Secular morality versus Orthodox morality
Introduction
Living in the world as I do, I often think about the contrast between Orthodox morals and the morals of our non-Orthodox peers, but in particular about the morals of the most secularized of our fellow humans (I live in a city in the US Northeast, which includes some of the most liberal communities in this country and in the world). Of course, we all know about how our morals differ from those of the world, but in this thread I want to talk about the ways in which contemporary secular morality approximates Orthodox teaching. It is, I believe, in the areas where our morality seems similar to, while not being the same as, secular mores that we are in more danger of temptation and falls, so that's why I want to raise the topic now.
The Roman Catholic author Piers Paul Read wrote a novel called "The Misogynist" in which the main character, an agnostic lawyer of Protestant background called Jomier, lists what he calls "the seven deadly sins of the secular state":
Racism
Misogyny
Homophobia
Elitism
Smoking
Obesity
Religious belief
Taking this list as a crude summary of what secular society considers immoral, I think it's worth considering how it corresponds to Orthodox teaching on what constitutes immorality.
To start with, it should be obvious that the secular "deadly sins" are relatively superficial bad qualities (to the extent they are even bad qualities, about which more later). It is quite possible to be free of them, while still being a slave to the true deadly sins of envy, anger, lust, greed, gluttony, sloth and pride. Moreover, one can be a saint and still be accused of these secular "sins", because the "sinfulness" of them lies only in the failure to conform to outward conventions of behavior; they are not concerned with the passions of the soul. In short, secular morality is merely a shallow and distorted mirror image of true morality. Its knowledge of good and evil can only comprehend the outer image of a man, not his innermost being. Acknowledging this fundamental difference, we can proceed to considering each "sin" in turn.
Racism
In secular usage, "racism" actually covers two things. One is discrimination against members of other races for no other reason than race. Another involves acknowledging any differences between the races other than skin color or other superficial physical attributes. Logically, one can dispassionately acknowledge more deep-seated differences, such as intelligence, without supporting blanket discrimination, but in practice most people find it hard to keep the two apart in their minds, so political correctness opposes both types of "racism".
What is the Orthodox position? In one sense, the Church agrees with the secular world on this matter. Baptism is available to all members of the human race, regardless of skin color or anything else. The only criterion is having the true faith. And if we believe that salvation is available to all races, it follows that we think of all races as equally human and equally images of Christ. There can be no room for thinking of other races as sub-human or in any way incapable of apprehending the Truth (note that the ability to use one's reason to acknowledge Truth does not depend on the relatively minor variation in intellectual acuity that we can plainly see among different people).
However, the Church does not say that all races are equal in every way. Inequality is an essential presupposition of social hierarchy, which has never been condemned by the Church and indeed has been part of Her understanding of Christian political and social order (more about this below in the section on misogyny). In addition, the Church certainly has among Her saints those who acknowledge the possibility of the collective moral responsibility of nations. The collective Jewish responsibility for Our Lord's Crucifixion is one famous example, but in fact every nation can be considered to have a collective responsibility before God. Many have been those luminaries of the Church who saw the Fall of Constantinople in 1453 to have been Divine punishment for the heresy of Uniatism on the part of the Greeks, or the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 by Freemasonry and revolutionary thought on the part of the Russians. St Paul himself spoke about how every nation had been "permitted" to go her own way on the path of idolatry, but now with the coming of Christ and the Gospel, that excuse has been taken away.
It is these kinds of collective judgments that bring upon some of the Fathers the charges of racism and especially anti-Semitism. But the charge is, as we expect, superficial. Races, like families, exist in reality, and whenever we declare ourselves to be members of a certain group, we bring upon ourselves a liability for either praise or censure, depending on the actions of the group as a whole. It is true that only the individual has the power of exercising free will, but it is possible for individual wills to be aggregated and directed towards a course of action, and individuals within the group have the choice of either supporting or opposing that action. Thus with Our Lord, every individual Jew had and still has the opportunity to either approve or condemn that act. If they do not condemn it, then they are liable to be charged with condoning it; there can be no middle ground, apart from involuntary ignorance. This is what the Fathers recognize when they judge the unconverted Jews. But you would never find one of them arguing that the mere fact of birth bars any of them from repenting and accepting the True Faith and Holy Baptism.
Misogyny
What is misogyny? Simply put, it is hatred of women. Like racism, the secular world conceives of this hatred in two ways: as blanket discrimination against women, and as acknowledgment of any significant psychological differences between the sexes. As with racism, so with misogyny we can begin by affirming that the Church is just as opposed to the hatred of women as our secular friends. The greatest creature is, of course, a woman, the Theotokos. Every Father has taught that women are just as capable of attaining virtue as men are. There is no teaching that men will be greater than women in Heaven simply by virtue of being men.
Nevertheless, the Church also affirms that men and women are not equal in every respect, and that the natural social order gives men and women different ranks and responsibilities. The priesthood and episcopacy are open only to men, and married men, not women, are called to be the heads of their own households. Often coupled with this is an acknowledgment that, while women are as capable of virtue as men, they typically face different spiritual challenges associated with their different psychological makeup, often attributed to the different role Adam and Eve played in the Fall. The Fathers particularly note that Eve was the first to obey the serpent, followed by her husband, and that from this women have inherited fallen conditions different from those of men. The secular world finds it easy to scoff at these traditions as nothing more than primitive superstitions reflecting the bigotries of pre-modern patriarchal societies. Surely men and women are psychologically equal, even if they are physically unequal? How is it reasonable to believe that men are innately more equipped to lead than women?
In fact, we can counter these objections by pointing out that even modern science now acknowledges innate psychological differences between men and women (usually couched in Darwinian, evolutionary terms, of course). These differences don't lie so much in intelligence (although men and women have different cognitive strengths and weaknesses) as in other psychological drives and desires. Women admire men who are strong and brave, and despise those who are weak and cowardly. Does this not suggest that men are called by nature to lead? But in addition we should point out that the Church has never conceived of male headship as a kind of tyranny. St John Chrysostom admonishes husbands to rule their wives with love and persuasion, not harsh words and beatings; women, for their part, should love and obey their husbands, not nag and defy them. As with everything, the Church conceives of our duties in terms of the obligations of love, not assertion of legal rights. The husband does not have the right to rule his wife, but rather the obligation to protect her, but in order to protect, he must control with love and courage. With this understanding of manly duties, it is easier to see how the obligation of the wife to support her husband has nothing to do with hatred of the female sex.
Homophobia
What is this phenomenon? Secularists use it again to mean two things: discrimination against those of homosexual orientation, but also the very notion that homosexuals are different from heterosexuals in any respect other than sexual orientation. An important assumption behind the latter is that sexual orientation is fixed from birth, and since it is as much an intrinsic feature of the individual as sex or race, it is no more reasonable to condemn homosexuality than to condemn blacks or women.
What can we say about this as Orthodox Christians? We can start by agreeing with our secular friends that homophobia, if understood as fear and hatred of fellow human beings because of their sexual behavior is quite incompatible with Christian love. Since we are all sinners, we are forbidden to fear or hate anyone, whatever they may have done. But the obligation to love the sinner stops short of loving the sin, and this is where the Church's teaching diverges from that of the world today.
The Church and all the Fathers consider sexuality to have deep mystical significance, and therefore any corruption or perversion of sexuality to be a very grievous sin against the natural order. Sexual acts between members of the same sex of necessity involve such corruption and perversion and earn unequivocal opprobrium from the Fathers. However, it is worth noting that the opprobrium is always leveled against perverse sexual acts, whether committed between members of the same sex or of opposite sex. In other words, the Church does not pick on homosexuals alone, but calls on everyone to practice sexual purity. So in at least one respect the Church can be cleared of the charge of homophobia.
Furthermore, scientific research also supports traditional teaching in other respects. For example, studies have shown that homosexual proclivities do indeed correlate with other qualities that the Church condemns: male homosexuals are typically pleasure-seeking and effeminate, while female homosexuals are typically proud and aggressive. If every man (and woman) is obliged to practice asceticism and courage, as well as meekness and humility, why should homosexuals be excused from this? The argument that homosexual orientation cannot be condemned because it is an intrinsic part of one's nature also fails to stand up to scrutiny. The Church teaches that everyone’s nature is corrupt from the moment of conception. Since every one of us has inclinations to sin from birth, and since we plainly see that every individual differs in strength and weakness, it is not surprising that some individuals, but not others, are burdened with homosexual tendencies (whether through genetics or childhood environment is not important). As we are all prone to sin, none of us has the right to judge another for having different kinds of sinful tendencies, but nevertheless, having more of a particular sinful tendency than normally found does not render the tendency pure. It is known that sociopaths who think nothing of stealing and murder often exhibit such tendencies from a young age, and may likely have inherited those tendencies, but we do not conclude from this that sociopaths cannot know right from wrong or be held accountable for their actions. Just as they have their particular struggle, so do homosexuals, and so do all of us.
Elitism
Elitism is the belief that some classes of people are better than others and that such people alone are called to lead and govern society. Secularists oppose this on the grounds that all men and women are considered to be equals of each other in mental ability, and that therefore everyone (or at least, every adult) has the right to decide on who will govern them. As with the previous "deadly sins", this "sin" has a twofold aspect. There is the belief that being born into a certain class, or being educated at a certain institution, automatically qualified you for leadership; there is also a related, but distinct, belief that some classes of people are naturally (through genes or environment) better equipped for the demands of government. Secular moralists assume both to be false, and this forms the foundation of contemporary democratic ideology.
What is the truth of the matter, as the Church sees it? In Heaven, everyone will be ranked according to virtue, and virtue is available to every human being, regardless of race, sex, class or any other quality that has no intrinsic moral consequence. Even differences in intellectual ability mean nothing in the moral sphere. So the Church certainly agrees with secular moralists that there is no elite group of humans who will be treated more highly by God simply because of how they were born or where they were educated.
Yet the Church does not argue from this that there can be no hierarchy or fixed order in society. Christian political theology has traditionally venerated hierarchical systems of government, in particular autocratic monarchy. The organization of the Church itself is based on a hierarchical system. The lower classes of people, in secular or ecclesiastical terms, have an obligation to obey those in authority in all things but sin; they do not have the right to change their leaders whenever it suits them. Not only that, but the Church also conceives of Herself as the New Israel, a Chosen People. Only those who hold the True Faith are called to salvation; those outside are condemned to darkness (again, excepting where they are involuntarily ignorant of the Truth). All of this smacks of elitism to the average secularist.
But how fair is this charge of elitism? Let's start with the hierarchical organization of the Church. No one can inherit the episcopacy; rather, bishops are chosen from the most pious and virtuous monks, according to a meritocratic system based on virtue (of course, bad bishops can be chosen, but who can claim that the people always choose good leaders in a democracy?). Furthermore, no bishop can take office without all the people, lay and clergy, agreeing to it by shouting "Axios!". This is not democracy as moderns understand it, but this is fully in accord with the Church's teaching of the priesthood of all believers, i.e. every member of the Church is called to uphold the faith, regardless of status. As the Patriarchs in their 1848 encyclical affirmed, the Deposit of Faith is not the property of one man, as the Papists believe, but of all members of the Church. Indeed, there is no Pope in Orthodoxy, because all the bishops must govern the Church in council, through unanimous agreement.
And as regards politics, no Emperor or Tsar had unlimited authority; they were obliged to uphold the laws of God. If an Emperor erred in doctrine, the people had the obligation to resist and disobey him, as they did when their rulers fell into the various heresies of Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, Iconoclasm, and so forth. Earthly kingship was only honored as an image of Christ's Kingship, not in its own right. And as for democracy, there is plenty of evidence that even in supposedly free societies, those at the top are generally gifted in some way, whether in wealth or ability. The very notion of meritocracy in fact predicts that some people will rule, and others will be ruled. "Pure" democracy, in which every citizen has the right to decide on every bit of legislation, is recognized to be an impossible and impractical dream by all but the most fanatical anarchists. What differs between this kind of elitism and that which the Church upholds is that, in a Christian society, no elite is exempt from God's law, whereas in a secular society the legislators can impose any law they like, regardless of morals. Even constitutional safeguards are not safe from revision and, especially, reinterpretation by judges (who themselves constitute an elite).
Smoking
The inclusion of the habit of smoking among the others seems at first incongruous. Whereas the preceding “deadly sins” involve ideological aberrations, this describes merely an unhealthy pastime. However, the connection becomes more obvious when we frame the issue in terms of what bounds there should be to seeking pleasure. The secularist says that smoking is evil because it harms one’s health, but also because it harms the health of those around. What does the Church say?
The Church agrees that smoking is harmful and that it is a sin. Clergy are especially admonished to avoid it, but ideally no Christian should practice it. Yet the reasoning of the Church on this matter differs subtly from that of the secular moralist. The secularist sees bodily health as the primary goal of existence, and on this ground objects to smoking, because long-term health is sacrificed for momentary pleasure. The Church also teaches that we must safeguard the health of our bodies, but She differs from the world in not making bodily health the ultimate goal of existence. The martyrs put the salvation of their souls before the safety of their bodies, and many ascetics sacrificed their own health in order to achieve complete freedom from the passions of hunger and sloth, by depriving themselves of the food and sleep which their bodies demanded.
Therefore, the reasoning behind the Church’s condemnation of smoking, or other harmful forms of carnal pleasure such as excessive drinking, does not lie solely in the harm it does our bodies. More importantly, it lies in the harm to our souls, in that we seek pleasure that serves no other purpose than self-indulgence. One might drink a glass of wine for the sake of health, but no such argument can be offered for smoking, at least not in most cases (there is some evidence that nicotine can soothe an upset stomach, for instance, but this is not applicable to most people).
That being said, the Church does not view every sin as equally grave, and therefore does not agree with the excessive opprobrium secular moralists now heap on smokers, even as they wink at such serious immoralities as sodomy or abortion. There have even been saints who have smoked in moderation, such as Tsar-Martyr Nicholas II. This is not to condone the vice, but rather to point out that even a saint may suffer minor faults (think only of the weaknesses that St Peter showed in the Gospels). By all means avoid this habit, the Church says, but do not forget that ultimately it is your soul, not your body, that determines your salvation.
Obesity
This “sin” does not denote either a wrong opinion or a bad habit, but simply the characteristics of the body. At first this would appear to contradict the secularist’s condemnation of racism, since it focuses on superficial physical characteristics. However, it should be evident to most that the “sin” of obesity lies in the poor habits that lead to it, namely excessive and unhealthy eating and lack of exercise. As with smoking, the secularist condemns an unhealthy diet and lifestyle, but for reasons that again differ subtly from those of the Church.
Gluttony is one of the true deadly sins, and to the extent that obesity is a direct consequence of gluttony, obesity is evidence of an un-Christian life. But gluttony is wrong not only because of the harm it visits on the body, but also, and more importantly, because it characterizes a life focused on the body and the wants of the body, not on the needs of the soul. In that sense, the distinction between the secular lifestyle of healthy diet and exercise vanishes, since the secularist is only concerned with health and good looks, and is no more concerned about his soul than the most obese gourmand.
In addition, it should be recognized that some individuals are more predisposed to obesity than others. The secularist falls into hypocrisy to the extent he does not allow genetic predisposition to excuse excessive weight gain, while at the same time appealing to genetics to excuse homosexual behavior, for example. We may even note that some saints have been obese, such as St Olaf the Fat of Norway, even as most saints have been thin as a result of their ascetic and self-denying lifestyle. While making every effort to control our own appetites, we do not have the authority to judge others who have weaker wills or stronger urges. Indeed, in the cases of smoking and obesity, it is the secularist who appears more censorious and judgmental than the Christian.
Religious belief
This last one is particularly interesting, since it relies on a careful explanation of what “belief” can mean in different contexts. The typical secularist is an atheist or agnostic, and certainly has nothing but contempt for traditional beliefs. However, a good many “liberal” believers of whatever persuasion may be found in the ranks of the politically correct, so at first the secular “sinfulness” of religious belief may appear to be a red herring.
The key to understanding is that it is only “liberal” faith that is tolerated by the secularist, i.e. the believer must abandon every traditional teaching that falls into the categories of the other secular “sins” mentioned above (as interpreted by the secularists, of course). This means rejecting every saint of the Church who can be accused of racism, sexism, homophobia, elitism, and so on. To put it another way, religious belief is only permitted if it represents merely a “spiritual” flavor of secularism. Any doctrine or saintly figure that fundamentally contradicts secularism is dangerous and should be ostracized, if not outright banned.
But the contradiction runs deeper even than this. What characterizes all the other secular “deadly sins”? As noted in the beginning, they are all concerned with outward conformity to secularist dogma; the inner spiritual state of man is not important. But the way in which these sins are understood reflect a mind that is completely focused on this world. Racism, sexism, homophobia and elitism are all condemned not so much out of genuine love for all people, but because these attitudes interfere with the progressive program of secular democracy, which seeks to remake humanity into its ideal of self-sufficient perfection, a perfection that is completely free from bonds of tradition or obedience to a power higher than itself. Even smoking and obesity are “sinful” only insofar as they obstruct the cult of the body and of worldly happiness.
True “religious belief”, which is only fully realized in the True Orthodox faith, cannot be reconciled with this faith in progress and the possibility of human perfection without God. True belief rejects the world and its desires. True belief recognizes that we cannot attain perfection by artificially remaking humanity, whether by social engineering or eugenics, but only by humility and repentance. True belief maintains that we must first perfect ourselves, not other people, and so it does not occur to the true Christian to pick over the relatively minor prejudices found in some saints, while ignoring his own enslavement to the real seven deadly sins.
Conclusion
What does all this mean for the believer? The first thing, I believe, is to avoid falling into the trap that many more secular-minded conservatives fall into, which is of trying to defend or excuse the seven secular “deadly sins”. It is certainly irksome when liberals, who claim to be so tolerant, turn out to be as intolerant as any Victorian prude when they moralize on the evils of prejudice and cigarettes. But do not take their bait. This urge usually comes because our own conscience is pricked: perhaps we harbor certain unreasonable prejudices or sinful habits, and do not like to be reminded of it.
The better option is to keep as silent as possible. We recognize these seven “deadly sins” to be sins indeed, but we understand that they are only sinful insofar as they are manifestations of the more fundamental deadly sins that the Church warns about. We should not be seen to defend them, but by our own lives of prayer, fasting and almsgiving, we should provide examples of what it is actually is to live without sin, and how this differs from the cheap, substitute “sanctity” offered by modern political correctness.
