Via Rorate caeli comes this interesting quote from Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev) of Volokolamsk:
“All current versions of Christianity can be roughly divided into two main groups: traditional and liberal. The difference today is not so much between Orthodox and Catholics, or between Catholics and Protestants, but precisely between Traditionalists and ‘Liberals’. Some Christian leaders, for instance, tell us that marriage between a man and a woman is no longer the only way to build a Christian family: there are other available models, and the Church should become sufficiently ‘inclusive’ in order to recognize alternative behavioral standards and to grant them official blessing. Some try to persuade us that human life is no longer an absolute value, and that life in the womb may be ended at will. Traditionalist Christians are in fact being asked to reconsider their views under the pretext of keeping up with modern times.”
UPDATE: The full English text of Met. Hilarion’s address to the Annual Nicean Club Dinner, Lambeth Palace, 9 September 2010. The address was given in the presence of Dr Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury.
Metropolitan Hilarion makes a good argument but I think the “dividing line” is somewhat more subtle than just “gay marriage” and abortion.
It boils down to the seriousness with which one respects Tradition and its privileged exposition in Scripture. Gay marriage and abortion just happen to be two salient points on which Tradition conflicts with liberal humanism. Divorce is another. “Sanctified” euthanasia, sexual promiscuity, polygamy and “consensual” incest or pedophilia are already on the production line, and will probably be normalized in our lifetime. The common thread is the lack of a protesting victim.
Theologically speaking, we have a right to choose to sin; if we consciously choose to pass laws that legalize sin, then so be it. It won’t be the first time. What is really new here is the effort to actually sanctify sin and anathematize fidelity.
I must respectfully disagree with my bud evagrius. IMHO, Metropolitan Hilarion absolutely NAILS IT. :)
A translation of the full speech:
http://www.mospat.ru/en/2010/09/10/news25819/
Very good speech but it still doesn’t go to the heart of the matter which ,unfortunately, is something no “traditionalist” nor “liberal” theologian or church leader has really been able to do.
“Traditionalists” argue that sexual orientation is a matter of choice while “liberals” argue that there’s nothing wrong in “choosing”. Meanwhile, there’s been extensive research into the genetic/ psychological/ emotional aspects of sexual orientation that provides a more complex picture that will require real thinking on the part of theologians. It’s just another aspect of the anthropological debate, the definition of human beings and their origins and nature, ( what makes human being different from and similar to animals), that began in the nineteenth century. The traditional definition, dependent on Genesis, is difficult to maintain. That doesn’t mean that it is “wrong” but definitely, it needs some real thinking on the part of theologians to clarify it.
The same situation exists with abortion. I worked for quite a number of years in a public health clinic providing medicaid insurance to clent/ patients among them young, ( very young as young as 15), women seeking termination of pregnancies. Each case was unique and tragic. It’s not just a matter of reducing the situation to an either/ or scenario. In the background of these situations lies a complex misunderstanding of sex, sexual relationship, love, committment, parenthood, childhood. To simply declare abortion a sin without looking at the entire complex about relationships etc; is to ignore the actual reality and confusion most people, especially young people face.
The Metropolitan, I’m sure, is aware of this as are most church leaders. However, instead of calling for a deeper examination of the subjects, it’s far easier to fall back on “tradition” as classically expounded rather than examine the truths the tradition has at its core and proclaim them in a language aubile to contemporary people .
All this may sound liberal wishy-washy but I think it represents the actual situation facing all of us.
It does sound “liberal wishy-washy.”
Sexual orientation, whether innate or acquired, just governs our appetites. It is not the definition of our identity. The sin lies not in the appetites themselves but in our choosing to yield to them when doing so is inappropriate. If we, as specific individuals, are so constituted that resisting a particular appetite is extraordinarily difficult, then what feeble efforts we are able to deploy against its temptations will count for more in securing theosis than complete abstention from sins for which we have no predisposition. But the idea that the strength of an appetite can somehow free us from any responsibility for striving to live the Christian ideal is just perverse and a denial of the existence of free will.
Homicide outside the context of strict self-defence is a grave sin explicitly spelled out in the Decalogue, and abortion is no exception. Granted, the degree of culpability may vary depending on the maturity, mental state and material circumstances of the mother. This does not void culpability entirely, however, unless the mother is somehow incapable of rational intent, and it in no way diminishes the culpability of the practitioners involved in an abortion.
Hard cases are just that: hard cases. They aren’t exceptions that somehow invalidate the need to strive to live a Christian life.
I have updated the post with a link to the full address of Met. Hilarion:
http://www.mospat.ru/en/2010/09/10/news25819/
AXIOS!
Of course this debate can circle round and round.
I’ve found it interesting that, in the U.S., the states with the highest divorce rates, teen-age pregnancy, abortion etc; are those that are described as “traditional” in religion.
If one is orthodox, it does not go round and round. It only does so if one denies the plain and traditional reading of the faith once delivered, i.e. that one still sins in yielding to great temptation, and that we are not free to take the life of others.
If you seriously think theological and ethical liberalism provide a basis for the reunion of East and West, you have an extraordinarily long wait ahead of you.
I’m not sure what your argument is.
It seems to me that you’ve reduced “tradition” to what was established in an agrarian society 5,000 years ago. There certainly is much truth to it yet merely repeating it without going a little deeper isn’t doing anyone much good.
I like this for its dialogue with modern biology;
The Neurobiology of Sin by Archbishop Lazar Puhalo
http://www.clarion-journal.com/clarion_journal_of_spirit/2010/03/the-neurobiology-of-sin-by-archbishop-lazar-puhalo.html
You didn’t respond to my pointing out the demographic facts about the region in the U.S. that is “traditional”.
Why is that?
At any rate, pointing out that merely repeating something is not resolving the present crisis is not an indication of liberalism or traditionalism. It’s just pointing to the complexity of the situation.
Seriously, I don’t see the relevance of either your point about an agricultural society or your point regarding the incidence of divorce in the Bible belt. I would be pleased to engage with you on these if you explained their pertinence.
Yes, we know more about the psychology and physiology of sexual orientation now than we did 2,000 years ago. If Tradition condoned heterosexual promiscuity while condemning the homosexual variety, and didn’t praise the celibate state, even in marriage, then perhaps you could make a claim that Tradition was merely a buttress for socially conservatism. The appeal to marital fidelity or celibacy, however, was just as radical in the social context 2,000 years ago as it is today (and just as disregarded).
Similarly, a human life was a human life 2,000 years ago and still is today. What has changed to diminish its value? With respect to neurological development, how is a zygote whose nervous system is too insufficiently developed to feel pain fundamentally different in this regard than an adult who is comatose? Since when is sensibility the test of one’s human dignity.
I don’t see what bearing an agricultural vs an urban society has on any of these issues. On the appropriateness of servitude, capital punishment, democracy and religious freedom, social and economic contexts do matter, and the Church’s position in these areas has evolved accordingly. But reproductive ethics and human dignity relate to timeless aspects of the human condition.
We all have a predisposition to sin. I am in my 40′s and unmarried. At this point in my life it is in increasingly unlikely that will change. And yes I have wrestled with all of the passions including the sins of the flesh. Sometimes I have failed. But my biological predisposition towards a certain behavior in no way excuses it. Sin has always been easier than virtue. If it weren’t, we would live in a world overrun by saints.
The fact that people fail or the incidence of their failings has no bearing on the validity of God’s law. And anyone advancing such a view has so far departed from the Apostolic Faith that I would tend to think that they are in the camp to whom +Hilarion’s comments were directed. The Orthodox Church will never compromise with heresy.
Ad Orientem — do not give up hope WRT marriage. My kid sister married in her 40s, and she is very happy. Men are at a HUGE advantage, as I’m sure you know. Anyway, I will keep you in my prayers. :)
My argument still holds.
To merely repeat without going deeper is not a “solution”.
I’m not advocating what some call “liberalism”. I’m merely pointing out the complexity.
Perhaps the tradition’s teaching would have more relevance if ascetism, in its proper expression, was actually taught and practiced by those claiming authority. Perhaps too, if the purpose of asceticism, ( it’s not an end in itself), was properly taught, the tradition would have relevance.
Perhaps if contemplative prayer was taught and practiced, not just by monastics, but by people in everyday life, the tradition would have more relevance.
You haven’t made an argument. You have just thrown the word “complexity” about as if this somehow demonstrated something relevant.
I also don’t see how the relevance, validity or lack thereof of Tradition depends on the peccadillos of its exponent.
I am not trying to brush you off. If you unfolded your argument more thoroughly, we could then engage properly. I don’t expect to agree with you, but I would like to see you flesh out your position more clearly so that I can at least understand it better.
Well, first one example- you can reflect on this as a comment on how “tradition” is being exploited by political conservatives/reactionaries;
Newt Gingrich- twice-divorced, thrice married is giving talks on “traditional values”.
Second- I did give another example, that of the “traditional region” of the South- you did not respond.
To add to that example; the U.S., among advanced industrial countries, has no real universal health care,one of the highest if not the highest the highest teen pregnancy rate, the highest infant mortality rate, no universal pre-natal care, the highest child poverty rate, ( somewhere around 25% of children- poverty is defined here as half the median income), about 15-20% of the population now receiving Food Stamps ( which requires an income a little less than the median income for minimum amounts), the 2nd highest, ( just above the U.K. just below Switzerland) income inequality with the top 1% having around 18-20% of the national income, and the bottom 80% having around 38% of the national income.
Now…all this may seem very far away from the topic at hand but…if one is wishing to argue that “tradition” has something to say…then why are leaders of “tradition” so incredibly silent about all this?
That’s the “complexity” I’m pointing to. I worked in social services, confronting that “complexity” everyday, ( try talking to families who need medical care, food, and shelter when they have no money and the public benefits are miniscule at best), and obtaining an insight about the built-in cruelty of society. When I read St Basil or St John Chrysostom on poverty and wealth, those sermons are quite real.
That “tradition”, that of Basil, Chrysostom etc; is hardly even present in those who nowadays defend “tradition”, ( Newt Gingrich?).
I haven’t read the good Metropolitan discussing the very similar situation in Russia, ( granted that they don’t have the wealth of the U.S.).
Is this enough for you?
Sorry for the rant but the “complexity” is real and it’s a crisis and those who should speak are silent.
Ok, I see we are talking about different things and thus past each other. I don’t have a high opinion of social conservatism. I don’t think it has anything to do with Tradition (capitalized) which to me consists of divine revelation as handed down by the Fathers and which, at its heart, is socially quite radical. You seem to be using the term “tradition” (lower case) in a socio-political sense, while I was using it strictly in the theological sense. Something can be traditional without being mandated by Tradition.
Newt Gingrich may be a social conservative (and in terms of his behaviour somewhat of a hypocrite) but that does not mean that he respects Tradition. Similarly, from the Catholic (or Orthodox) perspective the South is not theologically traditional, but the product of a radical rupture from theological tradition. This is why I could not see the point of your observation with regards to southern divorce rates.
It is precisely the Tradition of SS Basil and John that I am speaking of. There is no doubt that they would have opposed homosexuality and abortion as sins on grounds of revealed truth, and not out of social conservatism. Similarly there would have been nothing conservative about their view that those who wallow in private plenty in the midst of widespread penury do so at the risk of their immortal souls.
Where Hilarion thinks he can make common cause with Rome is not in defence of social conservatism, but in resistance to intolerant secularism which appears determined to drive Tradition, its embodying institutions, and its awkward teachings (on matters like sexual ethics or universal respect for human dignity) from the public sphere.
But the problem is that “tradition” is conflated with Tradition by both the general public and those who seem to defend Tradition.
It seems that those defending Tradition have remained quite silent, ( oh, there’s been encyclicals aplenty by Popes and Patriarchs on the economy but very little true condemnation, ( when was the last time someone was excommunicated for being greedy?)), about economics and social issues but when the topic of sexuality, in all its very messy forms, comes up then the defenders come out with guns blazing, so to speak.
People notice and wonder at this, obviously. It’s obviously far easier to condemn sexual acts between consenting adults, ( sexual acts towards children are another matter- my wife worked for 25 years in social work dealing with physically and sexually abused children so I know the difference between that and private acts of adults), than it is to condemn the predatory economic acts of the very, and not so very rich, towards the poor.
People know the difference and wonder.
You don’t get excommunicated for being greedy, but for teaching that greed is not a sin. If we got excommunicated just for sinning, there wouldn’t be anyone on either side of the communion rail. :-)
Well, in a way, sinning is excommunicating oneself until there’s repentance and confession. That’s technical, of course.
But, seriously, there has been little examination of economics from a theological pewrspective for quite a while.
I believe Pesch, who was a theologian in the early 1900′s in the U.S. offered a critique of U.S. capitalism and his writings did inspire quite a bit of the New Deal.
Lonergan, of Insight fame, wrote on economics. His writings on the topic were never published in his lifetime. They are now being published. His economic theory is quite different from the mainstream.
Mar Osthathios, of India, wrote a little text, The Theology of a Classless Society, where he argues the Trinity should be the template for economics and politics.
Boff, of liberation theology fame, also wrote a work on the Trinity and Society.
But these are quite isolated voices.
Totally off-topic but related to previous posts: just saw this via Twitter:
http://www.ncregister.com/register_exclusives/like-abraham-called-from-her-homeland?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NCRegisterDailyBlog+%2540The+Daily+Register%2541&utm_content=Twitter#When:16:00:04Z
Shows that West-to-East is not the only direction in which conversions (or reconciliations ;-)) go…not by a long shot.
Not posted as triumphalism, not in the least; chacun a son gout…but, let’s face it, some people (gasp!!) are actually attracted to Latin praxis. Diversity — what a concept, eh?
If I can figure out which thread this post actually belongs in, I will move it there. (Far too braindead to figure it out now.)
Evagrius, you gave yourself away – you’re a commie! A Red! A nut case! You’ll be right at home in Cuba.
Well, I do have a sympathy for liberation theology, even in the form that used Marxist language, ( after all, even “capitalists” use “capitalism” as a description of the socio-economic system they espouse), but I really do enjoy reading Indian Orthodox writers such as Mar Osthatios and Mar Gregorios who write from a non-”Western” perspective that often illuminates neglected topics.
In my opinion, the “dividing line” between Christians is more on how Christians view globalization/ economics/ technology/ economics than anything else. However, that’s not “sexy” for both the “liberal” and “traditionalists” since it involves money.
Matthew, lay off the ad hominem stuff or you’ll be put on moderation.
http://eirenikon.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/comment-policy/
http://eirenikon.wordpress.com/2009/12/08/reminder/
Hmm, I had assumed that Matthew was gracing us with some parodic wit that I actually found amusing. If it turns out to have been self-parody…. :-)
I agree with Michael below.
Accusing someone of being a commie these days is almost a compliment but it is ageist nevertheless. :)
Dear Friends of the blog,
I know this is way off topic, but I’m requesting prayers. God willing I will be ordained to the order of deacon this Friday and priest on Saturday. Please remember me.
In Christ,
Subdeacon Joseph
Subdeacon Joseph- I think you’ll make a fine deacon given the knowledge and wisdom you’ve displayed here.
God grant you grace and joy and fulfillment in your new vocation, ( if that be the correct erm).
Axios! He is worthy! Congratulations, Subdeacon!
I have no doubt you will prove to be an outstanding priest, and look forward to your changing your byline to “Fr. Joseph.” ;-)
Axios! Prayers! And please remember us also!
Just noticing: how often do all of us agree on something here? Thanks, soon to be Fr. Joseph for being the reason for bringing unity here!
Subdeacon Joseph
Axios! And ad multos annos! I will remember you at the altar on Friday and Saturday/
Be assured of my prayers, Subdeacon Joseph!
What evagrius and Fr. Paul said!
Thanks everyone. I will remember all of you when I serve my first proskomedia.
Sorry to come down earth to take up once more less happy matters than Subdeacon Joseph’s ordination, but I would like to add a comment to the exchange here. I am not a moral theologian and have no intention of getting involved in a spat between “liberals”and “conservatives”or “traditionalists”or whatever on the subjects evoked above. I would like to say that I consider these labels as hugely harmful when they are used as blanket excuses for refusing to listen to the other and disqualifying his arguments in advance, and I think that poor Evagrius has been rather a victim of such a procedure above. What worries me even more – and this is the real point which provokes me to comment – is that one often has the impression that sexual ethics are the articulus stantis aut cadentis ecclesiae and that it is one’s stance on these questions – rather than the contents of the historic Creeds – which have become the only tests of orthodoxy in which people are interested. That is cdertainly true as far as the media are concerned, and I am a little disconcerted to find many Christians following their lead.
In my opinion, whereas Bishop Alfeyev is right in identifying a fault line which crosses the Christian Churches, the vital point at issue is whether Christianity is about God as man’s supernatural end, and the supernatural means which God has provided to reach this end, or about man as an end in himself, who has only to claim heaven as a human right (if it exists at all), and who needs Christianity only as an optional means for emotional fullfillment on earth. It is to the credit of Orthodoxy that the latter tendancy – while very widespread in the general population of Orthodox countries – receives much less encouragement from the ecclesiastical hierarchy than is the case in other Churches and ecclesial communities.
There is, of course, a large body of Catholic teaching over the last two centuries that amounts to a stinging critique of laissez-faire capitalism and a vigorous principled defence of labour rights, so I assume that Evagrius is alluding to a lack of such on the Orthodox side.
There is no denying, however, that, beyond the strictly formal content of its teaching, the insitutional Church has traditionally identified politically more with the powers-that-be than with the downtrodden. The role this class/cultural bias has played in delegitimizing Christianity in Europe and among American “liberals” should not be underestimated. The tendency of social conservatives to want to appropriate exclusively to themselves in a highly selective and edited way Christian doctrinal identity and justification just perpetuates the problem.
The tendency of social conservatives to want to appropriate exclusively to themselves in a highly selective and edited way Christian doctrinal identity and justification just perpetuates the problem.
There is much truth in this. :) That’s what makes it so tough on American Catholics when it comes time to vote: We may agree with the SoCons re abortion and marriage, but we may also have less harsh views than they do regarding, say, immigration policy.
However, personally, I feel that the pro-life issue trumps all others today. The GOP may have a so-so record on pro-life issues, but the Dems are the Party of Death; abortion is their sacrament…so, ultimately, it’s no contest.
But I digress.
Regarding your main point: Unbridled laissez-faire capitalism certainly has its evils, which the Church has consistently opposed. But does anyone seriously believe that unbridled laissez-faire capitalism is the biggest moral threat facing us today? Where does it even exist?
Consumerism and materialism…sure. But laissez-faire capitalism? In this day and age?
I ask this sincerely…as someone who works for a huge corporation and believes said corporation’s CEO is a minion of the antichrist. ;) Sure, corporate greed stinks. But butchering millions of babies stinks a lot more.
IMHO, there are far worse moral threats facing us today than unbridled capitalism a la the Gilded Age. The SoCons have identified these threats. And so has Met. Hilarion.
Again, jes’ my deux centimes’ worth…
…who needs Christianity only as an optional means for emotional fullfillment on earth…
Why, Father Paul, you sound as if you’re referring somewhat obliquely to Joel Osteen and crew. :-) Is the Prosperity Gospel big over there in Greece, too?
God bless,
Diane
P.S. I do think there was some piling-on going on WRT poor evagrius. But I also do disagree that sexual ethics are not crucially important. I believe that issues like abortion and the definition of marriage are absolutely vital. I think Met. Hilarion is spot-on WRT this.
I believe the sort of conservative Christians Met. Hilarion alludes to would be precisely those who also (above all) take seriously “God as man’s supernatural end.” Classic, historic orthodox Christianity embraces both orthodox Faith and orthodox Morals. I dunno…just my two cents’ worth. Intuitively, I just feel that Met. Hilarion is onto something here.
Diane,
It’s not so much a matter of who to vote for, but rather what values to defend with determination and consistency. Given the voting choices available to you, I am glad not to be an American.
The Republican party also qualifies as a “party of death.” It embraces the gun culture that leads to carnage on your streets and even in your schools; it shills for capital punishment, its embroiled the American people in a completely unnecessary war of choice; it lacks any realistic policy with respect to abortion other than not to fund it, while pushing the completely unrealistic prospect of a constitutional amendment to ban it (which until it ever passes conveniently leaves Republicans legislators off the hook). It seems to me that there are lots of evils to choose between in both parties. It’s an open question whether more babies die under Democratic than under Republican rule in Washington.
Laissez-faire capitalism doesn’t have to be economy-wide to be a problem. History teaches that if you deregulate even a single factory let alone a specific industry, and leave it exempt from outside scrutiny or oversight, you get what you get in terms of fraud, monopolistic behaviour, pollution, and contempt for health and labour standards. This is not an argument for a command economy, merely an observation that there is no one-to-one relationship between private interest and the common good.
Also keep in mind that while most modern corporations are good corporate citizens at home, they are not beyond exploiting weaker legal regimes and restrictions in developing countries.
On all these issues the Church has some very challenging things to say to which the traditional right pays lip-service if it pays any attention at all.