Fr. Oliver Herbel has followed up on his earlier post with a new one entitled, Tradition, Traditions, and Racism. Responses interpolated.
Another person thought the real question should not be whether Orthodoxy has the doctrinal basis for rejecting racism but whether it has the testicular fortitude (though this was stated a bit more crudely).
Of course our attackers wish to leapfrog the entire dialogue about whether it’s canonical and get straight to the excommunications.
My racist opponents may be glad to know that the crap goatee is now no longer a problem. I’m now clean shaven!
Your chin probably looks crappy, too. 🙂
Those who refuse to recant their racist statements and actions […]
Please be specific about which statements and actions Matthew Heimbach is to recant, and why.
When it comes to the Orthodox tradition, is it best to continue with strict, exclusionary racial and ethnic boundaries or best to integrate them?
And you accuse me of offering false dichotomies? We’ve so insistently and repeatedly rejected anything and everything “exclusionary” that at this point you’re blatantly engaging in deception.
There is something very ironic about seeking to exclude races from the church […]
Once again, we’re accused, baselessly, of ethnophyletism. He absolutely has to make this charge stick, since he has no other basis for persecuting us. Ironically, he’s the one who’s actually guilty of ethnophyletism for championing our excommunication for being pro-white.
Rather, tradition is a verb, not just a noun. It is something that is living and ongoing and in America, the “new” continuation of the kind of evangelization our Orthodox church has done is fulfilled by making each parish fully open to all races and ethnicities.
Translation: I concede that there’s really nothing in Holy Tradition, the writings of the Church Fathers, or scripture to justify my politically correct agenda, so I’m just going to make it up as I go along without any councils or conciliarity and call it Holy Tradition.
They do not want the kind of conditions in America that would foster this integration within our parishes.
Close. We do not want the kind of conditions in America that would force the integration within our parishes. We agree that the parishes which are compelled to integrate (as many are), should be welcomed and allowed to do so.
We take an oath to defend the Constitution. The Constitution provides a vision that ultimately results in a country willing to be open to people regardless of ethnicity and race. America has not always lived this correctly, to be sure, but it is so open and in being so open, it provides our church (and any other church) the opportunity to integrate all people and share the Gospel with all.
Where in the U.S. Constitution does it say anything about racial integration? Last I read, it was notable for counting Black Americans as three-fifths of a person. It’s hardly a model for your political correctness. If that’s your model for American racial issues, then you’re more “racist” than we are, Rev. Oliver.
Ultimately, that is the real danger of those who wish to exclude (whether directly or indirectly) on the basis of race and/or ethnicity–one works against the spreading of the Gospel. That is certainly not “tradition.”
The logical conclusion of this “indirectly” weasel phrasing you’re using is that national borders and boundaries are all heretical, and everybody who supports their existence is a heretic. This is asinine, and immediately debunked by Orthodoxy’s success in Eastern Europe across numerous distinct identities and borders.
History has proven time and again that spreading the Gospel is most effective when it’s presented and delivered within the ethnic, tribal, and traditional communities humans exist in. Saint Herman’s missionary work with the Eskimeaux exemplifies this.
What you’re doing is crafting a false dichotomy between being an Orthodox Christian and a White American, denying communion to those who unapologetically identify as White Americans.
And that’s the ethnophyletic heresy.