“...believers cannot recognize at the same time the value of life and the right to death, the value of family and validity of same-sex relations, the protection of child's rights and the deliberate destruction of human embryos for medical purposes.” (Metropolitan Kirill of the Moscow Patriarchate)
Metropolitan Kirill of the Moscow Patriarchate argues irrefutably for the beliefs of the Church and thus, members or believers of the Church in the right to human life, the value of family and the protection of children’s rights. Furthermore, he acknowledges those values which entirely oppose the morale of the Church as being any validation of abortion, the validity of same-sex relations and the deliberate destruction of human embryos for medical purposes. The Christian Church is run on the basis of general consensus and the symbiotic relationship between Church and individual. In effect, it may be surmised that the rights of the individual are deprived in exchange for access to this ‘community’ as an unwavering ‘believer’. Spickard and McGuire comment that “Where once most individuals accepted what their leaders told them, today they demand the right to decide for themselves: their core beliefs as well as the details” (Spickard and McGuire, Personal Knowledge and Beyond, New York University Press 2002, P.292). Hence, it can be argued that the once undeniable and unquestioning loyalty of a congregation is no longer without question. Nowadays followers can begin to cast doubt on authority and to require answers, with modern insight and with regard to the knowledge allowed to present day Christian by hindsight. According to tradition, one wholeheartedly and singularly believes in the teachings of the Christian Church. Anyone who diverges from these beliefs is therefore unchristian and unbelieving in the Christian message. In a contemporary setting followers have become diverse in their views and unafraid to examine core beliefs which are integral to the Christian religion as a whole. Is one still defined as being Christian if they begin to openly question a core belief which is central to the Christian morale? Hermans outlines the argument for the opposing ideas of the metaphorical analogies of the “computer metaphor; in which the self is studied as an information-processing device, and the narrative metaphor; in which, story and storytelling are the guiding principles for the self”. Theoretical and empirical arguments emphasize the relevance of the dialogical view for the study of the self. In this way a more profound understanding of the interconnection of self and society is established (Hermans, Hubert J.M, ‘Voicing the Self: From Information Processing to Dialogical Interchange’ Psychological Bulletin, Vol.119, No. 1, University of Nijmegen American Psychological Association 1996, p31-50). In this way personal views and ideals may be irrevocably affected by external thought processes and thus it may be argued that external influences such as the Christian Church, as an efficacious authority have power over its congregation. One such issue, which is a predominant example of differentiation between the Church and individuals of the community, is abortion. This is a highly discussed and disputed issue which has remained relevant since the availability of abortion as an option for women and remains a topic of contemporary debate and analysis today. “Within the first century of its existence it [the Church] had specifically condemned abortion” (Lumpkin, Joseph B. The Didache: The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, Fifth Estate Publishers 2012). The Christian Church is still today one of the most outspoken and critical commentators in its condemnation of abortion and has from the beginning been an abrogating source of denouncement. Krill expresses his personal conviction that ‘believers cannot recognize at the same time the value of life and the right to death’. Correspondingly, Hermans’ thoughts on the dialogical view...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document