[quote author=Orthodoxy link=topic=14150.msg162754#msg162754 date=1358304767] Solidman, this forum has become just a battle of wits where we quote each other's responses, prove that we can respond astutely and move on. I'm uneasy with this. Lets be honest and vulnerable for one moment about the essence of the concerns raised here. Are you willing to at least concede that having a person who isn't Orthodox (doesn't believe in Eucharist, baptism, etc) on an Orthodox channel (which believes in Eucharist, baptism, etc) imparting spiritual advice, shows a contradiction? Wouldn't it provide a certain legitimacy to her brand of Christianity, worship and set of ideals to the many (Orthodox) youth who are watching?
Wouldn't it be fair for an Orthodox youth to hear her say "When I was saved" take this sentiment and believe whatever is attached to it. This is something only protestants say. I mean, would the youth be at fault? After all, he saw it on an Orthodox channel. Wouldn't it also be fair for that youth to believe he can cultivate a spiritual life which doesn't necessarily have to be dependent on the sacraments since we've established that she isn't Orthodox and she's having a great life without the church and the sacraments?
The point is, we aren't judging anyone, nor are we saying one is going to heaven or the other to hell. What is being said is that a 'Way' is sure to lead to heaven(if followed faithfully), and the rest (other Christianities) are left to God's mercy. But since we aren't sure how God's mercy will operate and how he sees things, it isn't up to us to bring in what is foreign and juxtapose it on what is already known.
You can at least concede that the possibilities I alluded to can happen. Would they not? I'm not trying to outwit you but it seems there's a fundamental element of spiritual discernment that has been lost here. Would you agree?
Orthodoxy, I sensed this from your earlier post, but I will express it now: we are pretty much on the same page. You may not see it, but I feel that we share the exact same concerns.
I completely agree that there is a danger to exemplifying an orthodox principle via a non-orthodox expression of it. I've dealt with this fine line my entire life, have become familiar with it, and now I'm confident in knowing where it is drawn.
And that's what I'm trying to tell you guys: this instance is not wrong or bad by any means. When we discuss prayer or the Shepherd's call to His own, it is not a uniquely orthodox experience. If Marina brought a non-orthodox person on the air to discuss the Eucharist, we would have a problem. I'm sure she wouldn't (unless for interfaith exploration to draw distinctions... my mind can always come up with a possibility).
As for the youth who watches this show and believes it implies that there is no need for sacraments (or any other orthodox rite), I would say that there is an audience for everything. When I was younger, I read a lot of CS Lewis. Before I read him, I had to be sure to understand any distinctions between orthodox teachings and the rest. I was a suitable orthodox audience for CS Lewis because I had enough discernment to know what is and what is not the Church's teachings. But guess what... I still learned a lot from him (from a Protestant!).
So, yes I agree there is a danger, but not one that cannot be mitigated by knowing the audience and teaching the children more about our faith and where the lines are drawn. And if there really is a kid out there who wants to make that stretch to say a non-Orthodox person is living life without sacraments in order to escape the sacraments himself, then that kid has deeper spiritual issues than this tv show. We need to address those.
[quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy] Solidman, I am actually OK with continueing this discussion with you. I calmed down a little. I think, although this may not be comfortable, that the best way to do this is in fact the quote-refute comment.
Alright, then. We can continue to a conclusion in the (very) near future. I guess I can just respond to this post and call it a day.
[quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy]You spoke of me as liking Om Kalthoum. How did you know? :P. I do in fact like her.
It was pretty obvious :P
(I like her, too)
[quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy]But I fail to see what this effect has on my view of Orthodox method. I am not even against poems of "the black culture." I actually have personally attended some poetry nights. I simply feel that their place is not in the church.
Yes, I understand you feel that way. And you're entitled to your opinion. All I'm saying is that your opinion (and mine) do not dictate what orthodoxy is.
Neither you nor I really connected with that poem you linked us to. The difference is that you took that lack of connection, or that discomfort, as a sign that this isn't godly. That it's not the orthodox way we were raised on. I, on the other hand, examined the poem to see whether or not there in fact is anything that contradicts our faith before condemning it. I listened to the words. I listened for the feeling behind the words, and the demeanor of the writer. After I examined the poem in its full form and checked it against my orthodox faith (as preserved by the Church), I came to the conclusion that it does not contradict any of my beliefs. It may do nothing for me spiritually, and that is because I do not connect to it on a stylistic/artistic/emotional level, but I know there is an audience who will. And to them, it will not harm them, but bring them closer to Christ.
[quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy]The tone of the poem is reminiscent of the same black culture which produces rap music. Do you think that this is acceptable in church? I doubt it.
I've had this discussion with plenty of people before. The basics of it usually play out as follows:
+I say music itself is not bad. +They say that rap music is bad. +I say rap music itself is not bad, it is just music. The lyrics to *most* rap music is bad, thus making it bad. But that's not the style of music that is bad. +They say that rap music is so intertwined with bad things that it is now forever tarnished.
This view suffers from a lack of enlightenment. We can say the same things about ep ouro. It was a pagan hymn, and it has become soooo associated with pagan tradition that it must be bad, regardless of the lyrics now.
We can say the same about Christmas on December 25th, which was originally a pagan holiday (saturnalia). It was soooo entrenched in pagan tradition that there is no way it could ever be good.
And what about the internet? How terrible is that place? Oh, no... I would never log onto the internet, the playground of sin. Not even if I'm logging onto a website called MidnightPraise.org :P
Music, like any other art, is merely a medium. The message is what defines good or bad.
So, to answer your question, I can imagine a world with orthodox christian "rap" music. Just like the christian converts reinvented ep ouro, so too can we take the medium of music and use it to glorify GOD.
Would I put it in the liturgical services? No, we already have a set structure for those. For recreation? As long as it is dogmatically sound, yes.
Baptize the culture.
[quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy]I understand that the idea is to "become to the Jews a Jew" but I'm not too sure of the extent with which we should be doing this. Should we go so far as to enter the culture and embrace it with all its defects? I simply feel that, though the poem may not excite, it does not model after the idea of contemplation.
Yes, I recognized from your posts that you are unsure how far to take it. So, in response to the perceived danger (and there is a danger), you would rather not adopt any of it. You'd rather play it safe.
But I didn't say we should embrace the culture with all its defects. I said we should baptize it. We have to make it holy, take the good, eradicate the bad. Like Christ, we have to be clear with the new culture on where the line is drawn. But to be clear with them, we have to first be clear with ourselves: where is the line drawn?
There are congregation members alive today who would find the removal of arabic from the liturgy as courting blasphemy. You may laugh at them, but think about the flaw in their sentiment: they cannot separate the arabic language (culture) from coptic orthodoxy (dogma/tradition). To them, the line is drawn with arabic on the side of dogma.
Likewise, we have to know where the line is drawn.
[quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy]You spoke about different cultures adopting Orthodoxy. This is something that I am all for, because I am a Christian. So for example, we have the Ethiopian Orthodox which carry a culture with Orthodoxy. But again, the west has it's culture that can well be intertwined with true Orthodoxy. But would you also assert that death metal should be used in church (I'm not insinuating that you would, just an honest question.) If you would, then I think we have a problem because that is clearly opposed to the contemplation which our fathers teach. If you say no, I would like to ask what the distinction is between the two.
Death metal, rap music, country singing... they are all very similar to me in that they are music, they are just a medium. What do the words say? What is the meaning behind those words?
Did you know that death metal bands are divided into two main categories? Guess what those categories are.... Christian and non-Christian. Yep, many death metal bands (if not most) are very very Christian in their lyrics. Are you surprised? Don't be... what do you think we sound like to westerners when we stand with our long black beards and wail hymns to our GOD, who happens to be called "Allah"?
There's enough ignorance based on surface-level judgments; why should we join in that practice?
*The only thing I would have against death metal is that its musical nature, while theologically neutral, has the ability to move the heart/emotions of a person. But so does Om Kalthoum :P (she makes us cry!). So it really depends a lot on the message.
[quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy]I am not implying that the church's service is ecclesiastic in the sense of theology, or the "Divine Office of the Liturgy," but rather that even it's evangelism is deeply intermingled with its liturgical theology. Correct? For some time in my life, I visited an OCA parish that is dedicated to mission. Even though it served people who were literally off the streets, it served them in a relatable ORTHODOX way. It had "lived theology" classes. It had prayers, and hymn classes etc. So I am not opposed to a humble approach to service, nor an approach which takes into account the lowly (which we all are), but I am opposed to one which adopts a culture that is not Orthodox.
I think you are perhaps misunderstanding my use of the word "culture". To be clear, I am using culture to mean the egyptian culture (no bearing on our religious beliefs), and dogma/tradition (which is EVERYTHING about our religious beliefs).
That's great about the OCA services... and I agree we MUST NOT let go of our liturgical theology. That is one of the great gems our Church has to offer. But that's not the only gem. And that's what I'm trying to make everyone here understand.
[quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy]Now, I must agree with InChrist7 and yourself on this one, and I do apologize, that I do not have a monopoly on Orthodoxy. But what I have been taught is a more "contemplative" Orthodoxy. I do not feel that a poem of this scheme can be considered Orthodox. I am an avid reader of poetry, and I study poetry as much as I study theology. So I do have a understanding of the way poems work. There are many forms of poetry which I am alright with. I feel like this kind of poem is a little out of it. This does not mean that I do not like the poems. In fact, take a listen to this poem. I love it. However, I do not feel like the movement of the scheme would be useful for a spiritual ascent. You may disagree. But I cannot accept that my only reason for not accepting this kind of culture being used in church is because I don't like it. I think it is the opposite. I know this culture all too well.
I understand completely where you're coming from. And I want you to know that I do not mean to discredit that at all.
For someone who loves and studies poetry, I am sure you have written poetry yourself. I want you to think about what it takes to write a poem. Think of how you give off a piece of yourself and commit it to paper for the rest of the world to see. It's vulnerable. It's real. And, if nothing else, it's extremely contemplative. Now imagine writing a poem to GOD. How much more self-reflective would that be?
I see here again you comment on how you are uncomfortable with and disconnected from the type of poetry in the video. I agree with you that I do not connect to it as much as I do with other poetry. But what you and I connect to is not the definition of Orthodoxy. That was the topic of this debate: whether or not this poem is "orthodox".
What if I told you that I do not connect with some of the arabic spiritual songs that many of our congregation absolutely love. I'm not talking about the liturgical hymns, I'm talking about arabic spiritual songs. I do not relate to them, even though I understand them (not a language issue). I just don't like the tunes. Does that make them less orthodox? What if I told you that I associate arabic with the slaughter and persecution its people brought with it? That the arabic culture is one I have come to associate with hate and discrimination (arab nations are pretty bad). "Arabic reminds me of Islam." Would you then accept that an arabic spiritual song, even though completely orthodox in meaning, is not of orthodox demeanor?
It's a cultural thing.
[quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy]Please do not misunderstand me. I have often taken the strengths of other churches, appreciated, and adopted them. And this is for the same reason that you have. I am not opposed to the church making use of other cultures, and other methods, as long as they do not conflict with Orthodoxy. Where I think we differ is that apart from Dogma, I feel that "ethos" is important. Now I am sorry for using a greek term, but trust me, it is actually the best word I know for this. I feel like Orthodoxy is more to be lived. If the way we pray and evangelized is not conducive to this contemplative "mood" then we have a problem. Do you disagree on this point? Or is it that you feel like this culture does not contradict this mood?
I understand exactly why you are using the word "ethos"... I agree it is the perfect word for what you're describing. And yes, I am familiar with the mood you are referring to. But it makes me wonder... how do you imagine the psalms were sung? Do you imagine they were sung in a calm voice? Do you imagine they were loud and fiery? Do you imagine them fast or slow? In what mood were the psalms originally written? Does it even matter?
I think our unfamiliarity with the outside culture makes us interpret the "mood" of the poem in a way that may not be accurate. Again, think of how we sound to Westerners when we are singing the psalms during Pascha week, without giving them an explanation.
It's cultural.
[quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy]Looking forward to hearing your response to this one. Forgive me for attacking. I sincerely apologize. Maybe we can edify now.
I hope you weren't offended by my decisive responses. I appreciate the changed tone and only hope that you can see that we were on the same page, just different paragraphs :P
I'm sorry Marina if you have been upset as I'm sure you didn't mean for anyone to feel defensive.
I think words can be used in generic terms: Ones like love, equility and so on. What they all imply is sharing. So when words are used genericly, sometimes a group will be specific, that they do not share the way the person who brought the word up intends. An example: Love; our church would see that word differently than homosexuals would. In both cases, they have the truth of sharing but differ on what should be shared.
I have respect for our brothers and sisters on your show. My prayers are with them. However I don't think we share the same ways of doing things. If we believe the Holy Spirit is guiding our church, then problems are solved by the priests. Because they are in the lineage of of the church Christ started. So if you have come to us, asking for problems to solve then what are we to say? Yes, we have the word of Christ, which other groups who say they are christian do, but that we believe and are, guided by the Holy Spirit. We don't share the same guidance.
Again I'm sorry if you have benn upset or offended. My prayers are for you Marina.
[quote author=solidman link=topic=14150.msg162779#msg162779 date=1358329203] But I didn't say we should embrace the culture with all its defects. I said we should baptize it. We have to make it holy, take the good, eradicate the bad. Like Christ, we have to be clear with the new culture on where the line is drawn. But to be clear with them, we have to first be clear with ourselves: where is the line drawn?
Sorry to jump in here - just wanted to put it out there that St. Basil, St. Clement of Alexandria and St. Gregory of Nazianzus all strongly agree with you ... Here's St. Basil talking about how Christians should use pagan literature:
"For just as bees know how to extract honey from flowers, which to men are agreeable only for their fragrance and color, even so here also those who look for something more than pleasure and enjoyment in such writers may derive profit for their souls. Now, then, altogether after the manner of bees must we use these writings, for the bees do not visit all the flowers without discrimination, nor indeed do they seek to carry away entire those upon which they light, but rather, having taken so much as is adapted to their needs, they let the rest go. So we, if wise, shall take from heathen books whatever befits us and is allied to the truth, and shall pass over the rest. And just as in culling roses we avoid the thorns, from such writings as these we will gather everything useful, and guard against the noxious. So, from the very beginning, we must examine each of their teachings, to harmonize it with our ultimate purpose, according to the Doric proverb, 'testing each stone by the measuring-line.'"
I think the same should apply to all cultural products.
"So also here, I call him truly learned who brings everything to bear on the truth; so that, from geometry, and music, and grammar, and philosophy itself, culling what is useful, he guards the faith against assault. Now, as was said, the athlete is despised who is not furnished for the contest. For instance, too, we praise the experienced helmsman who "has seen the cities of many men," and the physician who has had large experience; thus also some describe the empiric. And he who brings everything to bear on a fight life, procuring examples from the Greeks and barbarians, this man is an experienced searcher after truth." ~ St. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 1.9
I am not at all disagreeing with you. I think I agree with you more than I disagree. In fact, in whatever study of theology I have done, I have noticed a huge influence of platonic theology incorporated. Origen is another one. I love both Origen (almost to a dangerously "heretic" point) and most of my theological understanding stems from the Alexandrian and Cappadocian fathers. So, there is no disagreement on the use of the culture.
My question is what components of the culture may we adopt. I know this is a dichotomizing example, but take it as nothing more than an exaggerated example: When preaching to the Greeks, St. Paul used less Hebrew literature, and adapts a little to the gentiles. But he stood up against things like "women speaking in church." Now women and speaking in church is not sinful in and of itself. I also that rap is not sinful in and of itself (I am a huge fan of some Tupac), but St. Paul realized that some components of the culture may not be adopted because of the connotations they carry. St. Paul made a distinction.
I don't suppose that we differ on the fact that we should adopt a culture (in fact, I am all for a Canadian Orthodox Church). We also do not differ (I hope) that we need to make some sort of distinction between what may and may not be adopted. I guess we only differ on the degree of what can and cannot be adopted.
I always thought of it as unrighteous mamman. It helps but isn't in the truth of identity. For instance, I could quote Shakespeare, "Mad slanders by mad ears belived be."That might help me from people who say things against me, but Jesus says,"Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. Rejoice and be exceedly glad, for great is your reward in heaven." One has the direction of still been on earth and the other in heaven, and they both help to person not to worry what is been said about them.
I hope you can forgive us Marina, it is just that we are on a path that we have been given and even if there maybe different paths, it is that we may chose to bring up problems and solve them within the church. I'm sure you understand.
Feminism is a touchy subject as there is one on this forum who has being deeply hurt and we can read it every time he posts. Men and women are not the same and have different roles and it may be wrong for a woman to treat a man like another woman, and vise-versa.
Dear Marina, your last post was excellent. I think people will misunderstand your first paragraph on Orthodoxy though. From what I gather so far, your show does not seem to be "contradictory" to Orthodoxy. Perhaps, taking a page from "Mere Christianity" in C.S. Lewis, you are simply drawing upon principles in Christianity that Catholics and Protestants don't disagree with, and I see nothing wrong with that.
With that being said, I also listened to your poem. I have to say, I actually like it. I will go out on a limb and criticize my fellow friends here who criticize your poem as "unOrthodox". It's just a poem. She's not presenting it in Church while Abouna is distributing the Eucharist. She's doing it in a show. Let's understand that and be a bit more charitable in this regard.
If there's anything dogmatically wrong, present it to her. Maybe I missed something.
With that in mind, I do have a few suggestions. Marina, soul sista, how are you by the way ;)
First, the intro music....something needs to be changed...it is so heretical (j/k...but seriously it's off...lol...but that's only my opinion :P)
Second, since you are catering especially to women in the Church, perhaps you can share with the world why women aren't priests in the Orthodox Church, or talk about the important female figures in the history of the Church, and how they are important or relevant for today?
Third, all the social problems that women face, I think these are important too. Women and abuse, women and depression, women and abortion, women and modesty, women and gossiping...etc.
Fourth, I love your recent episodes on reading the Bible and commenting on it in a social aspect. Continue with it.
Fifth, maybe organizing your show in segments, or doing a subject every other show. For instance, you can cycle the subjects of the shows you do. One can be history/tradition in the Church, and then the following show can be Bible study, and then the following show can be social aspect, and then go back and repeat. Maybe, you can do a poem and comment on it in a spiritual manner. If you have interesting guests that pertain to your topic, that could also be helpful as well, as once in a while type of thing. Maybe you can have a debate, where an issue that is not settled, let's say in areas of science and religion, can be discussed and debated.
So, these are my suggestions. God bless, and take care :)
Thank you all for taking the time to critique the Marina Show. While I appreciate all of your comments (especially those from Orthodoxy, Return Orthodoxy, and Andrew), and would not like to create controversy, I would like to clarify and speak to some contested issues.
I strongly encourage you to exercise your modes of reasonableness before reading my reply. ... ... ... 3. Feminism
I was deeply insulted by your comments about feminism – some of which were made by persons who did not watch that episode. 1. Being a Feminist – You have invalid, and arbitrary conceptions of feminism. Feminism is built on the precept that “women and men are equal” and then, just like Christianity, branches off into different sects and forms of radicalization. To suggest that I should have asked my “feminist” Guest about her views on abortion before bringing her on my show is preposterous, especially because she is a Coptic woman who is one of my closest friends. 2. Feminism & The Church – The purpose of the show was to reconcile our feminist views with the church – this was an attempt to allay the fears of many women who feel dissociated from the church, and from Christianity, because of passages and dogmas, which seem to discriminate against women on their face. The show, if you take the time to watch it, actually attempts to reveal the beauty of the verse, “Wives submit to your husbands” by exploring the parallel obligations of men to love their wives as Christ loved the church, and also died for her. ... ... ... The purpose of this poem was to bring young women to Christ – to show them how much God adores their beauty and desires their heart. Because the reality is, young women, whom I counsel at church, are struggling with ideas of self-worth and falling prey to the lusts of this world. This is my attempt to explain God’s ineffable love. My brothers, God’s love cannot, and should not , only be expressed by orthodox persons through “prescribed” orthodox hymnology or contemplations. God’s love surpasses these confines. ... ... ... That being said, I apologize if my antics have offended any of you in any way. I expect that my post will be followed by a plethora of detailed counter-arguments, to which I will not respond. You are all entitled to your views, and I am sorry if I have offended any of them.
I will take all of your recommendations under advisement. Pray for me.
Hi Marina, God help you serve your sisters in His Orthodox Truth,
I had hoped that another reader, especially a truly faithful Orthodox Christian woman, theologian, priest, or bishop would point out the seemingly unreasonable and heretical premises of your philosophy and mission statements. I have not watched any of your shows or clips. so I am only commenting on the above quoted statements attributed to you.
Let's all take off our modern secular (demonic?) cultural/political agendas, advantages and biases and put on traditional Apostolic/Scriptural Orthodox Christian reasonableness in Truth. Are you willing to discuss "feminism" in that context? Sadly, I can believe that you have never had an opportunity to learn to consider the secular/demonic reality of "feminism" in any North American Coptic Orthodox Church. I have never heard of a Coptic bishop sincerely attempting to teach these truths in English. I have, however, experienced a senior Coptic priest being shouted down by screaming Coptic feminists when he tried to teach and discuss these relevant fundamental Scriptural/Apostolic/Patristic Christian principles. Without the support of their bishops and synod, it seems that all of the senior North American Coptic priests who recognize this heresy and the young families that it is destroying, have tuned out, in surrender. So, it is understandable that "You have invalid, and arbitrary conceptions of feminism," and a popular modern media forum to propagate them, against your own and your challenged Western Christian sisters' (and brothers' and their young families') traditional Orthodox Christian best interests.
Are you an advocate of objective truth and reality? If you are, how can you shamelessly state “women and men are equal,” or, in a rational traditional Creation/Apostolic/Scriptural/Orthodox order, "men and women are equal?" Sure, there are similarities, generalities and comparatives, but, objective equality? Come on, gal, to start your self-enlightenment, just open your eyes, ears, nose, taste, touch. Open any page of the Holy Bible, Holy Fathers, Holy Mothers. Show us the unequivocal proof of your irrational, false secular, or heretical spiritual premise. You'll just add to the increasing numbers of broken, divorced young Coptic families in your community and outreach if this demonic premise and heresy is the basis of your counsel of young women at church and through your shows.
God has never left us without a remnant of those who follow His Commandments in truth. It seems that this current North American Orthodox remnant against the seemingly overwhelming acceptance of heretical Orthodox "christian" feminism may be Canadian OCA Orthodox priest, Father Lawrence Farley. Father Lawrence has skillfully began to spiritually challenge the seemingly unquestioned heretical Orthodox feminism epidemic with his new study, Feminism and Tradition, Quiet Reflections on Ordination and Communion, St. Vladimir's Seminary Press. Father Farley is a skilled Bible exegete who has just barely opened the needed challenge to this destructive popular modern heresy. I hope he hasn't tried to trade-off heretical menstrual spiritual cleanness for heretical women's ordination. If he has, he'll eventually lose both. Father Lawrence could provide a little counter-balance to your seemingly rabid Orthodox feminist viewpoint. He is media friendly and has an enriching Bible Study series on Ancient Faith Radio. The Book of Genesis, the Epistles of SS Peter and Paul, and the Commentaries of St. Chrysostom and Blessed Augustine on these Epistles are the best starting point for an understanding of God's gender and family commandments, in truth. All other relevant principles must follow from these First Principles.
I hope you will give deep consideration to the offenses that your viewpoint and comments actually make against the truths of the objectives you claim to seek.
For the record, what Irishpilgrim said is not correct. It is not scriptural. It is not patristic. It is not voice of the Coptic Orthodox Church. It is not the voice of Coptic Orthodox men. It is not the voice or anyone other than himself. Please do not feel that Irishpilgrim's comments are a reflection of any particular group. They are his own and he has not been able to show any evidence of reason or logic to support them.
I reiterate minasoliman's comment. Lord have mercy! Please pray for us.
I think Marina knows that it is IP own opinion Remnkemi.
I'm sorry irishpilgrim for the grief you have suffered and continue to suffer. If we connect our suffering to blame, even though we find a truth and it shows itself now and then, we never get over the grief. It is most important for us is to get over grief, because God has given us the ability to move on. He has set us free from that impisioned state of grief.
Yes, Freud does have a connection with feminism, because freud was a Dawinist and as such was materialistic and connected his thinking with the body. This is weak and has less ability give women strength than our Lord Christ. Simiarily, Jung who put spirituality into his thinking, looked to other Gods. This also will not help women as other Gods is not what helps our women. So psychology has to be used as unrighteous mammam with much discernment.
But we cannot attach our grief to it as blaming is not what we are about.
Perhaps you could've posted some of his articles for us to read instead of just marathoning through your post. People are starting to not take you seriously anymore because contrary to what most of them are saying I actually agree with some of your concerns.
We know you've been hurt, perhaps unjustly, but that doesn't excuse a disregard for others' opinions and experiences. It's actually quite sad because I think you're one of the more intelligent posters on these forums, but because you're letting your emotion and hurt act as a launchpad for your prose, it comes of as fanatic. Again, I agree with some of your concerns; your approach, however, needs to be sanded down, seasoned with humility and you'll eventually get people who've experienced much of the same things you have to agree with you.
I must say, Fr Laurence certainly addresses this topic(above article) very nicely. Thanks, IP, and everyone for the input.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=14150.msg163564#msg163564 date=1362006725] Is it appropriate to discuss this article by Fr Lawrence here or should we open a new thread? I think his article has some major flaws.
a new thread so i am not forced to delete any posts :-)
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=14150.msg163564#msg163564 date=1362006725] Is it appropriate to discuss this article by Fr Lawrence here or should we open a new thread? I think his article has some major flaws.
Agreed, Remnkemi. It's important to read the opening sentences by which Fr Laurence admittedly states:
The article was written quickly, and accordingly bears all the marks of a pastoral piece written in such haste. I re-post here with reservations. For a more lengthy and mature treatment of these questions, please see my book Feminism and Tradition, published by SVS Press.
So any debate or discussion arising from this article would be unavailing, as fr Laurence would probably agree with you. I did mean, when I addressed my admiration for the article, was the essence of his approach and that it is definitely an important discussion to have (feminism) particularly in this post modern society. I see no need to debate over an article which the author himself admits to being unscholarly and compiled in haste.
Perhaps we can all read his more scholarly work 'feminism and tradition' and have a discussion on that.
[quote author=Orthodoxy link=topic=14150.msg163560#msg163560 date=1361996732] IrishPilgrim, is this the Father Laurence farely you're talking about? http://frlawrence.shawwebspace.ca/
Perhaps you could've posted some of his articles for us to read instead of just marathoning through your post. People are starting to not take you seriously anymore because contrary to what most of them are saying I actually agree with some of your concerns.
We know you've been hurt, perhaps unjustly, but that doesn't excuse a disregard for others' opinions and experiences. It's actually quite sad because I think you're one of the more intelligent posters on these forums, but because you're letting your emotion and hurt act as a launchpad for your prose, it comes of as fanatic. Again, I agree with some of your concerns; your approach, however, needs to be sanded down, seasoned with humility and you'll eventually get people who've experienced much of the same things you have to agree with you.
I must say, Fr Laurence certainly addresses this topic(above article) very nicely. Thanks, IP, and everyone for the input.
Orthodoxy, Thank you for your objective observations and comments. Many want to console me with alibis for my concentrated, often disorganized zeal regarding my principle concerns: The effects of the popular "modern" heresies of demonic feminism and freudianism on the understanding and application of God's traditional gender and family commandments in the Orthodox Christian Churches. Without my personal experiences in these regards, I'm sure my disinterest in these matters would match that of my critics. I don't have any personal emotional involvements and concerns now. Now I only try to seek out new Coptic divorce victims that may be able to use my experiences to help them and their children cope with and understand the disgusting, overwhelming, incomprehensible experience. Most new victims avoid inquiry until it is too late. By the time they realize that their bishop and priest aren't interested, it is too late. In my way, I try to encourage Coptic and Orthodox clergy, teachers and youth to understand and address these "new" underlying heresies and their dangers.
Father Lawrence Farley is a special Orthodox priest. I think he "landed" in a jurisdiction that really needs him, OCA. I learned of him when he published an introductory article to his, then unpublished, book, Feminism and Tradition, on one of the last episodes of OCANews.org. I've lost track of the article and its title. I have posted it in an earlier rant on Tasbeha.org. When I recall it, I'll try to get it to you. Father Lawrence has a very rich audio series of commentaries on Scripture on Ancientfaith.com. Whenever I have a question on a scripture passage, and time to listen, I check him out. Have a Bible and note pad handy. He is really well trained, and inspired in Bible exegesis. He seems to be a lone Orthodox voice against growing Orthodox feminist "theology."
Comments
Solidman, this forum has become just a battle of wits where we quote each other's responses, prove that we can respond astutely and move on. I'm uneasy with this. Lets be honest and vulnerable for one moment about the essence of the concerns raised here.
Are you willing to at least concede that having a person who isn't Orthodox (doesn't believe in Eucharist, baptism, etc) on an Orthodox channel (which believes in Eucharist, baptism, etc) imparting spiritual advice, shows a contradiction? Wouldn't it provide a certain legitimacy to her brand of Christianity, worship and set of ideals to the many (Orthodox) youth who are watching?
Wouldn't it be fair for an Orthodox youth to hear her say "When I was saved" take this sentiment and believe whatever is attached to it. This is something only protestants say. I mean, would the youth be at fault? After all, he saw it on an Orthodox channel. Wouldn't it also be fair for that youth to believe he can cultivate a spiritual life which doesn't necessarily have to be dependent on the sacraments since we've established that she isn't Orthodox and she's having a great life without the church and the sacraments?
The point is, we aren't judging anyone, nor are we saying one is going to heaven or the other to hell. What is being said is that a 'Way' is sure to lead to heaven(if followed faithfully), and the rest (other Christianities) are left to God's mercy. But since we aren't sure how God's mercy will operate and how he sees things, it isn't up to us to bring in what is foreign and juxtapose it on what is already known.
You can at least concede that the possibilities I alluded to can happen. Would they not? I'm not trying to outwit you but it seems there's a fundamental element of spiritual discernment that has been lost here.
Would you agree?
Orthodoxy, I sensed this from your earlier post, but I will express it now: we are pretty much on the same page. You may not see it, but I feel that we share the exact same concerns.
I completely agree that there is a danger to exemplifying an orthodox principle via a non-orthodox expression of it. I've dealt with this fine line my entire life, have become familiar with it, and now I'm confident in knowing where it is drawn.
And that's what I'm trying to tell you guys: this instance is not wrong or bad by any means. When we discuss prayer or the Shepherd's call to His own, it is not a uniquely orthodox experience. If Marina brought a non-orthodox person on the air to discuss the Eucharist, we would have a problem. I'm sure she wouldn't (unless for interfaith exploration to draw distinctions... my mind can always come up with a possibility).
As for the youth who watches this show and believes it implies that there is no need for sacraments (or any other orthodox rite), I would say that there is an audience for everything. When I was younger, I read a lot of CS Lewis. Before I read him, I had to be sure to understand any distinctions between orthodox teachings and the rest. I was a suitable orthodox audience for CS Lewis because I had enough discernment to know what is and what is not the Church's teachings. But guess what... I still learned a lot from him (from a Protestant!).
So, yes I agree there is a danger, but not one that cannot be mitigated by knowing the audience and teaching the children more about our faith and where the lines are drawn. And if there really is a kid out there who wants to make that stretch to say a non-Orthodox person is living life without sacraments in order to escape the sacraments himself, then that kid has deeper spiritual issues than this tv show. We need to address those.
Solidman, I am actually OK with continueing this discussion with you. I calmed down a little. I think, although this may not be comfortable, that the best way to do this is in fact the quote-refute comment.
Alright, then. We can continue to a conclusion in the (very) near future. I guess I can just respond to this post and call it a day.
[quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy]You spoke of me as liking Om Kalthoum. How did you know? :P. I do in fact like her.
It was pretty obvious :P
(I like her, too)
[quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy]But I fail to see what this effect has on my view of Orthodox method. I am not even against poems of "the black culture." I actually have personally attended some poetry nights. I simply feel that their place is not in the church.
Yes, I understand you feel that way. And you're entitled to your opinion. All I'm saying is that your opinion (and mine) do not dictate what orthodoxy is.
Neither you nor I really connected with that poem you linked us to. The difference is that you took that lack of connection, or that discomfort, as a sign that this isn't godly. That it's not the orthodox way we were raised on. I, on the other hand, examined the poem to see whether or not there in fact is anything that contradicts our faith before condemning it. I listened to the words. I listened for the feeling behind the words, and the demeanor of the writer. After I examined the poem in its full form and checked it against my orthodox faith (as preserved by the Church), I came to the conclusion that it does not contradict any of my beliefs. It may do nothing for me spiritually, and that is because I do not connect to it on a stylistic/artistic/emotional level, but I know there is an audience who will. And to them, it will not harm them, but bring them closer to Christ.
[quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy]The tone of the poem is reminiscent of the same black culture which produces rap music. Do you think that this is acceptable in church? I doubt it.
I've had this discussion with plenty of people before. The basics of it usually play out as follows:
+I say music itself is not bad.
+They say that rap music is bad.
+I say rap music itself is not bad, it is just music. The lyrics to *most* rap music is bad, thus making it bad. But that's not the style of music that is bad.
+They say that rap music is so intertwined with bad things that it is now forever tarnished.
This view suffers from a lack of enlightenment. We can say the same things about ep ouro. It was a pagan hymn, and it has become soooo associated with pagan tradition that it must be bad, regardless of the lyrics now.
We can say the same about Christmas on December 25th, which was originally a pagan holiday (saturnalia). It was soooo entrenched in pagan tradition that there is no way it could ever be good.
And what about the internet? How terrible is that place? Oh, no... I would never log onto the internet, the playground of sin. Not even if I'm logging onto a website called MidnightPraise.org :P
Music, like any other art, is merely a medium. The message is what defines good or bad.
So, to answer your question, I can imagine a world with orthodox christian "rap" music. Just like the christian converts reinvented ep ouro, so too can we take the medium of music and use it to glorify GOD.
Would I put it in the liturgical services? No, we already have a set structure for those. For recreation? As long as it is dogmatically sound, yes.
Baptize the culture.
[quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy]I understand that the idea is to "become to the Jews a Jew" but I'm not too sure of the extent with which we should be doing this. Should we go so far as to enter the culture and embrace it with all its defects? I simply feel that, though the poem may not excite, it does not model after the idea of contemplation.
Yes, I recognized from your posts that you are unsure how far to take it. So, in response to the perceived danger (and there is a danger), you would rather not adopt any of it. You'd rather play it safe.
But I didn't say we should embrace the culture with all its defects. I said we should baptize it. We have to make it holy, take the good, eradicate the bad. Like Christ, we have to be clear with the new culture on where the line is drawn. But to be clear with them, we have to first be clear with ourselves: where is the line drawn?
There are congregation members alive today who would find the removal of arabic from the liturgy as courting blasphemy. You may laugh at them, but think about the flaw in their sentiment: they cannot separate the arabic language (culture) from coptic orthodoxy (dogma/tradition). To them, the line is drawn with arabic on the side of dogma.
Likewise, we have to know where the line is drawn.
[quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy]You spoke about different cultures adopting Orthodoxy. This is something that I am all for, because I am a Christian. So for example, we have the Ethiopian Orthodox which carry a culture with Orthodoxy. But again, the west has it's culture that can well be intertwined with true Orthodoxy. But would you also assert that death metal should be used in church (I'm not insinuating that you would, just an honest question.) If you would, then I think we have a problem because that is clearly opposed to the contemplation which our fathers teach. If you say no, I would like to ask what the distinction is between the two.
Death metal, rap music, country singing... they are all very similar to me in that they are music, they are just a medium. What do the words say? What is the meaning behind those words?
Did you know that death metal bands are divided into two main categories? Guess what those categories are.... Christian and non-Christian. Yep, many death metal bands (if not most) are very very Christian in their lyrics. Are you surprised? Don't be... what do you think we sound like to westerners when we stand with our long black beards and wail hymns to our GOD, who happens to be called "Allah"?
There's enough ignorance based on surface-level judgments; why should we join in that practice?
*The only thing I would have against death metal is that its musical nature, while theologically neutral, has the ability to move the heart/emotions of a person. But so does Om Kalthoum :P (she makes us cry!). So it really depends a lot on the message.
[quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy]I am not implying that the church's service is ecclesiastic in the sense of theology, or the "Divine Office of the Liturgy," but rather that even it's evangelism is deeply intermingled with its liturgical theology. Correct? For some time in my life, I visited an OCA parish that is dedicated to mission. Even though it served people who were literally off the streets, it served them in a relatable ORTHODOX way. It had "lived theology" classes. It had prayers, and hymn classes etc. So I am not opposed to a humble approach to service, nor an approach which takes into account the lowly (which we all are), but I am opposed to one which adopts a culture that is not Orthodox.
I think you are perhaps misunderstanding my use of the word "culture". To be clear, I am using culture to mean the egyptian culture (no bearing on our religious beliefs), and dogma/tradition (which is EVERYTHING about our religious beliefs).
That's great about the OCA services... and I agree we MUST NOT let go of our liturgical theology. That is one of the great gems our Church has to offer. But that's not the only gem. And that's what I'm trying to make everyone here understand.
[quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy]Now, I must agree with InChrist7 and yourself on this one, and I do apologize, that I do not have a monopoly on Orthodoxy. But what I have been taught is a more "contemplative" Orthodoxy. I do not feel that a poem of this scheme can be considered Orthodox. I am an avid reader of poetry, and I study poetry as much as I study theology. So I do have a understanding of the way poems work. There are many forms of poetry which I am alright with. I feel like this kind of poem is a little out of it. This does not mean that I do not like the poems. In fact, take a listen to this poem. I love it. However, I do not feel like the movement of the scheme would be useful for a spiritual ascent. You may disagree. But I cannot accept that my only reason for not accepting this kind of culture being used in church is because I don't like it. I think it is the opposite. I know this culture all too well.
I understand completely where you're coming from. And I want you to know that I do not mean to discredit that at all.
For someone who loves and studies poetry, I am sure you have written poetry yourself. I want you to think about what it takes to write a poem. Think of how you give off a piece of yourself and commit it to paper for the rest of the world to see. It's vulnerable. It's real. And, if nothing else, it's extremely contemplative. Now imagine writing a poem to GOD. How much more self-reflective would that be?
I see here again you comment on how you are uncomfortable with and disconnected from the type of poetry in the video. I agree with you that I do not connect to it as much as I do with other poetry. But what you and I connect to is not the definition of Orthodoxy. That was the topic of this debate: whether or not this poem is "orthodox".
What if I told you that I do not connect with some of the arabic spiritual songs that many of our congregation absolutely love. I'm not talking about the liturgical hymns, I'm talking about arabic spiritual songs. I do not relate to them, even though I understand them (not a language issue). I just don't like the tunes. Does that make them less orthodox? What if I told you that I associate arabic with the slaughter and persecution its people brought with it? That the arabic culture is one I have come to associate with hate and discrimination (arab nations are pretty bad). "Arabic reminds me of Islam." Would you then accept that an arabic spiritual song, even though completely orthodox in meaning, is not of orthodox demeanor?
It's a cultural thing.
[quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy]Please do not misunderstand me. I have often taken the strengths of other churches, appreciated, and adopted them. And this is for the same reason that you have. I am not opposed to the church making use of other cultures, and other methods, as long as they do not conflict with Orthodoxy. Where I think we differ is that apart from Dogma, I feel that "ethos" is important. Now I am sorry for using a greek term, but trust me, it is actually the best word I know for this. I feel like Orthodoxy is more to be lived. If the way we pray and evangelized is not conducive to this contemplative "mood" then we have a problem. Do you disagree on this point? Or is it that you feel like this culture does not contradict this mood?
I understand exactly why you are using the word "ethos"... I agree it is the perfect word for what you're describing. And yes, I am familiar with the mood you are referring to. But it makes me wonder... how do you imagine the psalms were sung? Do you imagine they were sung in a calm voice? Do you imagine they were loud and fiery? Do you imagine them fast or slow? In what mood were the psalms originally written? Does it even matter?
I think our unfamiliarity with the outside culture makes us interpret the "mood" of the poem in a way that may not be accurate. Again, think of how we sound to Westerners when we are singing the psalms during Pascha week, without giving them an explanation.
It's cultural.
[quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy]Looking forward to hearing your response to this one. Forgive me for attacking. I sincerely apologize. Maybe we can edify now.
I hope you weren't offended by my decisive responses. I appreciate the changed tone and only hope that you can see that we were on the same page, just different paragraphs :P
I think words can be used in generic terms: Ones like love, equility and so on. What they all imply is sharing. So when words are used genericly, sometimes a group will be specific, that they do not share the way the person who brought the word up intends. An example: Love; our church would see that word differently than homosexuals would. In both cases, they have the truth of sharing but differ on what should be shared.
I have respect for our brothers and sisters on your show. My prayers are with them. However I don't think we share the same ways of doing things. If we believe the Holy Spirit is guiding our church, then problems are solved by the priests. Because they are in the lineage of of the church Christ started. So if you have come to us, asking for problems to solve then what are we to say? Yes, we have the word of Christ, which other groups who say they are christian do, but that we believe and are, guided by the Holy Spirit. We don't share the same guidance.
Again I'm sorry if you have benn upset or offended. My prayers are for you Marina.
God bless you.
But I didn't say we should embrace the culture with all its defects. I said we should baptize it. We have to make it holy, take the good, eradicate the bad. Like Christ, we have to be clear with the new culture on where the line is drawn. But to be clear with them, we have to first be clear with ourselves: where is the line drawn?
Sorry to jump in here - just wanted to put it out there that St. Basil, St. Clement of Alexandria and St. Gregory of Nazianzus all strongly agree with you ... Here's St. Basil talking about how Christians should use pagan literature:
"For just as bees know how to extract honey from flowers, which to men are agreeable only for their fragrance and color, even so here also those who look for something more than pleasure and enjoyment in such writers may derive profit for their souls. Now, then, altogether after the manner of bees must we use these writings, for the bees do not visit all the flowers without discrimination, nor indeed do they seek to carry away entire those upon which they light, but rather, having taken so much as is adapted to their needs, they let the rest go. So we, if wise, shall take from heathen books whatever befits us and is allied to the truth, and shall pass over the rest. And just as in culling roses we avoid the thorns, from such writings as these we will gather everything useful, and guard against the noxious. So, from the very beginning, we must examine each of their teachings, to harmonize it with our ultimate purpose, according to the Doric proverb, 'testing each stone by the measuring-line.'"
Source: http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/basil_litterature01.htm
I think the same should apply to all cultural products.
"So also here, I call him truly learned who brings everything to bear on the truth; so that, from geometry, and music, and grammar, and philosophy itself, culling what is useful, he guards the faith against assault. Now, as was said, the athlete is despised who is not furnished for the contest. For instance, too, we praise the experienced helmsman who "has seen the cities of many men," and the physician who has had large experience; thus also some describe the empiric. And he who brings everything to bear on a fight life, procuring examples from the Greeks and barbarians, this man is an experienced searcher after truth." ~ St. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 1.9
Pray for me
Sam
I am not at all disagreeing with you. I think I agree with you more than I disagree. In fact, in whatever study of theology I have done, I have noticed a huge influence of platonic theology incorporated. Origen is another one. I love both Origen (almost to a dangerously "heretic" point) and most of my theological understanding stems from the Alexandrian and Cappadocian fathers. So, there is no disagreement on the use of the culture.
My question is what components of the culture may we adopt. I know this is a dichotomizing example, but take it as nothing more than an exaggerated example: When preaching to the Greeks, St. Paul used less Hebrew literature, and adapts a little to the gentiles. But he stood up against things like "women speaking in church." Now women and speaking in church is not sinful in and of itself. I also that rap is not sinful in and of itself (I am a huge fan of some Tupac), but St. Paul realized that some components of the culture may not be adopted because of the connotations they carry. St. Paul made a distinction.
I don't suppose that we differ on the fact that we should adopt a culture (in fact, I am all for a Canadian Orthodox Church). We also do not differ (I hope) that we need to make some sort of distinction between what may and may not be adopted. I guess we only differ on the degree of what can and cannot be adopted.
RO
I always thought of it as unrighteous mamman. It helps but isn't in the truth of identity. For instance, I could quote Shakespeare, "Mad slanders by mad ears belived be."That might help me from people who say things against me, but Jesus says,"Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. Rejoice and be exceedly glad, for great is your reward in heaven." One has the direction of still been on earth and the other in heaven, and they both help to person not to worry what is been said about them.
I hope you can forgive us Marina, it is just that we are on a path that we have been given and even if there maybe different paths, it is that we may chose to bring up problems and solve them within the church. I'm sure you understand.
Feminism is a touchy subject as there is one on this forum who has being deeply hurt and we can read it every time he posts. Men and women are not the same and have different roles and it may be wrong for a woman to treat a man like another woman, and vise-versa.
With that being said, I also listened to your poem. I have to say, I actually like it. I will go out on a limb and criticize my fellow friends here who criticize your poem as "unOrthodox". It's just a poem. She's not presenting it in Church while Abouna is distributing the Eucharist. She's doing it in a show. Let's understand that and be a bit more charitable in this regard.
If there's anything dogmatically wrong, present it to her. Maybe I missed something.
With that in mind, I do have a few suggestions. Marina, soul sista, how are you by the way ;)
First, the intro music....something needs to be changed...it is so heretical (j/k...but seriously it's off...lol...but that's only my opinion :P)
Second, since you are catering especially to women in the Church, perhaps you can share with the world why women aren't priests in the Orthodox Church, or talk about the important female figures in the history of the Church, and how they are important or relevant for today?
Third, all the social problems that women face, I think these are important too. Women and abuse, women and depression, women and abortion, women and modesty, women and gossiping...etc.
Fourth, I love your recent episodes on reading the Bible and commenting on it in a social aspect. Continue with it.
Fifth, maybe organizing your show in segments, or doing a subject every other show. For instance, you can cycle the subjects of the shows you do. One can be history/tradition in the Church, and then the following show can be Bible study, and then the following show can be social aspect, and then go back and repeat. Maybe, you can do a poem and comment on it in a spiritual manner. If you have interesting guests that pertain to your topic, that could also be helpful as well, as once in a while type of thing. Maybe you can have a debate, where an issue that is not settled, let's say in areas of science and religion, can be discussed and debated.
So, these are my suggestions. God bless, and take care :)
Mina
Hello Everyone,
Thank you all for taking the time to critique the Marina Show. While I appreciate all of your comments (especially those from Orthodoxy, Return Orthodoxy, and Andrew), and would not like to create controversy, I would like to clarify and speak to some contested issues.
I strongly encourage you to exercise your modes of reasonableness before reading my reply.
... ... ...
3. Feminism
I was deeply insulted by your comments about feminism – some of which were made by persons who did not watch that episode.
1. Being a Feminist – You have invalid, and arbitrary conceptions of feminism. Feminism is built on the precept that “women and men are equal” and then, just like Christianity, branches off into different sects and forms of radicalization. To suggest that I should have asked my “feminist” Guest about her views on abortion before bringing her on my show is preposterous, especially because she is a Coptic woman who is one of my closest friends.
2. Feminism & The Church – The purpose of the show was to reconcile our feminist views with the church – this was an attempt to allay the fears of many women who feel dissociated from the church, and from Christianity, because of passages and dogmas, which seem to discriminate against women on their face. The show, if you take the time to watch it, actually attempts to reveal the beauty of the verse, “Wives submit to your husbands” by exploring the parallel obligations of men to love their wives as Christ loved the church, and also died for her.
... ... ...
The purpose of this poem was to bring young women to Christ – to show them how much God adores their beauty and desires their heart. Because the reality is, young women, whom I counsel at church, are struggling with ideas of self-worth and falling prey to the lusts of this world. This is my attempt to explain God’s ineffable love. My brothers, God’s love cannot, and should not , only be expressed by orthodox persons through “prescribed” orthodox hymnology or contemplations. God’s love surpasses these confines.
... ... ...
That being said, I apologize if my antics have offended any of you in any way. I expect that my post will be followed by a plethora of detailed counter-arguments, to which I will not respond. You are all entitled to your views, and I am sorry if I have offended any of them.
I will take all of your recommendations under advisement. Pray for me.
Hi Marina, God help you serve your sisters in His Orthodox Truth,
I had hoped that another reader, especially a truly faithful Orthodox Christian woman, theologian, priest, or bishop would point out the seemingly unreasonable and heretical premises of your philosophy and mission statements. I have not watched any of your shows or clips. so I am only commenting on the above quoted statements attributed to you.
Let's all take off our modern secular (demonic?) cultural/political agendas, advantages and biases and put on traditional Apostolic/Scriptural Orthodox Christian reasonableness in Truth. Are you willing to discuss "feminism" in that context? Sadly, I can believe that you have never had an opportunity to learn to consider the secular/demonic reality of "feminism" in any North American Coptic Orthodox Church. I have never heard of a Coptic bishop sincerely attempting to teach these truths in English. I have, however, experienced a senior Coptic priest being shouted down by screaming Coptic feminists when he tried to teach and discuss these relevant fundamental Scriptural/Apostolic/Patristic Christian principles. Without the support of their bishops and synod, it seems that all of the senior North American Coptic priests who recognize this heresy and the young families that it is destroying, have tuned out, in surrender. So, it is understandable that "You have invalid, and arbitrary conceptions of feminism," and a popular modern media forum to propagate them, against your own and your challenged Western Christian sisters' (and brothers' and their young families') traditional Orthodox Christian best interests.
Are you an advocate of objective truth and reality? If you are, how can you shamelessly state “women and men are equal,” or, in a rational traditional Creation/Apostolic/Scriptural/Orthodox order, "men and women are equal?" Sure, there are similarities, generalities and comparatives, but, objective equality? Come on, gal, to start your self-enlightenment, just open your eyes, ears, nose, taste, touch. Open any page of the Holy Bible, Holy Fathers, Holy Mothers. Show us the unequivocal proof of your irrational, false secular, or heretical spiritual premise. You'll just add to the increasing numbers of broken, divorced young Coptic families in your community and outreach if this demonic premise and heresy is the basis of your counsel of young women at church and through your shows.
God has never left us without a remnant of those who follow His Commandments in truth. It seems that this current North American Orthodox remnant against the seemingly overwhelming acceptance of heretical Orthodox "christian" feminism may be Canadian OCA Orthodox priest, Father Lawrence Farley. Father Lawrence has skillfully began to spiritually challenge the seemingly unquestioned heretical Orthodox feminism epidemic with his new study, Feminism and Tradition, Quiet Reflections on Ordination and Communion, St. Vladimir's Seminary Press. Father Farley is a skilled Bible exegete who has just barely opened the needed challenge to this destructive popular modern heresy. I hope he hasn't tried to trade-off heretical menstrual spiritual cleanness for heretical women's ordination. If he has, he'll eventually lose both. Father Lawrence could provide a little counter-balance to your seemingly rabid Orthodox feminist viewpoint. He is media friendly and has an enriching Bible Study series on Ancient Faith Radio. The Book of Genesis, the Epistles of SS Peter and Paul, and the Commentaries of St. Chrysostom and Blessed Augustine on these Epistles are the best starting point for an understanding of God's gender and family commandments, in truth. All other relevant principles must follow from these First Principles.
I hope you will give deep consideration to the offenses that your viewpoint and comments actually make against the truths of the objectives you claim to seek.
For the record, what Irishpilgrim said is not correct. It is not scriptural. It is not patristic. It is not voice of the Coptic Orthodox Church. It is not the voice of Coptic Orthodox men. It is not the voice or anyone other than himself. Please do not feel that Irishpilgrim's comments are a reflection of any particular group. They are his own and he has not been able to show any evidence of reason or logic to support them.
I reiterate minasoliman's comment. Lord have mercy! Please pray for us.
I think Marina knows that it is IP own opinion Remnkemi.
I'm sorry irishpilgrim for the grief you have suffered and continue to suffer. If we connect our suffering
to blame, even though we find a truth and it shows itself now and then, we never get over the grief.
It is most important for us is to get over grief, because God has given us the ability to move on. He has
set us free from that impisioned state of grief.
Yes, Freud does have a connection with feminism, because freud was a Dawinist and as such was
materialistic and connected his thinking with the body. This is weak and has less ability give women
strength than our Lord Christ.
Simiarily, Jung who put spirituality into his thinking, looked to other Gods. This also will not help women
as other Gods is not what helps our women.
So psychology has to be used as unrighteous mammam with much discernment.
But we cannot attach our grief to it as blaming is not what we are about.
http://frlawrence.shawwebspace.ca/
Perhaps you could've posted some of his articles for us to read instead of just marathoning through your post. People are starting to not take you seriously anymore because contrary to what most of them are saying I actually agree with some of your concerns.
We know you've been hurt, perhaps unjustly, but that doesn't excuse a disregard for others' opinions and experiences.
It's actually quite sad because I think you're one of the more intelligent posters on these forums, but because you're letting your emotion and hurt act as a launchpad for your prose, it comes of as fanatic.
Again, I agree with some of your concerns; your approach, however, needs to be sanded down, seasoned with humility and you'll eventually get people who've experienced much of the same things you have to agree with you.
I must say, Fr Laurence certainly addresses this topic(above article) very nicely. Thanks, IP, and everyone for the input.
Is it appropriate to discuss this article by Fr Lawrence here or should we open a new thread? I think his article has some major flaws.
a new thread so i am not forced to delete any posts :-)
Is it appropriate to discuss this article by Fr Lawrence here or should we open a new thread? I think his article has some major flaws.
Agreed, Remnkemi. It's important to read the opening sentences by which Fr Laurence admittedly states:
The article was written quickly, and accordingly bears all the marks of a pastoral piece written in such haste. I re-post here with reservations. For a more lengthy and mature treatment of these questions, please see my book Feminism and Tradition, published by SVS Press.
So any debate or discussion arising from this article would be unavailing, as fr Laurence would probably agree with you. I did mean, when I addressed my admiration for the article, was the essence of his approach and that it is definitely an important discussion to have (feminism) particularly in this post modern society.
I see no need to debate over an article which the author himself admits to being unscholarly and compiled in haste.
Perhaps we can all read his more scholarly work 'feminism and tradition' and have a discussion on that.
IrishPilgrim, is this the Father Laurence farely you're talking about?
http://frlawrence.shawwebspace.ca/
Perhaps you could've posted some of his articles for us to read instead of just marathoning through your post. People are starting to not take you seriously anymore because contrary to what most of them are saying I actually agree with some of your concerns.
We know you've been hurt, perhaps unjustly, but that doesn't excuse a disregard for others' opinions and experiences.
It's actually quite sad because I think you're one of the more intelligent posters on these forums, but because you're letting your emotion and hurt act as a launchpad for your prose, it comes of as fanatic.
Again, I agree with some of your concerns; your approach, however, needs to be sanded down, seasoned with humility and you'll eventually get people who've experienced much of the same things you have to agree with you.
I must say, Fr Laurence certainly addresses this topic(above article) very nicely. Thanks, IP, and everyone for the input.
Orthodoxy,
Thank you for your objective observations and comments. Many want to console me with alibis for my concentrated, often disorganized zeal regarding my principle concerns: The effects of the popular "modern" heresies of demonic feminism and freudianism on the understanding and application of God's traditional gender and family commandments in the Orthodox Christian Churches. Without my personal experiences in these regards, I'm sure my disinterest in these matters would match that of my critics. I don't have any personal emotional involvements and concerns now. Now I only try to seek out new Coptic divorce victims that may be able to use my experiences to help them and their children cope with and understand the disgusting, overwhelming, incomprehensible experience. Most new victims avoid inquiry until it is too late. By the time they realize that their bishop and priest aren't interested, it is too late. In my way, I try to encourage Coptic and Orthodox clergy, teachers and youth to understand and address these "new" underlying heresies and their dangers.
Father Lawrence Farley is a special Orthodox priest. I think he "landed" in a jurisdiction that really needs him, OCA. I learned of him when he published an introductory article to his, then unpublished, book, Feminism and Tradition, on one of the last episodes of OCANews.org. I've lost track of the article and its title. I have posted it in an earlier rant on Tasbeha.org. When I recall it, I'll try to get it to you. Father Lawrence has a very rich audio series of commentaries on Scripture on Ancientfaith.com. Whenever I have a question on a scripture passage, and time to listen, I check him out. Have a Bible and note pad handy. He is really well trained, and inspired in Bible exegesis. He seems to be a lone Orthodox voice against growing Orthodox feminist "theology."
Wouldn't you know, immediately after posting, I found Fr. Lawrence's article. Here it is: http://www.ocanews.org/news/Farley7.26.11.html ;