In the past month or so, the Armenian Genocide has gotten lots of media attention. In the debate over whether the U.S. should recognize it as genocide, some people are saying that we need to be more concerned with our ally relations in the Middle East, despite the other side's insistence that we cannot be bullied into ignoring truth. Well, I read an article today that made me want to vomit, and it made me very sad that the U.S. in fact bows to the Middle East all the time, all because of the fact that they're our supposed "allies."

I read in the paper today that a Saudi woman was gang raped and, upon seeking justice, was punished for allowing herself to be with men she was not related to. The woman received 6 months in prison and 200 lashes for her "crime." Are you nauseous yet? The Canadians called it "barbaric," but the U.S. "stopped short of stronger language against its close ally in the Middle East." Too bad, because the woman's sentence was increased from 90 lashes to 200 due to the U.S.'s media attention. If we had given more than just media attention, and maybe flexed our own muscles in the Middle East for once and for real, over matters that affect human dignity, maybe this victim would not have been victimized twice. I don't understand how the U.S., the leader of the free world, is afraid to flex its muscles in the face of such obvious barbarism and denial of human rights and dignity. And we call these people our allies?

On Friday, I attended a lecture by Dr. Vigen Guroian, professor of theology and ethics and Loyola University in Maryland. Dr. Guroian spoke about the issue of homosexuality and same-sex union from an Armenian Orthodox perspective. As expected, he labeled homosexuality as a sin, referencing Scripture passages such as 1 Cor. 6:9-10 and Romans 1:26-27 and the Tradition of the Armenian Church which states that the image of God, as seen in the Genesis story, is complete in the complementarity of male and female from the outset of creation. Further, he stated that sacramentally speaking, the marriage union must occur between and man and a woman. In sum, citing Scripture and Tradition, Dr. Guroian stated that both homosexuality and same-sex union (with homosexual marriage as a subset) are sinful in the eyes of the Armenian Church.

Professor Guroian also attempted to smooth over this potentially harsh stance by saying that the Armenian Church should welcome these sinners into her fold, and that she has failed to do so successfully thus far. In the traditional stance of “love the sinner, hate the sin,” Professor Guroian stated that the main ingredient missing was forgiveness, and that the church should always be prepared to offer it to those who repent. This, of course, precludes a homosexual thinking s/he is sinful. Nevertheless, Guroian took a stance grounded in the teachings of the Armenian Church, urging that the Church stand firm against the tides of modern culture in confidently calling homosexuality a sin, a disease, which one can be forgiven of. When he was challenged by audience members who suggested that the Armenian Church ought to conform to the times, citing the fact that homosexuality is no longer considered a “disease” and that it is taken out of Scriptural context in being labeled sinful, Guroian did not budge. He reiterated that the church’s traditional interpretation must stand, that the church’s understanding of sacraments cannot change, and that those seeking union are welcome to seek it in the state, but not in the church. Lastly, he stated that the church cannot change with culture, that it never has and never should, and that secular ideals cannot dictate the church’s sacred teachings.

As a heterosexual woman, I felt no personal attack hearing homosexuality outspokenly condemned as sinful and listening to the discussion that followed. However, as a faithful Armenian Christian, I feel some unrest in this attempt at a pastoral approach to homosexuals. As someone who tries to read Scripture responsibly and understand the Armenian Church’s tradition, especially its sacraments, I look at Scripture passages such as 1 Cor. 6:9-10 which form the basis for Guroian’s argument that these sinners cannot be sacramentally accepted into the Armenian Church and see a glaring imbalance and irresponsibility. In three of the four Scriptural references condemning homosexuality, homosexuality is part of a larger list of “sins” or “abominations.” In the passages from Leviticus, some of the other items on this list are things as common as eating shellfish (Lev. 11:10) and getting a tattoo (Lev. 19:28), or as ludicrous as finding a man who has slept with his neighbor’s wife and putting them both to death (Lev. 20:10). In 1 Corinthians, fornication and greed are listed as sins that will bar a person from inheriting the kingdom of God.

Obviously, Armenian tradition has weeded out eating shellfish and getting a tattoo as abominations that are simply contextual historically. If they were not, all of the Armenian pilgrims to Jerusalem would find themselves in serious jeopardy with their “haji’s” stamped on their right forearm. Also, I would fear for the salvation of my family and many other Armenians I know who enjoy such delicacies as shrimp, crab, and lobster on a regular basis. Additionally, I have never learned of a time in Armenian history when an adulterer and adulteress were put to death by the church for their sin. Perhaps we’ve allowed for these oversights, for this glossing over of certain parts of the Old Testament, because we could argue that Christ ushered in a New Testament which was the fulfillment of the law. Fair enough. If we’re going to leave the Old Testament out of it for its socio-historical context or irrelevance to our lives today (or argue that Tradition helps balance out these passages), then I would like to take a closer look at those New Testament passages (all two of them) which condemn homosexuality and explore what Guroian sees as a threat to the purity of the sacraments of the Armenian Church.

In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, St. Paul says: “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts (or homosexuals), nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.” From this passage, and one in Romans 1:26-27, which says that men and women who exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones (men having passion for men and women for women) received the “due penalty for their error,” emerges the tradition that homosexuality is a sin. It was also pointed out by Guroian that from the beginning of creation, God created humankind in his own image as male and female, and that it is in this dual-gender complementarity that the image of God is seen. And from that comes the concern over homosexuals being sacramentally accepted into the Armenian Church. After all, the Armenian Church does everything it can to prohibit sinners from participating in the sacraments (take the practice of confession prior to the sacrament of the eucharist, for example). It is this notion, that nonrepentant sinners cannot be accepted into the sacraments of the church, that requires further attention.

If we are going to cite 1 Cor. 6:9-10 as one of the foundations for condemning homosexuality and barring homosexuals from the sacraments of the church, there are a number of sins listed which have thus far been ignored in the discussion regarding sacramental acceptance into the Armenian Church. If the Armenian Church is truly going to speak out against offering sacraments to nonrepentent sinners, then let’s get serious. When it comes to the sacrament of marriage, for example, we must not stop at homosexuals. We must forbid all fornicators, all the greedy, and all drunkards from getting married. Yet how many couples has the church married who were wed in the state of these sins, and even worse, were unrepentant about them? I'm sure that I am not the only person who knows couples who have been married in the Armenian Church who had engaged in premarital sex, drank heavily the day of their wedding, and/or had even gotten rather greedy with their gift registry and wedding arrangements. Shouldn’t the church be as vocal against this as it is about homosexuals getting married?

But we cannot stop there. What about the other sacraments of the church? To follow Guroian's argument, we cannot allow unrepentant sinners to receive the sacrament of baptism, chrismation, ordination, unction, etc. It is for this reason that those to be baptized renounce Satan; that the first thing the priest does in the Liturgy is make his confession, so that he can celebrate the Eucharist; that we attending the Liturgy must make our confession before receiving communion; and so on and so forth. We must then ask ourselves: is homosexual marriage the only case in which a nonrepentent sinner is seeking to be accepted into a sacrament of the church? Can a man who has lived his entire life greedily and drunkenly, who is nonrepentant of these sins which St. Paul seems to find as serious as homosexuality, receive the sacrament of unction before he dies, for example? In other words, if it is wrong for the church to accept a nonrepentant sinner into the sacraments, are we looking at St. Paul’s laundry list of sins unworthy of the kingdom of God and speaking out against one of those items while ignoring the others? I ask this not to point fingers, or suggest that the church has looked the other way when considering the administration of sacraments to some of its faithful, but to encourage us to honestly consider the breadth and scope of raising concern over allowing a nonrepentant sinner into the sacraments of the church.

The concern this brings up, of course, goes back to Professor Guroian’s exhortation that the Armenian Church stand strong against the tides of culture in affirming the truth to Her people. He was very strong in stating that the Armenian Chuch must not give into the influences of the state or secular culture. If the Armenian Church is in fact ignoring certain sins while focusing on others, the question we must ask is, why? In the case of fornication, why do we ignore this sin when agreeing to marry certain couples? Is it possible that it’s because we know there would be nobody left to marry, that we would be forced to reject almost all marriage applicants, because fornication is just a way of life, part of the culture? The same with drunkenness or greed, or immorality, or thievery; what would happen if, for example, the priest sent to the back of the communion line those who had pushed to the front, a blatant act of greed and selfishness in the face of the holy and blessed sacrament? Why does the church not speak out as strongly and vocally against these other sins, which St. Paul equates to homosexuality? What is the difference between refusing to marry a homosexual couple and a heterosexual couple who have engaged in premarital sex? Or a greedy capitalist who pushes people aside to be the first to receive communion? Or a bride-or groom-to-be showing up on their wedding day with alcohol on their breath? Or a teenager who has stolen money out of the collection plate just before receiving communion? If we are to read Scripture responsibly, it is imperative that we treat St. Paul unilaterally, i.e., that we don’t push some of his teachings at the expense of others.

I have to wonder whether the church has, in fact, already bowed to the influences of secular culture when it comes to accepting nonrepentant sinners into the sacraments. Sins like greed (one of the seven deadly sins, mind you), drunkenness, and adultery are so common that it would cause a lot of turmoil in the church if it was to speak out against them and bring them out in the open as strongly as it does homosexuality. As St. Paul says, all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23). I am the first of them. I sin every day, and even in those few short moments between confession and communion, I’m sure I commit ten sins before I’ve made it to the altar. But, some would argue, that’s the case for everyone, and at least you’re repentant and trying not to sin. Fair enough, but let me not write these words with any sort of presumption that I am any better than the worst of sinners, least of whom, sometimes, are homosexuals.

Lastly, when we talk about the church's pastoral approach to homosexuals, the church's stance would be much better informed if it ceased to pull this one line item out of its context in Scripture, and instead focused on the fact that we are all sinners. In fact, the discussion of any sin must be held in light of all of Scripture and Tradition. It also must remain in the context of a sinful and penitent Christian community. If I sin by the sin of greed, I will not feel equipped or empowered to repent of it in a community that I feel has already judged me or sees me as more sinful than they are (that is the beauty of the corporate confession we have, in my opinion). I will instead retreat, and I will not feel the love of God that that community claims to strive for. We must reconsider our approach to this one line item if we are to better our pastoral approach to those who have felt like outcasts in the past. Just as Jesus reminded us to remove the log from our own eye before removing the splinter from our neighbor's eye, let us not forget to focus the church's healing and forgiveness on our own sins as much as those we find in others.

ALMOST PUBLISHED

Letters to Metro

on Friday, Nov. 2, Steve Kalka wrote a letter to the Metro newspaper saying that the term "Genocide" should not be applied loosely to the Armenians, and that we should consider whether their deaths were simply the result of war or if it really was a systematically planned extermination of a race. I wrote in a response which Metro asked for permission to publish (I got prematurely excited), but unfortunately, I didn't make the cut. Apparently, they'd rather hear from someone who far exceeded their word limit ranting about saving the South Village from commercial developers.

Almost published:
Steve Kalka ("'Genocide' not to be applied loosely") questions whether the massacre of the Armenians during WWI can actually be deemed 'genocide.' Countless genocide historians have already affirmed this term, citing detailed documentation between 1914-1939 from United States and European ambassadors, journalists, photographers, and missionaries, up to Adolf Hitler, who stated prior to invading Poland, "After all, who today speaks of the annihilation of the Armenians," all documenting the full intent of the Ottoman Turks to exterminate the Armenian people. The term "Genocide," rather than being applied loosely, is inarguably and undeniably the only term that is appropriate.

I read an interesting article in today's paper entitled "Bush cites Lenin, Hitler in rebuking Democrats." He says: "History teaches us that underestimating the words of evil, ambitious men is a terrible mistake. Bin Laden and his terrorist allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them. And the question is, will we listen?"

There is so much wrong with this statement that it's hard to pick it apart one by one for fear of ending up with a three-page blog entry. But, I'll do my best.

My first reaction was utter confusion at this statement, and after a few seconds, I realized it was because there is no logical line one can draw between totalitarian dictators of their own states who actually held complete political power and a man hiding in a cave somewhere in Afghanistan who serves as Bush's only leverage in keeping Americans afraid of some sort of future terrorist attack and thus enabling him to pass legislation that strips American citizens of more and more of their privacy and freedom while giving our government a frightening amount of control and power. Hitler and Lenin actually held political office and used their positions to manipulate and control people, so that ultimately they ended up with the power to decide who was in and who was out, who was friend and who was foe, who lived and who died, who could be considered a citizen and who was to be cast out as alien. They held the power to decide what was printed in the media, and what language to use to brainwash people and force them to think a certain way. They designed their governments so that everything came under their control - the power to invade people's homes and privacy, the power to deem a harmless citizen a threat to the security of the state based on arbitrary criteria of their own design, the power to dictate people's jobs, incomes, lifestyles.

Bin Laden, on the other hand, lives in hiding and has control over a small, select group of extremist rebels. He exerts no political power over a nation and does not act as a dictator over a government or state. Yes, he brainwashes people, but rather than working to exert power and control over his own country and people, he works against a country thousands of miles away on a different continent. His enemy does not live on his own soil. His control, unlike that of Lenin and Hitler, has nothing to do with a certain state or nation. He is not trying to run his own country in whatever way he wants to with the only citizens being those whom he hand-picks. He is not trying to rid a country of people who do not conform to his own made-up, arbitrary standards. He's just trying to rid the world of stupid, ignorant Americans who have the audacity to think they are doing Iraqi citizens a favor by blowing up their country for no good reason, taking their oil, forcing American ideals onto citizens of a completely different culture, then punishing them for being a square peg that can't fit into a round hole.

Bin Laden's intentions, though they may be as clear as Bush seems to think they are, are nothing like those of Lenin or Hitler. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that. However, when one considers the current trends in American anti-terrorism policy and presidential rhetoric, one must ask if our own president's intentions aren't as clear as those evil, ambitious men of history whom he so eloquently quotes.