"Now, we shall find that virtue is one, but that vice has several forms."
Plato -Republic
C.S. Lewis discusses the oneness of virtue further in his book the Problem of Pain. He points to the virtues as being one and together, quoting Plato above, and discussing this further on his own merits.
We, therefore, cannot divide a particular virtue from the whole; otherwise, we have destroyed the whole fabric and are working on something else. In a word, we have destroyed virtue and choosen an inferior path.
the seven virtues are as follows, the top four being cardinal virtues and the other three theological virtues:
Temperance
Prudence
Fortitude
Justice
Faith
Hope
Love (Charity)
If one of these seven are ommitted and say that six will be enough, then the mark has been missed! One may think themselves virtuous by practicing 5 out of 7 or 6 out of 7, but they are only serving the temporal and the ego. The seven virtues work together as one and cannot be practiced semper fidelis for very long if lacking Fortitude. Or practice virtue fairly if lacking Justice. Or practice virtue with economia [Spirit of the law rather than the letter] without Charity.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Friday, October 28, 2011
Museums of proof or museums of doubt?
The other day someone mentioned seeing the museum of creation shown on a website and someone quipped back that it seemed it was a very small place and, that the museum of Evolution had far more evidence going for it and that the difference was quite striking and obvious.
I will say that the museum of creation cannot be stored in any earthly store. The museum of creation would have to start with a display of every planet ever created in the cosmos, the stars, the galaxies and then finally the earth and all its life… and then not to be outdone, the very micro-biology and irreducible complexity of human and animal cells. What place on earth can hold such a cast array of details? Even getting tiers deeper into the make-up of things, we get into the chain of DNA and the four letter code that creates life. Were these written or did they happen by chance? Logical necessity posits that chance cannot be the cause of order and intelligence and that leaves only one conclusion and not an opinion. God exists! And His Museum is visible 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. If we postulate that nothing can create something, we are not postulating reason but nonsense. This is a lack of logic and lack of reason. Cause and consequence work like this: a consequence has to have a cause equal to or greater than itself. Since something does not equal nothing, it follows that nothing cannot create something.
I will say that the museum of creation cannot be stored in any earthly store. The museum of creation would have to start with a display of every planet ever created in the cosmos, the stars, the galaxies and then finally the earth and all its life… and then not to be outdone, the very micro-biology and irreducible complexity of human and animal cells. What place on earth can hold such a cast array of details? Even getting tiers deeper into the make-up of things, we get into the chain of DNA and the four letter code that creates life. Were these written or did they happen by chance? Logical necessity posits that chance cannot be the cause of order and intelligence and that leaves only one conclusion and not an opinion. God exists! And His Museum is visible 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. If we postulate that nothing can create something, we are not postulating reason but nonsense. This is a lack of logic and lack of reason. Cause and consequence work like this: a consequence has to have a cause equal to or greater than itself. Since something does not equal nothing, it follows that nothing cannot create something.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Angels
By Nabil Semaan
FEAST OF THE ARCHANGELS
On the 8th of November, the Orthodox Church celebrates the Feast of Synaxis of the Archangels Michael and Gabriel and the rest of the archangels. The word synaxis means the gathering of believers to celebrate a feast, or to make a remembrance of a saint. This feast also has a special meaning; it is the gathering of the humans with the angels, "their union, their gathering and standing in fear in front of the Creator."(1) Because of the fall of the devil and his angels, this feast is the celebration of the "sobriety and unity" of the rest of the angelic powers who stayed loyal to God. "We celebrate also the contribution of the angels and archangels and their help and support in the war against the dark powers and the devil."(2)
We celebrate this feast of unity between angels and humans, and this unity is not in the "life to come" at the end of times — it starts in this world: the angels direct and guard the sons of God who are struggling in this world; they are glad with every sinner returning to God; they convey prayers to God's throne. Hence, there is a common liturgical work between angels and humans. The angels offer a non-stop continuous doxology and mental worship with humans to God. They offer to the Holy Trinity the Trisagion: "With these holy powers, we sinners say the trisagion, 'Holy, Holy, Holy Lord of Sabaoth, the heavens and earth are filled with Thy glory, hosanna in the highest, blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord, hosanna in the highest'." They gather around the holy altar with the priest to serve with him the Liturgy.
So there is only one celebration, one feast common between humans and angels: "Angels with humans celebrate together, earthly with heavenly speak."(3) "Through Thy Cross Christ our God, the angels and humans become one church, heaven and earth are united, O Lord glory to Thee."(4) The angels are members of the Church, the body of Christ. The 8th of November is also a specific feast of Archangel Michael, going back in history in celebrating the memory of his church in Arkadia in Constantinople.
WORK OF ANGELS
From the book of Tobiah in the Old Testament, the Archangel Raphael reveals himself to Tobiah by saying: "I will not hide from you the mystery, when you were praying, you and Sarah, I was lifting your prayers to the Holy One … and now God sent me to heal your wounds … I am Raphael, one of the seven angels who lift the prayers of the saints and serve the Throne of the Holy One" (Tobiah 12:12-15). In this passage there is a description of the work of angels, which is mainly to lift the prayers of the saints and help God, and they are sent by God to humans to help them.
"And of the angels he saith, whom maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire" (Hebrew 1:7).
The word angelos is Greek and means "who is sent" or "messenger." This name is given to them by God because of the function of serving the human race to be saved: "Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation" (Hebrews 1:14).
CREATION OF ANGELS
The Holy Scriptures do not mention exactly when the angels were created, but the Church in its holy tradition, through the writings of its holy fathers, chiefly St. John of Damascus, St. John Cassian, St. Basil the Great, St. Gregory the Theologian, St. Ambrose of Milan, St. Dimitri Rostov, St. Dionysios the Areopagite - all of them believe that they were created from "nothing" prior to the sensible material world and prior to humans. The angels were created by God to glorify Him and contemplate Him, "when the stars were created, all my angels were glorifying me and praising me" (Job 38:7). It is the Logos of God, Who created them because, "for by Him were all things created, that are in heavens, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities or powers, all things were created by Him and for Him" (Colossians 1:16).
DIVISION OF ANGELS(5)
According to St. Dionysios the Areopagite, the angels are divided into three ranks; each rank is also divided into three groups. The first rank is made up of the Seraphim, the Cherubim and Thrones. The second rank is made up of Dominions, Hosts and Powers. Finally, the third rank is made up of Principalities, Archangels and Angels. According to St. John of Damascus, each group (and rank) differs from the others in hierarchy and splendour, depending on their closeness to God.(6)
The Seraphim are the highest rank, the closest to God. Seraphim is a Hebrew word meaning "fire," and it symbolizes the heat of their love of God. The Seraphim have six wings: "I saw the Lord sitting on a throne high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple, above it stood the seraphim: each one had six wings; with two he covered his face, with two he covered his feet, and with two he did fly, and one cried unto another, and said: 'Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of Hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory'" (Isaiah 6:1-3).
Below the Seraphim directly there are the wise Cherubim, who are the "many-eyes" due to their unceasing contemplation (theoria) of God. The word Cherubim is Hebrew and means "abundance of wisdom;" it symbolizes perfection in knowledge of God. St. John of Damascus says that the food of angels is the contemplation of God.(7)
Directly behind the Cherubim comes the Thrones, and they are the angels on whom God rests, as their name indicates.
All these angels stand around God's throne in fear and great respect of His glory; they contemplate God and know His "energy" and not his "essence" (ousia), since they are creatures. They are in a continuous attraction (eros) and "ecstasy" to God, to the extent that they forget themselves. Every rank (and group) of angels, according to its closeness to God, partakes of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of wisdom and discernment, the Spirit of power and fear of God. Furthermore, their communion with the Holy Spirit is continuous. The angels do not have the feeling of jealousy and competition between them; they all have one will, which is to serve God; the angels of the lower ranks obey in love the angels of the higher ranks as if in obedience to God.
ARCHANGELS
The angels are also a "heavenly army." Their leader and head is Archangel Michael, who is one of the seven spirits in front of God's throne. "O Holy Archangel Michael glorified, God has placed you head of their Hosts, Powers, Angels and Archangels, Dominions, and Principalities" (Exapostolarion of the feast).
The archangels, or commanders of all the angels, are seven in number. According to St. Dimitri Rostov, they are Seraphim, the closest to God. They are: Michael (Missa-iil in Hebrew), which means "Who is like God"; Gabriel (Jibra-iil in Hebrew), which means "God's power"; Raphael (Roupha-iil in Hebrew), which means "God's mercy"; Selaphiel (Salaata-iil in Hebrew), which means "prayer to God"; Uriel (Oura-iil in Hebrew), which means "God's light"; Jegudiel (Yagoud-iil in Hebrew), which means "God's glory," and Barachiel (Baraki-iil), which means "God's blessing."(8)
NATURE OF ANGELS
According to St. Dionysios the Areopagite, the angels were created as humans in the "image and likeness" of God. According to the "image" because they have an intellect (mind) that generates thoughts (ideas), and to the "likeness" because the angels are directed and attracted toward God.(9) St. John of Damascus says they are creatures limited in space and time; they have their own specific external appearance. Compared to humans, they are bodiless due to the human's "heavy body," but compared to God they have a body. "We speak about the angels as bodiless and immaterial compared to us, but in fact everything is heavy and material compared to God, to Whom nobody can be compared, because only the Divine is non-material and bodiless."(10) He continues to say that, "God created the angels according to His own image and He created them weightless and with heat" in order to be attracted to Him and to serve Him. He adds: "The angel is always in motion, he has free will, gifted with an immortal nature. This nature is intellectual, thus he has a free changing will."(11) The angels do not need a tongue or ears to communicate; they interchange thoughts, and their food is theoria.
It is also important to note that St. John of Damascus emphasizes that, "The angels are not subject to repentance because they do not have a heavy body, while humans can repent because they have a body, though it is weak." And he continues to say, "The angels are higher than humans because they are bodiless and free from the passions of the body, but they are not free from other passions because only God has absolute impassibility."(12)
St. Macarius the Great says that, "The angels have a light body and an external appearance of humans,"(13) and St. John of Damascus confirms this in saying that, "Angels take different forms when they appear to humans to convey to them the divine mysteries … if it is God's will to an angel to appear to one of the saints, the appearance he takes differs and depends on the capacity of the person to see."(14) St. Ignatius Brianchaninov confirms that "our incapability to see angels is due to our fallen human nature. Adam and Eve before the fall were participating with the angels in giving glory to God, and they were living with them … That is why the saints look forward to 'be like angels of God in the heavens' (Matthew 22:30), and the monastic rank is called an equal to the angelic rank."(15)
Finally, the place or "home" of angels is heaven, "in the third heaven where the archangels stand before the throne of God, surrounded by a countless heavenly army" (Isaiah 6; Revelation 4:5).
THE FALL OF ANGELS(16)
First of all, this event happened before the fall of man. The cause of the fall of some angels is that they rebelled against God. Their leader was one of the most beautiful Cherubim; he was gifted much more than the others in divine grace, according to the prophet Isaiah: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, 'I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God, I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north, I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High.' Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit" (Isaiah 14:12-15).
The prophet Ezekiel symbolizes the king of Tyre with the fallen Cherubim: "Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty, thou hast been in Eden the garden of God … Thou was perfect in thy ways from the day that thou has been created until iniquity was found in thee … therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God, and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire … I will cast thee to the ground" (Ezekiel 28:12-18). This fall was as fast as the lightning described by the Lord Jesus Himself in the Gospel of St. Luke: "I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven" (Luke 10:18).
This fallen Cherubim attracted to him a number of angels of different ranks, some from the higher ranks, and he took them with him. They were expelled from paradise, so they wandered on earth. The Archangel Michael resisted the devil rebeller and his companions, and a war happened in heaven. "Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought with his angels, and prevailed not; neither was their place found anymore in heaven" (Revelation 12:7-8). As St. Ignatius Brianchaninov describes it, "The devil carried with him one third of the angels and threw them on earth." Then, the Archangel Michael cried in a loud voice, "let us attend" in order not to fall with the devil and his angels. He did not dare to judge the devil, he just demanded attention and vigil once, and from that time the relation between the angels loyal to God got stronger by grace and they were not subject to evil. From that time, there is a strong war between the angels loyal to God and the devil and his angels. All the gifts that were for the demons were turned to evil. The devil was called "Satan," a Hebrew word meaning "enemy," which parallels the Greek word diabolis, which means "divider." The word demon is Greek and means "the fallen angel."
St. Ignatius Brianchaninov describes that, before the fall of Adam, the devil was wandering the sky having within him a feeling of great emptiness. God allowed him by His great compassion and mercy to enter the paradise of Eden in order to contemplate its beauty and give him a chance to repent. But he was jealous of Adam and Eve, and tried with all his force to cast them out of paradise, and succeeded in casting Adam and Eve out of paradise and even bringing them under his control. In that way the devil lost every hope of coming back to God.
From the instance of the fall of man, there is a great conflict within the human person between the angels of light and angels of darkness. The angels of light were sent by God to help the humans even from the era of the Old Testament. We see the Archangel Gabriel in charge of Israel when they left Egypt, Archangel Raphael helping Tobit, Michael sent to help Joshua the son of Nun, and arguing with the devil regarding the body of Moses. However, the devil was always trying to make humans sin, but without knowing he is doing the will of God, because every evil ends always with goodness. The devil, then, became an instrument of God's trial to men.
GLADNESS OF ANGELS(17)
"Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation" (Hebrew 1:14). St. John Chrysostom comments on this verse by saying, "Look how God loves man so that He created holy creatures to serve the man created according to His image." Humans, although heavier than angels by their body and in a state of sin, death and corruption, when they are deified become higher than the angels in divinity and holiness. "What is man, that thou art mindful of him? And the son of man, that thou visited him? For thou hast made him a little lower than angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour" (Psalm 8:5-7). The example of this is the Theotokos, the Mother of God, who became "more honorable than the cherubim and beyond compare more glorious than the seraphim." The devil is jealous of the rank man took after the incarnation.
St. Gregory of Nyssa says, "Angels kneel in front of every man who is born again and celebrate the return of men to the original grace through the Newborn, because they are glad for every man who is saved from sin. This gladness of angels will not be complete until the second coming of Christ, for which the angels are waiting."
THE GUARDIAN ANGEL(18)
"For He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways" (Psalm 90:11). The major work of angels is to praise God, but their partial work is to guard humans and the universe that surrounds humans. The Holy Fathers mention many cases in the Old and New Testaments about angels helping humans. For example, when St. Peter was delivered from prison, it was said: "This is his angel" (Acts 12:15).
St. John Chrysostom says that "for every one of us has his angel;" St. Basil the Great adds, "Beside every believer in God, sits his angel, so repent." Finally the angel of prayer is the angel who helps us to pray. St. Clement of Alexandria says, "Even when a person prays alone, he is accompanied by angels." Tertullian commands the Christian not to sit when he prays in respect for the angel of prayer standing beside him. Archangel Raphael is one of the seven angels who "carry the prayers of the saints to God" (Tobiah 12:15). Origen writes, "Angels gather close to the person praying to be united to his prayer. Moreover, each angel contemplates the face of the Father in Heaven and prays with us and works for us for all our needs."
ROLE OF ANGELS IN OUR SPIRITUAL LIFE
The angels have a major role in the spiritual life of each person. First of all, they convey all the spiritual gifts to the person and this according to their rank and depending on the person's spiritual stage: purification, illumination or deification. "The more we purify ourselves, the more we know God, and the more we love Him" (St. Gregory the Theologian). The spiritual person resembles the angels, as St. Gregory of Nyssa says: "The spiritual life allows the spirit to enter the world of angels." During the purification stage, "We need an angel to help us overcome our passions, since we are not perfect," according to Origen. In the illumination stage, the soul enters the angelic world, to attain finally a life of union with God.
The angels contemplate how the soul moves out of the darkness of sin to a state of illumination and grace and passes them over to the glory that the Logos granted to humanity only in His union with human nature. The angels wait for a deified person to be united to his prayer and be lifted up more towards God. That is why, "The angels wait for the death of martyrs to lead their souls to its place," says St. Gregory of Nyssa, and "they surround the martyrs on their way to God and they accompany them to the holy of holies where the Holy Trinity is in the middle of Cherubim and Seraphim," confirms St. John Chrysostom.
CONCLUSION
What prohibits us from living like angels, if the angelic life is granted for every true sincere faithful member of the Church? Many people ask why they cannot see angels, and why the angels do not help them, but they do not question if they are really free from the passions that darken the soul and the heart. The main goal is to free ourselves from passions. We must ask of God for an angel of peace, who will direct and protect our life and spirit and body.
Through the intercessions of our Holy Angels, may our God enlighten us and save us. Amen.
FOOTNOTES
1. Synaxarion
2. Ibid.
3. Liturgy of the Feast of Archangels
4. Troparion of Wednesday Orthros
5. St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, "Homily on Angels," Periodical No. 14, Archangel Michael Monastery, Lebanon. All quotations of the Holy Fathers from St. Ignatius are without references.
6. St. John of Damascus, "Homily on angels and demons," Periodical No. 2, Archangel Michael Monastery, Lebanon.
7. Ibid.
8. St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, "Homily on Angels," Periodical No. 14, Archangel Michael Monastery, Lebanon.
9. Ibid.
10. St. John of Damascus, "Homily on angels and demons," Periodical No. 2, Archangel Michael Monastery, Lebanon.
11. Ibid.
12. Ibid.
13. St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, "Homily on Angels," Periodical No. 14, Archangel Michael Monastery, Lebanon.
14. St. John of Damascus, "Homily on angels and demons," Periodical No. 2, Archangel Michael Monastery, Lebanon.
15. St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, "Homily on Angels," Periodical No. 14, Archangel Michael Monastery, Lebanon.
16. Ibid.
17. Taken from "Les anges et leur mission, d'apres les peres de l'Eglise," Chevetogne, Jean Danielou; Periodical No. 8, Archangel Monastery, Lebanon.
18. Periodical No. 7, Archangel Michael Monastery, Lebanon.
October 2003, (Vol. 47 No. 8) The Word, Pittsburgh, PA 15241
FEAST OF THE ARCHANGELS
On the 8th of November, the Orthodox Church celebrates the Feast of Synaxis of the Archangels Michael and Gabriel and the rest of the archangels. The word synaxis means the gathering of believers to celebrate a feast, or to make a remembrance of a saint. This feast also has a special meaning; it is the gathering of the humans with the angels, "their union, their gathering and standing in fear in front of the Creator."(1) Because of the fall of the devil and his angels, this feast is the celebration of the "sobriety and unity" of the rest of the angelic powers who stayed loyal to God. "We celebrate also the contribution of the angels and archangels and their help and support in the war against the dark powers and the devil."(2)
We celebrate this feast of unity between angels and humans, and this unity is not in the "life to come" at the end of times — it starts in this world: the angels direct and guard the sons of God who are struggling in this world; they are glad with every sinner returning to God; they convey prayers to God's throne. Hence, there is a common liturgical work between angels and humans. The angels offer a non-stop continuous doxology and mental worship with humans to God. They offer to the Holy Trinity the Trisagion: "With these holy powers, we sinners say the trisagion, 'Holy, Holy, Holy Lord of Sabaoth, the heavens and earth are filled with Thy glory, hosanna in the highest, blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord, hosanna in the highest'." They gather around the holy altar with the priest to serve with him the Liturgy.
So there is only one celebration, one feast common between humans and angels: "Angels with humans celebrate together, earthly with heavenly speak."(3) "Through Thy Cross Christ our God, the angels and humans become one church, heaven and earth are united, O Lord glory to Thee."(4) The angels are members of the Church, the body of Christ. The 8th of November is also a specific feast of Archangel Michael, going back in history in celebrating the memory of his church in Arkadia in Constantinople.
WORK OF ANGELS
From the book of Tobiah in the Old Testament, the Archangel Raphael reveals himself to Tobiah by saying: "I will not hide from you the mystery, when you were praying, you and Sarah, I was lifting your prayers to the Holy One … and now God sent me to heal your wounds … I am Raphael, one of the seven angels who lift the prayers of the saints and serve the Throne of the Holy One" (Tobiah 12:12-15). In this passage there is a description of the work of angels, which is mainly to lift the prayers of the saints and help God, and they are sent by God to humans to help them.
"And of the angels he saith, whom maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire" (Hebrew 1:7).
The word angelos is Greek and means "who is sent" or "messenger." This name is given to them by God because of the function of serving the human race to be saved: "Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation" (Hebrews 1:14).
CREATION OF ANGELS
The Holy Scriptures do not mention exactly when the angels were created, but the Church in its holy tradition, through the writings of its holy fathers, chiefly St. John of Damascus, St. John Cassian, St. Basil the Great, St. Gregory the Theologian, St. Ambrose of Milan, St. Dimitri Rostov, St. Dionysios the Areopagite - all of them believe that they were created from "nothing" prior to the sensible material world and prior to humans. The angels were created by God to glorify Him and contemplate Him, "when the stars were created, all my angels were glorifying me and praising me" (Job 38:7). It is the Logos of God, Who created them because, "for by Him were all things created, that are in heavens, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities or powers, all things were created by Him and for Him" (Colossians 1:16).
DIVISION OF ANGELS(5)
According to St. Dionysios the Areopagite, the angels are divided into three ranks; each rank is also divided into three groups. The first rank is made up of the Seraphim, the Cherubim and Thrones. The second rank is made up of Dominions, Hosts and Powers. Finally, the third rank is made up of Principalities, Archangels and Angels. According to St. John of Damascus, each group (and rank) differs from the others in hierarchy and splendour, depending on their closeness to God.(6)
The Seraphim are the highest rank, the closest to God. Seraphim is a Hebrew word meaning "fire," and it symbolizes the heat of their love of God. The Seraphim have six wings: "I saw the Lord sitting on a throne high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple, above it stood the seraphim: each one had six wings; with two he covered his face, with two he covered his feet, and with two he did fly, and one cried unto another, and said: 'Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of Hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory'" (Isaiah 6:1-3).
Below the Seraphim directly there are the wise Cherubim, who are the "many-eyes" due to their unceasing contemplation (theoria) of God. The word Cherubim is Hebrew and means "abundance of wisdom;" it symbolizes perfection in knowledge of God. St. John of Damascus says that the food of angels is the contemplation of God.(7)
Directly behind the Cherubim comes the Thrones, and they are the angels on whom God rests, as their name indicates.
All these angels stand around God's throne in fear and great respect of His glory; they contemplate God and know His "energy" and not his "essence" (ousia), since they are creatures. They are in a continuous attraction (eros) and "ecstasy" to God, to the extent that they forget themselves. Every rank (and group) of angels, according to its closeness to God, partakes of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of wisdom and discernment, the Spirit of power and fear of God. Furthermore, their communion with the Holy Spirit is continuous. The angels do not have the feeling of jealousy and competition between them; they all have one will, which is to serve God; the angels of the lower ranks obey in love the angels of the higher ranks as if in obedience to God.
ARCHANGELS
The angels are also a "heavenly army." Their leader and head is Archangel Michael, who is one of the seven spirits in front of God's throne. "O Holy Archangel Michael glorified, God has placed you head of their Hosts, Powers, Angels and Archangels, Dominions, and Principalities" (Exapostolarion of the feast).
The archangels, or commanders of all the angels, are seven in number. According to St. Dimitri Rostov, they are Seraphim, the closest to God. They are: Michael (Missa-iil in Hebrew), which means "Who is like God"; Gabriel (Jibra-iil in Hebrew), which means "God's power"; Raphael (Roupha-iil in Hebrew), which means "God's mercy"; Selaphiel (Salaata-iil in Hebrew), which means "prayer to God"; Uriel (Oura-iil in Hebrew), which means "God's light"; Jegudiel (Yagoud-iil in Hebrew), which means "God's glory," and Barachiel (Baraki-iil), which means "God's blessing."(8)
NATURE OF ANGELS
According to St. Dionysios the Areopagite, the angels were created as humans in the "image and likeness" of God. According to the "image" because they have an intellect (mind) that generates thoughts (ideas), and to the "likeness" because the angels are directed and attracted toward God.(9) St. John of Damascus says they are creatures limited in space and time; they have their own specific external appearance. Compared to humans, they are bodiless due to the human's "heavy body," but compared to God they have a body. "We speak about the angels as bodiless and immaterial compared to us, but in fact everything is heavy and material compared to God, to Whom nobody can be compared, because only the Divine is non-material and bodiless."(10) He continues to say that, "God created the angels according to His own image and He created them weightless and with heat" in order to be attracted to Him and to serve Him. He adds: "The angel is always in motion, he has free will, gifted with an immortal nature. This nature is intellectual, thus he has a free changing will."(11) The angels do not need a tongue or ears to communicate; they interchange thoughts, and their food is theoria.
It is also important to note that St. John of Damascus emphasizes that, "The angels are not subject to repentance because they do not have a heavy body, while humans can repent because they have a body, though it is weak." And he continues to say, "The angels are higher than humans because they are bodiless and free from the passions of the body, but they are not free from other passions because only God has absolute impassibility."(12)
St. Macarius the Great says that, "The angels have a light body and an external appearance of humans,"(13) and St. John of Damascus confirms this in saying that, "Angels take different forms when they appear to humans to convey to them the divine mysteries … if it is God's will to an angel to appear to one of the saints, the appearance he takes differs and depends on the capacity of the person to see."(14) St. Ignatius Brianchaninov confirms that "our incapability to see angels is due to our fallen human nature. Adam and Eve before the fall were participating with the angels in giving glory to God, and they were living with them … That is why the saints look forward to 'be like angels of God in the heavens' (Matthew 22:30), and the monastic rank is called an equal to the angelic rank."(15)
Finally, the place or "home" of angels is heaven, "in the third heaven where the archangels stand before the throne of God, surrounded by a countless heavenly army" (Isaiah 6; Revelation 4:5).
THE FALL OF ANGELS(16)
First of all, this event happened before the fall of man. The cause of the fall of some angels is that they rebelled against God. Their leader was one of the most beautiful Cherubim; he was gifted much more than the others in divine grace, according to the prophet Isaiah: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, 'I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God, I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north, I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High.' Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit" (Isaiah 14:12-15).
The prophet Ezekiel symbolizes the king of Tyre with the fallen Cherubim: "Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty, thou hast been in Eden the garden of God … Thou was perfect in thy ways from the day that thou has been created until iniquity was found in thee … therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God, and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire … I will cast thee to the ground" (Ezekiel 28:12-18). This fall was as fast as the lightning described by the Lord Jesus Himself in the Gospel of St. Luke: "I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven" (Luke 10:18).
This fallen Cherubim attracted to him a number of angels of different ranks, some from the higher ranks, and he took them with him. They were expelled from paradise, so they wandered on earth. The Archangel Michael resisted the devil rebeller and his companions, and a war happened in heaven. "Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought with his angels, and prevailed not; neither was their place found anymore in heaven" (Revelation 12:7-8). As St. Ignatius Brianchaninov describes it, "The devil carried with him one third of the angels and threw them on earth." Then, the Archangel Michael cried in a loud voice, "let us attend" in order not to fall with the devil and his angels. He did not dare to judge the devil, he just demanded attention and vigil once, and from that time the relation between the angels loyal to God got stronger by grace and they were not subject to evil. From that time, there is a strong war between the angels loyal to God and the devil and his angels. All the gifts that were for the demons were turned to evil. The devil was called "Satan," a Hebrew word meaning "enemy," which parallels the Greek word diabolis, which means "divider." The word demon is Greek and means "the fallen angel."
St. Ignatius Brianchaninov describes that, before the fall of Adam, the devil was wandering the sky having within him a feeling of great emptiness. God allowed him by His great compassion and mercy to enter the paradise of Eden in order to contemplate its beauty and give him a chance to repent. But he was jealous of Adam and Eve, and tried with all his force to cast them out of paradise, and succeeded in casting Adam and Eve out of paradise and even bringing them under his control. In that way the devil lost every hope of coming back to God.
From the instance of the fall of man, there is a great conflict within the human person between the angels of light and angels of darkness. The angels of light were sent by God to help the humans even from the era of the Old Testament. We see the Archangel Gabriel in charge of Israel when they left Egypt, Archangel Raphael helping Tobit, Michael sent to help Joshua the son of Nun, and arguing with the devil regarding the body of Moses. However, the devil was always trying to make humans sin, but without knowing he is doing the will of God, because every evil ends always with goodness. The devil, then, became an instrument of God's trial to men.
GLADNESS OF ANGELS(17)
"Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation" (Hebrew 1:14). St. John Chrysostom comments on this verse by saying, "Look how God loves man so that He created holy creatures to serve the man created according to His image." Humans, although heavier than angels by their body and in a state of sin, death and corruption, when they are deified become higher than the angels in divinity and holiness. "What is man, that thou art mindful of him? And the son of man, that thou visited him? For thou hast made him a little lower than angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour" (Psalm 8:5-7). The example of this is the Theotokos, the Mother of God, who became "more honorable than the cherubim and beyond compare more glorious than the seraphim." The devil is jealous of the rank man took after the incarnation.
St. Gregory of Nyssa says, "Angels kneel in front of every man who is born again and celebrate the return of men to the original grace through the Newborn, because they are glad for every man who is saved from sin. This gladness of angels will not be complete until the second coming of Christ, for which the angels are waiting."
THE GUARDIAN ANGEL(18)
"For He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways" (Psalm 90:11). The major work of angels is to praise God, but their partial work is to guard humans and the universe that surrounds humans. The Holy Fathers mention many cases in the Old and New Testaments about angels helping humans. For example, when St. Peter was delivered from prison, it was said: "This is his angel" (Acts 12:15).
St. John Chrysostom says that "for every one of us has his angel;" St. Basil the Great adds, "Beside every believer in God, sits his angel, so repent." Finally the angel of prayer is the angel who helps us to pray. St. Clement of Alexandria says, "Even when a person prays alone, he is accompanied by angels." Tertullian commands the Christian not to sit when he prays in respect for the angel of prayer standing beside him. Archangel Raphael is one of the seven angels who "carry the prayers of the saints to God" (Tobiah 12:15). Origen writes, "Angels gather close to the person praying to be united to his prayer. Moreover, each angel contemplates the face of the Father in Heaven and prays with us and works for us for all our needs."
ROLE OF ANGELS IN OUR SPIRITUAL LIFE
The angels have a major role in the spiritual life of each person. First of all, they convey all the spiritual gifts to the person and this according to their rank and depending on the person's spiritual stage: purification, illumination or deification. "The more we purify ourselves, the more we know God, and the more we love Him" (St. Gregory the Theologian). The spiritual person resembles the angels, as St. Gregory of Nyssa says: "The spiritual life allows the spirit to enter the world of angels." During the purification stage, "We need an angel to help us overcome our passions, since we are not perfect," according to Origen. In the illumination stage, the soul enters the angelic world, to attain finally a life of union with God.
The angels contemplate how the soul moves out of the darkness of sin to a state of illumination and grace and passes them over to the glory that the Logos granted to humanity only in His union with human nature. The angels wait for a deified person to be united to his prayer and be lifted up more towards God. That is why, "The angels wait for the death of martyrs to lead their souls to its place," says St. Gregory of Nyssa, and "they surround the martyrs on their way to God and they accompany them to the holy of holies where the Holy Trinity is in the middle of Cherubim and Seraphim," confirms St. John Chrysostom.
CONCLUSION
What prohibits us from living like angels, if the angelic life is granted for every true sincere faithful member of the Church? Many people ask why they cannot see angels, and why the angels do not help them, but they do not question if they are really free from the passions that darken the soul and the heart. The main goal is to free ourselves from passions. We must ask of God for an angel of peace, who will direct and protect our life and spirit and body.
Through the intercessions of our Holy Angels, may our God enlighten us and save us. Amen.
FOOTNOTES
1. Synaxarion
2. Ibid.
3. Liturgy of the Feast of Archangels
4. Troparion of Wednesday Orthros
5. St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, "Homily on Angels," Periodical No. 14, Archangel Michael Monastery, Lebanon. All quotations of the Holy Fathers from St. Ignatius are without references.
6. St. John of Damascus, "Homily on angels and demons," Periodical No. 2, Archangel Michael Monastery, Lebanon.
7. Ibid.
8. St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, "Homily on Angels," Periodical No. 14, Archangel Michael Monastery, Lebanon.
9. Ibid.
10. St. John of Damascus, "Homily on angels and demons," Periodical No. 2, Archangel Michael Monastery, Lebanon.
11. Ibid.
12. Ibid.
13. St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, "Homily on Angels," Periodical No. 14, Archangel Michael Monastery, Lebanon.
14. St. John of Damascus, "Homily on angels and demons," Periodical No. 2, Archangel Michael Monastery, Lebanon.
15. St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, "Homily on Angels," Periodical No. 14, Archangel Michael Monastery, Lebanon.
16. Ibid.
17. Taken from "Les anges et leur mission, d'apres les peres de l'Eglise," Chevetogne, Jean Danielou; Periodical No. 8, Archangel Monastery, Lebanon.
18. Periodical No. 7, Archangel Michael Monastery, Lebanon.
October 2003, (Vol. 47 No. 8) The Word, Pittsburgh, PA 15241
What about those who are not Christians?
Will the Non-Orthodox Be Saved?
By Metropolitan Philaret (+1985)
Question: “If the Orthodox faith is the only true faith, can Christians of other confessions be saved? May a person who has led a righteous life on earth be saved, while not being a Christian?”
Answer: “For He said to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that wills, nor of him that struggles, but of God who shows mercy” (Rom. 9:15–16). In the Orthodox Church we have the most direct and complete path of salvation indicated to us, and we are given the means by which a person may be purified and have a direct promise of salvation. In this sense St. Cyprian of Carthage says, “Outside the Church there is no salvation.” The Apostle Peter writes exclusively to Christians saying: “According as His divine power He has given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him that has called us to glory and virtue. Whereby are given unto us exceedingly great and precious promises: that by these you might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust” (2 Pet. 1:3).
And what should one say of those outside the Church, who do not belong to Her? Another apostle provides us with an idea: “For what have I to do with judging them that are without? You judge them that are within? But them that are without, God judges” (1 Cor. 5:12–13), having “mercy on whom He will have mercy” (Rom 9:18). The question, “Can the non-Orthodox, i.e. those who do not belong to Orthodoxy — the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church — be saved?” has become particularly painful and acute in our days. In attempting to answer this question, it is necessary, first of all, to recall that in His Gospel the Lord Jesus Christ Himself mentions but one state of the human soul that unfailingly leads to perdition — i.e. blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Matt. 12:1–32). The Holy Spirit is, above all, the Spirit of Truth, as the Savior loved to refer to Him. Accordingly, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is blasphemy against the Truth, conscious and persistent opposition to it. The same text makes it clear that even blasphemy against the Son of Man — i.e. the Lord Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God Himself, may be forgiven, as it may be uttered in error or in ignorance, and subsequently may be covered by conversion and repentance. (An example of such a converted and repentant blasphemer is the Apostle Paul. See Acts 26:11 and 1 Tim. 1:13.) If, however, a man opposes the Truth which he clearly apprehends by his reason and conscience, he becomes blind and commits spiritual suicide, for he thereby likens himself to the devil, who believes in God and dreads Him, yet hates, blasphemes, and opposes Him.
Thus, man's refusal to accept the Divine Truth and his opposition to it makes him a son of condemnation. Accordingly, in sending His disciples to preach, the Lord told them: “He that believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believes not shall be condemned” (Mk. 16:16), for the latter heard the Lord's Truth and was called upon to accept it, yet refused, thereby inheriting the condemnation of those who “believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness” (2 Thess. 2:12).
The Holy Orthodox Church is the repository of the divinely revealed Truth in all its fullness and fidelity to apostolic Tradition. Hence, he who leaves the Church, who intentionally and consciously falls away from it, joins the ranks of its opponents and becomes a renegade as regards apostolic Tradition. The Church dreadfully anathematized such renegades, in accordance with the words of the Savior Himself (Matt. 18:17) and of the Apostle Paul (Gal. 1:8–9), threatening them with eternal condemnation and calling them to return to the Orthodox fold.
It is self-evident, however, that sincere Christians who are Roman Catholics, or Lutherans, or members of other non-Orthodox confessions, cannot be termed renegades or heretics—i.e. those who knowingly pervert the truth. The Greek word for “heresy” is derived from the word for “choice” and inherently implies conscious, willful rejection or opposition to the Divine Truth manifest in the Orthodox Church. They have been born and raised and are living according to the creed which they have inherited, just as do the majority of you who are Orthodox. In their lives there has not been a moment of personal and conscious renunciation of Orthodoxy. The Lord, “who desires all men to be saved” (1 Tim. 2:4) and “who enlightens every man born into the world” (Jn. 1.43), undoubtedly is leading them also towards salvation in His own way.
An inquirer once asked St. Theophan the Recluse if the non- Orthodox would be saved. The blessed one replied, “You ask, will the non-Orthodox be saved? Why do you worry about them? They have a Savior who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your own sins.”
From Orthodox Life, Vol. 34, No. 6 (Nov.–Dec., 1984), pp. 33–36.
Other Quotes To Ponder:
St. Theophan the Recluse: "Why do you worry about them? They have a Savior, Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your sins.... I will tell you one thing, however: should you, being Orthodox, and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray Orthodoxy and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever."
Elder Nektary of Optina: One of Elder Nektary's spiritual children then inquired: "But what about the millions of Chinese, Indians, Turks and other non-Christians?" The elder replied:
"God desires not only that the nations be saved, but each individual soul. A simpl...e Indian, believing in his own way in the Creator and fulfilling His will as best he can, will be saved; but he who, knowing about Christianity, follows the Indian mystical path, will not." [Ivan Kontzevitch, Elder Nektary of Optina, p. 181].
thanks to John Sanidopoulos
www.johnsanidopoulos.com
Forgiveness by St. John of Kronstadt
By St. John of Kronstadt
Fear evil like fire. Don't let it touch your heart even if it seems just or righteous. No matter what the circumstances, don't let it come into you. Evil is always evil. Sometimes evil presents itself as an endeavor to God's glory, or as something with good intentions towards your neighbor. Even in these cases, don't trust this feeling. It's a wrong labor and is not filled with wisdom. Instead, work on chasing evil from yourself. Evil, however innocent it looks, offends God's long-suffering love, which is His foremost glory. Judas betrayed his Lord for 30 silver pieces under the guise of helping the poor. Keep in mind that the enemy continuously seeks your death and attacks more fiercely when you're not alert. His evil is endless. Don't let self-esteem and the love of material goods win you over.
When you feel anger against someone, believe with your whole heart that it's a result of the devil's work in your heart. Try to hate him and his deeds and it will leave you. Don't admit it as a part of yourself and don't justify it. I know this from experience. The devil hides himself behind our souls and we blindly think we're acting by ourselves. Then we defend the devil's work as something that is a part of us. Sometimes we think that anger is a fair reaction to something bad. But the idea that a passion could ever be fair is a total and deadly lie. When someone is angry at you, remember that this evil feeling is not him. He's just fooled by the devil and is a suffering instrument in his hand. Pray that the enemy leaves him and that God opens his spiritual eyes, which have been darkened by the evil spirit. Pray to God for all people enslaved by passions because the enemy is acting in their hearts. Perhaps you hate your neighbor, despise him, don't want to talk to him peacefully and lovingly because he has been rude, arrogant, or disgusting in his speech or manners. You may despise him for being full of himself or proud or disrespectful. But you are to blame more than he is. "Physician, heal yourself!" (Luke 4:23). So, teacher, teach yourself. This kind of anger is worse than any other evil. How could evil be chased out by another evil? How can you take a needle from the eye of another person while having a log in your own? Evil defects must be fixed with love, kindness, resignation, and patience. Admit yourself as the worst of all sinners, and believe it. Consider yourself the worst one, chase away any boldness, anger, impatience and fury. Then you may start helping others. Be indulgent about defects of others, because if you see their faults all the time, there will be continuous enmity. "The plowers plowed upon my back: they made long their furrows" (Psalm 129:3). "For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you" (Matthew 6:14). We can feel from time to time the most perfect love for God without loving each other. This is a strange thing, and only few care about it. But love for our neighbor will never come without our own effort.
A real Christian doesn't have any reason to be angry about anybody. Anger is the devil's deed. A Christian should have only love inside and since love doesn't boast, he shouldn't boast or have any bad thoughts towards others. For example, I must not think about another person that he is evil, proud etc; and I must not think that if I forgive his offense he would laugh at me or upset me again. We must not let evil hide in us under any pretense. Evil and anger usually have many different veils.
Don't yield to gloomy feelings in your heart but control and eradicate them with the power of faith and the light of the sane mind. These strengths will make you feel secure. "Let me not be put to shame, for I take refuge in you" (Psalm 25:20). Gloomy feelings usually develop deep in the heart. Someone who didn't learn how to control them will be gloomy, pensive most of the time, and it will be hard for him to deal with himself and other people. When he comes close to you, sustain yourself with inner strength, happiness and innocent jokes: and they will leave you soon. This is from experience.
Lord, give me strength to love everyone like myself and never to get angry or work for the devil. Give me strength to crucify my self-esteem, my pride, my greed, my skepticism and other passions. Let us have a name: a mutual love. Let us not worry about anything. Be the only God of our hearts, and let us desire nothing except You. Let us live always in unifying love and let us hate anything that separates us from each other and from love. So be it! So be it!
If God showed Himself to us and lives inside us as we in Him (according to His eternal word), wouldn't He give us everything? Would He ever trick us or leave us? He who did not spare His own Son, but gave Him up for us all—how will He not also, along with Him, graciously give us all things? (Romans 8:32). Now be comforted, my dear, and know nothing but love. "This is my command: Love one another" (John 15:17).
Fear evil like fire. Don't let it touch your heart even if it seems just or righteous. No matter what the circumstances, don't let it come into you. Evil is always evil. Sometimes evil presents itself as an endeavor to God's glory, or as something with good intentions towards your neighbor. Even in these cases, don't trust this feeling. It's a wrong labor and is not filled with wisdom. Instead, work on chasing evil from yourself. Evil, however innocent it looks, offends God's long-suffering love, which is His foremost glory. Judas betrayed his Lord for 30 silver pieces under the guise of helping the poor. Keep in mind that the enemy continuously seeks your death and attacks more fiercely when you're not alert. His evil is endless. Don't let self-esteem and the love of material goods win you over.
When you feel anger against someone, believe with your whole heart that it's a result of the devil's work in your heart. Try to hate him and his deeds and it will leave you. Don't admit it as a part of yourself and don't justify it. I know this from experience. The devil hides himself behind our souls and we blindly think we're acting by ourselves. Then we defend the devil's work as something that is a part of us. Sometimes we think that anger is a fair reaction to something bad. But the idea that a passion could ever be fair is a total and deadly lie. When someone is angry at you, remember that this evil feeling is not him. He's just fooled by the devil and is a suffering instrument in his hand. Pray that the enemy leaves him and that God opens his spiritual eyes, which have been darkened by the evil spirit. Pray to God for all people enslaved by passions because the enemy is acting in their hearts. Perhaps you hate your neighbor, despise him, don't want to talk to him peacefully and lovingly because he has been rude, arrogant, or disgusting in his speech or manners. You may despise him for being full of himself or proud or disrespectful. But you are to blame more than he is. "Physician, heal yourself!" (Luke 4:23). So, teacher, teach yourself. This kind of anger is worse than any other evil. How could evil be chased out by another evil? How can you take a needle from the eye of another person while having a log in your own? Evil defects must be fixed with love, kindness, resignation, and patience. Admit yourself as the worst of all sinners, and believe it. Consider yourself the worst one, chase away any boldness, anger, impatience and fury. Then you may start helping others. Be indulgent about defects of others, because if you see their faults all the time, there will be continuous enmity. "The plowers plowed upon my back: they made long their furrows" (Psalm 129:3). "For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you" (Matthew 6:14). We can feel from time to time the most perfect love for God without loving each other. This is a strange thing, and only few care about it. But love for our neighbor will never come without our own effort.
A real Christian doesn't have any reason to be angry about anybody. Anger is the devil's deed. A Christian should have only love inside and since love doesn't boast, he shouldn't boast or have any bad thoughts towards others. For example, I must not think about another person that he is evil, proud etc; and I must not think that if I forgive his offense he would laugh at me or upset me again. We must not let evil hide in us under any pretense. Evil and anger usually have many different veils.
Don't yield to gloomy feelings in your heart but control and eradicate them with the power of faith and the light of the sane mind. These strengths will make you feel secure. "Let me not be put to shame, for I take refuge in you" (Psalm 25:20). Gloomy feelings usually develop deep in the heart. Someone who didn't learn how to control them will be gloomy, pensive most of the time, and it will be hard for him to deal with himself and other people. When he comes close to you, sustain yourself with inner strength, happiness and innocent jokes: and they will leave you soon. This is from experience.
Lord, give me strength to love everyone like myself and never to get angry or work for the devil. Give me strength to crucify my self-esteem, my pride, my greed, my skepticism and other passions. Let us have a name: a mutual love. Let us not worry about anything. Be the only God of our hearts, and let us desire nothing except You. Let us live always in unifying love and let us hate anything that separates us from each other and from love. So be it! So be it!
If God showed Himself to us and lives inside us as we in Him (according to His eternal word), wouldn't He give us everything? Would He ever trick us or leave us? He who did not spare His own Son, but gave Him up for us all—how will He not also, along with Him, graciously give us all things? (Romans 8:32). Now be comforted, my dear, and know nothing but love. "This is my command: Love one another" (John 15:17).
Christianity and Islam - Two Related, Yet Different Religions
“Eastern peoples are more religious”, an ancient writes, wishing to say that Easterners are more religious than people in the West, in Europe. Note that East is also the Balkans together with Russia.
To an Easterner feeling is more intense than reasoning, while the opposite happens with a European; and since faith regards heart and not reasoning, Easterners are more religious than Europeans, and thus religions were born in the East, none of them in the West.
Westerners are rationalists, which is why they were devoted to positive knowledge, to sciences, and made a progress there, today leading the whole world to their way. Those among them that make a difference and they don’t believe only in their senses, turn to the East, because they discover there a spring to drink, who are thirsty for mysteries beyond the investigation of reasoning.
How intensely the western man is tied with rationalism, is evident by the distortion Christianity suffered in Europe, where she became little by little a system of worldly knowledge, having as a purpose earthly happiness and not salvation of the soul, which the Christ taught. In the West even theology was subdued to rationalism, and became herself a science like all sciences.
In the East religion remained religion. Even Mohammedanism, what is called Islam, an inferior perception of religion, with some crude commands, yet kept pure its religious character, away from innovations and adaptations to each epoch, that is, away from rationalization. The material means by which the religion of Koran is expressing herself, the mosque, the hodga, chanting, decoration, vestments of the clergy, ceremonies, all remained totally unchanged, as they were when Islam started.
At a time when the Christian religion was distorted by innovations dictated by a rationalistic worldly spirit, where from the Papacy was born, and also Protestantism and the rest of their branches, something that did not happen with Orthodoxy, which remained unchanged, being the Christianity of the East, Mohammedanism stands always as it was from the start, that is, it remained a “religion”.
From this aspect our Orthodox Church is partly closer to Mohammedanism than to the so-called Christians in the West, because Mohammedanism did not cease to be a religion and remained unspoiled by the spirit of the world, the utilitarian spirit. This explains why we see Arabs kissing in deep reverence the cloth or the beard of our priests, and Mohammedans to be baptised Christian Orthodox and some times to become martyrs for Christ, while none, not one, Papist or Protestant is among the new martyrs that were beheaded or hanged at the times when Turks reigned over us. Christians who were tortured and became martyrs for the name of Christ in Persia are countless.
I heard a priest from Damascus saying that the king Abdullah told the Patriarch of Antioch these words: “You, Orthodox, the way you look, make us Muslims respect you as men of religion, while those western priests seem like agents of suspect affairs.”
Western Christianity lost its ecumenical, global, character, because, as we said, it was reduced to a worldly system by the wish to be adapted every time to every epoch, so that nothing remained there immovable, nothing of “religion”, while Mohammedanism, although Koran is a crude variation of the Gospel, kept until today its ecumenical character.
Everywhere a hodga has the look that reminds him of his prophet, while the priests and pastors of the West have no external resemblance with the leader of their religion, and sometimes, you think that they aim not to be like Him at all, but to resemble their pagan ancestors. As an example I mention the two leaders of Eastern and the Western Christianity, Patriarch Athenagoras and Pope Paul, who met with each other in Jerusalem.
Look at the photographs and you will see that these two persons are different in everything, despite they say that they are archpriests of the same religion. Observe their appearance and you will know how true this is: the one, the Patriarch, has a priestly look, with beard and long hair, as the Christ had, he wears wide cloth, eastern, as were, more or less, the clothes that they had at the places where Christ appeared, while the Pope is shaved like the ancient Romans and wears a tiny scull-cap and his clothes are made-up, in a word, nothing of his exterior is such, that when you see him you remember the Christ or the holy Apostles - and yet these two priests say they are archpriests of the same religion.
It is true that we Orthodox Christians suffered much from Muslims, especially Turks. This happened because their religion too was distorted by racial passions, although even Mohammed started to spread Koran by war. Note that Arabs, the patriots of Mohammed, do not recognise the Turks, who took religion from them, as genuine Muslims, and they don’t like them. ...
Mohammed, the founder of the new religion in the East, was an illiterate camel driver. At his years, as before, his country Arabia had for religion a mixture of idolatrous superstitions about a big black rock they called Kaaba, which the patriots of Mohammed worshipped and still worship.
At that time in Arabia, Jewish merchants dominated, but also Christians existed even in Mecca. Mohammed realised that his race was far below these religions, the Jewish and the Christian, and wanted to help her, to open her eyes, because, although illiterate and unhewn, he was clever. He was greatly impressed by the life of Christians, especially in monasteries, he admired the monks, that they were devoted to God paying no care to the vanities of the world, and besides their denial of property, that they held fast, they prayed, they were hospitable, they loved the other people. This is why he had many relations with Christian monks.
He also had a close relation with some Jewish woman, very wealthy, Chatitze, with whom in the end he was married. Chatitze was very learned, and she had always learned people in her company, among them a wise astrologer named Varakas, who had been baptised Christian and had translated to Arabic numerous fragments of the Old Testament. Mohammed was very much helped by his wife, because with her he was talking about all he had learned on the religious situation of the East during his trips from Mecca to Damascus, when he was a driver to caravans. His name and his knowledge spread to Mecca and the rest of Arabia. Despite his admiration for Christians, he saw that they were divided by heresies and weakened by that. Along with this, he saw that the weakness of the Christian religion was that it was teaching virginity, or no more than monogamy, while these races were from the creation of the world used to polygamy.
Therefore, after he had thought on all these, at the age of forty he presented himself as a Prophet sent by God, saying he was seeing the Angel Gabriel, who told him the will of God in order to preach it to the world. Some of these he put and wrote in the Koran.
In his country, Chentza, lying near the Red Sea, people were in a semi-wild condition. Christians there were not. By his preaching he didn’t manage to gather more than a few faithful followers. But when he urged Arabs to holy war, allegedly to spread the Koran, his patriots obeyed and followed him with fanaticism and thus the new religion was spread, yet, as we’ll see, this was accomplished less by Arabs and more by other peoples of the East, more clever, as Greeks, Egyptians, Syrians, Persians, and others.
The greatest part of the Koran was written after Mohammed died, who didn’t know how to write or read. The Koran was written by others, more literate, and maybe not Arabs.
Mohammed and the others, who completed the Koran, were building upon the Christian religion and their admiration for Christianity is not hidden. Yet their holy book is full of undigested and crude elements of the Old and the New Testament, which is why the Koran was accepted more easily than the Gospel by those barbaric peoples.
The Koran praises the Church of Christ, “where unceasingly the name of God is honored”, and this Church is the Orthodox Church, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic, which is why Mohammed gave to his religion the name “Islam”, that means “Orthodoxy” in Arabic.
Besides these [elements belonging to Christianity] there are in the Koran the most diverse things, in a way that in it a great hiatus reigns, not felt by the simple and unhewn followers of the Koran. It is full of incomprehensible things, of flashy words with no meaning. It says again and again many times the same things, it speaks vaguely about prophecies in a manner extempore and disorderly.
There are in this book the most contradictory things. God is here “merciful and compassionate”, elsewhere “cruel and vengeful”. The same happens with all that Mohammed says about himself: here he praises himself, elevating himself to the peak, and elsewhere he calls himself a sinner. And in his life, where he is a saint and sees Angels and visions, there he is abandoned to women and pleasures.
As he understood that his preaching was not enough, he grasped the sword, which is more effective. This is why he wrote: “Whoever preach my faith, let them not lose time with preaching. Let them kill”. When he felt himself strong, he started war and bloodshed. While in the start he flattered the Jews, in order to gain their support, later, when he had no need of them, he chased and killed them. The same happened later on with Christians, by his heirs. He gives his word, he signs with his hand inked, and afterwards he doesn’t keep his word, when his interest demands so. He is becoming a politician and a diplomat.
Arabs had no writing to write in their language, and Mohammed himself says in the Koran that he doesn’t know how to write or read. Until today, the inhabitants of Arabia are (almost all of them) illiterate. How then, one thousand and three hundred years from then, did they manage to make the so-called Arabic culture, Islam? How did they become suddenly philosophers, mathematicians, poets, artists, astronomers, geographers, historians, - people who were drifting around like gypsies on their camels in a waste land?
This phenomenon can not be explained by any other way, but only if we admit that those who practiced the sciences and the arts were not the people of the wild Arabia, but men from other nations of the East, who had embraced the new religion, that is, Mohammedans of Syria, Egypt, Persia, Asia Minor, and most of all Greeks... Most of the Muslims came from races which changed their own faith, as are those that we said and also others…
That Islam was created not by Arabs but by ancient peoples of the East, having from before a spiritual growth dating back to the times of Alexander the Great, was supported with erudition by a wise French scholar named Rimbaud, who lived for many years in Arabia and the East and studied well and in place the Arabs. To the preface of his book “Hellenism In the First Ages of Islam” he writes:
“It seems to be verified and proved true by the facts, that all those various works the spirit of the East produced at the dawn of the medieval times, were the last gleam of the ancient civilizations before they were darkened by Islam… The works of art and thinking of that important epoch, when Mohammedanism culminated, are works made by the Greeks”.
Truly, how could they reach Spain, on the one hand, and on the other Persia, India, Sumatra and Java, even China, people like the indigenous of Arabia, who never traveled and didn’t know what the sea is? Persons from other races, and especially Greek sea-men or land travelers and merchants were going to those far places, and by them there were written also the imaginary traveling stories, as is Halima, which is the Arabic Odyssey. Sebah the sea-man is the new Ulysses. During this time there was a bloom of learning in Persia, Syria and Egypt, while Arabia was sunk in ignorance and superstition, having no idea of Aristotle and algebra. Rimbaud writes that “when Romans conquered Syria and Egypt, stayed very little in these countries and their influence was insignificant. The basis of the population of Asia Minor and Egypt remained Hellenic. Sciences, arts and merchandise stayed in the sure hands of the Greek race.”
Sexual Reorientation Therapy: An Orthodox Perspective
by Clark Carlton
Abstract
This article evaluates the phenomenon of sexual reorientation therapy from the standpoint of Orthodox Christian theology. It is argued that homosexual desire is the product of the fall of mankind and cannot be considered “normal.” At the same time, however, reorientation therapies, whether secular or Christian, are inherently reductionistic and fail to address the underlying spiritual pathologies involved in homosexual desire (or any other deep-seated passion). The purpose of therapeia in the Orthodox Church is the psycho-somatic transfiguration of the whole person into the image of Christ, not merely the cessation of homosexual activity or the “reidentification” of one's “lifestyle.”
I. INTRODUCTION
We are, so social conservatives tell us, in the midst of a “culture war,” and there is no public issue that sends more rhetorical lead flying than homosexuality. The year 2004 is a long way from the 1950s, with Ward and June Cleaver leading a traditional “nuclear family.” Much to the chagrin of Pat Buchanan and Cal Thomas, things that were once spoken of in hushed tones—if at all—are now public issues. Homosexuals are no longer willing to hide their identity and what is to them a basic fact of their lives; and social conservatives, both Christian and secular, can no longer pretend that homosexuals do not exist at every level of society. Americans have entered the twenty-first century pondering questions that would have been unimaginable to Ward and June: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry? Should they be allowed to serve openly in the armed forces, or even in the Boy Scouts? Should civil rights legislation be expanded to include “sexual orientation”? Or—and this is potentially the most explosive question of all—should homosexuals be offered the opportunity to change their orientation, to go “straight”?
Inasmuch as most of these questions are public policy issues that are to be decided either by the body politic or the courts, the historic position of the Christian Church on homosexuality is of little consequence for the general public. Regardless of the Church's view of the morality of homosexual acts, in a constitutional democracy such as ours, persons who identify themselves as homosexuals1 cannot be denied the basic civil rights guaranteed to all citizens. The question of reorientation therapy,2 however, is not only one that comes within the Church's purview; it is one that demands a response from the Church. This issue involves the determination of “normality” and the role of “therapy” in our modern culture.
I know of no one who suggests that homosexuals be forced into therapy against their will. All the literature that I have read explicitly states that desire for change is the crucial element in the success of reorientation therapy—so the question of the ethics of such therapy must turn on the propriety of the enterprise in and of itself. The dominant position of the secular therapeutic community is that such therapy is unethical because 1) it does not work, and 2) it may actually harm the patient. There is more to this approach, however. In its position statement on the issue, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) stated:
"Therefore, the American Psychiatric Association opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as “reparative” or “conversion” therapy which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that the patient should change his/her homosexual orientation."3
A priori assumptions work both ways, however. This rejection of “conversion” therapy is clearly based on the a priori assumption that change is not possible, that homosexual orientation is in some sense “normal” for some people. In contrast to this presupposition, the position of the Orthodox Church in regard to homosexual activity is that homoerotic desire is the result of the fall of man and that homosexual activity is a sin.
Thus, Orthodoxy approaches the question from a position that is diametrically opposed to that of the secular therapeutic community. One might expect, therefore, a positive evaluation of reorientation therapies from an Orthodox perspective. This, however, is not the case. While the Orthodox would certainly agree with advocates of such therapy that homosexual desire is not natural and is curable—to deny this would be tantamount to denying the power of God—the nature of reorientation therapies is in many respects at variance with the Orthodox understanding of therapy. In short, in spite of whatever religious motivations and trappings that may be added to popular reorientation therapies, they remain fundamentally secular enterprises. From an Orthodox perspective, this, in and of itself, is enough to guarantee that genuine healing does not take place. In what follows I shall endeavor to explain this.
II. THE ORTHODOX UNDERSTANDING OF HOMOSEXUALITY
To understand the Orthodox Christian approach to the question of homosexuality, we must turn to the first chapter of Romans. To be sure, there are many passages in the Scriptures in which homosexual activity of one sort or another is condemned; yet these passages fall short of providing a sound theological basis for addressing the issue. For one thing, there is no biblical word for “homosexual,” and the words translated as “homosexual” in some modern translations are problematic and open to varying interpretations. In the Old Testament (OT), homosexual acts are clearly and unambiguously condemned as “an abomination.” However, lots of things are condemned in the OT as an abomination, including falsifying weights and measures and (heterosexual) adultery. One cannot help but feel some sympathy with homosexuals who argue that the Christian use of the OT is highly selective. At any rate, no real theological reason is given in these passages; that homosexual acts are a sin is simply presented as a fact.
In Romans 1, however, St. Paul provides precisely a theological analysis of the phenomenon of homosexuality. Indeed, it would not be an overstatement to say that the two thousand year history of the Christian proscription against homosexual acts stands or falls with Romans 1. Of course, this chapter is not about homosexuality per se; it is about the fall of man. Whatever else one may wish to say about the subject, if one is to approach it from within a genuinely Christian standpoint, homosexuality must be placed within the context of the fall of man and its aftermath.
"For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." (Romans 1:20-27)
This passage is most often interpreted from the standpoint of natural law theory. Homosexuality, according to this approach, is sinful because it is unnatural. Interestingly, contemporary homosexual apologists have turned this argument on its head. What St. Paul is condemning here, so the new theory goes, is someone who is naturally heterosexual performing homosexual acts. To the person who has a genuine homosexual orientation, however, homosexual desire and acts are perfectly natural. Therefore what St. Paul is condemning is not homosexuality per se, but those who act contrary to their own sexual nature.
Admittedly, this new twist on Romans 1 shows imagination. Indeed, were this passage really about natural law, this new interpretation would have to be given some credence. However, St. Paul's point in this chapter is not about natural law, but about the nature of the fall of man. From an Orthodox interpretation of this passage, three things become clear: First, homosexual desire is a result of the fall. Second, in a very real sense, homosexual desire is an image or icon of the fall itself. Third, homosexual desire is a passion, which can only be overcome through genuinely Christian—that is to say churchly—therapy.
Throughout both testaments the disexuality of human nature is presented typologically. That is, the difference between male and female is presented as a type of man's relationship with God. The male—the husband—is the type of God or Christ, while the female—the wife—is the type of humanity, Israel, or the Church. In Ephesians, St. Paul describes Christian marriage and then says that it is a great mystery, but he goes on to say that he is talking of the mystery of Christ and the Church. In Romans 1, St. Paul presents homosexual desire as the type of the fall itself; it is the type of creation's attempt at self-deification.4 Thus, homosexual desire is not only a product of the fall, the desire for “another of the same kind” instead of “another of a different kind” is an image of the very nature of the fall.5
III. THE ORTHODOX UNDERSTANDING OF THE PASSIONS
It is often argued that the writers of the Scriptures and the Fathers of the Church considered homosexual acts to be simply a choice, much in the same way that one chooses whether or not to cheat on one's spouse. While there is a good deal of truth to this—certainly neither St. Paul nor St. John Chrysostom knew anything of “homosexuality” as it is conceived in modern terms—we should not be too quick to dismiss the biblical and patristic injunctions against homosexuality as simply being the fruits of an unenlightened age. In Romans 1, St. Paul refers explicitly to homosexual desire, not merely homosexual acts. The point is that homosexuality is a lust; that is, a perversion of man's natural sexual energies. In other words, it is a passion.
For the most part, the Church Fathers adopted a three-part division of the soul common among Greek philosophers. In Book IV of The Republic, Plato speaks of the soul as divided into the rational, appetitive, and excitable parts.6 In the normally functioning soul, the rational aspect seeks the good and leads man toward it. Reason keeps the appetite under control, with the aid of the excitable power. For example, a married man notices a beautiful woman and feels the pangs of lust. He immediately reproaches—gets angry—with himself and reminds himself that he is married and that adultery would jeopardize his marriage. Thus rebuked, he fends off the lustful thoughts, and justice is established within his soul.
In a diseased or unjust soul, however, the appetites overrule reason and man lives not for the sake of the good, but for the sake of the gratification of desires. To use a modern example, consider someone who is addicted to cigarettes. The person surely knows by now that smoking is bad for the body. It has been clinically connected with emphysema, heart disease and cancer. The smoker knows smoking is bad, but continues to do it because he or she is in the control of the desire for nicotine. The appetites have charge of the person's life. When the appetite cannot be satiated—think of a smoker forced to endure an eight-hour smoke-free flight—he or she becomes irritable. Instead of siding with the reasoning aspect of the soul, the excitable faculty is employed by the appetites. This is why smokers, alcoholics, and drug addicts are willing to go to extraordinary means to satisfy their craving. The same aspect of the soul that gives courage to the hero in battle gives energy and determination to the soul enslaved to the appetites.
The Fathers generally adopted this Platonic schema, but went much further than Plato in elucidating how the soul works—developing a true psyche-ology. The passions, according to Orthodox tradition, are natural faculties and energies of the soul and body that have been corrupted, deformed, and diverted from their original—natural—purpose. This means that for the Orthodox, the healing of the passions involves not the eradication of the passions but their transformation—their transfiguration.7
Just as there are physical energies and faculties and spiritual energies and faculties in man, so there are passions of both the body and soul. Furthermore, the Fathers speak of both voluntary and involuntary passions. In other words, there are some passions that are so ingrained within us they are beyond our conscious decision-making power. This is a very important point for our present discussion.
Homosexual desire must be classed among the involuntary passions. It is commonplace among conservative Christians to treat homosexuality as if it were simply a matter of choice. Yet anyone who actually knows homosexual persons, and certainly anyone who has counseled them, knows this is not the case. One does not wake up one morning and suddenly “decide” to be attracted to persons of the same gender. However, to say that homosexual desire is an involuntary passion is in no way to diminish the fact that it is a passion—a corruption of man's natural sexual energies.
It is widely accepted in scientific circles that there may be a biological (genetic) predisposition in some people toward alcoholism or obesity. This does not change the fact, however, that drunkenness and gluttony are passions. Even if a genetic basis could be found for homosexuality, one could not then argue that homosexual desire is “normal” any more than one could argue that being an alcoholic or seriously obese is “normal.”
While the Orthodox Church has never accepted the idea of original sin prevalent in Western Christianity,8 Orthodoxy certainly realizes that we are born into a fallen world—a world that does not function as it was originally intended. Although we often speak of “fallen nature,” this term needs further refinement. According to St. Maximus the Confessor, it is not the principle (logos) of nature that is fallen, but rather nature's mode (tropos) of existence.9 God's creation is entirely good and remains so even after the fall of mankind. There is no place for the Calvinistic doctrine of total depravity in Orthodox theology. It is the way nature now operates that is affected by the fall.
The tragedy of man's predicament—and this has direct bearing on the topic of homosexual desire—is that we are so used to this fallen manner of existence that we take it for granted. The natural man, or the “fleshly man” as St. Paul would have it, considers his fallen mode of existence to be normal. Thus what we consider to be “natural” is from a biblical perspective unnatural or sub-natural, and what we consider to be “supernatural” is, in fact, the natural or normative state of existence. The homosexual feels that his desires are natural because that is all he has ever known, and no amount of “natural law theory” will convince him otherwise.
It is significant that there is no biblical word for “homosexual.” Indeed, there is no such word in either Latin or Greek; it is of modern origin. From this bit of linguistic archeology, we are able to draw a theological conclusion: for the writers of the Scriptures and for the Church Fathers, there is no “ontology” to homosexuality. This view is normative for the Christian Church. To be sure, there are persons who have a homoerotic orientation; this orientation may be exclusive and it may very well have some basis in genetics. But, from a genuinely biblical perspective, there is no such thing as “a homosexual.” For a man to describe himself as “gay” (or a woman as a “lesbian”) is to grant ontology to his desires and define himself according to his passions.
This self-identification is, of course, at the heart of the contemporary gay movement. This is precisely the one point where the Christian Church cannot deviate from Her historical stand without changing Her entire theology. For the Church to accept someone as “gay” would be to accept the fallen state of man as the natural state. The gay anthem, “I am what I am,” from the musical La Cage aux Folles, is instructive here. What a person is is a matter of biology and genetics; it is an objectification of human life based on the givenness of (fallen) nature. Who a person is—and this is what concerns the Orthodox theologian—is the product of man's freedom; it is the subjective realization of what it means to have been created in the image of God.
Like the inhabitants of Plato's cave, however, we are unaware of our true nature. We take the shadows for reality and define ourselves according to our passions. It is only when we encounter someone who is free of the passions, someone who lives life according to true nature, that we begin to realize our true situation. This realization, however, is at first traumatic. We refuse to believe it.10 A person truly free of the passions seems to us to be inhuman, a creature from another world. The world could not deal with Christ—the first authentically human person—and it has not dealt much better with His Saints. Yet, Saints there are, even today. The Saints are those who have been healed of the passions and who live life according to nature—what we mistakenly consider supernatural existence. They are living revelations of God, living revelations of what human life is supposed to be.
IV. ORTHODOX THEOLOGY AS THERAPY
According to the Greek bishop Hierotheos Vlachos, the Orthodox Church is a spiritual hospital, and its purpose is the healing of the human soul.11 Orthodoxy is a therapeutic science designed to heal the passions and lead man to his natural state in communion with God. The Orthodox Church honors the Saints because they are the living proof (martyrs—witnesses) that the therapy works, that it is possible for man to be healed.
Given this Orthodox insistence that Christianity is first and foremost a therapeutic science, one might reasonably expect a positive evaluation of Christian reorientation therapies. Sadly, however, this is not the case. While there are obvious parallels, the similarities between the Orthodox notion of therapy and that which is practiced within the Protestant world are superficial. To understand this, we must first take a closer look at the Orthodox understanding of therapy and cure and then examine current reorientation therapies in light of the Orthodox standard.
To understand the Orthodox notion of therapy, one must understand that for the Orthodox, sin is not God's problem, but man's. This may seem axiomatic, but in reality it is not. Since at least the time of Anselm's Cur deus homo, Western Christianity has been saddled with the notion that man's sin somehow affects God—it insults His infinite honor and calls forth His wrath. Such anthropomorphic notions are unacceptable to Orthodox theology, however, because they violate the first principle of theology, namely that there is no analogy of being between God and man. God is impassible and unchangeable. He has no pride to wound. Sin, therefore, does not affect God's ability to relate to man (as if God were an upper caste Hindu prevented from coming into contact with an Untouchable); it affects man's ability to relate to God.
In the Scriptures we are told that no one has ever seen God and lived and that God is a consuming fire, yet we are also told that the pure in heart shall see God, that Christians are called to become partakers of the divine nature. The difference is not that God hates sinners and loves the righteous (He loves both without differentiation), but that the sinner is prevented by his sin from experiencing God as light and life. For him, God's presence is fire and judgement. The Saint, on the other hand, is cleansed of his passions and, therefore, open to God's love. For him, God's presence is light and life. Metropolitan Hierotheos describes what the Orthodox mean by the cure of the soul:
"We are not struggling simply to become good people, adjusted to society. The aim of therapeutic treatment is not to make people sociable and to be an anthropocentric exercise, but it is to guide them to communion with God, and for this vision of God not to be a fire that will consume them but a light which will illuminate them." (1994, p. 270)12
One must understand that the passions are not merely bad habits, and the cure of the soul is not merely a matter of behavior modification. The passions are a spiritual pathology. They are deviations and malfunctions of man's most basic bodily and spiritual faculties. They are so ingrained within us that they appear quite natural. Furthermore, the passions are related to one another in very complex ways. To give but one example, the passion of anger is frequently tied to the passion of lust. For every passion that comes to the surface, manifesting itself in outward behavior, there is probably a complex of related passions at work in the deepest recesses of the soul.
How then are these passions cured and the heart cleansed? A person with cancer would not go to a university or a mall for treatment, but to a hospital, because that is where he or she will find treatment appropriate to the disease. In a hospital there are doctors who have knowledge of the disease and, through experience, have learned the best way to treat it. The hospital also contains the facilities and medicines needed to treat the disease.
According to Metropolitan Hierotheos, the Church is a spiritual hospital. The doctors are the spiritual fathers and mothers (usually, but not exclusively, monks and nuns). Their qualification is not an academic degree, but their experience of having undergone spiritual treatment themselves. They are at varying degrees along the way toward the cure of the soul, and they are able to direct others because of their own experience. The medicines and facilities of the hospital are the Holy Mysteries (sacraments). In Baptism, man is regenerated, is “born from above.” In the Holy Eucharist, man receives, according to the phrase of St. Ignatius of Antioch (1999, p. 151), the “medicine of immortality.” Confession and penance are the spiritual equivalent of surgery. It is in confession that the hidden tumors of the soul are laid bare for treatment. In addition to all of these, the physician will prescribe various therapies, much in the same way that a cardiologist will prescribe cardiac rehabilitation therapy. These therapies are the Church's ascetic disciplines: prayer, fasting, vigil, and obedience.
From the above, it is evident that the cure of the soul requires both the grace of God and the cooperation of the one seeking the cure. As the author of the Makarian Homilies puts it, “We do not reach the final stage of spiritual maturity through divine power and grace alone, without ourselves making every effort; but neither on the other hand do we attain the final measure of freedom and purity as a result of our own diligence and strength alone, apart from any divine assistance.”13 To return to the medical analogy, what good would it do for a doctor to prescribe expensive drugs to a bad cardiac patient, if the patient insists on smoking, continues to eat food with high levels of salt and cholesterol, and refuses to exercise?
I cannot stress enough the importance of ascetical effort. When confronted by obstinate demons whom the Apostles were not able to exercise, Christ exclaimed that such demons can be expelled only through prayer and fasting (cf. Mark 9:29). Of course, it is not beyond the power of God to simply remove passions or inordinate desires from us, but almost two thousand years of Christian history teaches that this is not the usual modus operandi. Indeed the ascetical Fathers repeatedly say that there is great virtue in the struggle itself.
Furthermore, simply refraining from outward sin is insufficient. In the context of homosexual desire, refraining from committing physical homosexual acts may not be terribly difficult for many homosexuals, but this is not the same thing as healing. For the Orthodox, the purpose of all spiritual effort is true God-likeness, not mere moral improvement. Indeed the passions of the soul are more insidious and dangerous than those of the body. Even if one has been able to manage one's bodily passions, that does not necessarily mean one has conquered all passions. Nor, indeed, does ascetical effort guarantee sanctification if there is no accompanying union with God. Ilias the Presbyter (1986, p. 55) writes:
"Bodily passions are like wild animals, while passions of the soul are like birds. The man engaged in ascetic practice can keep the animals out of the noetic vineyard; but unless he enters into a state of spiritual contemplation, he cannot keep the birds away, however much he strives to guard himself inwardly. The man engaged in ascetic practice cannot rise above ethical propriety, unless he goes beyond the natural law—as Abraham went forth from his own land—and beyond his own limited state of development—as Abraham left his kinsmen (cf. Gen. 12:1). In this way, as a mark of God's approval, he will be liberated from the all-embracing hold of pleasure; for it is this veil of pleasure, wrapped around us from our birth, that prevents us from receiving complete freedom."
The goal of Orthodox therapy, therefore, is dispassion, which opens the soul to the possibility of communion with God. As Bishop Hierotheos is at great pains to point out, however, this is not the same as the stoic concept of dispassion. The goal here is not an insensate state of apathy, but rather the redirection of man's natural energies (Hierotheos, 1994, p. 296). To put it another way, the goal is transformation rather than eradication. Bishop Hierotheos goes on to state that there are different levels of dispassion:
"St. Maximus sets out four degrees of dispassion. The first type of dispassion is observed in beginners and is “complete abstention from the actual committing of sin.” In this stage the man does not commit the acts outwardly. The second dispassion, which occurs in the virtuous, is the complete rejection in the mind of all assent to evil thoughts. The third dispassion, which is complete quiescence of passionate desire, is found in the deified, and the fourth is the complete purging even of passion-free images, in those who are perfect. It seems from this passage that according to the degree of a man's purity, the corresponding dispassion is manifested." (1994, pp. 299-300)
There is no way to adequately explain Orthodox ascetical theology in a few paragraphs. Allow me to conclude this section, however, with a brief summary that will at least provide some background for the critique of reorientation therapy that follows. (1) The goal of human life is union with God. This is conceived not in terms of moral imitation, but of genuine God-likeness (theosis, in Greek): to become by grace what God is by nature. (2) Sin is the barrier between God and man not because it offends God, but because it cripples man's ability to relate to God. (3) With the fall of man, sin becomes ingrained in man like a second nature. Sin is not merely the result of bad choices, but is rooted in the passions, which are the malfunctioning of man's natural capacities. (4) Salvation is not access to a cosmic theme park (the popular view of heaven), but union with God. Salvation presupposes, therefore, the healing of man's passions and the restoration of his natural faculties. (5) Salvation is, therefore, a process of healing—a therapeutic process. (6) In keeping with the original goal of creation (1, above), this therapeutic process has as its goal not moral improvement, but the total transformation of the passions and, ultimately, the transcendence of man's natural capacities.
V. REORIENTATION THERAPY
With this background let us consider why modern reorientation therapy fails to “measure up,” as it were, to the Orthodox standard of therapy. There are two separate, albeit related, aspects of reorientation therapy that demand our attention. First of all, there is the psychological explanation that lies behind most versions of this therapy. This explanation seems to be shared by both secular and religiously oriented therapists. Second, there are specifically Christian programs that combine such therapy with prayer and support. I shall address each of these aspects in turn.
Not all reorientation therapists agree on the ultimate causes of homosexuality.14 However, it is safe to say that the predominant theory is that homosexuality is a developmental disorder regarding gender identity. For whatever reasons—and therapists who hold this view acknowledge that each case is different—the homosexual fails to identify properly with the same-sex parent, prompting a crisis of his or her own gender identity.15 This may or may not be accompanied by an overbearing relationship with the opposite-sex parent.16 This failure to identify with the same-sex parent occurs in very early childhood.
There are two problems with this theory. The first problem has to do with the determination of causality. As in many cases of concomitant variation, it is not immediately evident which is the cause and which is the effect. Even assuming that the majority of homosexuals have not properly gender identified with the same-sex parent, this may well be the effect of a prior disposition, rather than the cause of later homosexual desire.17 If this were the case, then gender identification therapy would be treating a symptom rather than the underlying cause.
The second problem is the sufficiency of this profile in explaining the origins of homosexuality. Quite simply, not all homosexuals fit the pattern. The stereotype of an effeminate man with an overbearing mother is just that, a stereotype. Furthermore, there are heterosexuals who fit the pattern to a tee. Part of the problem here is that therapists only work with a minute minority of homosexuals, namely those who are unhappy and come to the therapists for treatment. It may well be that a high percentage of those who come for treatment fit the profile, but that does not mean that all or even a high percentage of the homosexual population as a whole fits the pattern.
If I may be permitted to address the problem as a logician for a moment, I would put it this way: Let y stand for the occasion in question; in this case, homosexual orientation. Let A, B, C, D, E, and F stand for subjects, where half of the subjects are homosexual and half are not. Thus, we have Ay, By, Cy, D, E, and F. If we say that x is the determinative factor for occasion y in any given subject, then we should see this pattern: Ayx, Byx, Cyx, and D, E, F. However, the reality is more like this: Ayx, Byx, Cy, D, E, Fx. If this is indeed the case, what conclusions can be drawn? First of all the presence of factor x in a subject that does not exhibit occasiony tells us that whatever the relationship between xand y, x cannot be considered a sufficient cause for y. In other words, the instance of a heterosexual who fails to properly gender identify with the same-sex parent—and surely there are many—negates the possibility that failure to gender identify is the sole cause of homosexuality.18 In the same way, the absence of factor x in subjects with occasion y negates the possibility that x is a necessary cause for y. Thus, the failure to gender identify can be considered neither a necessary nor sufficient cause of homosexuality.
This does not mean that the failure to gender identify is not a possible cause (among many). From what I have read and observed, I would argue that homosexual orientation is a multifaceted phenomenon with perhaps a multitude of possible causes, some psychological and some, perhaps, genetic or biochemical. This is perfectly in keeping with the Orthodox view that the passions are a complicated complex of factors. The problem with reorientation therapy, however, is that it operates with the assumption that a gender-identity deficiency is the primary, if not the only, cause. Reorientation therapy is, therefore, reductionistic.
If Orthodox Christian theology is true, that is, if God has indeed created man in His image, and if, as St. Paul says, the union of man and woman in marriage is somehow related to the mystery of the union of Christ with His Bride, the Church, then homosexual desire must be as much of a spiritual condition as a psychological or physical condition. Thus, to treat homosexuality as merely a psychological developmental disorder is to ignore what may very well be the most important aspect of the issue. The case is somewhat analogous to the modern attitude toward demonic possession. As far as secular—and a great many Christian—therapists are concerned, “possession” is nothing more than some sort of psychotic episode or disorder. That one might actually be possessed by demons is never even considered. Now I am not suggesting that homosexuality is caused by demons, merely trying to point out that gender identity theory, whatever limited merits it may have, is at root a secular and reductionistic explanation for a phenomenon that is to a large degree spiritual and complex.
This brings us to specifically Christian therapeutic programs, such as those promoted by Exodus International. Although Exodus refers homosexuals to a variety of different ministries, there does seem to be a general acceptance of the gender-identity theory. This is evidenced most convincingly by the fact that Exodus and many of its partner ministries insist on the importance of non-sexual, same-sex relationships as a key factor in the healing process. However, these Christian therapies at least recognize the spiritual dimension of the problem.
Perhaps it is because of this realization that Christian reorientation theories are generally less bold in their claims of success than their secular counterparts. While all affirm that healing is possible, it is not so clear that all believe that homosexuals can be converted into fully functional heterosexuals without any remaining homoerotic desires. An Exodus FAQ puts it this way:
"What's your “success rate” in changing gays into straights?
"What you are really asking is whether there is realistic hope for change for men and women who do not want their sexual orientation to be homosexual. And the answer to that is yes!" (www.exodusnorthamerica.org)19
Further on in the same FAQ, it is stated: “Studies suggesting change rates in the range of 30-50% are not unusual, although 'success rates' vary considerably and the measurement of change is problematic.” On the face of it, there should be little problem in measuring success: one is either completely free of same-sex desire or one is not. But things are not that clear-cut and Christian reorientation advocates seem to realize this.20
The fact of the matter is that the number of people who claim to have lost all same-sex desire is very small—certainly less than 30%-50% of those who have undergone therapy. For the secular reorientation therapists, the primary goal seems to be functional heterosexuality, with a corresponding decrease in homosexual desire. This decrease, however, need not be complete for most theorists to claim “success.” Religion-based therapy programs, however, seem to focus more on behavior modification (avoiding sinful acts) and identity (disavowing the “gay” self-image). Indeed, when groups such as Exodus offer deliverance from homosexuality, it appears that they really mean deliverance from the “homosexual lifestyle.” This is not, however, the same thing as deliverance from a true homoerotic orientation.
I would argue that the closest analogy to Christian reorientation therapies would be Alcoholics Anonymous. The alcoholic is not said to be completely “cured,” but is helped to stay “on the wagon” and put his life back in order. Similarly, Christian programs provide the wherewithal for a person to leave the “homosexual lifestyle” and find a new identity as a Christian within a loving community that will reinforce positive behavior and inhibit negative behavior (sin).
No Orthodox Christian would deny that homosexual acts are sinful or that the “homosexual lifestyle” is self-destructive. Furthermore, the question of identity is of paramount importance: a Christian may certainly have homosexual desires, but a Christian cannot identify himself as “gay” and remain Christian. Thus, an Orthodox Christian would be hard pressed to find anything necessarily wrong with such an approach. Certainly it is better to abstain from sin than commit it. However, this is a far cry from dispassion, which is the goal of Orthodox therapy.
My problem with reorientation therapies, whether secular or Christian, is not that they are incapable of producing some change, but that this change is less than the healing of the passions. Where secular therapy is concerned, simply replacing homosexual lust with heterosexual lust is but a shallow victory. Christian therapy, on the other hand, seems much less concerned with producing functioning heterosexuals than with healing emotional wounds and providing the person struggling with homosexuality the support needed to “re-identify” himself as a Christian and to avoid the commission of homosexual acts (in thought as well as deed). To this end, Christian therapy is much to be preferred over secular therapy. Yet, at the risk of beating a dead horse, this is not the same as dispassion and union with God.
Why are the Orthodox so insistent on this point? The answer lies in the Orthodox understanding of salvation outlined above. Sin is not a legal barrier between man and God; it is a disease that renders man incapable of receiving God's love as light and life. The Orthodox do not assume, as do many Evangelical Protestants, that because one had initiated a “relationship with Christ” one is definitively and irrevocably “saved.” On the contrary, salvation is viewed as a process. The transfiguration of the passions is a necessary element of this process. Thus, ethics, for the Orthodox, is a matter of salvation.
The Orthodox Church fully agrees with St. Cyprian's famous statement that there is no salvation outside the Church. This is a confession that the Church—and the Church alone—possesses the therapeutic science necessary to heal man of his passions. Admittedly, this is not a very “ecumenical” sentiment, but it is the belief of the Orthodox Church. When, therefore, an Orthodox Christian is asked to evaluate sexual reorientation therapies from an ethical perspective, he is bound to do so against the backdrop of his own Orthodox understanding of sin and salvation.
There is nothing inherently wrong with either the secular or the Christian reorientation therapies. Surely it is ethical to offer those struggling with homosexual desire the opportunity to find healing. Thus, all of these therapies are fine as far as they go; it is just that from the standpoint of eternity, they do not go very far.
NOTES
1 For reasons that shall become apparent, I am reluctant to use the term “homosexual.” At this point in the discussion, suffice it to say that the more correct term would be “person(s) with a homosexual orientation.” As this phrase is exceedingly cumbersome, however, I am yielding to the modern convention of using the term “homosexual.” My use of “homosexual” as a substantive, however, should not be construed to imply any “ontology” of sexual orientation.
2 Alternate terms are “reparative” and “conversion” therapy.
3 The statement was prepared by the APA Committee on Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues and is dated September 11, 1998. The statement was unanimously adopted by the APA's Board of Trustees during its meeting of December 11/12, 1998.
4 Notice that St. Paul mentions women turning away from the natural desire for men before speaking of male homosexual desire. This is the only place I know of where the writers of Scripture mention lesbianism. This makes perfect sense in this context, however, for in the Pauline typology it is creation—the female—that has turned from its natural desire for God—the male. Paul mentions male homosexual desire almost as an afterthought. This is not to suggest that male homosexuality is less sinful or somehow less of an image of the fall—no doubt St. Paul wanted to avoid that interpretation—but it does explain why St. Paul mentions lesbianism here.
5 There is an inherent narcissism in homosexual desire, but is this not also an image of the fallen state of humanity—human nature obsessed with itself?
6 Plato (1968, 435a-445e). For a detailed discussion of the patristic appropriation of this schema see Staniloae (2002, pp. 96-108).
7 Some Fathers treat the passions as an inherent evil to be eradicated. I would argue, however, that this is a minority viewpoint. See Bishop Kallistos Ware's definition of “passion” in The Philokalia, Vol. 1, pp. 363-364. Boston: Faber and Faber, 1988.
8 Cf. Romanides (2002, esp. pp. 17-39).
9 Cf. Maximus the Confessor, Opscula Theologica et Polemica 20 (PG 91, 236C-D). “Pure and simply human, our will is not in any way impeccable, because of its inclination which is produced sometimes in one sense, sometimes in another. This inclination does not change the nature, but it detours the movement, or to speak in a manner more correctly, it changes the mode. It is clear in fact that the one who does many things contrary to reason never transforms his rational nature into irrational.”
10 In Book VII of The Republic (515c-e), Plato states that the man suddenly released from his fetters and turned toward the reality of life outside the cave would not, at first, believe his eyes.
11 In this section, I have drawn heavily from the writings of Metropolitan Hierotheos. I particularly recommend The Illness and Cure of the Soul in the Orthodox Tradition (1993) and Orthodox Psychotherapy: The Science of the Fathers (1994).
12 Cf. this passage from the Makarian homilies: “What is the will of God that St. Paul urges and invites each of us to attain? It is total cleansing from sin, freedom from the shameful passions, and the acquisition of the highest virtue. In other words, it is the purification and sanctification of the heart that comes about through fully experienced and conscious participation in the perfect and divine Spirit.” (St. Makarios of Egypt, 1986, p. 285).
13 St. Makarios of Egypt (1986, p. 285).
14 Some therapists are agnostic on the subject, tailoring their therapy to the desire of the patient. If the patient is unhappy as a homosexual and wants to change, the therapist will act accordingly. This is done without any prejudice as to the normality of homosexuality.
15 One of the chief proponents of this theory is an Orthodox Christian, Dr. Elizabeth Moberly. Cf. Moberly 1982 & 1983.
16 The overbearing mother and the “momma's boy” is a common stereotype. However, the point of the gender identity theory is that it is not the relationship with the opposite-sex parent that is determinative, but the failure to identify with the same-sex parent.
17 Andrew Sullivan (1995, p.10) makes this point. This is perhaps the most cogently presented argument for the rights of homosexuals.
18 Lest I be accused of sleight of hand here, while a sufficient cause need not be the sole cause, the sole cause must be the sufficient cause.
19 I am normally loath to reference internet sites in formal papers. I am making an exception in this case because this material is not scholarly material available from a library. Those who wish to view Exodus materials may do so at www.exodusnorthamerica.org
20 This same ambiguity as to what constitutes success is to be found in Orthodox writers as well. Fr. John Breck (1998, pp. 116-117) lauds organizations such as Exodus as “invaluable” and affirms the possibility of true change, yet in the very next paragraph he writes, “It is clear, however, that the homosexual condition is often irreversible: the orientation is permanent.”
REFERENCES
1. Breck, Fr. John (1998) The sacred gift of life: Orthodox Christianity and bioethics SVS Press , Crestwood, NY
2. (1999) Epistle to the Ephesians. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek texts and English translations Baker Books , Grand Rapids
3. (1986) Gnomic Anthology IV. The Philokalia 3 , Faber and Faber , Boston
4. (1986) Spiritual Perfection. The Philokalia Faber and Faber , Boston
5. (1857) Opscula Theologica et Polemica; Patrologia Graeca 91 , pp. 9-285.
6. Moberly, E. (1982) Psychogenesis: The early development of gender identity Kegan Paul , London
7. Moberly, E. (1983) Homosexuality: A new Christian ethic James Clarke , Cambridge
8. Plato (1968) The Republic of Plato Basic Books
9. Romanides, J. (2002) The Ancestral Sin Zephyr , G. S. Gabriel, Ridgewood, NJ
10. Staniloae, D. (2002) Orthodox Spirituality St. Tikhon's Seminary Press , South Canaan, PA
11. Sullivan, A. (1995) Virtually normal: An argument about homosexuality Vintage, New York
12. Vlachos, Hierotheos. (1993) The illness and cure of the soul in the Orthodox tradition Birth of the Theotokos Monastery , Levadia, Greece
13. Vlachos, Hierotheos. (1994) Orthodox psychotherapy: The science of the Fathers Birth of the Theotokos Monastery , Levadia, Greece
Abstract
This article evaluates the phenomenon of sexual reorientation therapy from the standpoint of Orthodox Christian theology. It is argued that homosexual desire is the product of the fall of mankind and cannot be considered “normal.” At the same time, however, reorientation therapies, whether secular or Christian, are inherently reductionistic and fail to address the underlying spiritual pathologies involved in homosexual desire (or any other deep-seated passion). The purpose of therapeia in the Orthodox Church is the psycho-somatic transfiguration of the whole person into the image of Christ, not merely the cessation of homosexual activity or the “reidentification” of one's “lifestyle.”
I. INTRODUCTION
We are, so social conservatives tell us, in the midst of a “culture war,” and there is no public issue that sends more rhetorical lead flying than homosexuality. The year 2004 is a long way from the 1950s, with Ward and June Cleaver leading a traditional “nuclear family.” Much to the chagrin of Pat Buchanan and Cal Thomas, things that were once spoken of in hushed tones—if at all—are now public issues. Homosexuals are no longer willing to hide their identity and what is to them a basic fact of their lives; and social conservatives, both Christian and secular, can no longer pretend that homosexuals do not exist at every level of society. Americans have entered the twenty-first century pondering questions that would have been unimaginable to Ward and June: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry? Should they be allowed to serve openly in the armed forces, or even in the Boy Scouts? Should civil rights legislation be expanded to include “sexual orientation”? Or—and this is potentially the most explosive question of all—should homosexuals be offered the opportunity to change their orientation, to go “straight”?
Inasmuch as most of these questions are public policy issues that are to be decided either by the body politic or the courts, the historic position of the Christian Church on homosexuality is of little consequence for the general public. Regardless of the Church's view of the morality of homosexual acts, in a constitutional democracy such as ours, persons who identify themselves as homosexuals1 cannot be denied the basic civil rights guaranteed to all citizens. The question of reorientation therapy,2 however, is not only one that comes within the Church's purview; it is one that demands a response from the Church. This issue involves the determination of “normality” and the role of “therapy” in our modern culture.
I know of no one who suggests that homosexuals be forced into therapy against their will. All the literature that I have read explicitly states that desire for change is the crucial element in the success of reorientation therapy—so the question of the ethics of such therapy must turn on the propriety of the enterprise in and of itself. The dominant position of the secular therapeutic community is that such therapy is unethical because 1) it does not work, and 2) it may actually harm the patient. There is more to this approach, however. In its position statement on the issue, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) stated:
"Therefore, the American Psychiatric Association opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as “reparative” or “conversion” therapy which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that the patient should change his/her homosexual orientation."3
A priori assumptions work both ways, however. This rejection of “conversion” therapy is clearly based on the a priori assumption that change is not possible, that homosexual orientation is in some sense “normal” for some people. In contrast to this presupposition, the position of the Orthodox Church in regard to homosexual activity is that homoerotic desire is the result of the fall of man and that homosexual activity is a sin.
Thus, Orthodoxy approaches the question from a position that is diametrically opposed to that of the secular therapeutic community. One might expect, therefore, a positive evaluation of reorientation therapies from an Orthodox perspective. This, however, is not the case. While the Orthodox would certainly agree with advocates of such therapy that homosexual desire is not natural and is curable—to deny this would be tantamount to denying the power of God—the nature of reorientation therapies is in many respects at variance with the Orthodox understanding of therapy. In short, in spite of whatever religious motivations and trappings that may be added to popular reorientation therapies, they remain fundamentally secular enterprises. From an Orthodox perspective, this, in and of itself, is enough to guarantee that genuine healing does not take place. In what follows I shall endeavor to explain this.
II. THE ORTHODOX UNDERSTANDING OF HOMOSEXUALITY
To understand the Orthodox Christian approach to the question of homosexuality, we must turn to the first chapter of Romans. To be sure, there are many passages in the Scriptures in which homosexual activity of one sort or another is condemned; yet these passages fall short of providing a sound theological basis for addressing the issue. For one thing, there is no biblical word for “homosexual,” and the words translated as “homosexual” in some modern translations are problematic and open to varying interpretations. In the Old Testament (OT), homosexual acts are clearly and unambiguously condemned as “an abomination.” However, lots of things are condemned in the OT as an abomination, including falsifying weights and measures and (heterosexual) adultery. One cannot help but feel some sympathy with homosexuals who argue that the Christian use of the OT is highly selective. At any rate, no real theological reason is given in these passages; that homosexual acts are a sin is simply presented as a fact.
In Romans 1, however, St. Paul provides precisely a theological analysis of the phenomenon of homosexuality. Indeed, it would not be an overstatement to say that the two thousand year history of the Christian proscription against homosexual acts stands or falls with Romans 1. Of course, this chapter is not about homosexuality per se; it is about the fall of man. Whatever else one may wish to say about the subject, if one is to approach it from within a genuinely Christian standpoint, homosexuality must be placed within the context of the fall of man and its aftermath.
"For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." (Romans 1:20-27)
This passage is most often interpreted from the standpoint of natural law theory. Homosexuality, according to this approach, is sinful because it is unnatural. Interestingly, contemporary homosexual apologists have turned this argument on its head. What St. Paul is condemning here, so the new theory goes, is someone who is naturally heterosexual performing homosexual acts. To the person who has a genuine homosexual orientation, however, homosexual desire and acts are perfectly natural. Therefore what St. Paul is condemning is not homosexuality per se, but those who act contrary to their own sexual nature.
Admittedly, this new twist on Romans 1 shows imagination. Indeed, were this passage really about natural law, this new interpretation would have to be given some credence. However, St. Paul's point in this chapter is not about natural law, but about the nature of the fall of man. From an Orthodox interpretation of this passage, three things become clear: First, homosexual desire is a result of the fall. Second, in a very real sense, homosexual desire is an image or icon of the fall itself. Third, homosexual desire is a passion, which can only be overcome through genuinely Christian—that is to say churchly—therapy.
Throughout both testaments the disexuality of human nature is presented typologically. That is, the difference between male and female is presented as a type of man's relationship with God. The male—the husband—is the type of God or Christ, while the female—the wife—is the type of humanity, Israel, or the Church. In Ephesians, St. Paul describes Christian marriage and then says that it is a great mystery, but he goes on to say that he is talking of the mystery of Christ and the Church. In Romans 1, St. Paul presents homosexual desire as the type of the fall itself; it is the type of creation's attempt at self-deification.4 Thus, homosexual desire is not only a product of the fall, the desire for “another of the same kind” instead of “another of a different kind” is an image of the very nature of the fall.5
III. THE ORTHODOX UNDERSTANDING OF THE PASSIONS
It is often argued that the writers of the Scriptures and the Fathers of the Church considered homosexual acts to be simply a choice, much in the same way that one chooses whether or not to cheat on one's spouse. While there is a good deal of truth to this—certainly neither St. Paul nor St. John Chrysostom knew anything of “homosexuality” as it is conceived in modern terms—we should not be too quick to dismiss the biblical and patristic injunctions against homosexuality as simply being the fruits of an unenlightened age. In Romans 1, St. Paul refers explicitly to homosexual desire, not merely homosexual acts. The point is that homosexuality is a lust; that is, a perversion of man's natural sexual energies. In other words, it is a passion.
For the most part, the Church Fathers adopted a three-part division of the soul common among Greek philosophers. In Book IV of The Republic, Plato speaks of the soul as divided into the rational, appetitive, and excitable parts.6 In the normally functioning soul, the rational aspect seeks the good and leads man toward it. Reason keeps the appetite under control, with the aid of the excitable power. For example, a married man notices a beautiful woman and feels the pangs of lust. He immediately reproaches—gets angry—with himself and reminds himself that he is married and that adultery would jeopardize his marriage. Thus rebuked, he fends off the lustful thoughts, and justice is established within his soul.
In a diseased or unjust soul, however, the appetites overrule reason and man lives not for the sake of the good, but for the sake of the gratification of desires. To use a modern example, consider someone who is addicted to cigarettes. The person surely knows by now that smoking is bad for the body. It has been clinically connected with emphysema, heart disease and cancer. The smoker knows smoking is bad, but continues to do it because he or she is in the control of the desire for nicotine. The appetites have charge of the person's life. When the appetite cannot be satiated—think of a smoker forced to endure an eight-hour smoke-free flight—he or she becomes irritable. Instead of siding with the reasoning aspect of the soul, the excitable faculty is employed by the appetites. This is why smokers, alcoholics, and drug addicts are willing to go to extraordinary means to satisfy their craving. The same aspect of the soul that gives courage to the hero in battle gives energy and determination to the soul enslaved to the appetites.
The Fathers generally adopted this Platonic schema, but went much further than Plato in elucidating how the soul works—developing a true psyche-ology. The passions, according to Orthodox tradition, are natural faculties and energies of the soul and body that have been corrupted, deformed, and diverted from their original—natural—purpose. This means that for the Orthodox, the healing of the passions involves not the eradication of the passions but their transformation—their transfiguration.7
Just as there are physical energies and faculties and spiritual energies and faculties in man, so there are passions of both the body and soul. Furthermore, the Fathers speak of both voluntary and involuntary passions. In other words, there are some passions that are so ingrained within us they are beyond our conscious decision-making power. This is a very important point for our present discussion.
Homosexual desire must be classed among the involuntary passions. It is commonplace among conservative Christians to treat homosexuality as if it were simply a matter of choice. Yet anyone who actually knows homosexual persons, and certainly anyone who has counseled them, knows this is not the case. One does not wake up one morning and suddenly “decide” to be attracted to persons of the same gender. However, to say that homosexual desire is an involuntary passion is in no way to diminish the fact that it is a passion—a corruption of man's natural sexual energies.
It is widely accepted in scientific circles that there may be a biological (genetic) predisposition in some people toward alcoholism or obesity. This does not change the fact, however, that drunkenness and gluttony are passions. Even if a genetic basis could be found for homosexuality, one could not then argue that homosexual desire is “normal” any more than one could argue that being an alcoholic or seriously obese is “normal.”
While the Orthodox Church has never accepted the idea of original sin prevalent in Western Christianity,8 Orthodoxy certainly realizes that we are born into a fallen world—a world that does not function as it was originally intended. Although we often speak of “fallen nature,” this term needs further refinement. According to St. Maximus the Confessor, it is not the principle (logos) of nature that is fallen, but rather nature's mode (tropos) of existence.9 God's creation is entirely good and remains so even after the fall of mankind. There is no place for the Calvinistic doctrine of total depravity in Orthodox theology. It is the way nature now operates that is affected by the fall.
The tragedy of man's predicament—and this has direct bearing on the topic of homosexual desire—is that we are so used to this fallen manner of existence that we take it for granted. The natural man, or the “fleshly man” as St. Paul would have it, considers his fallen mode of existence to be normal. Thus what we consider to be “natural” is from a biblical perspective unnatural or sub-natural, and what we consider to be “supernatural” is, in fact, the natural or normative state of existence. The homosexual feels that his desires are natural because that is all he has ever known, and no amount of “natural law theory” will convince him otherwise.
It is significant that there is no biblical word for “homosexual.” Indeed, there is no such word in either Latin or Greek; it is of modern origin. From this bit of linguistic archeology, we are able to draw a theological conclusion: for the writers of the Scriptures and for the Church Fathers, there is no “ontology” to homosexuality. This view is normative for the Christian Church. To be sure, there are persons who have a homoerotic orientation; this orientation may be exclusive and it may very well have some basis in genetics. But, from a genuinely biblical perspective, there is no such thing as “a homosexual.” For a man to describe himself as “gay” (or a woman as a “lesbian”) is to grant ontology to his desires and define himself according to his passions.
This self-identification is, of course, at the heart of the contemporary gay movement. This is precisely the one point where the Christian Church cannot deviate from Her historical stand without changing Her entire theology. For the Church to accept someone as “gay” would be to accept the fallen state of man as the natural state. The gay anthem, “I am what I am,” from the musical La Cage aux Folles, is instructive here. What a person is is a matter of biology and genetics; it is an objectification of human life based on the givenness of (fallen) nature. Who a person is—and this is what concerns the Orthodox theologian—is the product of man's freedom; it is the subjective realization of what it means to have been created in the image of God.
Like the inhabitants of Plato's cave, however, we are unaware of our true nature. We take the shadows for reality and define ourselves according to our passions. It is only when we encounter someone who is free of the passions, someone who lives life according to true nature, that we begin to realize our true situation. This realization, however, is at first traumatic. We refuse to believe it.10 A person truly free of the passions seems to us to be inhuman, a creature from another world. The world could not deal with Christ—the first authentically human person—and it has not dealt much better with His Saints. Yet, Saints there are, even today. The Saints are those who have been healed of the passions and who live life according to nature—what we mistakenly consider supernatural existence. They are living revelations of God, living revelations of what human life is supposed to be.
IV. ORTHODOX THEOLOGY AS THERAPY
According to the Greek bishop Hierotheos Vlachos, the Orthodox Church is a spiritual hospital, and its purpose is the healing of the human soul.11 Orthodoxy is a therapeutic science designed to heal the passions and lead man to his natural state in communion with God. The Orthodox Church honors the Saints because they are the living proof (martyrs—witnesses) that the therapy works, that it is possible for man to be healed.
Given this Orthodox insistence that Christianity is first and foremost a therapeutic science, one might reasonably expect a positive evaluation of Christian reorientation therapies. Sadly, however, this is not the case. While there are obvious parallels, the similarities between the Orthodox notion of therapy and that which is practiced within the Protestant world are superficial. To understand this, we must first take a closer look at the Orthodox understanding of therapy and cure and then examine current reorientation therapies in light of the Orthodox standard.
To understand the Orthodox notion of therapy, one must understand that for the Orthodox, sin is not God's problem, but man's. This may seem axiomatic, but in reality it is not. Since at least the time of Anselm's Cur deus homo, Western Christianity has been saddled with the notion that man's sin somehow affects God—it insults His infinite honor and calls forth His wrath. Such anthropomorphic notions are unacceptable to Orthodox theology, however, because they violate the first principle of theology, namely that there is no analogy of being between God and man. God is impassible and unchangeable. He has no pride to wound. Sin, therefore, does not affect God's ability to relate to man (as if God were an upper caste Hindu prevented from coming into contact with an Untouchable); it affects man's ability to relate to God.
In the Scriptures we are told that no one has ever seen God and lived and that God is a consuming fire, yet we are also told that the pure in heart shall see God, that Christians are called to become partakers of the divine nature. The difference is not that God hates sinners and loves the righteous (He loves both without differentiation), but that the sinner is prevented by his sin from experiencing God as light and life. For him, God's presence is fire and judgement. The Saint, on the other hand, is cleansed of his passions and, therefore, open to God's love. For him, God's presence is light and life. Metropolitan Hierotheos describes what the Orthodox mean by the cure of the soul:
"We are not struggling simply to become good people, adjusted to society. The aim of therapeutic treatment is not to make people sociable and to be an anthropocentric exercise, but it is to guide them to communion with God, and for this vision of God not to be a fire that will consume them but a light which will illuminate them." (1994, p. 270)12
One must understand that the passions are not merely bad habits, and the cure of the soul is not merely a matter of behavior modification. The passions are a spiritual pathology. They are deviations and malfunctions of man's most basic bodily and spiritual faculties. They are so ingrained within us that they appear quite natural. Furthermore, the passions are related to one another in very complex ways. To give but one example, the passion of anger is frequently tied to the passion of lust. For every passion that comes to the surface, manifesting itself in outward behavior, there is probably a complex of related passions at work in the deepest recesses of the soul.
How then are these passions cured and the heart cleansed? A person with cancer would not go to a university or a mall for treatment, but to a hospital, because that is where he or she will find treatment appropriate to the disease. In a hospital there are doctors who have knowledge of the disease and, through experience, have learned the best way to treat it. The hospital also contains the facilities and medicines needed to treat the disease.
According to Metropolitan Hierotheos, the Church is a spiritual hospital. The doctors are the spiritual fathers and mothers (usually, but not exclusively, monks and nuns). Their qualification is not an academic degree, but their experience of having undergone spiritual treatment themselves. They are at varying degrees along the way toward the cure of the soul, and they are able to direct others because of their own experience. The medicines and facilities of the hospital are the Holy Mysteries (sacraments). In Baptism, man is regenerated, is “born from above.” In the Holy Eucharist, man receives, according to the phrase of St. Ignatius of Antioch (1999, p. 151), the “medicine of immortality.” Confession and penance are the spiritual equivalent of surgery. It is in confession that the hidden tumors of the soul are laid bare for treatment. In addition to all of these, the physician will prescribe various therapies, much in the same way that a cardiologist will prescribe cardiac rehabilitation therapy. These therapies are the Church's ascetic disciplines: prayer, fasting, vigil, and obedience.
From the above, it is evident that the cure of the soul requires both the grace of God and the cooperation of the one seeking the cure. As the author of the Makarian Homilies puts it, “We do not reach the final stage of spiritual maturity through divine power and grace alone, without ourselves making every effort; but neither on the other hand do we attain the final measure of freedom and purity as a result of our own diligence and strength alone, apart from any divine assistance.”13 To return to the medical analogy, what good would it do for a doctor to prescribe expensive drugs to a bad cardiac patient, if the patient insists on smoking, continues to eat food with high levels of salt and cholesterol, and refuses to exercise?
I cannot stress enough the importance of ascetical effort. When confronted by obstinate demons whom the Apostles were not able to exercise, Christ exclaimed that such demons can be expelled only through prayer and fasting (cf. Mark 9:29). Of course, it is not beyond the power of God to simply remove passions or inordinate desires from us, but almost two thousand years of Christian history teaches that this is not the usual modus operandi. Indeed the ascetical Fathers repeatedly say that there is great virtue in the struggle itself.
Furthermore, simply refraining from outward sin is insufficient. In the context of homosexual desire, refraining from committing physical homosexual acts may not be terribly difficult for many homosexuals, but this is not the same thing as healing. For the Orthodox, the purpose of all spiritual effort is true God-likeness, not mere moral improvement. Indeed the passions of the soul are more insidious and dangerous than those of the body. Even if one has been able to manage one's bodily passions, that does not necessarily mean one has conquered all passions. Nor, indeed, does ascetical effort guarantee sanctification if there is no accompanying union with God. Ilias the Presbyter (1986, p. 55) writes:
"Bodily passions are like wild animals, while passions of the soul are like birds. The man engaged in ascetic practice can keep the animals out of the noetic vineyard; but unless he enters into a state of spiritual contemplation, he cannot keep the birds away, however much he strives to guard himself inwardly. The man engaged in ascetic practice cannot rise above ethical propriety, unless he goes beyond the natural law—as Abraham went forth from his own land—and beyond his own limited state of development—as Abraham left his kinsmen (cf. Gen. 12:1). In this way, as a mark of God's approval, he will be liberated from the all-embracing hold of pleasure; for it is this veil of pleasure, wrapped around us from our birth, that prevents us from receiving complete freedom."
The goal of Orthodox therapy, therefore, is dispassion, which opens the soul to the possibility of communion with God. As Bishop Hierotheos is at great pains to point out, however, this is not the same as the stoic concept of dispassion. The goal here is not an insensate state of apathy, but rather the redirection of man's natural energies (Hierotheos, 1994, p. 296). To put it another way, the goal is transformation rather than eradication. Bishop Hierotheos goes on to state that there are different levels of dispassion:
"St. Maximus sets out four degrees of dispassion. The first type of dispassion is observed in beginners and is “complete abstention from the actual committing of sin.” In this stage the man does not commit the acts outwardly. The second dispassion, which occurs in the virtuous, is the complete rejection in the mind of all assent to evil thoughts. The third dispassion, which is complete quiescence of passionate desire, is found in the deified, and the fourth is the complete purging even of passion-free images, in those who are perfect. It seems from this passage that according to the degree of a man's purity, the corresponding dispassion is manifested." (1994, pp. 299-300)
There is no way to adequately explain Orthodox ascetical theology in a few paragraphs. Allow me to conclude this section, however, with a brief summary that will at least provide some background for the critique of reorientation therapy that follows. (1) The goal of human life is union with God. This is conceived not in terms of moral imitation, but of genuine God-likeness (theosis, in Greek): to become by grace what God is by nature. (2) Sin is the barrier between God and man not because it offends God, but because it cripples man's ability to relate to God. (3) With the fall of man, sin becomes ingrained in man like a second nature. Sin is not merely the result of bad choices, but is rooted in the passions, which are the malfunctioning of man's natural capacities. (4) Salvation is not access to a cosmic theme park (the popular view of heaven), but union with God. Salvation presupposes, therefore, the healing of man's passions and the restoration of his natural faculties. (5) Salvation is, therefore, a process of healing—a therapeutic process. (6) In keeping with the original goal of creation (1, above), this therapeutic process has as its goal not moral improvement, but the total transformation of the passions and, ultimately, the transcendence of man's natural capacities.
V. REORIENTATION THERAPY
With this background let us consider why modern reorientation therapy fails to “measure up,” as it were, to the Orthodox standard of therapy. There are two separate, albeit related, aspects of reorientation therapy that demand our attention. First of all, there is the psychological explanation that lies behind most versions of this therapy. This explanation seems to be shared by both secular and religiously oriented therapists. Second, there are specifically Christian programs that combine such therapy with prayer and support. I shall address each of these aspects in turn.
Not all reorientation therapists agree on the ultimate causes of homosexuality.14 However, it is safe to say that the predominant theory is that homosexuality is a developmental disorder regarding gender identity. For whatever reasons—and therapists who hold this view acknowledge that each case is different—the homosexual fails to identify properly with the same-sex parent, prompting a crisis of his or her own gender identity.15 This may or may not be accompanied by an overbearing relationship with the opposite-sex parent.16 This failure to identify with the same-sex parent occurs in very early childhood.
There are two problems with this theory. The first problem has to do with the determination of causality. As in many cases of concomitant variation, it is not immediately evident which is the cause and which is the effect. Even assuming that the majority of homosexuals have not properly gender identified with the same-sex parent, this may well be the effect of a prior disposition, rather than the cause of later homosexual desire.17 If this were the case, then gender identification therapy would be treating a symptom rather than the underlying cause.
The second problem is the sufficiency of this profile in explaining the origins of homosexuality. Quite simply, not all homosexuals fit the pattern. The stereotype of an effeminate man with an overbearing mother is just that, a stereotype. Furthermore, there are heterosexuals who fit the pattern to a tee. Part of the problem here is that therapists only work with a minute minority of homosexuals, namely those who are unhappy and come to the therapists for treatment. It may well be that a high percentage of those who come for treatment fit the profile, but that does not mean that all or even a high percentage of the homosexual population as a whole fits the pattern.
If I may be permitted to address the problem as a logician for a moment, I would put it this way: Let y stand for the occasion in question; in this case, homosexual orientation. Let A, B, C, D, E, and F stand for subjects, where half of the subjects are homosexual and half are not. Thus, we have Ay, By, Cy, D, E, and F. If we say that x is the determinative factor for occasion y in any given subject, then we should see this pattern: Ayx, Byx, Cyx, and D, E, F. However, the reality is more like this: Ayx, Byx, Cy, D, E, Fx. If this is indeed the case, what conclusions can be drawn? First of all the presence of factor x in a subject that does not exhibit occasiony tells us that whatever the relationship between xand y, x cannot be considered a sufficient cause for y. In other words, the instance of a heterosexual who fails to properly gender identify with the same-sex parent—and surely there are many—negates the possibility that failure to gender identify is the sole cause of homosexuality.18 In the same way, the absence of factor x in subjects with occasion y negates the possibility that x is a necessary cause for y. Thus, the failure to gender identify can be considered neither a necessary nor sufficient cause of homosexuality.
This does not mean that the failure to gender identify is not a possible cause (among many). From what I have read and observed, I would argue that homosexual orientation is a multifaceted phenomenon with perhaps a multitude of possible causes, some psychological and some, perhaps, genetic or biochemical. This is perfectly in keeping with the Orthodox view that the passions are a complicated complex of factors. The problem with reorientation therapy, however, is that it operates with the assumption that a gender-identity deficiency is the primary, if not the only, cause. Reorientation therapy is, therefore, reductionistic.
If Orthodox Christian theology is true, that is, if God has indeed created man in His image, and if, as St. Paul says, the union of man and woman in marriage is somehow related to the mystery of the union of Christ with His Bride, the Church, then homosexual desire must be as much of a spiritual condition as a psychological or physical condition. Thus, to treat homosexuality as merely a psychological developmental disorder is to ignore what may very well be the most important aspect of the issue. The case is somewhat analogous to the modern attitude toward demonic possession. As far as secular—and a great many Christian—therapists are concerned, “possession” is nothing more than some sort of psychotic episode or disorder. That one might actually be possessed by demons is never even considered. Now I am not suggesting that homosexuality is caused by demons, merely trying to point out that gender identity theory, whatever limited merits it may have, is at root a secular and reductionistic explanation for a phenomenon that is to a large degree spiritual and complex.
This brings us to specifically Christian therapeutic programs, such as those promoted by Exodus International. Although Exodus refers homosexuals to a variety of different ministries, there does seem to be a general acceptance of the gender-identity theory. This is evidenced most convincingly by the fact that Exodus and many of its partner ministries insist on the importance of non-sexual, same-sex relationships as a key factor in the healing process. However, these Christian therapies at least recognize the spiritual dimension of the problem.
Perhaps it is because of this realization that Christian reorientation theories are generally less bold in their claims of success than their secular counterparts. While all affirm that healing is possible, it is not so clear that all believe that homosexuals can be converted into fully functional heterosexuals without any remaining homoerotic desires. An Exodus FAQ puts it this way:
"What's your “success rate” in changing gays into straights?
"What you are really asking is whether there is realistic hope for change for men and women who do not want their sexual orientation to be homosexual. And the answer to that is yes!" (www.exodusnorthamerica.org)19
Further on in the same FAQ, it is stated: “Studies suggesting change rates in the range of 30-50% are not unusual, although 'success rates' vary considerably and the measurement of change is problematic.” On the face of it, there should be little problem in measuring success: one is either completely free of same-sex desire or one is not. But things are not that clear-cut and Christian reorientation advocates seem to realize this.20
The fact of the matter is that the number of people who claim to have lost all same-sex desire is very small—certainly less than 30%-50% of those who have undergone therapy. For the secular reorientation therapists, the primary goal seems to be functional heterosexuality, with a corresponding decrease in homosexual desire. This decrease, however, need not be complete for most theorists to claim “success.” Religion-based therapy programs, however, seem to focus more on behavior modification (avoiding sinful acts) and identity (disavowing the “gay” self-image). Indeed, when groups such as Exodus offer deliverance from homosexuality, it appears that they really mean deliverance from the “homosexual lifestyle.” This is not, however, the same thing as deliverance from a true homoerotic orientation.
I would argue that the closest analogy to Christian reorientation therapies would be Alcoholics Anonymous. The alcoholic is not said to be completely “cured,” but is helped to stay “on the wagon” and put his life back in order. Similarly, Christian programs provide the wherewithal for a person to leave the “homosexual lifestyle” and find a new identity as a Christian within a loving community that will reinforce positive behavior and inhibit negative behavior (sin).
No Orthodox Christian would deny that homosexual acts are sinful or that the “homosexual lifestyle” is self-destructive. Furthermore, the question of identity is of paramount importance: a Christian may certainly have homosexual desires, but a Christian cannot identify himself as “gay” and remain Christian. Thus, an Orthodox Christian would be hard pressed to find anything necessarily wrong with such an approach. Certainly it is better to abstain from sin than commit it. However, this is a far cry from dispassion, which is the goal of Orthodox therapy.
My problem with reorientation therapies, whether secular or Christian, is not that they are incapable of producing some change, but that this change is less than the healing of the passions. Where secular therapy is concerned, simply replacing homosexual lust with heterosexual lust is but a shallow victory. Christian therapy, on the other hand, seems much less concerned with producing functioning heterosexuals than with healing emotional wounds and providing the person struggling with homosexuality the support needed to “re-identify” himself as a Christian and to avoid the commission of homosexual acts (in thought as well as deed). To this end, Christian therapy is much to be preferred over secular therapy. Yet, at the risk of beating a dead horse, this is not the same as dispassion and union with God.
Why are the Orthodox so insistent on this point? The answer lies in the Orthodox understanding of salvation outlined above. Sin is not a legal barrier between man and God; it is a disease that renders man incapable of receiving God's love as light and life. The Orthodox do not assume, as do many Evangelical Protestants, that because one had initiated a “relationship with Christ” one is definitively and irrevocably “saved.” On the contrary, salvation is viewed as a process. The transfiguration of the passions is a necessary element of this process. Thus, ethics, for the Orthodox, is a matter of salvation.
The Orthodox Church fully agrees with St. Cyprian's famous statement that there is no salvation outside the Church. This is a confession that the Church—and the Church alone—possesses the therapeutic science necessary to heal man of his passions. Admittedly, this is not a very “ecumenical” sentiment, but it is the belief of the Orthodox Church. When, therefore, an Orthodox Christian is asked to evaluate sexual reorientation therapies from an ethical perspective, he is bound to do so against the backdrop of his own Orthodox understanding of sin and salvation.
There is nothing inherently wrong with either the secular or the Christian reorientation therapies. Surely it is ethical to offer those struggling with homosexual desire the opportunity to find healing. Thus, all of these therapies are fine as far as they go; it is just that from the standpoint of eternity, they do not go very far.
NOTES
1 For reasons that shall become apparent, I am reluctant to use the term “homosexual.” At this point in the discussion, suffice it to say that the more correct term would be “person(s) with a homosexual orientation.” As this phrase is exceedingly cumbersome, however, I am yielding to the modern convention of using the term “homosexual.” My use of “homosexual” as a substantive, however, should not be construed to imply any “ontology” of sexual orientation.
2 Alternate terms are “reparative” and “conversion” therapy.
3 The statement was prepared by the APA Committee on Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues and is dated September 11, 1998. The statement was unanimously adopted by the APA's Board of Trustees during its meeting of December 11/12, 1998.
4 Notice that St. Paul mentions women turning away from the natural desire for men before speaking of male homosexual desire. This is the only place I know of where the writers of Scripture mention lesbianism. This makes perfect sense in this context, however, for in the Pauline typology it is creation—the female—that has turned from its natural desire for God—the male. Paul mentions male homosexual desire almost as an afterthought. This is not to suggest that male homosexuality is less sinful or somehow less of an image of the fall—no doubt St. Paul wanted to avoid that interpretation—but it does explain why St. Paul mentions lesbianism here.
5 There is an inherent narcissism in homosexual desire, but is this not also an image of the fallen state of humanity—human nature obsessed with itself?
6 Plato (1968, 435a-445e). For a detailed discussion of the patristic appropriation of this schema see Staniloae (2002, pp. 96-108).
7 Some Fathers treat the passions as an inherent evil to be eradicated. I would argue, however, that this is a minority viewpoint. See Bishop Kallistos Ware's definition of “passion” in The Philokalia, Vol. 1, pp. 363-364. Boston: Faber and Faber, 1988.
8 Cf. Romanides (2002, esp. pp. 17-39).
9 Cf. Maximus the Confessor, Opscula Theologica et Polemica 20 (PG 91, 236C-D). “Pure and simply human, our will is not in any way impeccable, because of its inclination which is produced sometimes in one sense, sometimes in another. This inclination does not change the nature, but it detours the movement, or to speak in a manner more correctly, it changes the mode. It is clear in fact that the one who does many things contrary to reason never transforms his rational nature into irrational.”
10 In Book VII of The Republic (515c-e), Plato states that the man suddenly released from his fetters and turned toward the reality of life outside the cave would not, at first, believe his eyes.
11 In this section, I have drawn heavily from the writings of Metropolitan Hierotheos. I particularly recommend The Illness and Cure of the Soul in the Orthodox Tradition (1993) and Orthodox Psychotherapy: The Science of the Fathers (1994).
12 Cf. this passage from the Makarian homilies: “What is the will of God that St. Paul urges and invites each of us to attain? It is total cleansing from sin, freedom from the shameful passions, and the acquisition of the highest virtue. In other words, it is the purification and sanctification of the heart that comes about through fully experienced and conscious participation in the perfect and divine Spirit.” (St. Makarios of Egypt, 1986, p. 285).
13 St. Makarios of Egypt (1986, p. 285).
14 Some therapists are agnostic on the subject, tailoring their therapy to the desire of the patient. If the patient is unhappy as a homosexual and wants to change, the therapist will act accordingly. This is done without any prejudice as to the normality of homosexuality.
15 One of the chief proponents of this theory is an Orthodox Christian, Dr. Elizabeth Moberly. Cf. Moberly 1982 & 1983.
16 The overbearing mother and the “momma's boy” is a common stereotype. However, the point of the gender identity theory is that it is not the relationship with the opposite-sex parent that is determinative, but the failure to identify with the same-sex parent.
17 Andrew Sullivan (1995, p.10) makes this point. This is perhaps the most cogently presented argument for the rights of homosexuals.
18 Lest I be accused of sleight of hand here, while a sufficient cause need not be the sole cause, the sole cause must be the sufficient cause.
19 I am normally loath to reference internet sites in formal papers. I am making an exception in this case because this material is not scholarly material available from a library. Those who wish to view Exodus materials may do so at www.exodusnorthamerica.org
20 This same ambiguity as to what constitutes success is to be found in Orthodox writers as well. Fr. John Breck (1998, pp. 116-117) lauds organizations such as Exodus as “invaluable” and affirms the possibility of true change, yet in the very next paragraph he writes, “It is clear, however, that the homosexual condition is often irreversible: the orientation is permanent.”
REFERENCES
1. Breck, Fr. John (1998) The sacred gift of life: Orthodox Christianity and bioethics SVS Press , Crestwood, NY
2. (1999) Epistle to the Ephesians. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek texts and English translations Baker Books , Grand Rapids
3. (1986) Gnomic Anthology IV. The Philokalia 3 , Faber and Faber , Boston
4. (1986) Spiritual Perfection. The Philokalia Faber and Faber , Boston
5. (1857) Opscula Theologica et Polemica; Patrologia Graeca 91 , pp. 9-285.
6. Moberly, E. (1982) Psychogenesis: The early development of gender identity Kegan Paul , London
7. Moberly, E. (1983) Homosexuality: A new Christian ethic James Clarke , Cambridge
8. Plato (1968) The Republic of Plato Basic Books
9. Romanides, J. (2002) The Ancestral Sin Zephyr , G. S. Gabriel, Ridgewood, NJ
10. Staniloae, D. (2002) Orthodox Spirituality St. Tikhon's Seminary Press , South Canaan, PA
11. Sullivan, A. (1995) Virtually normal: An argument about homosexuality Vintage, New York
12. Vlachos, Hierotheos. (1993) The illness and cure of the soul in the Orthodox tradition Birth of the Theotokos Monastery , Levadia, Greece
13. Vlachos, Hierotheos. (1994) Orthodox psychotherapy: The science of the Fathers Birth of the Theotokos Monastery , Levadia, Greece
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)