The problem with the Augustine approach is that we have been inconsistent in its use. It is unfair to be serious about the personal sins of gay and lesbian persons, and silent about the numerous personal sins of all others. We need to be more consistent in our use of language, and m ore consistent in our call to personal holiness.
Dated (from 2003) but helpful–read it all (hat tip: PW).
[i]The responsibility of a historian is to take a complex series of
events and makes it appear to be clearer than it really is. We
routinely take a decade and reduce it to a paragraph or two or a
century and boil it down to a chapter.[/i]
True. Painfully true.
“It is unfair to be serious about the personal sins of gay and lesbian persons, and silent about the numerous personal sins of all others.”
I tend to agree with the sentiment here, the Church IS demonstrably silent on issues such as cohabitation and many times abortion. However, silence is a far cry from consent, approval, acceptance, blessing, sanctification and consecration of sin.
The best response to this I have heard came from an ordained person in the Church; I can’t remember who. He said, ” We need to be really clear on doctrine so we can be very pastoral in our response to sin”. Prior to 2003 I don’t remember the Church as singling out homosexuality ; it was only when the attempt was made to define it as not being sinful that it was necessary to react. Orthodox ordained folk that I have been been close to have not been silent on sinful behavior, be it cohabitation, abortion, gossip, slander, etc. They have dealt with specific issues amongst the flock quietly and pastorically, extending the offer of mercy to a repentent sinner as they should.
So the problem has been that the Church has lost any sense of correct, unchanging doctrine more so than selectively enforcing Law.
Great reading and helpful distinctions. But, I maintain that this argument is not primarily about approaches to doing theology or about defining sin, although both come into play. At the core, the controversy is about marriage. What do we teach about marriage? How does our teaching about marriage influence our assumptions about ministry? The Catechism (does anyone teach this any more?) defines marriage and ordination as sacramental rites. How do we change our teaching about relationships (not sex particularly) and our assumptions about ordination and ministry in the Church without first examining our approach to these sacraments? But, going back to the liberation vs. Augustinian distinction, it’s interesting to me that the Catechism couches its teaching about sin in the language of liberation. “Sin is the seeking of our own will instead of the will of God, thus distorting our relationship with God, with other people, and with all creation… Sin has power over us because we lose our liberty when our relationship with God is distorted… Redemption is the act of God which sets us free from the power of evil, sin, and death.”