My dear friends, last time we spoke of the intrinsic disruption that the idea of same-sex marriage poses to the genuine dignity of human personhood. Most of what has been written about the Supreme Court decision a few weeks ago has not focused on this aspect of the topic. To me, however, it is the critical facet of this issue from two points of view. Firstly, because Justice Kennedy’s swing decision and consequent explanation focuses on an idea of human dignity that is based solely on rights and equality; and second, the pursuit of genuine personhood is the core doctrine of the Orthodox concept of divinization, or theosis.

Yet most of what I’ve been hearing over the last weeks from Orthodox sources has not touched on the disease itself, but rather how to alleviate symptoms. In and of itself, this is not really surprising. After all, if you are in the bakery business, recent events do indeed provide enough fodder to give you pause. Survival, at least economically, is something that has to be considered; if not in the short term, at least in the long. Likewise, other Orthodox survival manuals are being placed in the public domain, concentrating on finding as many secret tunnels out of the line of fire as possible.

As I mentioned last time, these may indeed play a part in the always tremulous future, but I repeat here: these sorts of issues are not the ones that interest me at present, though they are certainly meaningful from a practical, possibly upcoming event, and the standard “here I stand” preached from many Orthodox and non-Orthodox churches are not unwelcome. Such ideas are being portrayed as reactionary, predictable, and even hateful from those opposed to the opposition of same-sex hook-ups.

We need to keep in mind that our response has to be, first and foremost, a theological one. I know many might think that this is something that concerns only the internals of Church belief and that organizational principle and oneness should be the foremost thing that is presented to the public. After all, St. Paul said it, so we don’t do it, right? Right that may be, but the arguments still don’t persuade most of the general public, no matter how passionate they are.

Orthodoxy has an entirely different take on the subject, far removed from a simple morality tale than the endless diatribe of “Thou shalt not"s and “Don’t you dare"s. It is this that deserves the world’s and especially our attention, not a facetious following of rules, but of the high and genuinely exalted vision of what mankind can and indeed should be. We should focus on the facts of our fallings, failings, and distorted imagery that clouds the brilliance of God’s gift of humanity and search diligently for that royal path that takes us beyond considerations of courts, legality, protests, and getting around rulings that are profoundly distasteful and ill-considered, even when they are the law of the land.

Aside from rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and unto God that which is God’s, the Lord didn’t speak much about current legal events occurring in the Roman empire during his time on earth. He didn’t condemn the sinner, but was most insistent that the aberrant actions come to a halt. “Go and sin no more.” His whole life was directed to restoring the human narrative as it had been interrupted from almost moment one. St. Paul, and indeed the other apostles, interred as they were in the very real historical world of first-century Judea and beyond, must have come into contact with many disturbing and ultimately irreconcilable practices with their faith. Paul especially seems to be always getting into trouble with the authorities, though one gets the impression that he gloried in it also, as he was a Roman citizen, with all the rights and equalities that position entailed.

Yet he, too, avoided any direct conflict with the atrocities going on with political action and change. His concern was with what Christians were doing, not with what the world was up to. He never would have acquiesced to improper activities forbidden by the Church to be practiced within the state, which sets an example for how Orthodox Christians should see same-sex marriage, but he also left the state to its own devices. For example, due to the new life in Christ, the idea of a slave seeking his freedom was secondary to the spiritual perfection attained by such a person in Christ. For in Christ the slave found by everyone to be his equal; no one was set above the other, and especially at the eucharistic gathering, where all were united by the common participation in the body and blood of Christ. Worldly considerations of place and position melted away into the communal experience of the eschaton, the last days already experienced by the Christian community as they assembled together in the unity of their congregation. Neither do we hear anything about the gladiatorial games, brutal and inhuman almost beyond reckoning, and certainly forbidden to Christians, as later canon law indicates, yet no calls to action from the apostles.

Religious persecutions were hardly unknown. The Christians were not the only ones to suffer, and the rabid mania of many of the emperors would certainly be fodder for Christian activism on any number of planes, but we see none of this in the earlier years. Of course, the obvious argument to all of this is that the persecutions and nascent establishment of the Church meant that opportunity for societal transformation was virtually nonexistent until later post-Constantine years. As I indicated last time, in this Christian or post-Christian era, depending on your point of view, we have become spoiled in our day and age, assuming things about society and its now long-term Christian infusion that simply don’t hold true any more, and we’re having trouble coming to terms with it.

This is new. Things once counted on are out the window, the moral compass is heading south, and we don’t know how to react. But in this instance, I think a corrective of exactly how we have viewed the history of the Christian transformative process might prove instructive. The early Christians, starting with the apostles, actually didn’t avoid correcting society’s ills because of the considerations previously mentioned, but because a transformation of society always found germination in the transformation of the individual person. Even in the post-Constantine years, even in the most vigorous persecutions of people like St. John Chrysostom, who never hesitated to criticize the wrongdoings of emperor or empress, the emphasis was not on the wrongdoings of the state but of the person. He knew, as did the apostles and as did our Lord himself, that it was the narration of the human person that needed to be set aright, not the government or its policies, no matter how ill-conceived.

But in our current conundrum, how can we explicate this narrative to a world that so needs it? We must first recognize two salient facts. Our duty and obligation is to preach the Gospel to every creature on earth—past, present, and future—no matter what the outcome, no matter what the response. The apostles had failures, too, and all was not roses and red wine in the apostolic age. We can expect no less, and we must realize that our Lord, the quantity and quality of our preaching, will forever be a rock of stumbling and offense to people, as he is even to us as we struggle to control our passions and become like him. We must preach—not convince, for that is God’s doing—the true human narrative, what is meant by actually being human to begin with, and how that dignity, once bestowed, can be reclaimed in glory.

Sexuality itself, one of the greatest gifts to mankind, was present from the beginning, but it in no way defined the first couple. Woman, called such because she was taken from man to be a helper, not subservient or a slave, was made different from man from the beginning, and they were told to be fruitful and multiply and to have dominion over the earth, yet the generic “man,” meaning Adam and Eve both, were of the same nature whose very personhoods were defined not by the difference of sex but by the commands given by God. Here their unity ended, as they acted not in tandem because they were individuals, each created by him. Each had to respond in his and her own way. Their sexual distinctions before the Fall are downplayed completely, and it is only after their stumble that the realities of childbirth, pain, and mortality in regards to sex are mentioned.

The Fathers of the Church, though they cannot be said to be unanimous on this point, have trouble reconciling our sexual nature in our fallen state with that found in the paradisical realm. It doesn’t take a genius to see why, as devolved today as at any time in history, the pursuit of and engagement in the worst kinds of perversions and fetishes are completely incongruous with the state of bliss enjoyed, but paradoxically, it seems, by a naked man and woman in a garden of delight. But this is what happened. This is the human narrative as it was supposed to exist and would still if not for the exercise of another great gift of God: free will. This gift is intrinsic to our very definition of being human. The idea of making choices freely and without hindrance, even though bad choices have now, as they first did, serious consequences. But the very base nature of the sexual instinct—little different from what we find in animals, though their pursuit of it is from pure instinct and not pleasure and passion—is difficult to consider as something intrinsic to the pre-fallen life of mankind in the first couple.

So what does this mean? Sex is bad? Well, according to some Fathers, the continuation of the species would have been by another means altogether if the couple had remained in obedience to God, and their genital differences were given solely as a condescension to their foreknown fallen state. This is reflected by some, like St. Gregory of Nyssa, who point to the Lord’s own words in Matthew’s gospel when speaking about marriage in heaven. They neither marry nor are married, but are like the angels in heaven, who, according to St. John of Damascus, have no need of marriage. But we do run into a legitimate conflict when we hear that, in God’s creation, everything, including the sexual nature, was created good. Didymus the Blind suggests that Adam and Eve were going to consummate their marriage and that “increase and multiply” indicates that procreation and what is needed to achieve it are free of prohibition or hindrance. But either of these views brings us to one salient point that must be proclaimed in our explanations as to why same-sex marriage is unallowable.

From the beginning, our sexual nature is seen as something given for specific purpose and need and is in no way to be considered as that which defines our personhood. Indeed, in the beginning, God created man—meaning the human person—and male and female he created them: a common species with distinctions made in order that the race is propagated. After the Fall, everything regarding this feature of life became distorted and out of check, just like everything else. Man now does act out of passion and desire, a result of disobedience and rebellion. Of course, it might be difficult to “sell” the Orthodox version of the Creation story to the person on the street. Neither can we be surprised when it is rejected contrasted to the obvious “rights” of someone wanting to marry a member of the same sex simply because of genuine “fairness.”

But the truth is something that is not always perceptible at first hearing, and the faithful proclamation of the manifest reality of sexuality as the defining characteristic of a human being must be rejected as something that can indeed be witnessed on any number of levels. First and foremost is the very idea that fulfillment in unabated sexual activity and choice actually does fulfill. It has long been known that those engaging in more irregular and increasingly odd sexual acts, those which are not only far removed from the sexual standard of child-bearing but touch on existential problems relating more to psychological and sociological needs than just pure sex, set off a chain of event activity that grows in need.

Once departure from the norm is set in motion, few there are that find a satisfactory stopping place. Were this not so, the evolution and catastrophically enormous increase in pornography would not be taking place. People today rely on sexual activity not only for procreation, satisfaction in linkage with a partner, and increase in genuine human love, each an indispensable corollary of true marriage, but as something to be satisfied at whim. Passionate existence, which completely tarnishes the unaffected personhood of the human being, is now the rule, not just in existence and occasionally something to be fought against, but actually sought after in the most strenuous manner by millions of people.

Now we are at the point where this very seeking has been categorized and boxed into false concepts of equality and rights, an unappetizing assault on the dignity of the human person. An Orthodox Christian, knowing and loving the image of Christ found in all men and women, regardless of religious belief or lack thereof, cannot support any idea which places this dignity, and the opportunity of achieving it, in danger. We may indeed recognize the right of two same-sex people to marry according to established law, but we can in no way support it. To do so is to degrade the very persons we wish to uphold. They indeed do have a God-given faculty for choice, as did Adam and Eve, but this choice is enshrined in the image of God, which forbids the act of sin and disobedience, and not in the legalities of the state.

To call good “evil” and evil “good,” even in the name of equality, is outside the Christian experience. Our vision must be one of affirmation of the positive. The Orthodox view is one that accentuates the greatness of man’s potential and of the human spirit. We, as St. Paul before us, strive to find those things that are noble, just, pure, lovely, of good report, virtuous, and praiseworthy, no matter where they are found, for the instances of goodness in mankind are limitless, and the things of God’s created world, even in the fallen state of sin, can still shine brightly.

When we are able to struggle in this life to remove the blinders that affect us, to defeat the passions that cause so much disruption in our souls, and put on the very life of Christ given to us, the perfectibility of mankind—not through social fiat, but through genuine change of character and heart through repentance—becomes possible. Our intended destiny is reachable when we seek to define ourselves not through the lower appetites but through glorious status as adopted sons and daughters of God, and when we do this—lo and behold, those very lower appetites become grace-filled and meaningful.

That all of this is difficult goes without saying. We should have genuine compassion for those who find themselves in situations where the contra-natural seeking of sexual satisfaction among the same sex seems paramount to their very being. We should also have genuine compassion for those who find themselves in situations where the contra-natural seeking of sexual satisfaction among heterosexuals seems paramount to their very being. It’s not an easy thing, and from an Orthodox Christian point of view, both of these are aberrant, but from the same-sex standpoint, one of the things that make it so difficult is that they are being defined by this very desire. What, exactly, is a “gay parade,” for instance? A parade defined by persons who find it important enough that their sexual proclivities be trumpeted above everything else in their personhood? Would we not protest with equal vehemence the idea of a heterosexual parade? There’s no difference; either one advocates for the least important qualities of our persons to be given far more importance than they deserve.

Today, with the sexual impulse given first rank among almost all human characteristics, a distortion is occurring. We do not deny, of course, that genuine and fervent love can occur between two of the same sex. This has been true from the beginning, but because of our distorted views and misunderstanding of the true and life-giving nature of the human person, our views have now gravitated to equating any idea of love with the correlation of sex. One, it seems, is impossible without the other, and anyone who suggests otherwise places themselves in a position of wreaking psychological havoc. Tendencies of this sort have led to the most egregious reinterpretations of some biblical excerpts and stories in the Desert Fathers and patristic passages, the worst perhaps being the idea that the Prophet-King David and his friend Jonathan were engaged in some sort of homo-eroticism.

Indeed, in light of our current societal norms, when one reads in David’s lament that “your love to me was more wonderful than the love of women,” the ideas following are immediately thrust into the realm of the passionate appetites. But this love, so beautifully typified in this story, points to the angelic life of monasticism that would follow the advent of Christ, and shows that the highest virtue of love in any form is far greater than seeking a lower non-virtue, like sex, as somehow needed in order to justify itself. The monastic pursuit of this love among the brothers or sisters has always been considered angelic in nature, again relating what we spoke of earlier in terms of a temperate and responsible attitude toward sexual activity. Even in the world today, brotherly love is still possible as it was at the time of David, but it’s now more difficult and susceptible to gross misinterpretation.

Marriage will always be between two opposing sexes. The creative impulse can only be satisfied between a man and a woman, forming the basis for any human society. This seems self-evident, but beyond that, through the mutual submission of the one to the other, and the acceptance of grace given in this highly sacramental experience, men and women learn to find acceptance before God again, once more by the merging of the two distinct persons, male and female, the intended oneness that was uttered by God when he first created man, saying, “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness.” The unity of essence comes before the separation of sexes.

The world today is not too interested in spiritual struggle. We should get used to it, as it will only get worse, but that doesn’t mean that our teaching is any different or any less positive in its proclamation of the potential glories of the human person. For there will always be those who are willing to hear and to understand the true dignity of man that is found in the pursuance of virtue, not by means of sterile moralism or rule-keeping, but by the free and unfettered ascendancy towards the Lord who gives us his life, the only real life. Those who wish to kick against the idea may manipulate the laws of society in order to achieve their ends, but this must not impede our proclamation, and we must in no way accede to their definitions or demands, for to do so, though it might seem innocuous, compromises not our standards—for this concept is a legal and societal one—but the very mind of the Church that finds its birth in the divine Person of our Lord Jesus Christ.

We must love people enough to insist, forcefully yet respectfully, that their pursuit of existent personhood lies not in acclimation to false and deceitful concepts of what it is to be human, but to the calling and grace of God who has shown us in Jesus Christ the beauties of true humanity. May we always be faithful to this calling, and may God bless each and every one of you.