The Manhattan Declaration











WWW Mere Comments





« Last Day to Sign Up for Mormon Vampires in the Garden of Eden | Main | Church and State in East Germany »

November 08, 2009

Irrelevant & Silent Green Patriarch: on Abortion & Marriage

The Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew,  gave a lecture at Georgetown University in Washington on 3 November.

"The only side that we take is that of our faith, which today may seem to land us in one political camp, tomorrow another, but in truth we are always only in one camp, that of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ."

The speech of the Istanbul-based patriarch was one of numerous appearances by the man known for his advocacy of interfaith relations and religious freedom, and often dubbed the "green patriarch" for working to combat environmental degradation, Religion News Service reports.

Our friend Kevin Offner, who is on Intervarsity staff for graduate students at Georgetown, noted that a friend sent him links to a transcript, the video, and coverage of the Patriarch's speech. Kevin wrote back to his friend:

Dear -----,

Thanks and I took the time to read the Patriarch's address.

Yes, yes, all he says is good and important.  But really now:  addressing the three issues of nonviolence, health care and environmentalism--these are all issues that just about everyone at Georgetown agrees on.  Or at least, they're very sexy, politically correct, cool things to talk about today.

And yet what Luther said remains ever true today:  "If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ.  Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the solider is proved, and to be steady on all the battlefield besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point."

What is one of the huge elephants in the room, the huge culture battles that is going on right now all across our country, especially in the Roman Catholic world (which Georgetown represents)?  Sexuality and marriage!  Yet not a word here about homosexuality, abortion, divorce, sex outside of marriage, gay marriage, etc.  Good grief, he could have at *least* thrown out a few choice lines when talking about caring for creation, like, "and let us care for all of God's creation, including the unborn," or something like this.  But nope, very safe and non-controversial.  (He does say, "Just as every human life is a gift from God, to be treated with love and respect," but does this include the unborn?  His listeners could interpret it either way.)

Please don't misunderstand me.  Yes, of course the issues of health care and the environment are important.  But this is the wide road, the easy road, the road that will win one lots of applause.  To bring the Gospel (that unchanging Gospel and Truth which the Patriarch so wisely discussed in his introduction) to bear on those issues that are currently dividing Christians from the world is to speak courageously and prophetically.

The Patriarch sadly missed a golden opportunity.

Kevin
PS.  I hope I'm wrong here, but I just haven't heard the Patriarch speak out forcefully and prophetically, with the strong foundation of the Tradition behind him, about matters of sexuality and marriage and abortion. I honestly do hope I'm wrong--no doubt you can send me several links of his speeches in the past few years where he's addressed strongly these pivotal cultural issues?  (I write this honestly and not sarcastically.)

Well said, Kevin.

Posted by James M. Kushiner at 11:38 PM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c5ee953ef0120a65e6cfe970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Irrelevant & Silent Green Patriarch: on Abortion & Marriage:

Comments

i dont understand how gays having the same rights as everyone else in this country is a religious issue. of course it goes against gods ideal but so does divorce and i dont hear the same kind of talk from christians on that subject.

Posted by: graceshaker | Nov 8, 2009 11:51:13 PM

"gays having the same rights as everyone else in this country"

If we are honest we have to say that it has gone beyond "having the same rights as everyone else." There was a time (not so long ago) when homosexual behavior was not tolerated, either legally or socially; indeed, it was proscribed and condemned. Now it is tolerated, both legally and socially.

Tolerance, however, is not enough. Now not just acceptance, but approval, is being demanded. That is the meaning of the same-sex marriage movement: with same-sex marriage, homosexual behavior is officially and publicly defined as being of equal dignity and moral value as heterosexual behavior.

Whether you agree that society ought to approve of homosexual behavior and celebrate it, or not, it is certainly not hard to see that it is a religious issue.

"so does divorce and i dont hear the same kind of talk from christians on that subject"

That is certainly true, and it is very much to our shame that we do not condemn divorce with the same (or greater) vehemence that we do homosexual behavior. We should surely have greater credibility if we did. Nevertheless, our failure to defend marriage from all of the things that threaten it does nothing to make homosexual behavior anything other than a sin.

Posted by: Chris Jones | Nov 9, 2009 12:53:17 AM

It would've been nice if he said something about the unborn, but bravo to the patriarch for not making Christian morality all about sex and instead talking about important issues like the environment,healthcare and nonviolence without sounding sanctimonious, as some are in the habit of doing.

Posted by: James | Nov 9, 2009 9:17:20 AM

About the Luther quotation, I'm sad to report that Luther doesn't seem to have ever said it (I wish he had). A writer friend recently contacted me in my capacity as a librarian and asked me to check it out in Luther's works. I couldn't find it in his collected works, and ended up doing a web search. Apparently the quotation (which was popularized, I think, by Francis Schaeffer) actually comes from a 19th Century novel. Luther did say something vaguely similar, but not nearly as strong.

Posted by: Lars Walker | Nov 9, 2009 9:22:05 AM

Homosexual behavior is a religious issue because it is addressed and proscribed as rebellion against the truth of God in Scripture (along with a bunch of other sins in Romans 1:18-32) It is not excluded, nor do same-sex feelings create an exemption from God's law, but they healed by discipleship and fellowship in the Body of Christ, and through the grace and power of God (along with a bunch of other sins in I Corinthians 6:9-20)

In other words, neither homosexual attraction nor any other sinful preference is granted immunity under God's beneficient government. We are all told to crucify the flesh with it sinful desires and to take up our crosses and follow the Word of God to freedom no matter how much it hurts or how long it takes, it is better than the unhealthy unholy destructive (to ourselves and others) lives we would lead as unrepentant sinners. We are given the power to overcome sin through the victory and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Through Christ, we can experience the freedom of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.

Posted by: Sibyl | Nov 9, 2009 10:17:25 AM

i dont understand how gays having the same rights as everyone else in this country is a religious issue.

It's a moral issue, and therefore a religious one. Much to many people's chagrin, religion and politics overlap at morality, which is to say, they overlap an awful lot.

Posted by: c matt | Nov 9, 2009 4:20:44 PM

Graceshaker,

"Gays" already do have the same rights as everyone else in this country. Rights don't accrue on the basis of what or to whom one is attracted. If that were the case, we could get rid of all the laws against theft, larceny, bestiality, incest, age-of-consent laws. Golly, I suppose that even means I might be able to get married if we get rid of the laws against polygamy as well - men gotta get their extra wives from somewhere! Big Love and all that, don't you know.

Kamilla

Posted by: Kamilla | Nov 9, 2009 7:46:11 PM

I agree with James. I read the transcript of the Patriarch's address and found it uplifting. His commitment to nonviolence, philanthropy (especially healthcare), and the environment are encouraging and very much in line with Jesus' NT preachings. Jesus had more to say about poverty and loving one's neighbor than he did about sex. The issues the Patriarch addressed in no way undermined Orthodox positions about sexuality, but maybe we could all use some perspective. Sex doesn't have to be the only thing on one's mind:-p

Posted by: Matt | Nov 9, 2009 8:27:37 PM

Gracemaker,

You make too much sense! LOL!

There is something about disordered sins of the flesh of all kinds that stirs a reaction of anger in those who are rebuked because of them. Anger that blinds and refuses to even begin to listen to reason, let alone the Word of God. Paul is rather clear about this. People who are trapped in the flesh not only sin in the flesh, but deeply resent anyone who faintly suggests that what they are doing is sinful. I for one have never understood this. If one is truly convinced that what he is doing is perfectly normal, why be angered because others say it isn't?

Posted by: Joseph Danielson | Nov 9, 2009 8:39:55 PM

Those disappointed that the Patriarch "punted" at Georgetown do not include those of us who have followed him over the years.

His talk at Georgetown was very much of whole cloth with everything else he has emphasized.

He will NOT address really serious moral issues, such as those threatening the family.

He will address only such social concerns as are approved by Hollywood, and invariably from a Hollywood angle.

I am long past being disappointed by this Patriarch. He is an embarrassment.

Posted by: P H Reardon | Nov 9, 2009 9:27:37 PM

While I'm not sure I would call the Ecumenical Patriarch and embarrassment, Fr Patrick has nevertheless put into words my own thoughts about Patriarch Bartholomew's Georgetown speech. Yes it certainly was an improvement then his speech there 10 years ago when he said that the Orthodox and Catholic Churches we ontologically different. Reading his various public statements over the years, it does seem that Batholomew is increasingly trying to win the favor of the elites. Given the precarious nature of his situation in Turkey, this is understandable--but in the end I think those whose favor he wants to garner will prove to be false friends. I am not sure that the Hollywood elite has the collective stomach to stand up for the Church in Turkey if such a witness would require from them any sacrifice.

Posted by: Fr Gregory | Nov 10, 2009 6:49:34 AM

If he wants to be a Christian he should pull out all the stops and let fly with the truth. The elites despise Christianity anyway, no amount of truckling will change that. If he's just currying favor he's better off pretending to be a Tibetan monk.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward | Nov 10, 2009 10:34:44 AM

Unfortunately, Patriarch Bartholomew did not address the subject of abortion in his recent speech at Georgetown University. I believe this was because Patriarch Bartholomew did not want to get into a confrontation with the audience at Georgetown -- a Catholic university.

Posted by: George Patsourakos | Nov 10, 2009 4:05:22 PM

Friends,

I apologize, but I think some of these comments criticizing the Patriarch are unfortunate, unkind, and unwarranted, particularly when they come from Orthodox Christians. It is easy to criticize fellow Christians for what we wish they would say. (What comes to my mind in that regard is the stunning and almost pervasive silence that comes from American Christians on the issue of the oppression of the Palestinian Christians and those in Constantinople, especially considering US support for Israel and alliance with Turkey.) But that does not make a speaker's comments any less Christian, or our criticism any more Christian. There are genuine concerns but, please forgive me, I do not think these criticisms on some act of omission here are justified. I suppose we all think we know best. People criticize him without evidence for allegedly bowing to "political correctness" because you would have preferred different comments; yet your alternative is simply to have him comport to your own version of political correctness. Ironic. But what is proper for a guest to say in the house of his host? What will be constructive, and what will be damaging? Will we drive people toward the Faith, or away? What does the timing call for? Thankfully, it is not our role to judge or decide, but rather it is for the Holy Spirit to inspire the right words at the right time. With further thanks, neither I nor any of his critics are the 270th bishop in the See of St. Andrew. Instead I am thankful that God is in control and the Holy Spirit continues to move on the earth and inspire.

Forgive me,
Rdr. Timothy, a sinner

Posted by: Rdr. Timothy | Nov 11, 2009 9:28:04 PM

Well said, Reader Timothy, and I've heard similar responses on the subject of these critiques from other Orthodox of Middle Eastern descent, including a priest I respect highly. There's also a tendency in the American church(es) (perhaps especially among "converts"?) to think that we know best and to be surprised that our agendas, whatever they are, aren't driving the leadership of our churches in the Old World.

Posted by: Juli | Nov 12, 2009 11:27:18 AM

Thank you, Reader Timothy. May the Lord bless you, Patriarch Bartholemew and the Orthodox Churches everywhere that prophetically speak the gospel's message of personal responsibility in all areas of human life to a world in desperate need of a steady, calm and loving voice.

Posted by: James | Nov 12, 2009 1:33:48 PM

An interesting discussion of the apocryphal Martin Luther quote is attached. The comments are worth reading as well.
http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=5451

Posted by: Rdr. Timothy | Nov 12, 2009 7:01:58 PM

Green Bart has his priorities messed up. While I certainly agree with much of his concern related to environmental issues (although his falling for the global warming b.s. is disheartening), saying that other issues on the planet are important is not to say that ecological issues are not. Sex and ecology are related; see Wendell Berry on that.

We Orthodox would be much better served if we had a patriarch that resembled Pope Benedict rather than one who is a sort of international version of Ralph Nader with a funny hat.

Posted by: Rob G | Nov 13, 2009 7:32:43 AM

"That is certainly true, and it is very much to our shame that we do not condemn divorce with the same (or greater) vehemence that we do homosexual behavior. "

Well, folks, you now have the opportunity.

John Marcotte of California has proposed an amendment to the California Constitution to ban divorce.
http://rescuemarriage.org/

Luke 16:18 "Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery."

Deuteronomy 5: "Hear, O Israel, the decrees and laws I declare in your hearing today ... You shall not commit adultery. "


Posted by: John FB | Nov 13, 2009 4:39:54 PM

Well John, I'm sure you are aware that the site you linked to was a joke.

Perhaps a more realistic way to fight the scourge of divorce and protect marriage would be to do away with no-fault divorce.

Posted by: Christopher Hathaway | Nov 13, 2009 6:09:39 PM

Christopher writes: "Perhaps a more realistic way to fight the scourge of divorce and protect marriage would be to do away with no-fault divorce."

Agreed. So ... what's stopping all of those who funded and supported Proposition 8?

Explain to me why not ONE person (other than the creator of rescuemarriage) has seriously proposed a change in existing divorce laws.

You do realize that when the "rescuemarriage" amendment fails miserably, it will finally dawn on everyone that the groups who oppose gay marriage aren't really interested in "protecting marriage" at all, right?

Posted by: John FB | Nov 13, 2009 8:31:46 PM

It's true: you can be sure that a proposition to outlaw no-fault divorce would go down in flames ...

Posted by: Juli | Nov 13, 2009 9:33:47 PM

~~You do realize that when the "rescuemarriage" amendment fails miserably, it will finally dawn on everyone that the groups who oppose gay marriage aren't really interested in "protecting marriage" at all, right?~~

That's a bit of a leap. Liberals may want to think that, but what liberals think isn't necessarily so. No-fault divorce is a sexual revolution product that wasn't opposed strongly enough at the time it was put forward. Now after this many years that genie will be difficult to get back into the bottle, unfortunately, no matter how many Christians make the attempt.

Posted by: Rob G | Nov 13, 2009 10:28:52 PM

Is it your logic, John, that if you failed to stand for morality in one instance you have no credibility in standing for it ever? Perhaps it is you who really doesn't want to protect marriage and you will look for any flaws in those who try to do so in order to discredit them. We all are fallible, but it is the cynical and the immoral who demand perfection before virtue can be sought and who delight in finding flaws in the righteous so they can justify their rebellion.

Posted by: Christopher Hathaway | Nov 13, 2009 11:12:38 PM

Is it your logic, John, that if you failed to stand for morality in one instance you have no credibility in standing for it ever?

IanJ, but to me the logic is that one starts with one's own failings and gets one's own house in order before presuming to serve as an example for others or focusing so much on how others are missing the mark. If indeed I am the first among sinners, that should keep me busy for a while.

Posted by: Juli | Nov 13, 2009 11:54:30 PM

"IanJ, but to me the logic is that one starts with one's own failings and gets one's own house in order before presuming to serve as an example for others or focusing so much on how others are missing the mark. If indeed I am the first among sinners, that should keep me busy for a while."

Such that you wouldn't be passing valuable time pointing out to others what a failing it is that they are pointing out the sins of others?

Look, there is a difference between tracking down individual homosexuals, adulterers, thieves, gluttons, and lazy bums, and even self-righteous Pharisees and harassing them about their personal sin, and taking a stand on principle for the eternal, immutable truth of God when it is coming under attack from the enemy.

Posted by: AMereLurker | Nov 14, 2009 5:39:10 AM

Such that you wouldn't be passing valuable time pointing out to others what a failing it is that they are pointing out the sins of others?

Or at least would acknowledge that it's a poor use of my time ... it is, and I do. Any speck in my own eye becomes a log, by definition, because it distorts my vision. Even so, most of us prefer to hear sermons directed at others.

Posted by: Juli | Nov 14, 2009 2:20:02 PM

"We all are fallible, but it is the cynical and the immoral who demand perfection before virtue can be sought and who delight in finding flaws in the righteous so they can justify their rebellion."

Not really. I'm asking for consistency. I think marriage is a noble venture. I think it admirable for two people to commit to each other for a lifetime in a culture that is frequently unreliable and noncommittal. To say "I will love you and support you when your hair turns gray and even if I have to spoon feed you" is a commendable thing to me.

It's just curious to me that those who claim to want to "protect marriage" by preventing gays from legally making a commitment to each other are silent when it comes to overturning laws that make it easy for heterosexual couples to easily sever those bonds. I have to wonder what their real motives are. It's not really protecting marriage: it's something else. What that is, I have yet to understand.

Posted by: John FB | Nov 14, 2009 7:58:47 PM

those who claim to want to "protect marriage" by preventing gays from legally making a commitment to each other are silent when it comes to overturning laws that make it easy for heterosexual couples to easily sever those bonds.

This is patently untrue. Some may be so silent and thus correctly judged to have an inconsistent respect for marriage. But you cannot add me into that group, nor a good many here who have repeatedly spoken out against our divorce culture. You raise nothing but strawmen here.

Moreover, we do not believe marriage to be a "noble venture". It is a sacred institution, not subject to redefinition to suit the desires of men. It is not a creation of men but of God. Thus it is only something for the state to recognize, not remake. Those who attempt the latter or support it are not doing something noble. They are playing the fool and desecrating what they pretend to admire. The truth is they admire nothing but their own carnal desires and rebellious ideas. Their god is their stomach.

Posted by: Christopher Hathaway | Nov 14, 2009 9:28:50 PM

Post a comment