Last week was Holy Week in the Christian calendar. It's the time of year I feel I ought to be most focused on Jesus' actual suffering - from the anger of the turning of the tables in the Temple, to the angst in the Garden, to the pain and agony of the crucifixion. Since I was little, I've been told that Jesus did all that out of love for all of humanity - out of love for me. It's a bit difficult, as a child, to understand the profundity of sacrificial love. I think that is because that kind of love comes much more naturally to children, or to those who have not yet been hurt by love. Children are more willing to love with reckless abandon, purely, honestly, without bias or guardedness or barriers. As an adult, having had too many experiences of being hurt by love which built many barriers around my heart, I have become too secure in the practice of withholding my love in order to avoid further heartache. This made Holy Week's focus on sacrificial love all the more difficult, as I was not only unable to envision how it felt to receive it based on my own experiences, but also how it felt to be the giver of that kind of love. It was safe to say that aside from parents or close long-time friends (from whom, in my mind, it was more expected and less of a choice), I had never experienced being the recipient of sacrificial love from a human being.

Last Monday, the Monday of Holy Week, I was scheduled to go to my doctor for a biopsy. Nothing crazy, nothing that was really concerning, but I had a slight abnormality they just wanted to check out to be safe. Unfortunately, my gift of a wild imagination did not serve me well in this case, as I began imagining all the worst-case scenarios and worrying they could, in fact, happen to me. At the peak (or valley, as it were) of my morbid imaginings, two days before the appointment, I had what could be described as a mild "freak out." My boyfriend sat me down on the couch and rubbed my back as I cried uncontrollably about the fact that I might die sometime soon. (I'm sure he was rolling his eyes when I wasn't looking. I would have been. I would have been sitting there thinking "Good LORD, this is out of control!") Thankfully, he knows that when I'm upset, all I want is for him to rub my back, listen, and tell me things are going to be okay. He executed this brilliantly and I calmed down soon enough. The day of the appointment, however, I felt my nerves climbing again. About 2 hours before I was supposed to leave my apartment, my boyfriend called to ask how I was doing. I told him, truthfully, that I was nervous but that I'd be okay, and could I call him back in a few minutes since I was on the other line with a different friend who was calming me down. He said, "Sure... or you could just open your door." And my doorbell rang. It was him. He had woken up that morning thinking about how nervous I was and decided to surprise me and take the day off work (knowing that if he had asked me I would have told him not to come) and go with me to the appointment. I was touched... overwhelmed... but most of all, relieved to be in his arms. He escorted me to the doctors office, and when they called me back, he sent me a text message that said, "Just remember I am with you." I looked at it at least a hundred times before the doctor came in.

Over the next few days, every time I'd tell someone about the overwhelming kindness he had shown me, I'd get misty-eyed and be at a loss for words. I didn't know why. Then on Good Friday, just 4 days after the appointment, I was sitting in church and it hit me: this was the first time I had experienced true sacrificial love. This other person made a huge sacrifice for me, not because he thought I wanted him to or out of a sense of obligation or guilt, but simply because he loved me and knew I needed him. He loved me without considering the consequences or whether it would be returned. I realized how much I'd been shielding myself from both giving and receiving that kind of love, which ultimately made my boyfriend's sacrifice extremely profound. And I realized that this is how Jesus loves us. With reckless abandon. Purely. Honestly. Sacrificially. Without considering the consequences, or whether his love will be returned. I realized the faulty place from which I have been operating for so long: only love people if they are guaranteed to love you back. What if Jesus had loved the world in that way? There would certainly be no Good Friday - and certainly no Easter. The thought brought tears to my eyes, and I saw Good Friday differently than I've ever seen it before.

As it turns out, when I left church and turned my cellphone back on, there was a voicemail from my doctor. She said that my biopsy results came back normal. I suppose I should have been rejoicing, but there was something inside me that knew this was the case all along. I did breathe a sigh of relief though, and over dinner that night I told my boyfriend what I had prayed about in church that day - that he had been a beautiful model to me of the kind of love that God has for us. At least, finally, I returned the favor and was able to render him speechless.

I heard a news report this morning about controversy over allowing women to drive in Saudi Arabia. I had a flashback to my last trip to Armenia, where the children I worked with saw a woman driving into the camp and all ran to get a look, because they had never seen a woman driving before. And I thought about how I tried to explain to them that in many countries around the world, it's very normal for women to drive, and they just looked at me like I had 5 heads, even when I told them that I myself drove and owned a car. Then, and now, what overwhelms me the most is the feeling that the gap is too wide between their mentality and my Western one. I don't know how to explain gender equality as progress and as a positive thing, and maybe even as something that's necessary.

And I think, especially, about what happens to women, or any minority, when they are caged and suppressed for too long. They forget who they really are. They stop listening to the voice inside that tells them that they are human beings who have worth, and they start listening to the voices of men who tell them they are second-class citizens.

My prayer tonight is for women.

Newspapers have a way of showing us the popular perception of things.

Today's Metro newspaper did a little comical blurb about "Where does President Bush's career go from here? We have a few ideas..." They had some fun with photoshop, with pictures of Dubya as a clown, dictionary editor, televangelist in a white robe, FBI profiler, and American Idol judge. For each choice, under each picture, they explained the reason why Georgie would be a good fit in these various occupations. (e.g. the dictionary editor was "If you can rewrite history, you sure as hell can rewrite the English language. 'Misunderestimated' and 'sovereigninity' are good starters." The FBI profiler was "It's the best way to continue probing people's personal lives without having to ask permission. And you are the law, so it's easy to deny people their freedom.")

Under the televangelist, it said:
"You love God. You love guns. You hate gays. You won't get a better audience than the Sunday morning gospel shows. So put on that robe and preach that hate in the name of the Lord."

It makes me so, so sad that this is the popular misconception of Christians. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the Republicans have kidnapped and raped the Christian faith for their own political gain. Not all Christians are gun-wielding, war-loving, gay-hating, judgmental, out-to-save-you, hateful radicals. George W. Bush has shat on his own religion and butchered it and displayed it to the masses. It's as violating as taking somebody's relative, decapitating them, then mounting their head on a stake and planting it in the person's front yard. The God that most Christians know and love does not love guns and does not hate gays. And most of all, the Christian God does not hate any human being, because they are all created in the divine's own image.

Mood swing, defined:

Yesterday's menu: dumplings, bagel with cream cheese, the entire dish of pad thai, ice cream sandwich, bag of popcorn.

Today's menu: apple, banana, soup & salad, 2 sushi rolls.

I think I'm feeling a little better today.

I'm very sad right now.

There are tears in my eyes and pain in my heart. I see the same injustice over and over again, and I'm witnessing it right now. And it hurts. When I see women treated as less than the fully dignified human beings that they are, a part of me dies. And when I happen to be one of those women, it makes me want to scream.

Great job, Sarah Palin, in taking the low road and totally bashing your unnamed "opponent" in your acceptance speech tonight. (I'd like to add that her opponent, whose name is actually Barack Obama, maintained complete respect for his opponent throughout his acceptance speech last week. That's called the high road.) I only heard fear in her speech, fear of the truth that she is a very weak candidate. Funny, in the Christian tradition we know that fear is the absence of love. And there was very little love and compassion in her speech tonight. If there was any hope of finding it, it was completely lost in this insulting comment about her experience as a small-town mayor compared to her "opponent's" experience as a community organizer. "I guess being a small-town mayor is sort of like being a community organizer, except you have actual responsibilities." My reaction to this comment was similar to the sensation of projectile vomiting, not only because it made me sick, but too many things were spewing out of my brain at once as my ears took it in. For a more accurate understanding of the responsibilities of a community organizer and the compassion it involves, I refer you to this post.

I'll save my spewage of thoughts about my disgust over the myopic and false rhetoric about our victories at war with a dangerous world for another time.

I had so many thoughts about the new Republican Vice-Presidential nominee, Sarah Palin, but as it turns out, Jon Stewart said it all for me.



And as you all know, runner-up for the Democratic presidential nomination Hillary Clinton gave an excellent speech at the DNC last week, challenging her supporters to consider the reasons they supported her: was it who she was, or the issues she cared for? "Were you in this for me, or for a candidate who would fight for universal health care, bring our troops home, ensure a quality education for all our children, and so on?" she asked the audience. (I'm paraphrasing a bit here)

In Sarah Palin's acceptance speech, she "thanked" Hillary Clinton for all her hard work in putting 18 million cracks in the glass ceiling before slapping her in the face and saying, "But it turns out the women of America aren't finished yet, and we can shatter that glass ceiling once and for all!" Yeah, because you worked JUST as hard as Hillary to get on that ticket.

I have to thank Samantha Bee for so comically pointing out the obvious. Do Sarah Palin and John McCain really think the "women of America," especially those who supported Hillary Clinton, are that stupid and shallow, and that irresponsible as voters? That they would vote for a candidate who opposes rights for women, simply because she is a woman? The very definition of a feminist is someone who stands for equal treatment for women and men. That not only means we feminists will vote for candidates who treat women equally, but that we will not discriminate between candidates based on their gender. Wake up, McCain, and give women some credit.

I just realized... I'm Dr. Dillamond.

If you haven't seen the Broadway musical Wicked, then go see it, and you'll know what I'm talking about.

It stinks to realize you have become a shadow of what you once were.

Sometimes
there is justice in the world, so beautiful and sweet that it fills you with an almost foolish sense of hope.

Sometimes
there's no justice at all, and you think you might just waste away wondering why.

Red flag alert: 2 more red flags have gone up over things I've seen recently on TV that are, frankly, scaring the crap out of me.

One is this commercial:



We have now taken the superwoman mom/housewife/working woman to the next level. Notice Kelly Ripa does it ALL! Cooks dinner, feeds the dog, hosts a sleepover, tosses the kids their gummy worms, entertains a houseful of guests, looks for monsters under the bed with the kids... all after running home after a day at her high-profile job. One question: WHERE IS HER HUSBAND IN ALL THIS?

Two is the TV show "Samantha Who." The main character, Samantha, has two friends, both of whom are so typecast and stereotypical that they aren't enjoyable in the least. One is so shallow that she isn't believable as a human being, and the other is the stereotyped "fat girl." This is scaring me. She is dorky, shy, awkward, naive and gullible, desperate for friends, and unintelligent. Sort of the stereotypical portrayal of the "fat kid" in a TV show from 20 years ago. It makes me want to vomit, frankly, that in this day and age, television is STILL portraying overweight women as socially, intellectually, and romantically inept.

I am scared shitless. I am scared that we live in a country where women's value and worth as HUMAN BEINGS is in the middle of a landslide of epic proportions. Instead of seeing more examples of successful, intelligent women of all shapes and sizes, and instead of seeing women and men working side by side together in partnership, we are seeing more and more advertising showing women in roles we have been fighting against since the birth of feminism. Feminism has worked so hard to remind people that women's worth cannot be reduced to roles of homemaker and vixen, but if we look at advertising today, those are the only traits that seem to be desirable in women anymore. WHAT THE HECK IS WRONG WITH THIS COUNTRY??? WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!

Beware, something feminist this way comes.

I am thirsting for good roles for women on television shows. Maybe I'm inspired by some of the broadway shows I've seen, where roles for women aren't as flat or unilateral. But I'm extremely discouraged by the fact that the only two shows about strong, successful women that have come onto network television, Commander in Chief and Cashmere Mafia, have been nixed. In both of these shows, the female protagonists were awesome. They were strong, confident, successful, intelligent, and always bested the men who tried to beat them. They had integrity, wit, drive, and humor. In short, they were winners. I loved watching these women, and I know a lot of other people did too. These were terrific shows that did well. But now, they're both off the air. Would it be a stretch to wonder if male television executives decided this wasn't stuff that people needed to see?

OK folks, I need to get something off my chest. I need to put it out there - even if only 3 people read this blog - because we need to be reminded that this country has not progressed as much as we may be led to believe. As someone who has spent her life in the worlds of the arts and religion, and as someone who is quite the feminist, I need to raise my voice. Why is it that these worlds are still so male-dominated? Think about the theatre. I look at directing, whether it's the theatre or film, and I'm hard pressed to find enough female directors to count on more than one hand. Think about music. I can't think of a single female conductor of an orchestra. Think about the church. Most church leaders - head pastors, bishops, etc. - are men. And now, I sit here and watch the Academy Awards. You know the drill: they save the important ones for last. So, I want to know why the award for best actress is given halfway through the night, but the award for best actor comes at the end. How far have we actually come, people? When are women going to be more than second-best?

On a recent flight, I had the opportunity to watch the movie "Evan Almighty." I'm going to be honest: the movie was abysmal. It was a waste of good acting talent and two hours of my life. However, it did have one moment of brilliance.

There is a scene where Lauren Graham (Joan) has left Steve Carrell (Evan) with their 3 sons in order to protect herself and their children, for fear Evan has gone insane. (Evan believes God wants him to build an ark to save the world from a flood that is coming on a certain day, September 22 or something.) They're in a restaurant, and the boys go to the bathroom and she's left alone for a few minutes. Morgan Freeman (God), dressed as a waiter, comes over to "take her refill order" and engages her in conversation. When she tells him about the dramatic turn her husband has taken, she says, "What do you think it is?" His answer is, "Opportunity." She looks at him curiously, and he continues. "When someone prays for patience, do you think God gives them patience, or an opportunity to learn patience? When someone prays for their family to grow closer (which she has prayed for in the beginning of the movie), do you think God gives them warm fuzzy feelings, or an opportunity to grow closer, side by side, like those animals who came on the ark?"

in a movie that was absolutely a waste of brain cells, that was a great point.

it also made the point that God has a master plan, even if we can't see it. All the disasters that happened to Evan and Joan's family ended up working out for the best, and giving them exactly what they had hoped for.

If only the rest of the movie hadn't been a total waste...

When the mail came today, it looked like an ordinary bundle - some bills, some junk, pleas from the ballet and the opera to continue donating to them. The last thing I came upon, tucked toward the back of the stack, was a notice from the post office that I had a package waiting for me. How exciting! Not only do I love getting packages in the mail, but I love the excitement of wondering who it might be from. I rushed to the post office and waited with anticipation while they retrieved a nicely sized box from the back. It was only when I looked at the return address on the box that I remembered a student I had been counseling had asked for my address. Wondering what she may have sent me, I hurried home to open my parcel. In it, I found a wrapped package and a letter. Resisting the temptation to open the package first, I reached for the letter and found a two-page eloquent thank you for all the help I had given her. In the envelope, she also included a friendship bracelet she had made. I couldn't even bring myself to open the package at that moment, because I felt so overwhelmed. Here was someone who I simply helped in a time of need, which in my mind, means I'm just doing my job. Little did I know how much it helped or meant to her, for the parcel that rested on the counter in front of me was such a generous effort to say thank you that I couldn't help but feel overwhelmed. Ministry is funny that way. You can only do what God has asked you to do, what Jesus has modeled for you to do - love others and reach out to those in need - and pray that God will use you to bring the necessary consolation or help into that person's life. I opened the package. It was a hoodie (my favorite) with the name of the student's college beautifully stitched across the front. To say that I was touched would be a dire understatement. I didn't even feel comfortable trying it on. It was as if fully receiving this gift of thanks would somehow be saying that I took credit for helping her. There was no way that I, left to my own merits, could have such deep impact on a person. I called her to thank her and tell her she didn't have to do that. She said that indeed, she did, because she owed me a lot. We argued about it a few times back and forth before we both gratefully said good night. It was only then that I removed my own sweatshirt, with the name of my graduate school printed across the chest, a name I had earned with excessive hours in the library and too many all-nighters to count, and tried on this piece of clothing that I still felt didn't belong to me. I looked in the mirror. There I was, just plain old me, but in someone else's clothing. Clothing I did not earn or deserve, despite what someone else might think. A wolf in sheep's clothing, maybe; it's not that much of a stretch. I felt like a misrepresentation of the institution scrawled across my chest. I remembered feeling like this before, when I tried on the spare habit of a nun friend, and the clerical collar of a minister friend, at times when I was considering those paths in ministry. The sight that greeted me in the mirror tonight was the same that greeted me then: that I was "clothed in righteousness" like the Psalms say, but that righteousness only went as deep as the fabric. I felt unworthy to ever wear any sort of habit or collar, and I feel unworthy to wear this sweatshirt. Despite feeling a call to ministry my entire adult life, putting on the cloth that goes with it has been something I've only been comfortable with in my imagination. I haven't followed the path toward a habit or clerical collar. But I'm going to keep this sweatshirt, and I'm going to wear it, not as a symbol of my ministry but as a reminder of the ministry that God does through me. As it warms me with a divine embrace, I am happily reminded that our weakness is God's strength. Putting on the cloth, whether it's a hoodie or a habit, doesn't infuse you with any power of your own. It can only serve as a reminder of the ministry you are called to: the ministry of being God's light in the world, a ministry in which you are a conduit, a means to an end. I hope that this cloth will preserve in me the humility to always remember that.

It's not knowing yourself that's hard - it's acting on that knowledge.

I have a song stuck in my head right now. This happens a lot. Sometimes it's annoying, but sometimes, like now, it's a really good song. Right now, I have dcTalk's "Colored People" running through my head. There are many reasons I love this song. In addition to the music, the lyrics have always resonated with me: lyrics praising God for the diversity of this world, and how through it all, we are all human and we all have something in common because of it. In the lead-in to the refrain, the first verse says this: "We've gotta come together and thank the maker of us all." The second verse says this: "We've gotta come together; aren't we all human after all?" I always thought that the repetition of this phrase, using slightly different words, had a certain musical impact: you expect the same words the second time around, and because they change slightly, the point is driven home that we are all human and thus need to come together. But tonight, those words are hitting me differently. I actually think that dcTalk hit the nail on the head the first time around. Tolerance, understanding, and seeing what we have in common as human beings aren't the end; they are the means to an end, and that end is praising God for God's creation. "We've gotta come together; aren't we all human after all?" is the first step. "We've gotta come together and thank the maker of us all" is what we are aiming for. Tolerance for the sake of tolerance - promoting a "live and let live" policy for those whose race is different from our own - does not praise our Creator. Thank you, dcTalk, for reminding me (10 years later) that the diversity in this world isn't just something to tolerate or understand. It's something to love, appreciate, and celebrate. It is one of many things in creation that points to our almighty Creator, who thankfully created this world in living color.

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.