I love the coptic church but I don't agree with everything within it.

SeekingGod

I am a non coptic, i very recently became a Christian and i lean towards Orthodoxy. However something keeps preventing me from going full tilt orthodox, and that is simply the views on homosexuality that the church seems to have.  I love the chants , I love the service but the attitude i've noted among priests is just odd to me. 

I'm not really talking about the whole " Is homosexuality a sin ? " thing, i'm talking about the things i hear them say about homosexuals. It sounds like half the time they are talking about monsters under your bed.  Anyway here is my question. 

Considering  my difference with orthodox tradition by not having a problem with gay marriage or homosexuals having relationships, would i fit in with the church? I do know that the orthodox church in north america does generally welcome homosexuals but i just don't get the issue with gay marriage. I'm not looking for an argument for, or against homosexual marriage, i just want to know if I would still fit in the church knowing i do not have a problem with these kinds of unions.

minasoliman

My dear friend,

These are confusing times indeed.  There was at one point a sense of agreement among the world of homosexuality as an aberrant behavior.  Now that it is seen in this secular world as acceptable, as if it is nothing more than two people enjoying companionship with one another.

One thing that you need to recognize is religion's stand on morality.  Morality in its sense, when it is taught in a certain way, and it is given the divine stamp, by that level, it becomes something that one cannot change.  I also believe in moral progression as we morally evolve, but when we progress, that does not mean that things that were morally wrong have become morally fine today, but that those which were morally acceptable become unacceptable later on.

The issue does not become clear unless you examine the source of why we have this moral confusion today and what it means for the future.  Homosexual relationship open a door to a redefining of sexual openness and love that the Church tried to progress from.  In ancient times, polygamy was a norm and morally acceptable, but the Church progressed from this so as to make polygamy a sin and monogamy the divine blessing and ideal.  Society has taken it for granted that monogamy is the most acceptable norm, and that another relationship is "cheating" or "adultery".  Christ even went further and gave the high standards of adultery.  If one marries a divorcee, that person commits adultery.  That is a big deal, especially in today's society when we take marriage very nonchalantly and divorce rates are skyrocketing.

My dear friend, the issue is so pervasive, it is very difficult to see the clarity behind all of this, but I see one of two avenues:  either marriage is completely discredited and there should be open relationships, regardless of gender or number OR we must maintain the strictness and high standards that ancient Christianity taught.  If we change or loosen the standards, we make God untrue, and religion a joke.

I know you're not looking for a debate, but I want to tell you why the Coptic Church takes a strict position.  Some Coptic clergy because they come from a world where homosexuality is seen as disgusting may offend your sensibility on this issue.  Other Coptic priests who have grown a bit of understanding in the culture will be sympathetic to your confusions and show you love and teach you that God loves any sinner and longs for the sinner to repent.  And we are ALL sinners, no one is excluded, not even the priest.  And so we have to take a strong stand to make clear that any moral flexibility on this issue is something we reject, and that upon entering the Church, you need to accept at the very least this ideal, that you are willing to toil to work for that moral ideal so that you may gain virtues in Christ and attain the divine unity Christ longs for everyone, gay or straight.

minatasgeel

Hello SeekingGod,

Welcome to Tasbeha.org....I hop you benefit from the forum as well as we when readings your posts. 

About homosexuality, I think the Church's stand towards it being a sin is clear enough. Considering that, everything that is built on that sin is also a sin. Marriage is a sacred union between a man and a women and is established by God. That is the definition of marriage. Any other definition is considered a sin.

Now about you fitting in the Church or not, I think you need to understand  why what you are accepting is considered a sin and why we should stay away from that. Being part of the Church is not about fitting in but it's about becoming a Christian and letting the Church, the mother, bring you closer to God so one day, when we die, we also be with Him. This cannot be is we know of a sin, yet we keep doing it with no regards. 

ReturnOrthodoxy

The Homosexuality questions opens up again. First, et me start by saying that you will receive tons of wrong answers, both from clergy and from those who were raised in the church. Unfortunately, as over the past couple decades our church has suffered from a difficult paradigm shift in theology, there have been many effects felt as regards such topics as homosexuality. In general, since our church began looking to one source for all decisions, and since that one source was not a scientist, psychiatrist, psychologist or such, the definitions of homosexuality and many topics are at best incomplete. The Coptic Church has issued statements that homosexuality is not an orientation. The Coptic church has endorsed such things as reparative therapy. These are things that are, in my opinion, something that cannot be. I know there are posters on this site who are more intelligent than me who agree with the Coptic Church on these matter, but I stand firm in saying that the Coptic church has had a terrible understanding of homosexuality, has had a generally shameful service to these people, and needs to take a balanced look at homosexuality. 

Yes, the Coptic church has often made homosexuals "monsters hiding under your bed." This is in large part due to culture, and the fact that the church has, living in Egypt, adapted many social positions from the surrounding Islamic culture. Much to our loss, but such is the reality of the matter. 

The church has always stood against homosexual relations as being unholy. This is not something I disagree with. The Coptic church, however, has (to be perfectly honest and speaking from MULTIPLE experiences) severely damaged the homosexual children of God with its lack of true service. On countless occasions, I have had friends who have opened up to me about their struggle with the church because of their homosexuality. Feelings of segregation, not being understood etc.  

I must be honest to you. If you are a homosexual, I recommend you seek another Orthodox Communion to join. Not that this Orthodox communion will accept for you to marry a man, but that the Coptic church *IN GENERAL* is not understanding of homosexuals. Its Bishops have issued many a statement that have harmed. I am not saying this because I think the Coptic Church is a terrible church or whatever (I am Coptic), but for the reality of your peace of mind, I cannot tell you you will find solace in the coptic church being a homosexual hoping to be lead to holiness. This is, of course, if you are a homosexual (which I have no reason to assume; just a shot in the dark.)

The Coptic church stands correctly against homosexual sex, and lust of all orientations. Pray for the church. there are some valiant priests who have stood faithfully for the children of God, and have dedicated themselves to a true Christian orthodox service of those who are homosexual. Pray that they continue to flourish and that their service is acceptable to God. Talk to these priests. If you'd like to PM me, I can try to point you in their direction. 

Pray for me, please, 

Ray

mcarmichael

I wonder if this might help:

"Bob Marleys Christian conversion - Archbishop Abuna Yesehaq" - Youtube - 

minasoliman

I also agree with my friend Ray that if there are anyone in my church who endorses reparative therapy, they are grossly mistaken, and many clergy has not had the sympathy that is required to deal with this situation here. My reply to you was a reason why I think homosexual relationships is wrong. However, I don't share the same dismissive attitude many clerics and Copts have had, and I certainly understand the orientation is not a mere choice, that there is a genetic predisposition in many of them.

Tobit

Hey,

I used to be a person who criticized the church a lot about this issue (the handling and pastoral care), and then I discovered in my conversations with priests and bishops that it's a personal care between the repentant and priest/bishop. The lack of 'visible' services as we see compared to the Catholic church implies that the Coptic Orthodox aren't doing anything about it but it's not true.

But I think granting visibility like 'alcoholics anonymous' or or other sit in groups or services diminishes from the sacredness and personal relationship that we see often as in the case of stories in the paradise of the fathers, or many of the pastoral stories we here that focused mainly on the personal relationship between the two, that being the clergy and repentant. However, if this works for the Catholic church then I see no problem. But this gave rise to them gaining an 'identity' within the church as if they're different than other sinners, demanding status and change to doctrine. Imagine if I confess to watching pornography daily and insist on forming a group rather than continuing to confess it to abouna privately. I understand this is simplifying the issue but there are parallels. 
I also discovered in the Coptic Orthodox Church that there were dozens of people struggling with homosexuality but involved only their priests or bishops because they wanted to preserve this struggle between them and God and not have to be bunched up in the cliche 'group' setting that we all envision and that we all blame the Coptic church for having a lacking of response. 

As stated above, there are priests and bishops who have had incorrect reciprocations to the topic of homosexuality because it simply was a cultural taboo when those priests were growing up, but as it becomes an apparent issue we need to pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit given to our shepherds to deal with this tough issue.

I know great work being done by individual priests and bishops who are individually shepherding those struggling with great success in their spiritual lives.
Personally I've seen this work best, in cementing the privacy and sacredness of the whole repentant process. Each individual moves at his or her own pace with their father and slowly ascends the ladder of repentance and spirituality.
Again, it is known of course that mistakes were made by clergy in the past and we have to understand that even when a clergy makes a choice on how to handle a case, he is acting based on what he thinks is best and love for the individual. So instead of treating the clergy like villains, we ought to pray for them and perhaps help them with resources that can aid them, for most didn't grow up in our culture thus not exposed to this issue as we are in our university lectures, society and work places.
I support the personal, private approach that the Coptic Orthodox is using, and of course those clergy seen to be using improper approached ought to be approached with love and prayer.

ophadece

Well I am really really sorry to take such a stance but I believe that some bishops are only following the apostolic canons and those are severe looking at drug misusers and homosexuality as to the brink of excommunication. I do see their point but of course I agree that there's little done if anything at all to help those in need..
Oujai

lfahmy

@minasoliman Are these genetic predispositions you speak of something other than hormones?

minasoliman

What do you mean "other than hormones"?

There has been found due to twinning studies that gay men may have a genetic predisposition.  Supposedly there is a gene in the X chromosome that may give a 40% chance of developing homosexual predisposition.  This gene is no where found in women, so gay women has a less association with genetic predisposition than men.  There are other candidate genes for these behaviors, but this is not at all surprising.  We have found genetic predispositions to gluttony/obesity, predispositions to alcoholism, predispositions to anger/criminal behavior, predisposition to depression or other psychiatric disorders, and we also have found a genetic predisposition to pedophilia.

So do not be surprised if we do find a "gay gene".  It means one is predisposed, and their fight and struggle against homosexuality is very very difficult, and requires our utmost attention, sympathy, and love.

lfahmy

By hormones I meant higher levels of estrogen or lower levels of testosterone, which may result in homosexual tendencies. 

Do you have any links or something where I could find more information?

minasoliman

No, not really.  Hormones are not the only indicators of behavior.  There are a lot of things in the brain we have not really understood yet, but can be traced to genetic factors.  The important thing however is genes are not the sole determinant of behavior.  There are environmental factors as well.  I think both sides of the debate misconstrue this and say "if there's a genetic component, that God made you that way."  That's a disastrous and ignorant argument made, and it is made by both gay activists and Christian fundamentalists who think of genetics in deterministic fashion.  It is just as idiotic to say that those born with heart disease or depression is the result of "God making you that way".

Here's an article that explains the latest findings:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/feb/14/genes-influence-male-sexual-orientation-study

qawe

ReturnOrthodoxy said:

RO, did you read my PM?

ReturnOrthodoxy

@Tobit, iI enjoyed your pos, though, to be honest, I've spoken to many priests (many is an understatement as I was very involved with most priests from my area) and I cannot say that in my WHOLE area (the GTA) that there is a single priest who I have encountered capable of truly aiding these children of God to salvation. Rather, i was shown a complete lack of knowledge of human psychology, to the degree that the Bishop of this Diocese spoke rather "dim-wittedly" regarding a suicide of a friend's relative, and lost the respect of all the youth of that church who knew the young man. The reality is that our church has grown gnostic in many of its perspectives. This is not merely an issue of pastoral care, but a real theological problem which has shown time and time again in our church as being a manifestation of gnostic ideals. Blame everything on the devil. Natural human emotion, instinct, and psychology is blamed as demonic, and shameful. In doing so, we give those natural God given emotions to the devil. How dare we?! I am not saying that homosexual sex is a God-blessed act, but certainly as I am holy, and you are holy, so is our homosexual brother! And as I was not born possessed with some demon that must be exercised out me by some evangelical false psychology that has been proven not to work, why should our brother have to suffer at the hands of heretics? We blame everything on the devil. A homosexual orientation is not something to be repented of. It is not a sin. I can, and will at a better time, portray this through the writings of the fathers, particularly St. Mark the Ascetic and Evagrius Ponticus. But just as my innate desire (as a man) to have sex with a woman is not evil so long as it is not directed to anyone but my wife (when I get one Insha'allah) so it is not demonic for a homosexual to be that way. I stand firm on this aspect, after much pain. I once (you can read earlier into my posts) was adamantly violent towards homosexuals claiming (like the fool I was) that they needed to stop being gay. How stupid of me. How stupid of anyone who says the same. 

To demand a homosexual to change orientation, you must as every straight man to change his orientation from being attracted to women, to being attracted to his own wife. Just like you want to change the gay man from seeing another man in a romantic light (whether he meditates on the thought or not), so you must ask and convict all straight men to not be attracted to other women. Only their wife. And thus, those bishops who have sworn celibacy must change their orientation from "straight" to "asexual!" And I'm not saying they should not, for example, act at seeing a nude woman, but they should not even so much as notice she was nude. But you never hear of these commands being placed on straight men! And so, those men who have not themselves changed their orientation to "my wife" or "asexual" and who burden the children of God to do the very thing which they cannot do fall under Gospel condemnation where Christ says, "Woe to you lawyers, for you load people with burdens hard to carry, and you yourself do not lift a finger to aid them." (Luke 11:46) This is unacceptable in the church. 

Again, it goes to show the wild misunderstanding of theology in our church. In shambles because of Islam and Evangelicalism. We are left with a pseudo-evangelical pseudo-gnostic understanding of theology that terrible cripples our ability to love as Jesus loved. 

As for how homosexuals "got that way" is not important. Someone who has depression either because of genetic (or a genetic pre-disposition) or some traumatic event in life is not guilty of sin! He can sin if he wallows in self pity, yes! But to "be depressed" has never been a sin. We need to be open to the realities of psychology. To box ourselves into this Gnostic "El Shaytan" theology only hurts those who God loves, and causes the enemies of His name to laugh at us. 

@Qawe, I got your message. Good to hear from you. Since you brought it up on the forum, I'll respond here. So everyone knows, Qawe basically lovingly asked me to be patient, and not be too ablaze as regards my recent posts. Thank you very much, Qawe! I must say, however, that if you had seen the devastation that many homosexual children of God have had to suffer at the hands of merciless men claiming to serve the merciful God, it would sicken you more than you know. 

If there is any gay person reading this who has had interest in the Coptic church, shoot me a PM and Ill try to get you in contact with a wonderful and valiant priest I know who has fearlessly taken up this issue in a private meeting with Pope Tawadros. Basically told him tell your clergy not to speak on homosexuality if they don't know anything about it. 

There is change, hopefully. But in the meantime, we need to do damage control. There are a lot of gay Copts. Many of them my friends. I want them to enjoy the Jesus the church has offered me for 21 years. Can it please offer Him to my friends? 

Ray

Zoxsasi

I think, as with the Catholic, any homosexual person is welcome in our Church; however, to partake of any sacrament, he/she must:

a) Abstain from homosexual activity (sex)

b) Confess/repent for this

I do not see where the problem is: we are not rejecting gays, but they are more than welcome to come. The Bible is clear that homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord; its not just said once, but many many times. 

ReturnOrthodoxy

As regards B, what must they repent of exactly. You must be specific since we are talking about the mystery of repentance, and to repent of something that is not sin seems to be almost counterproductive. Shall they repent of who they are? Or for succumbing to that and refusing to be made better? The latter is something to be repented of. The former is not. They must repent of allowing their thoughts of lust to control their mind, like I must do the same, but they needn't repent of being a homosexual. 

Ray

Joshuaa

They can't follow the sacrament of matrimony as in the churches understanding of it.

 

QCopts

Seeking God,

I am a gay cradle Copt, and quite frankly, if you have strong feelings about LGBTQ issues, then I recommend that you explore a different Orthodox jurisdiction. Some OCA/GOC parishes are hospitable communities for queer folk if you are in the US. I'll share a bit of my experience. 

I go to an OCA parish often, and do not attend the local Coptic church. I and my partner choose to pay our tithe to the Coptic church since they take care of so many new Egyptian immigrants every week. Even though a lot of Copts here know me, love me and hold me in high esteem as someone who serves the church in legal and social cases, I am conscious that their reactions may be very ugly if I am outed so I choose not to religiously engage with the congregation. I am also 25 so they are all trying to marry me their daughters which can be hectic.

I do not believe that their identity as Copts are the problem, but rather that they are mostly uneducated, never had to question their values and beliefs, and were raised in ultra-conservative rural towns in Egypt. I myself immigrated to the US from Cairo after high school, but I was raised by very Orthodox (but) progressive parents and went to an American-British school, so my engagement with Egyptian society was a very different experience than most immigrant/church going Copts in the US.

    

The local Coptic priest is a very good friend of mine, we meet and talk a lot, I escort him to many house blessings and drive him to visit the sick, sometimes spending hours together in the car. We also have many theological conversations, and often discuss patristic spirituality which over the years, has given him a new perspective on how a queer partnered man can seriously engage with Orthopraxis and be committed to Orthodoxy in a loving same-sex relationship. 

I and this Coptic priest both understand that we DO NOT agree on whether my life with my partner is a legitimate way to express love, and create a family. He believes that I am better off a monk, or even celibate in a heterosexual marriage... And I am not bothered by his beliefs because I reconciled my faith with my sexuality, and do not need his approval or permission to be. My sexuality is simply a non-issue in our friendship. This allows me to reciprocate the tolerance he has showed me, and be expansive enough to accept me him for who he is as a Coptic priest and allow him to believe what he may without taking it personally or turning it into an obstacle to living a fulfilling spiritual life.

I think the novelty of this identity - gay and orthodox - confuses him and most religious Orthodox individuals. They often feel that my faith and my sexuality are a contradiction, but this has been a long journey for me, it is a journey of the "queer cross" and it took a lot of grace and reconciliation to get to where I am at. I view my presence in the church as important for my salvation, and for the church and queer folks, it is an intercessory and mediatory place to take in order to heal queerness as a collective historical experience of fear, rejection and woundedness and reconcile it with Christ who never ceases to desire a communion of love with us.   

minasoliman

Dear qcopt, have you ever considered Fr. Thomas Hopko's recommendation for celibacy? Not necessarily within a relationship, but celibacy in general? This is the impression I get from EO recommendations.

QCopts

Minasoliman,

Would you ask that of a fellow khadem in church Mina, whether they are sexually active with their wife or not? I wouldn't.  

I have some issues with your question because whether I am sexually active or not is a strictly private matter between myself, my partner, and my spiritual father. It should not matter to anyone or be their concern. It's kind of not-so-decent question to ask. 

I also understand that given our culture, it is a normal followup question to telling parts of my own story as an answer to SeekingGod. I will not answer for myself to enforce the fact that it shouldn't matter and this forum isn't about me, but I will tell you that most gay men who grew up in religious homes have tried heterosexual relationships (and perhaps marriages), celibacy (and sometimes monastic life), and various kinds of destructive therapies recommended by family members and church pastors. Those who have survived beyond all these have chosen various ways to live their life, the majority of course in creating fulfilling and loving same-sex households. Go meet LGBTQ individuals to understand them and demystify what appears to be a weird and strange transgression. 

The question posed by gay men in response to celibacy is that if their natural emotional and physical inclination is towards fellow gay men, why should they be celibate? If you say because the bible says so then you assume that everyone considers it authoritative and that isn't true. Also, if we do share a belief in it as divinely authoritative, we all do not share the same exegetical interpretation of scripture and patristics. I am not trying to get into a religious argument and I don't think it is necessary because to each their own and words and arguments will never perfectly express the truth of divine love.. 

Also, since the issue of "sex" seems to be the obnoxious obsession of individuals who strongly oppose homosexuality (not assuming that's you of course), let me tell you that while most gay couples are of course sexually active, like any couple, sex naturally is a very small part of their life. It is maybe 20% of their time together and relational context, if they are lucky. With time, and with age, it becomes a rare occurrence like in the case of your and my parents. We are human beings too my friend, you know..

Is celibacy the OCA's synodal recommendation? Yes, but in Orthodoxy, celibacy has been historically viewed as the end-goal for any individual or couple because it is perceived as the ideal state, part of the original divine image we were once created and lost. Reaching celibacy should be part of the spiritual struggle and the journey of theosis for anyone, not just LGBTQ individuals. One of the problems for only recommending it to queer folks is that it becomes a suppressive practice, when it should be a gradual process shared between two loving individuals and finally reached through what the fathers call "phronema," the first stage of theosis. Monastic literature calls this  the angelic life and recommends it to everyone. This is why people like Abouna Bishoy Kamel lived celibate in a marriage.  

Do the canons of the church teach abstinence from sex before communion and during fasts, etc? Yes, and the rule in my view should be enforceable (or not) on Orthodox individuals of any sexual orientation.  

PS: I personally know Fr Thomas Hopko, he is a friend of mine, and we have had plenty of discussions on this :) 

minasoliman

My dear brother,

Thank you for your response.  You make good points.  However, as you may expect, I do disagree with some of your premises.  I only ask only because it has been the recommended way to go.  While it is none of my business to ask what a fellow servant's sexual practices are with his/her spouse, certainly canons seem to show that questions of sexual behavior was not out of the question with one's spiritual adviser.

Furthermore, you seem to see celibacy as a cage.  I used to have thought so too.  But the more I consider it, the more I see it as liberation.  And yes, it's a struggle to get there, but celibacy really is a form of liberation.  Once one realizes that celibacy really is about concentrating one's efforts and thoughts for the sake of God and fellow mankind, then you would see why it made sense that many pagan philosophers sought out the celibate road.  Christianity thrived best on bearing disciples than biological offspring, and used celibacy as a practice that would be encouraging for those who can.  "Eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom", as Christ would put it, or "I would wish if everyone was like me," as St. Paul would say, showing celibacy as desirous for all mankind.

To burn in passion is human.  To be liberated into a life of celibacy is divine.  Celibacy is not only for the asexual and the homosexual.  How many times do we hear of many desert fathers who struggled with even their very own heterosexual passions?  While Christianity did not see the marriage bed defiled, and so blessed it, the marriage bed has been only between one man and one woman.  Just as while Christianity have spoken of equality between male and female, only the presbytery and episcopate was male.  Just as while true agape love knows no numbers or gender, only between two people, and not polyamorous, did the Church restrict physical companionships.

Can I explain why the restriction?  It is very difficult to do so as we have taken these practices for granted for centuries.  There is no good explanation I think I can convince you with.  All I can say is if the Church thought so for centuries, who am I to change?  It seems to me, my dear brother, that we must live out the eschaton in our iconic standards.  Male and female are icons of something much more transcendent than the mere flesh we have on.  And so we humbly submit to those traditions that bind us to the hope of that freedom where we live on in a world, in the heavenly Jerusalem, where there will be no more marriage as we know it now, but something greater, where there will be no more clergy as we know it now, but something grander, and where there will no more the bread and wine from that holy altar (and even today it would seem profane to use anything other than bread or wine), but a much more intimate Eucharist with our Lord in the bosom of our Father in heaven.

And so I wonder dear brother if our societies were not so lax on marriage and our Christians were not so lax on dogma, morality, and ecclesiology, would we have been in our position today?  Frankly, we are not the Church of the first 3 or 4 centuries.  If we were, the world would be turned upside down, and the heavenly Jerusalem would already exist as we walk amongst one another, and people in your struggle or position would not be shunned away as evil or disgusting, but as fellow strugglers in the Kingdom, for we understand ourselves as a Church of sinners, not a Church of the righteous.

And yet we as a society were supposed to progress.  We progressed from a society that accepted concubinage and polygamy to a society that rejects this and extols monogamy.  We progressed from a society that worked within the confines of slavery and indentured servitude, into condemning slavery.  We are progressing as we speak into trying to fight for the rights of life of both the unborn and the jailed, even the murderers and the treasonous, that we may search for more therapeutic standards of their lives.  But in terms of sexuality, we have been much more explicit, much more fragmented with high divorce rates, much more individualistic, and much more all about fighting for personal rights as if we are entitled to anything of a materialistic world.

When I think of all of that, I think there is only one of two things.  Either to stick to one's values while fighting to fix all the problems that lead to these confusions we have today, or accept the societal standards of changing into something less restrictive, where ecclesiology is something of the past, where love, sincere love, is free from numerical and orientation constrictions as the Church once held.  In this manner, I see nothing but the Church becoming overcome, and I would personally hold no real belief for Christianity.  Marriage was never a societal standard, and even the sexuality that comes with it has been an icon for something grander, as much as we shun to think so.  It was always religious, and I'm willing to stand by those ancient religious standards that seem to be a stumbling block to many.

I do not know what other pastoral approach there may be.  But I am glad dear brother you are still friends with many Orthodox folks, and that this is probably not the first time you heard these things I am saying, and so I am assured you will not take offense, but be as compassionate to my defense of my stance as I strive to be compassionate and understanding to your position.

A while ago, I read this, and I thought to myself how it makes sense that so many saints have experienced joy with celibacy rather than constraint and loneliness.  I envy them, and I am glad this is making a comeback in Protestant circles instead of the stupid "conversion therapies" that have damaged so many lives.

QCopts

Minasoliman,

I am not offended, not at all,

We do agree on some points as you can see, and we disagree on others.

Yes as I said I attend an oca parish and naturally, I have a spiritual father, but not everyone should turn into my spiritual father, ask questions or give recommendations so that's why I am reserved in answering personal questions.

I do not see celibacy as a cage Mina, please go back to my earlier comment and read them with discernment to see my stance on celibacy. Those who want to choose celibacy should choose it if they so desire.

I can't convince you to be a certain way and I cannot undermine your intelligence and agency, thinking that you just didn't try those simple ideas of mine before. I trust that as an adult, you will do what is best for you, and as an orthodox christian, you know where to seek guidance. I don't need to turn myself into your counsellor, or spiritual father. I hope that will be reciprocated. Especially because there are many details about my life, and about my husband that you may not know, right? We all should do what is in our best judgment and we all carry the consequences of our actions.
I would really prefer not to be the topic of this forum, and we go back to the original question.

minasoliman

I apologize once again if I offended you.  My only concern is to make sense of what for centuries the Church said was a sin.  I pray you well.

God bless.

QCopts

My dear brother,

No offense taken!!

God bless.

Remnkemi

I don't think SeekingGod's question was answered, so I will give it a try.

SeekingGod wrote:

"I'm not looking for an argument for, or against homosexual marriage, i just want to know if I would still fit in the church knowing i do not have a problem with these kinds of unions."

Initially, I was going to respond to ReturnOrthodoxy and QCopts comments line by line but since you asked us not to argue for or against homosexual marriage, I will refrain (at least I will try).

My answer to your question on finding or fitting in to a Church that you do not personally share their stand against homosexual unions can be best understood by comparing it to marriage. Repeatedly, in the Gospel, the typology or type of a marriage of a bridegroom to a bride is how the Church understood her role and relationship with God. If any union (heterosexual or not) does not fit this type, then there lies the real problem. 

Let me illustrate. Suppose you are mature enough to seek someone for marriage. (I purposely exclude teenagers who are dating the first girl they meet and believe this will last to marriage.) Let's also suppose you met a girl who you are attracted to. In the course of courtship, you find she is pretty adamant that a particular problem is important to her. Let's pick a problem that is common and somewhat benign. Let's suppose she has decided that she will not marry someone who smokes cigarettes. (I can easily have picked alcoholism, pornography, gluttony, animal sex, incest, rape or any other sin that people know is wrong but still commit). We know you don't have a problem with your future wife smoking. Now you can drop this girl and look for another girl who shares your view on cigarette smoking. Let's assume you found another girl who does share your views and you married her. I would say that this new relationship and subsequent marriage at a fundamental level is not Orthodox. Orthodox marriage is a union where the two people are not seeking someone to fit their needs, but a union where the two of you are transformed and partake of the divine nature by communion in Christ. Rather than dropping the first girl because she did not fit your preference of cigarette smoking, would it not make more sense to find someone who transforms you into what Christ wants you to be?

Now we can argue till we're blue in the face that cigarette smokers are good people and people who take such a stand against cigarette smoking are judgmental, bigoted quacks. But I have never, ever, ever met a smoker who has not cognitively acknowledge that smoking kills people. They may choose to ignore the health risks of smoking for themselves. But everyone knows the truth. Smoking is detrimental to a person. Therefore, a person who seeks to take a stand that her future husband must be a non-smoker is actually defending an undeniable, irrefutable truth. If you choose to marry this person, and you allow the Holy Spirit to work in this marriage, you will be transformed into a better person. (I assume I really don't need to explain this since we have examples from the saints and from the scriptures).

The same is true for choosing a Church to attend. You can probably find an Orthodox Church that conforms to all your current beliefs. I would say run away from that. You're a catechumen, still growing the faith. (We all are growing in the faith too). Or you can choose to attend an Orthodox Church that you know is beautiful (you already admitted this) and be transformed through the Church into what God has revealed. 

The only question that remains is whether homosexual union can be seen as undeniable, irrefutable detriment to a person. If it is, and you still choose to believe homosexuality is ok, then we already know where the real problem lies. 

This brings me to my short response to proponents of homosexuality and opponents to how the Coptic Church treats homosexuals. I will likely be called a homophobic racist, but I really don't care. Again, it helps to understand my response with an example. I will pick an example that is relatively shielded from the stupidity of popular opinion: mathematics. 

I will use Ray's own example from another thread. I don't need to defend why "1+1=2". I don't need to defend why "1+1=2" is extremely true. I don't need to defend why "1+1 cannot equal 1". "1+1=2" is the truth. Any movement (political, religious, intellectual, philosophical) that attempts to change the definition of mathematics so that "1+1=1" is an exercise of stupidity. (Note, I don't believe in moral or intellectual absolutism either. But those who argue for a new definition of acceptable Christian marriage are arguing for absolute moral relativism, which at best is an idiotic paradox. It's no different than arguing for an "atheistic God".). Now I will entertain discussions with proponents of the "1+1=1" party who claim they have suffered at the hands of those who take a hard-nose line in the sand about mathematics. I would cut off my hand if it made proponents of the "1+1=1" party happy. I would gladly discuss abstract mathematics to explore if "1+1=1" is a possibility. But any attempt to say the only way the two parties can be reconciled is to universally accept a new definition of mathematics (that is 1+1=1) is unacceptable. It is not the truth. It is the path to death no matter how much popular opinion disagrees. Taking such a hard-nose stand maybe seen as merciless and bigoted and unchristian. It is not. I know this because Christ Himself took such a hard-nose stand in John 6.

Now if homosexuality can be reconciled with Orthodoxy, then the gospel is a lie. If you believe the gospel is a lie, then you can't complain how the Orthodox Church treats you. 

There is plenty more I can say in response to the many wrong points here. I personally would like to discuss them.

ReturnOrthodoxy

Wrote a long response to Rem. Deleted it. Not even worth it.

Ill put it this way. The Coptic Church as adopted the writing of Pope Shenouda on this matter as it's manifesto. Go ahead and read it. It translates to "Ew, Homosexuals are Yucky!" A pity indeed.

http://tasbeha.org/content/hh_books/ordofwom/

If you feel like a homosexual would find either help, solace, salvation or the resources to be lead to salvation with a manifesto as such which is inept on a theological, psychological, scientific, philosophical and human level, then the Coptic church is the church for you. If not, seek out another communion.

That book is the Coptic Church's stance on homosexuality. Not much different from what a Muslim writer could have composed.

Ray

minatasgeel

It sounds like part of the great debate: subjectivism vs objectivism

Remnkemi

That's a shame Ray. I would have loved to read your long response and have a fruitful discussion. If you want want to interpret a hard stand against homosexuality as "Homosexuals are yucky", that's your choice. I didn't read Pope Shenouda's book that way, nor do I think opponents of homosexuality see it that way in general. Homosexuals are no more yucky than I am. The difference is I don't expect my shortcomings and sins to be permissible, a sort of subjective redefinition of sin. 

If an anti-homosexual position can only be interpreted as an inept theological, psychological, philosophical, and inhuman understanding, then let's discuss the merits of that. I can easily show you inept theological, psychological, philosophical and inhuman pro-homosexuality studies and interpretation. If this position is in itself understood as "go somewhere else", well then you haven't understood the point. In fact, it means the opposite. It means "we want off this road that leads to death and destruction and come to the road that Christ Himself said leads to life. We ourselves, at certain times, have fallen off the road that leads to life but we don't want to stay on the path that leads to death. We are no different than you. The only thing we cannot accept is to call the road that leads to life "Road to death" and the road that leads to death "Road to life"." This position does not make us Muslim or anti-progressive or anti-christian. If it does, show us how with details. 

minasoliman

I think the argument is not so much whether homosexuality is a sin or not, but the pastoral approach towards it. Ray agrees it's a sin, but there have been ways of dealing with it that did more harm than good for them.

QCopts

So I was not planning to engage during my hectic work week, but one last word from me to SeekingGod (if he is still reading this forum). 

Brother, I do not like to give advice, but please accept those words from my heart to yours if this really matters to you. 

Orthodoxy should take you beyond words, forms and reason (your time as a catechumen) to a level of participation in the life of the trinity through which you gradually and mystically perceive divine truths clearer and nearer through holy wisdom, and absolute loving-kindness and compassion for the world, for homosexuals and homophobes alike. St Macarius teaches that agape - Love - is the holy fire of Orthodoxy, its essence and goal, let Love guide you.. And when under Love's guidance and through prayerful struggle, "you descend from the mind to the heart - nous" as the fathers teach, all these arguments in the realm of form will not matter. After a certain point in your prayer life and engagement with Orthodoxy, your priorities will change and your heart will be warmed for those align with you and those who do not. 

My brother, let those who staunchly hold views and opinions against or for anything, hold them, do not concern yourself with the other. You be who you are, do what is in your best judgment in the light of Christ's teachings and the guidance of the holy fathers, and live - truly live and breathe - and let others live, we all reap what we sow.  

 

Having said that, in the realm of mind and reason, I think we all responded to your question. As you see, all of us are Coptic Orthodox but hold slightly or drastically differing views justified by our reading of the scripture, our religious piety, our education, how we reason, and our life circumstance. We agree on some points, and we disagree on others. Some of us are strongly and emotionally opposed, some see homosexuals as broken vessels and wish they could help, others have compassion and understanding, and this sinner, turned out gay and has a loving partner but continues to be Orthodox. One can only hope that we maintain kindness and charity when we disagree. All these views are the church's since we, as believers, make up the body of the church and belong to her. Obviously, some are more aligned with the mainstream/majority view than others. However, the mainstream in my opinion is only a consensus of the loudest voices in the church and I do not think anyone can strip me of my beloved Orthodoxy or turn Christ against me. 

We all belong to the church, we are all struggling with the passions (including judgment and condemnation of the other), we are all working on our salvation, and we are all patiently waiting to be emancipated. Our core identity is Orthodoxy, the divine image, neither gay or straight. So find your church, trust a spiritual father, pray unceasingly, and let others figure out their journey. 

qawe

"All these views are the church's since we, as believers, make up the body of the church and belong to her."

I disagree. There have undoubtedly been many adherents to heresy that have died without being excommunicated from the church. Can a heretical view therefore be said to be the Church's?

"I do not think anyone can strip me of my beloved Orthodoxy or turn Christ against me."

Obviously you are correct but this misses the point. We are postulating that your views are unOrthodox and unChristian. If we are wrong, there is no reason for Christ to be "turned against" you. However, if we are right, it is not we who have turned Christ against you, rather Christ has been against you from the outset.

"the mainstream in my opinion is only a consensus of the loudest voices in the church"

It is not "only" the consensus of the loudest. One should not take going against the consensus patrum lightly.