DISCLAIMER: I SPEAK FOR NO ONE EXCEPT MYSELF IN THIS. DO NOT INTERPRET THIS AS BEING REPRESENTATIVE OF ANYONE'S OPINION EXCEPT MY OWN.

Many of you reading this will probably ask why I am daring once more to open the Pandora’s box and confront that subject of discussion which has so dominated myUMBC for these many months. I admit, I ask myself the same question: ought it not be better to leave the Swedish gentleman (which I shall use as a reference to maintain courtesy, you of course know who I mean) to his devices and get on with my day? France has much to offer, but it is after 6 and damn near everything is closed. Plus I am in a mood.

I feel I owe you all an explanation as to why I started that thread which has caused some lulz, true, but also great irritation. (btw, i apologise for flooding your inboxes with alerts of new posts). Why do I feel the need to confront what the Swedish gentleman says and rebuke him for his behaivour? Most importantly, why do I waste y’alls time writing another thread?

My purpose here is to show you where I and the Swedish gentleman differ, and why I believe that our theological views, as seen through our previous debates, do have consequences on a global level that concern us. Remember kids, American politics is full of religious discourse: let’s understand what’s going on.

I am a Christian, yes, specifically of the Orthodox variety. However, I find it very hard to see what the Swedish gentleman advocates as Christian in any sense at all. What do I mean specifically? I refer mostly to the fact that his worldview is grounded in a principle that is certainly not Christian: that is, that the Resurrection of Christ is incomplete and that this world is still in the grip of sin and death.

But Colin, you might say, surely all Christians agree on the Resurrection. For the most part, this is true, that we accept that the Lord Jesus Christ was indeed bodily resurrected on the third day. But what does this entail?

In the Swedish gentleman’s view, as I can deduce it based on what I have read of his posts here, he believe that Christ’s Resurrection has achieved nothing and that the world is still the same as it was before his passion. The world, rather than being freed from death and the grave, is still subject to the wrath of an angry God and could well be damned for all eternity. The consequence? We must “cleanse” ourselves of elements that are foreign to us: homosexuals to start, then those who believe in science’s ability to tell us how the world works. Oh, and don’t forget making sure women are nowhere near positions of authority- can’t have that, you know. I would cite specific examples, but I’m lazy and don’t want to comb through myUMBC threads. We’ve all heard him say such before anyway.

The point is that in this view, the world has not been redeemed and that we must continue to live in a climate of fear: a fear of divine judgment that lapses into fear in everyday life; or, as a bishop I once heard term it, into deep structural fear. The Swedish gentleman seeks to create deep structural fear, for that is the only way in which his repugnant views (note his views are repugnant, but I nevertheless believe he retains the dignity of a person) could even possibly gain acceptance: if we are afraid enough to accept them.

Is this real Christianity? In the end, no. The Church historic and universal confesses belief in Christ’s “trampling down death by death” and that His descent into Hell was, indeed, a conquest of that: the only place where God was not is now filled with His presence. All that remains, then, as Fr. Tom Hopko once put it, is the “end of history itself”: the Second Coming and the ushering in of the Kingdom of God. This view has powerful consequences for those who believe: for we need not live in fear of those who are different or do not believe as we do. The whole world, for once and all time, has been redeemed and made so that it can be offered unto God again. Mankind therefore can assume its collective role as priest, directing this offering. 

It matters not: male, female, white, black, homosexual, heterosexual, Christian, Muslim, we recognise that Christ’s passion was indeed “for the life of the world”. As a result, we must focus our work towards that end of, one day, Christ’s return and the beginning of the new Kingdom- but until then, let us continue to give thanks unto God for what He has given us. 

These two views, therefore, create a dichotomy of fear and freedom. On the one hand, the Swedish gentleman’s view of things would have you believe that God is so petty and small that we must appease him through persecuting those among us who live differently and by consciously living on ignorance. On the other hand, as the Church sees it (and I, as a catechumen hoping to enter Her embrace, also confess), God is so great and good that we no longer live in fear, as that which we had to fear has been conquered forever by Christ.

What are the consequences? Otherwise said, why give a fuck?

Permit me a digression. Being here in Paris, I’ve had occasion to walk around a bit. I’ve noticed that one thing you find in almost every church and in many public squares are plaques to the dead of the First World War, listing the names of all those from the area killed in combat. Between 1914 and 1918, more than two million Frenchmen died, most of them in the stalemate of the trenches. Why did they die? We admit there was no “good” reason for the war, no unifying principle such as what we saw in the second war.

They died, some say, for love of nation. But what was the nation? The nation was an accessory of God: look at the mottos in use by the major powers. “Gott mit uns”, “S nami bog”, “Gott erhalte, Gott beschütze,” “God Save the King”- even Republican France had talk of a “union sacrée.” The point was, for many of these young men, they grew up believing that the nation was given God’s grace to do whatever: that they and they alone possessed God and divinity.

Transforming this logic a bit, we can see how it played out on the forum: what the Swedish gentleman advocates, much as he may deny it, is a view in which God only belongs to certain people and that those to whom he belongs have the duty, if not the right, to force the rest of us into conformity with their message. But the Church again teaches differently: God, being above all men, can be the property of none. Furthermore, He is so great that He cannot be said to limit his functions in ways apparent to humans: for divinity works on a level far higher than the consciousness of men. But we can know nevertheless that in all things, God is good, and seeks the redemption and salvation of all of His creation.

I therefore submit to you that there are two views here, but only one is that of authentic Christianity: the view of man as liberated from the bonds of this world, not chained to them. The other view, the view of the bigoted, angry God, must be stopped at all costs: lest we find ourselves marching down the same path to death and terror that we did more than ninety years ago. We in America have not yet experienced this- that does not mean we never will.

 Let us therefore embrace life instead of death, joy instead of despair, and, above all, freedom over fear.

“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” -John 8:32

-Colin Leach

Thy death, O Lord, we proclaim, and Thy Resurrection we confess. Alleluia, Glory to Thee.