguous genitalia, or the intersex. He is speaking about those who believe that they are men trapped in female bodies, or women trapped in male bodies. He says that it is the brain that determines one's sex, not their bodies.

This view is in complete opposition with the views expressed by the rest of the Church on this issue. For example, the Russian Orthodox Church issued a statement directly addressing this matter:

"Sometimes perverted human sexuality is manifested in the form of the painful feeling of one’s belonging to the opposite sex, resulting in an attempt to change one’s sex (transsexuality). One’s desire to refuse the sex that has been given him or her by the Creator can have pernicious consequences for one’s further development. «The change of sex» through hormonal impact and surgical operation has led in many cases not to the solution of psychological problems, but to their aggravation, causing a deep inner crisis. The Church cannot approve of such a «rebellion against the Creator» and recognise as valid the artificially changed sexual affiliation. If «a change of sex» happened in a person before his or her Baptism, he or she can be admitted to this Sacrament as any other sinner, but the Church will baptise him or her as belonging to his or her sex by birth. The ordination of such a person and his or her marriage in church are inadmissible.

Transsexuality should be distinguished from the wrong identification of the sex in one’s infancy as a result of doctors’ mistake caused by a pathological development of sexual characteristics. The surgical correction in this case is not a change of sex" (The Basis of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church, section XII. Problems of bioethics, sub section 9).

I have quoted this passage repeatedly, when discussing this issue, including the second paragraph that makes the distinction between transgenderism, and those who are born with some sexual ambiguity.

The idea that someone might be born with such problems is not a new discovery. Christ Himself spoke of this in Matthew 19:12:

"For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."

Puhalo is now suggesting that I have somehow attacked those born with these conditions, or that I deny that such people exist. Of course both claims are false, and I suspect he knows it... which he certainly would if he bothered to read what I have said on the subject. The Church does not object to surgical corrections of such conditions, when they can be corrected. And in fact it does not object to correcting a mistaken gender assignment with subsequent surgery. But this is just a red herring, because Puhalo does not wish to deal with the fact that what he actually has advocated is completely at odds with what the Church teaches.

I am glad that the OCA was able to bring Puhalo and his follows out of the bogus jurisdictions that he has at various times been affiliated with, and bring them back into the Orthodox Church. The OCA synod of Bishops should, however, take measures to ensure that this "retired Archbishop" not spout heresy, as he has regularly done on this and several other issues.

Update: On Puhalo's Facebook page, he posted the following update:

"Let us make it abundantly clear: The doctrine of the Orthodox Church holds that sexual intercourse between people of the same gender is a sin. Moreover, the Orthodox Church will never accept, or even consider accepting, same sex marriages. This is unequivocally the doctrine of the Orthodox Church. This is not an excuse to persecute, bully or harm anyone, but it is clearly the doctrine of the Church."

Now, that sounds good enough, as far as it goes. But you will notice he states what the Church teaches, but does not express his agreement with it. And when someone posted their complaint "To continue labelling as "sin" anything that we fail to understand and incorporate to our preconceptions is a grave insult to human dignity and intelligence." Puhalo replied:"I have been forbidden by "higher ups" to express any truth about the nature of the issue, so I only express the official doctrine of the Church" (November 24 at 12:26am).

This is good news, in as much as it indicates that the Bishops of the OCA have begun to rein him in. However, it is clear that Puhalo intends to continue promoting his heretical views on human sexuality, with a wink and a nod when necessary.

Update: Puhalo recently did a radio interview, along with Frank Schaeffer in which he again stated that he is forbidden by the Synod of the OCA to speak on "certain issues". He also once again makes the false claim that there are those in the Orthodox Church who deny that there are people born with ambiguous genitalia, and other such nonsense.

Being Frank

 An Obama backed Terrorist, making sport of the loot from a Syrian Church that has been ransacked.

Frank Schaeffer has had a long career as a writer and speaker, and if you have followed him over the years, you know that his primary writing and speaking mode is righteous indignation, peppered liberally with sarcasm, and spiked with a penchant for gross exaggeration of the views of those he disagrees with. That righteous indignation was once directed at those who kill babies for money -- the abortion industry. When he converted to Orthodoxy, his indignation was also turned on the Protestants from whence he came, to whom his father, Francis Schaeffer remains a highly regarded figure. In more recent years, he has become a pro-Obama, pro-homosexual, and anti-war advocate (at least when George Bush was waging the wars), and so now supports the very people in the abortion industry that he was once so righteously indignant about. How one goes from being in favor of blockading abortion clinics, to supporting a president who opposed laws that would protect babies born alive in botched abortions is beyond comprehension.

In his most recent blog post, he has now taken aim against not only the "religious right" (a favorite target of his in recent years), but now even the Orthodox Church that he still is ostensibly a member of is in his cross-hairs -- because they support Russia's laws restricting the promotion of homosexuality.

I looked over his blog to see if he had expressed any concern for his Orthodox Christian brothers and sisters in Syria, who are being raped, murdered, and run out of their ancient homes by Al Qaeda terrorists, who are armed and supported by Barack Obama, but there was not a word. Tens of thousands of Syrian Christians are now dead, millions are refugees, and not a word of concern. He also expresses no concern over the Coptic Christians of Egypt, who are similarly suffering at the hands of supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood regime that Obama helped to put into power. But who is Frank Schaeffer concerned about today? Homosexuals in Russia. Where is his righteous indignation directed at today? The American religious right, and the Orthodox Church.

Vladimir Putin, on the other hand has been one of the lone voices on the international stage that has expressed concern for the Christians of Egypt and Syria. Whatever else one may think of Putin, the Christians of Egypt and Syria have a much higher opinion of Putin right now than they do of Obama. And it should pointed out that Frank Schaeffer's own opinion of Putin has not always been so negative.

When George Bush invaded Iraq, and then the subsequent guerrilla war resulted in a mass exodus of Iraq's Christian population, at least he could say no one saw that coming. However, Obama knows what is going on in Egypt and Syria, and he knows what would happen to the Christians of Syria if he bombed the Syrian government, and the Al Qaeda terrorists he is arming took power... he just doesn't seem to care; and unfortunately, neither does Frank Schaeffer, it would seem.

The laws on the books today in Russia regarding homosexuals are more liberal than the laws we had here in the United States just 40 years ago. It is not a crime in Russia to be a homosexual. It is only a crime for them to propagandize minors. They are also not allowed to have gay pride parades... which in the United States are obscene displays of perversion in the streets of almost every major city in America. And "Natasha's Two Mommies" is not a book read to children in kindergarten in Russia. This, Frank Schaeffer finds more of a concern than the murder of Christians in Syria with the aid and comfort of his beloved Barack Obama.

The Russian Orthodox Church, as Frank well knows, suffered horrendously under the Soviet Union. The Church is therefore not inclined to antagonize the state unnecessarily... especially when that state is on the right side of a question. The Church has spoken against the government when it has taken positions contrary to that of the Church -- for example, Putin was for some time opposed to introducing instruction about Russia's religious heritage, while the Church was a strong advocate of that idea. In the end, the government introduced such courses, and so now parents can choose between courses that study Orthodox Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or Buddhism -- which are the primary religions in Russia. But when the Russian government passes laws that restrict homosexual propaganda, the Church has no reason to oppose those laws, and good reason to support them, since they reflect traditional Christian morality. The Orthodox Church is not going to change its views on homosexuality, since the Scriptures, the Fathers, and the Canons are unambiguous on the subject. Of course Orthodox Christians cannot support thugs that beat up homosexuals in the street. But in the United States we now have homosexuals beating up those that disagree with them in the streets, and we hear nothing from Frank about that.

Frank cites two Orthodox Christian clergymen as being "pro-gay": "Archbishop" Lazar Puhalo, and Fr. Antony Hughes. And suggests that they represent a hopeful trend in the Orthodox Church. However, if Frank read the article about Lazar Puhalo that he linked, he should be aware of the fact that he is a crank, with a very checkered history. He was never an active priest, bishop, or Archbishop in any legitimate Orthodox Church. He was a deacon in ROCOR before he was deposed for disobedience, and began his career as a vagante bishop, and was only received by the OCA as a retired Archbishop as an act of economia-- a decision that was controversial even within the OCA. His views range from being slightly off, to the outlandish, and so he is hardly a mainstream bishop.  I know less about Fr. Antony Hughes, but I know that the Bishops of the Antiochian Archdiocese have little patience for anyone who challenges the teachings of the Church that homosexual acts are inherently sinful, and that only a repentant homosexual who is struggling against that sin may receive communion. The views of the Orthodox Church on the question of homosexuality are known, and are not up for debate. 

You can read about a Roman Catholic mother who was beaten, raped, and murdered by a homosexual because she had persuaded her son to end his homosexual relationship with him: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/bishop-catholic-mom-murdered-gay-man-died-martyr-her-faith

You can see a video of a gay mob in the Castro District of San Francisco which attacked a group of Christians that were praying peacefully together: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4Xb-au-wpU

You can see a video of a gay mob beating up a Christian at a Gay Pride rally in Seattle: http://youtu.be/OWEV48MPmCM  

I am sure most gays oppose such things, just like most Christians oppose gays being beaten.

Also, as I pointed out in a recent post, homosexual activists in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, are using the power of the state to destroy those who do not agree with the homosexual lifestyle in general or gay marriage in particular, if they will not be coerced into either remaining silent about their views or to participate professionally in a gay marriage. In states that have legalized gay marriage, homosexuality is now being taught as normal to even very young children, regardless of the wishes or views of their parents.

Since homosexuals are not proving to be very tolerant of those who disagree with them, now that they have achieved mainstream acceptance in the west, I don't blame Russians for wanting to nip the whole thing in the bud now, so that they don't go down the road to Sodom and Gomorrah too. And it is also interesting that homosexual activists are now focusing their wrath on Russia and the Russian Orthodox Church, but while they will picket an Orthodox Church in San Francisco, for some reason they have not begun picketing mosques to protest the fact that homosexuals are routinely given the death penalty in Muslim countries.

However, whatever grievances gays in Russia, or Christians in the west may have, they are all small potatoes compared with the suffering of Christians in Egypt and Syria at the hands of terrorist groups that have been funded, supported, and defended by the Obama administration. It is a shame that Frank Schaeffer does not use his considerable oratorical and polemical skills to defend Christians who are being threatened, abused, beaten, raped, tortured, beheaded, displaced and butchered by the millions.

Lazar Puhalo spouts blatant heresy... again

We have already noted Lazar Puhalo's advocacy of transgenderism, homosexuality, and his hostility to the Old Testament, but now he has espoused a new heresy. In his latest video, at about the 13:00 minute mark, he states that the Bible is "a book that was written by men that was sometimes inspired by God and Sometimes not." This is an incredible statement.

St. Paul, on the other hand was of the opinion that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

One has to wonder how long the OCA will allow him to present himself as a retired OCA bishop, and thumb his nose at the Tradition of the Church.

The Very Most Retired "Archbishop" rants again

I've mentioned this odd man and his odd views previously. In his most recent rant on YouTube he makes a number of ridiculous statements. He begins by talking about recent examples of the abuse of women in the Islamic world, but then quickly shifts into an attack on the Scriptures and the historic Christian view of morality.

He asserts that women were not legal persons until the 1930's and were not allowed to manage their own property previously. Women in the United States gained the right to vote in 1920, with the passage of the 19th amendment to the Constitution. Most adult women gained the right to vote in the United Kingdom in 1918, and all who were 21 and older gained it in 1928. And it is simply untrue that women were not seen a legal persons prior to that time, nor is it true that they had no right to manage their own property prior to that time.

Puhalo also asserts that the treatment of women in Islamic countries -- such as the torture of a child bride whose in-laws were attempting to force her into prostitution -- was not much different than the way women were treated in the Old Testament. He asserts, for example that a woman who was raped in a city was put to death, and a woman who is raped elsewhere was charged with adultery. Here is the actual passage in question:

“If a young woman who is a virgin is betrothed to a husband, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he humbled his neighbor’s wife; so you shall put away the evil from among you" (Deuteronomy 22:23-24).

First of all, it should be noted that this passage does not say anything about a woman who is raped being put to death. It speaks of a woman who is betrothed to one man, but who has sex with another man in a city. The question of whether she was raped or not is the question that this law addresses, and it says that if she resists, she was being raped, and so is innocent, but if she does not resist, she was not being raped.

This is made clear by what follows those verses:

"But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter. For he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman cried out, but there was no one to save her" (Deuteronomy 22:25-27).

Note that this passage says nothing about the woman being charged with adultery. It says "You shall do nothing to the young woman, because she is innocent, just as in the case of person who is innocently murdered. Now you might ask about other scenarios, such as a man you gags a woman in a city and rapes her with a knife to the throat... this law lays out some general principles, but obviously there are always exceptional cases that change the picture, and both Jewish and Christian tradition are full of discussions about such exceptions... and so there is no reason to believe that additional facts that pointed to the woman's innocence would be ignored.

What laws like these definitely accomplished is that they prevented women from being put to death when they clearly had been raped, unlike what you find in Islamic law.

Puhalo then goes on to rant in his support of transgenderism. No one has suggested that when you have people who are born with phyical abnormalities that they should be denied corrective surgery. What has been denied is the idea that a man who believes he is trapped inside a woman's body, or vice versa should have a sex change operation.

Once again, here are the conclusions of the Russian Orthodox Church on the matter:

Sometimes perverted human sexuality is manifested in the form of the painful feeling of one's belonging to the opposite sex, resulting in an attempt to change one's sex (transsexuality). One's desire to refuse the sex that has been given him or her by the Creator can have pernicious consequences for one's further development. «The change of sex» through hormonal impact and surgical operation has led in many cases not to the solution of psychological problems, but to their aggravation, causing a deep inner crisis. The Church cannot approve of such a «rebellion against the Creator» and recognise as valid the artificially changed sexual affiliation. If «a change of sex» happened in a person before his or her Baptism, he or she can be admitted to this Sacrament as any other sinner, but the Church will baptise him or her as belonging to his or her sex by birth. The ordination of such a person and his or her marriage in church are inadmissible.

Transsexuality should be distinguished from the wrong identification of the sex in one's infancy as a result of doctors' mistake caused by a pathological development of sexual characteristics. The surgical correction in this case is not a change of sex. 

One has to wonder how long the OCA will allow a "retired Archbishop" to rant publicly against the teachings of the Church and the Scriptures, without some sanction.

The Continuing Validity of the Moral Law of the Old Testament

One of the earliest heresies that the Church had to confront was the Marcionite heresy, which taught that the God of the Old Testament was not the God of the New Testament. The God of the Old Testament was evil, whereas the God of the New Testament was good. Consequently Marcion rejected the entire Old Testament, as well as much of the New Testament. The Church decisively rejected Marcion's view, and emphatically affirmed that the Old Testament belongs to the Church.

Since Marcion's time, echos of his disdain for the Old Testament have continued to reverberate. Recently, Lazar Puhalo, has voiced such disdain. Lazar Puhalo was a deacon in ROCOR, who was deposed in 1981. From 1981 until he was received as a "retired" bishop by the OCA, he was in a series of vagante jurisdictions where he was ordained a priest, then a bishop, and then raised to archbishop. He is referred to as a retired OCA bishop, but this gives the false impression that he was once an active OCA bishop, when in reality, he has never been an active priest or bishop of any legitimate Orthodox jurisdiction. However, now that he has the air of legitimacy about him, he has used this platform to promote all sorts of strange ideas, including his view that transgenderism is acceptable. He is a regular contributor to a pro-homosexual Facebook group, where the only views he sees a need to criticize are the views of those who defend the traditions of the Church which condemn homosexuality. It is this advocacy of moral perversion that lies behind his desire to dismiss the moral law of the Old Testament.

In this video, Lazar Puhalo claims that the moral law has been "done away with". He claims, for example, that Christ "absolutely contradicts" the law against breaking the Sabbath, but what do the Fathers say? St. John Chrysostom says "Did Christ then, it will be said, repeal a thing so highly profitable [the laws concerning the Sabbath]? Far from it; nay, He greatly enhanced it" (Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew 39:3). He misquotes Colossians 2:14 as saying "The manuscript of the Law has been torn up". What that passage actually says is "Blotting out the handwriting of the decree that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross, and having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it" (Colossians 2:14-15). In Lazar Puhalo's version, the suggestion is that the text of the Law of Moses is done away with, whereas in the actual citation, it is the sentence against us that is blotted out and nailed to the cross.

Expressing his disdain for the Law, when speaking of the woman caught in adultery, he says that the law called for the woman to be stoned, but for the man to just pay a fine. The law actually called for both the man and the woman to be put to death: "And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death" (Leviticus 20:10).

Of course, there are differences between the Old and New Covenants. The Old Covenant anticipated the New Covenant, and was given to people who were at a very low level of spiritual understanding. The harsh penalties that are often found in the Old Testament law were due to this. St. John Chrysostom, commenting on the law which condemned Sabbath breakers to death, said that it was "Because if the laws were to be despised even at the beginning, of course they would scarcely be observed afterwards" (Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew 39:3). But while the harsh and immediate penalties for the violation of the law are relaxed in the New Testament, the strictness of the laws themselves are not only not relaxed, but are rather enhanced. Just as you spank younger children, but expect less of them, and expect more of older children, without spanking them, the Old Testament dealt with the Israelites where they were, but brought them gradually to a higher level of spiritual understanding.

St. Paul states clearly the value of the Old Testament:

“And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works" (2 Timothy 3:15-17).

And when St. Paul speaks of "doctrine" he does not limit doctrine to abstract theological concepts, but also to question of orthopraxis (right living):

"...that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust (1 Timothy 1:9-11).

It is clear that for St. Paul, applying the moral law of the Old Testament to moral issues, such as fornication or sodomy, is entirely appropriate.

It is true that the liturgy of the New Testament has changed. We are not saved by the works of the law, "For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins" (Hebrews 10:4) -- it was not possible in the Old Testament, and it is not possible in the New Testament. The saints of the Old Testament were saved by faith in Christ just as the saints of the New Testament are. The Old Covenant Ceremonies pointed forward to Christ, and our services point to the Christ that has been revealed to us. As St. Augustine put it, "The New Testament in the Old is concealed; The Old Testament in the New is revealed." "But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry [liturgy], inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises" (Hebrews 8:6). But it should be pointed out that it is in the Old Testament that we first read "The Just shall live by Faith" (Habakkuk 2:4).

St. Paul never suggests that the moral law of the Old Testament is done away with, in fact he states just the opposite: "And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law" (1 Corinthians 9:20-21). And what is the Law of Christ? Lazar Puhalo answers this question by citing the two great commandments, but fails to recall that they are found in the Old Testament:

"And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might" (Deuteronomy 6:5).

"...thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" (Leviticus 19:18).

There are civil laws and ceremonial laws of the Old Testament that do no longer apply to us directly, though they continue to have instructive value to us. But the moral law of God is unchanging:

"For all things that, according to the Law, went before, whether in the circumcision of the flesh, or in the multitude of victims, or in the keeping of the Sabbath, testified of Christ, and foretold the grace of Christ. And He is “the end of the Law,” not by annulling, but by fulfilling its meanings. For although He is at once the Author of the old and of the new, yet He changed the symbolic rites connected with the promises, because He accomplished the promises and put an end to the announcement by the coming of the Announced. But in the matter of moral precepts, no decrees of the earlier Testament are rejected, but many of them are amplified by the Gospel teaching: so that the things which give salvation are more perfect and clearer than those which promise a Saviour" (Sermon 63:5, St. Leo the Great).

"There are two distinguishable parts in Moses' law: the religious-moral and the national-ceremonial which was closely tied with the history and way of life of the Jewish nation. The second aspect is gone into the past for Christians, that is, the national-ceremonial rules and laws, but the religious-moral laws preserve their force in Christianity. Therefore, all the ten commandments in the law of Moses are obligatory for Christians. Christianity has not altered them. On the contrary, Christianity has taught people to understand these commandments, not externally - literalistically, in the manner of blind, slavish obedience, and external fulfillment, but it has revealed the full spirit and taught the perfect and full understanding and fulfillment of them. For Christians, however, Moses' law has significance only because its central commandments (the ten which deal with love of God and neighbors) are accepted and shown forth by Christianity. We are guided in our life not by this preparatory and temporary law of Moses, but by the perfect and eternal law of Christ. St Basil the Great says, "If one who lights a lamp before himself in broad daylight seems strange, then how much stranger is one who remains in the shadow of the law of the Old Testament when the Gospel is being preached." The main distinction of the New Testament law from that of the Old Testament consists in that the Old Testament law looked at the exterior actions of man, while the New Testament law looks at the heart of man, at his inner motives. Under the Old Testament law, man submitted himself to God as a slave to his master, but under the New Testament, he strives toward submitting to Him as a son submits to a beloved father" (On the Law of God, by Metropolitan Philaret (Voskresensky), Translated by Hieromonk Varlaam Novakshonoff).

The Old Testament allowed some things due to human weakness. For example, divorce for any reason was allowed in the Old Testament. Slavery within certain bounds was allowed in the Old Testament. However, the law did not mandate either. It allowed them. In the New Testament, when Christ confronted the woman caught in adultery, he did not impose the death penalty on her. However, he did not say, "Go, it is a sin no more". He said "Go and sin no more." How did she know what was a sin and what was not a sin? She had the moral law of God to guide her. Christ did not weaken the law on the question of adultery... he enhanced it. It is more strict in the New Testament, not less. And so why would we assume that the New Testament would lessen the law on the question of Homosexuality? There is no basis for doing so... not to mention that the New Testament specifically condemns homosexuality in several places.