Ivan Provorov, a member of
the Russian Orthodox Church who also plays hockey for the Philadelphia Flyers,
is currently in the news because he refused to promote the so-called ‘LGBTQ+’
agenda foisted on players by the NHL.[1] ‘Pride,’ an emerging infertility cult,
is dead-set against true Christians and any who refuse to advocate on their
behalf. The response of Pride supporters to Provorov exposes Pride
as a religion.
Both fertility and infertility
cults make sexuality a central component of their dogma and rituals, but
Pride’s infertility cult centres on sexual identities and relationships that
are contrary to marriages that would naturally bear children (between
a man and a woman). Fertility cults in the Ancient Near East, like
that of Baal and Asherah, practiced intentionally adulterous sexual acts as
part of their rituals at high places and under green, leafy trees, but as acts
celebrating fertility, not infertility. Pride separates sexuality
from fertility, reducing it to mere sexual acts.
As a religion, Pride (1)
makes universal claims about its dogma. Some religions go
further and (2) insist that all submit to its dogma under duress; in
this regard, Pride and Islam are similar (although the latter does not promote
Pride’s sexual deviances as part of the religion). The two religions
also have in common (3) an understanding of evangelism (or dawah) that is
very often forceful and coercive, and religious devotion that is
understood in terms of submission, as opposed to love.
Furthermore, religions attempt to
(4) train their children up to respect and commit to
them. The Pride religion does this very aggressively but in regard
to other people’s children with literature, queer story hour, school
sex education, and bodily mutilation. It seeks to indoctrinate
children and make their education dependent on submission to its tenets, over
against parents’ authority and wishes. In some religions, (5) dissenters may
face very serious consequences. Furthermore, (6) both Pride and
Islam have ways to claim buildings and spaces belonging to others or
to the general public, considering them as conquests for their
religion after public acts of ‘consecration.’ Draping a Pride flag
on a church, for example, claims the church for the Pride religion, just as
reading from the Koran in a church would for Islam. Foisting a Pride
uniform on an entire hockey team is a similar exercise of religious seizure
through coercion. (7) Religions also have public rituals and
celebrations. Some of these fit a 'liturgical' calendar--Pride Month.
Pride, with its public marches or queer story hours, provides religious rituals
that are also meant (8) to produce conversions. (9) Both Islam
and Pride are religions that draw no distinction between the religion and
the state. In the view of Pride, Christian religious institutions
should be required to hire their devotees if the latter receive any state aid
(an interpretation of Title IX in the USA). They have fairly
successfully waged a campaign to become a state religion by not presenting
themselves as not a religion. (10) Religions also provide a worldview that
supports a particular morality. The Philadelphia Flyers
organisation indicates this in their public statement, saying that the
‘organization [note the institutional identity speaking officially on behalf of
its members] is committed to inclusivity and is proud to support the LGBTQ+
community.’ The values of diversity, equity, and inclusivity form the
fabric of the religion's ethics, as it does various post-Christian groups.
Of course, religions in various
ways make metaphysical claims and involve ultimate realities, including an
understanding of deity. This is where some would question an
understanding of Pride as a religion, and probably most devotees, since this is
a Western religion, are atheists or agnostics. Yet Pride certainly
believes in (11) an ultimate, supra-physical reality in the sense
that they prescribe absolutes not based on science that must not be opposed or
held loosely, even more than in some religions. In this, they are
more like the Roman emperor cult than other Roman religions. While the Roman
Empire was somewhat tolerant of various religions, its coercion and oppression
of others came through its empire cult, which required oaths and sacrifices to
the emperor on pain of death. Belief that the Emperor was a god was
not the key issue; sacrificing to him was. Acts of honour and
respect for a man holding an office were elevated to the level of religious
devotion. One does not need a metaphysical belief system to invent a
religion. (12) Thus, the consequences of not giving
enthusiastic support and devotion to the religion, whether the emperor cult or
Pride, are central to these coercive types of religion, as illustrated in the
incident of Provorov’s dissention. At each step of Pride’s rise to
the status of a national religion, it exercises more power to hurt unbelievers.
Provorov gave a simple
explanation for his not donning the Pride uniform during a pregame
warmup. He insisted on his right not to participate in something
that he did not agree with, and he explained that his alternative religion was
Russian Orthodoxy (he might have said Christianity): ‘I respect everybody and I
respect everybody’s choices. My choice is to stay true to myself and
my religion.’[2] One part of this brief answer has to do with
liberal democracy’s value of free choice and respect for a person’s
conscience. Freedom of conscience is a Christian belief that is
grounded in Christianity’s doctrine of faith: coercion plays no role in
Christian devotion to God. Another part of Provorov’s answer
involves a religious argument: you have no right to challenge my religious
beliefs and practices.
Russian Orthodoxy may be
vulnerable here, given its nationalistic identity and, at times, intolerance of
other Christian expressions. It is not the best expression of
religious tolerance among Christians. Yet, in its better moments, it
is commendable for being ‘orthodox.’ By this I mean that it shares
much with Christianity around the world, through the centuries, and affirmed by
all true Christians. (There are and always have been false teachers
claiming to be God’s priests or prophets who aim reshape beliefs and practices
in line with the culture, including now the Pride religion.) As a
Christian, Provorov saw that he was being asked to participate in another
religion, and he quietly withdrew his support. A few decades ago, the
Christian ancestors of the Woke reporters and NHL that want to scourge Provorov
for his silent non-participation in new and post-Christian religion would have
stood with the hockey player, not their grandchildren. Advocates of
Pride, on the other hand, would, at best, make any dissenters second-class
citizens and, at worst, remove them from our society completely, as one NHL
spokesman angrily suggested. If it were still shameful to dishonour
one’s forebears, this new movement would better be called Shame, not Pride—and
that for other reasons as well.
There are several issues caught
up in this story. First, what do we mean by freedom? Second, what
do we mean by the separation of church and state, particularly the freedom of
religion from state control? Perpetrators of Pride have sought numerous
laws and regulations to establish their religion as that of the state (contra
the First Amendment). Third, what protection do citizens have from
the oppression of any dominating majority? Fourth, on what basis do those
with some power in society (like the NHL) insist that others support their
causes and threaten those who do not?
This last question is particularly
in view in the case of Provorov. The issue is not ‘freedom of
speech’ but ‘required speech’ (the speech of wearing a Pride uniform to
participate in society), as far as the Pride worshippers are
concerned. It is not about ‘freedom of religion’ but about ‘required
religious performances’ of a particular religion. The issue is not
that a religion has its own hockey team but that anyone wanting to play NHL
hockey is expected to be of the Pride religion. (Thankfully,
Provorov’s coach affirmed his right to be true to his choices and not to be
coerced.)
Jews and Christians have stories
in their Scriptures of coercive attempts to force another religion on
them. Those who remained true to God, even when persecuted or
threatened with death, are the heroes of these stories. So, of
course Provorov would take his stand with such heroes of the faith, difficult
as it might be under such pressure. School children are also having
to find the courage of faith to stand against the grain of Pride religion in
the educational systems of Western countries. One such story is that of three
Jewish captives, serving in the government of the Babylonian king,
Nebuchadnezzar (cf. Daniel 3). The king decided to erect a 90 foot
tall, 9 foot wide, golden image and require all his officials to fall down and
worship it. Any not doing so would be thrown into a fiery
furnace. When the three Jews refused to do so on the grounds of
their religious belief that one should only worship the one, true God and not
bow down to images of other religions, they were thrown into the
furnace. The story concludes with God saving them from the fire,
with not a hair even singed. The point of the story, however, is not
that God will always save His people from the fire but that His people have such
voluntary devotion and trust in Him not to be deterred by a coercive religion
demanding devotion, even on pain of execution. Faith is at the
bedrock of Jewish and Christian religion. Devotion is not the basis
of coercion but faith, and therefore it is developed as submission to power but
as voluntary belief and trust in God.
Thank God for Provorov’s
testimony, his faith in God, and his refusal to bow down to the image (a Pride
uniform) of an aggressive, coercive, alternative religion. He has
exposed Pride for the religion it pretends not to be but is so as to gain
increasing power in an increasingly post-Christian world. The proper way
to address Pride is as a religion, not simply a 'community' or a collection of
sexual attitudes different from most of history and certainly
Christianity. They are not the challenge to the rest of society of
tolerance or inclusion. They are, like Islam in particular, an
aggressive, coercive religion that wants to be the post-Christian state
religion.
[1] One article, among many,
is that by Amy Nelson, ‘NHL blasted for woke push for player skips Pride event:
“Nobody Asked for This,”’ Fox News (Jan. 19, 2023); online at: https://www.foxnews.com/media/nhl-blasted-woke-push-player-skips-pride-event-nobody-asked (accessed
21 January, 2023).
[2] Quote provided in Ryan
Gaydos, ‘Floyers’ Ivan Provorov labeled “homophobic” as he faces backlash for
boycotting team’s Pride festivities,’ Fox News (January 18, 2023);
online at www.foxnews.com/sports/flyers-ivan-provorov-labeled-homophobic-faces-backlash-boycotting-teams-pride-festivities.
Comments