a couple of questions to ponder a) Are we American's or Orthodox First; Obedient to one's Hierarch even if its violate the spirit of the Bill of Right's? b) Ids their a conflict between the two?
In my opinion, Freedom of Speach or the Press does nto mean unlimitted speach/press, we need to exrcise some common sense which peole are not using for the Church to ahve strict guidelines is a reaction to people not using common sense. Second there is a conflict between the Church and the mind-set of America and the West. This debate goes back to Peter the Great of Rusia in the 18th Century, however for practical reasoning as ORrthodox we must be held accountable to a hig standard nto what the state tells us but ratejr what the Church through its leaders: obedience to the Church. as individuals we must decide what comes first in oru live the Church or the state.
(Editor's note: I will never argue against Common Sense, and the need for it! As usual, Mark Twain said it best: "It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them." Would everyone were as wise. That being said, the issue is not between the Church and State, for freedom of speech is not a state right, but a human right. And we are human, before we are Christians. That does not mean we have the "right" to say anything anytime or anywhere - that might be inhuman - but the Church should carefully consider when and how it restricts human rights in Her Name. )
I pray that all delegates and representatives in Seattle this week get not only to read this short Reflection, but to see the cover of Cottom Mather's "Tryals of Seberal Witches" at the bottom of the page and realize its significance for a lack of free speech and "speaking the truth in love" as Ms. Campbell quoted St Paul. Even our Lord, Who never sinned, asked His Father, "Why?" and that from the Cross!
Paragraph 1: "As a graduate of St. Vladimir's seminary I have wanted to write to many times ..."
Paragraph 2: (Not really a paragraph)
Paragraph 3: "I certainly think we some of ..."
Nothing personal, but it's ironic that you are commenting on social media because you write like you are sending a text message.
In the olden days, people wrote in complete sentences, they reread their sentences and corrected punctuation mistakes. Alas, I guess this is all lost on a younger generation.
(Editor's note: The fault is entirely mine, not Jennifer and has been corrected. And yes, it is often lost on a younger generation, but in this case, it was the older one who failed. Sorry.
However, in defense of the younger generation they are often more concerned with what someone has to say, rather than who says it, or how it is said. That is indeed a virtue unpracticed by earlier generations -- to our deteriment. )
If we all agree a) we need commom sense; b) some guidlines are not unreasonable, then what is the issue - the guidlines are bit extreme; then why would nto delegates this week in seattle bring up the issue.
The American Free Speech tradition is something indeed precious, and has a long tradition from the British Isles:
A. the Brehon Laws, and
B. the Jewish Church's evangelisation of these Isles.
Prior to Augustine of Aosta (later of Canterbury), it was the Church that gave the State in the British Isles its freedoms - including that of Free Speech.
This reigned supreme until the totalitarian thuggery of the Imperial Roman tradition invaded these Isles:
- 597 Ecclesiastically - with Augustine of Canterbury, and
- 1066 Politically - with William the Conqueror.
The British endured this Ecclesial and Political tyranny until:
1215 - the Magna Carta (England), and
1320 - the Declaration of Arbroath (Scotland).
Both these were seminal in commencing the repudiation of the entire Imperial Roman Tradition which had invaded the British Isles:
This Imperial Roman tradition had two legs:
- Eastern - in Constantinople, and
- Western - in Rome.
This Imperial Roman tradition had no time for either Free Speech or Transparency in Administration. Combine these two and you get opaque despotism incapable of being either dislodged or (successfully) criticized.
Therefore, bloggers need to be aware of the fact that when they would set up a contrast between Church and State, they would be well advised to check which Church they are referring-to.
Jesus' original (& true) Church had no time for any form of Imperial Roman principles. Sadly, the gentile version of that Church, centred in both Rome and Constantinople refused to obey their Master's intent and capitulated to the Imperial Roman phronema.
Therefore, if the OCA members wish to exercise the Free Speech gift given to the whole Church by Jesus, they must abandon the entire Imperial Roman tradition to do so.
I trust that this assists.
(Editor's note: Not really. If you give up Rome, you really give up Law as well. So then you would have free speech and chaos. The goal is to abandon pretensions, not traditions, so that free speech and law are both aimed at the same goals: justice and mercy and truth.)