Mg. theol. B. Briška
Summary
At first glance, the ELCL debate over women’s ordination is shaped by biblical arguments. Defenders of the ban often position their own opinion as insignificant, claiming instead that their only interest is to obey what is written in the Bible. Frequently the question of women’s ordination is, within church discourse, expanded into a question about the authority of the Bible.
However, in my view, the matter is far more complicated. Within the framework of this study I want to determine which extra-biblical sources shape the worldview of those who support the ELCL ban on women’s ordination. For example, in the course of the discussion one should not ignore the fact that Archbishop Vanags often publicly supports the ideas of J. Peterson, while the majority of supporters of the ban on women’s ordination in the ELCL are active adherents of anti-feminist rhetoric. This indicates that the question of women’s ordination is not merely a question concerning the organization of church ministry, but rather a part of a broader worldview within which it is extremely important to preserve traditional gender roles in order to maintain the existing status quo and to resist change.
The thesis of the study is: the main reasons for the ban on women’s ordination in the ELCL derive from extra-biblical sources.
Abbreviations
FB – Facebook
ELCL – Evangelical Lutheran Church of Latvia
LGBTQ – the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer community IC – Istanbul Convention
WO – women’s ordination
TW – Twitter
Introduction
Representatives of the ELCL usually justify the ban on women’s ordination by appealing to obedience to the Bible. The argumentation frequently makes use of quotations from Holy Scripture; the ban itself is equated with biblical teaching. Despite the frequent appeals to the authority of the Bible, on closer examination one gets the impression that biblical arguments are only one part of the worldview of ELCL theologians that drives them to oppose WO. In the course of this study, the context of the WO ban and its role in broader social and ideological processes will be examined and analysed.
The thesis put forward is the main reasons for the ban on women’s ordination in the ELCL derive from extra-biblical sources.
In the course of the study, the social network account content of ELCL pastors (or, in the case of A. Vančenko, an assistant pastor) – Jānis Vanags, Krists Kalniņš, Jānis Bitāns, Aigars Vančenko, Aldis Pavlovičs, Edijs Kalekaurs and Roberts Otomers – will be analysed. These particular pastors were selected for examination because of their activity on social media. This basis of selection is not ideal, since it is entirely possible that other representatives who are less involved in online exchanges of opinion think differently. Nevertheless, and being aware that the ELCL is not ideologically hegemonic, from the opinions of the selected group of people it is possible to discern unified tendencies that point to the direction of thought of the ELCL as an organization.
Within the profiles under study, the activity of other ELCL clergy (comments, reshares and reactions to posts) will also be noted, and unless indicated otherwise, the names mentioned in the study represent ELCL clergy. Given that people on social networks often share links to other articles, posts or tweets, these too are treated as sources for further analysis. The primary social network used to obtain information for the study is FB, since this is where ELCL representatives are most active. Attention will also be paid to TW posts – this platform is on the whole used less among the clergy, but both J. Vanags and K. Kalniņš are TW users, and their tweets complement the picture that can be gathered from the FB profiles.
Social network profiles are rewarding material for examining the broader context – whereas in the direct discussion of WO theological arguments are most often used, in their personal profiles ELCL representatives tend to allow themselves to express their views in a more unfiltered way. Various posts, comments and shares of news published by other authors make it possible to better understand the worldview of ELCL representatives, which includes their attitude towards the role of women in the church.
The materials used in the analysis are drawn both from 2016, when the ordination of women was officially banned in the ELCL, and from 2020 and 2021. The extended time span makes it possible to include in the study more information about the development of church discourse since the banning of WO. Given that the analysis addresses a broader question about the values and views of ELCL representatives, there is no point in strictly adhering to the chronological time period of the women’s ordination discussion. This is all the more true because the discussion specifically about the WO question within the ELCL was relatively short and quiet, and far more can be learned from the content of later years. The aim of the study is to provide a broader insight into the worldview of ELCL representatives that led to the WO ban, as well as to determine the role of WO within the ELCL’s overall discourse.
1. The reflection of the ban on women’s ordination on social networks
On 3 June 2016, the ELCL Synod decided to amend the church’s Constitution, formally stipulating that only a man may request ordination.[1] The 2016 discussion of the WO ban on the social networks of ELCL clergy never took on broad dimensions. Compared with other controversies, it seems that the issue was topical for the mass media and for critics of the decision, since it was reflected and analysed in the press in a fairly varied way (a brief Google search finds 10 different articles and interviews on the WO topic in secular Latvian media during 2016). But among ELCL representatives, public discussions were brief.
Although J. Vanags was a fairly active TW user in 2016 (36 tweets), only one post on the WO topic can be found on his profile, and even that concerns the Polish Lutheran church’s decision to ban WO.[2] On FB, Vanags shared 6 posts on this topic in 2016 – mainly from April to June, adding one article reporting on the Roman Pope’s view on the WO question in November – all of which are shares of other people’s opinions.[3] In 2016 E. Kalekaurs shared 6 articles on WO, A. Vančenko – 3, V. Pirro and R. Otomers – 2, K. Kalniņš – 1, while J. Bitāns – not a single post on this topic. In 2016 A. Pavlovičs was not an active enough FB user (a total of only 7 posts published)[4] to be put on a par with the other representatives. In 2021 the WO question is not topical in any of the profiles examined.
By comparison, topics about the IC, the heterosexual family, gender roles and anti-LGBTQ content already in 2016 occupied a far more prominent role in the representatives’ profiles. On these topics J. Vanags shared information 16 times in 2016, E. Kalekaurs – 6, K. Kalniņš – 2, J. Bitāns – none, A. Vančenko – 13, V. Pirro – 7 and R. Otomers – 14 (in most cases more than 3 times more often than about the WO question). This and other questions, in terms of popularity on the pastors’ social network channels, outdo and overshadow WO. This indicates that the WO ban itself is merely one expression of broader cultural and intellectual discourse processes taking place in the ELCL.
2. Values and tradition
Despite the assumption about the prominent role of the Sola Scriptura principle in Lutheranism, tradition occupies a significant role in ELCL decision-making. Commenting on the decision to ban WO, J. Vanags says: “The Synod voted unanimously that we will continue to be the kind of church that the church of the apostles, the church fathers, the great teachers of the church, the reformers and even our pre-war church was.”[5] The archbishop adds to this: “The ELCL faced a choice between two models of the church – in one of them believers identify themselves with the heritage – a church of traditional understanding, while in the other they orient themselves towards present-day postmodern reality.”[6] That is, the ELCL’s choice to ban WO is a choice to remain in the existing tradition and heritage.
E. Kalekaurs claims in a similar tone that with the changes to the ELCL Constitution “we [the ELCL] wish to remain in continuity with the Christian church in all ages and throughout the world, as well as with the Lutheran church, following the practice it has known over the course of 4 centuries.”[7]
Thus the WO question is not really, in truth, a question about WO itself, but rather about a far broader set of themes – culture, worldview, adherence to traditions. As I. Pavlovičs claims, WO “is the beginning of the end of the Church… and there is no need to call for a discussion about things that are clear and understandable. The end has already come in Sweden, Finland, Norway.”[8] Pavlovičs’s gloomy prediction is understandable if by church one means an unchanging, traditional institution – the kind the ELCL strives to be, if we believe J. Vanags’s argument about WO as a choice to remain faithful to tradition.
E. Kalekaurs too sees WO as a symptom of a broader problem. He writes: “What worries me even more is that some of the supporters of WO speak ambiguously about the bodily resurrection of our Lord, as if it could be merely a myth. (..) The WO question is only a screen for a much deeper – I would say – problem.”[9] Kalekaurs’s comment reveals an unwillingness to identify with the churches that have recognized WO, because they differ from the ELCL not only in the sex of the person serving as pastor, but also in differing theologies. Most likely it seems to Kalekaurs that churches that permit WO are too theologically liberal.
Among the views of ELCL representatives one observes anxiety not only about changes to church tradition, but also about those affecting culture as a whole. In the words of Archbishop Vanags, “this Europe is itself in great confusion about its own identity. It no longer trusts its traditions and turns against the ideas that once made it so outstanding.”[10] He expresses dissatisfaction that present-day culture does not respect “the traditional, Christian culture and values of Europe and the West”[11] and claims that “at present Europe is in a state about which there is little to rejoice”.[12]
On several occasions present-day culture and values are called Marxist, thereby equating them with the traumatic experience of the period of Soviet occupation. On FB, J. Bitāns quotes Professor Leons Taivāns, who writes: “In the West, unlike in Latvia, Marxism and left-wing ideology have not disappeared anywhere. (..) In many Western agencies, people sit in responsible posts who award grants for gender studies, thereby promoting these ideas, giving them a scientific appearance, exactly as was the case with Marxism–Leninism.”[13] He also adds that present-day culture is a “rebirth of neo-Marxism” taking place “under the cover of forbearance and tolerance”.[14] J. Vanags too reminds us that present-day Western culture is “of one root with the ideology that our nation came to know to the point of blood.”[15]
At other times the failings of Western culture are blamed on the philosophy of postmodernism. For example, J. Vanags claims that “the present-day idea of same-sex families is rooted in postmodernism, which is an emphatically anti-rational system of ideas that denies the connection of concepts with facts in the objective world and, to a large extent, also science”.[16] He himself claims to defend universal values, without whose existence nihilism or totalitarianism sets in.[17]
The choice to remain in the existing tradition is determined by a decision about values. Rarely is it defined which values specifically are at issue, but the concept of values itself is mentioned frequently. For example, K. Kalniņš claims that “gender ideology destroys our ability to be rooted in fundamental values that are natural, human and divine, and through which this world has lived and looked confidently to the future,”[18] while J. Vanags expresses the hope that “Latvia could go its own special way: not to end up in the minefield of identity politics, but to hold at least somewhat to the classical, rather than the neo-Marxist, European values.”[19]
Popular among the clergy are the opinion pieces of Vija Beinerte, which, for example, J. Vanags[20] and A. Vančenko[21] share abundantly on their FB profiles. In one of the articles Beinerte describes the new, in her view undesirable, European values as a “destructive ideology” and criticizes the European vision – a “green, digital, healthy, strong and equal” future – for the fact that its values do not include the family and the preservation of the languages of small nations.[22]
Thus, on a broader scale, the decision to ban WO in the church is a question of remaining within the framework of tradition, of not yielding to present-day Western liberal culture, which, according to the view of ELCL representatives, is characterized by the ideas of Marxism and postmodernism and which insufficiently defends conservative family values.
3. A strict understanding of gender roles
Although remaining within the framework of tradition sounds like an understandable explanation of the WO ban, one should not think that the ban has nothing to do with the understanding of woman and her role in society. The preservation of strict gender roles is one of the values that make up the tradition that ELCL representatives wish to preserve. Questions about gender roles occupy a prominent place in the clergy’s social network profiles. This includes the conviction that there is only one model of a real family (the family as a woman, a man and children), heteronormativity,[23] as well as the view that biological sex determines an individual’s life tasks.
This is illustrated, for example, by Archbishop Vanags’s statement that, although it is not a matter of dignity and worth, women and men “may have different tasks, responsibilities and callings.”[24] A. Vančenko, for his part, expresses the idea of different life tasks by sharing a metaphor: “The father of the family must be the captain of the ship. The mother and wife – the captain’s assistant, or the helmsman.”[25] Likewise he also shares a quotation that “the woman’s place is the family – it is her altar and sanctuary”.[26] But, speaking of the structure of the family, Pavlovičs emphasizes that “every family ought to have at least 3 children (..). Ideally children come about in the union, that is, the marriage, of a man and a woman, with the man clearly recognizing and realizing his masculinity and the woman her femininity.”[27] In this way people are encouraged to believe that biological sex and gender roles are inextricably linked, and that the representative of each sex has a duty to follow them.
J. Bitāns develops the idea of different duties further, applying it to work in the church, saying that “there is no need for a woman to imitate a man at the altar”[28]. In another comment Bitāns adds to what was said earlier: “”A church” with women at the altar is without the validity and authenticity of the sacraments; people are deceived, eating bread and drinking wine”.[29] Thus, in Bitāns’s view, a woman who steps outside the gender roles assigned to her is not capable, in the church, of genuinely carrying out “men’s duties”.
From the conceptions of ELCL representatives about gender roles there follows a dislike of feminism. “Radical feminism” is often mentioned in a negative context, without explaining which of the many strands of feminism or which thinkers exactly are being referred to. Feminism is blamed, for example, for the diminishing of the male role. In J. Vanags’s words: “Over the last decades, feminism in the West has created a mood in which men’s contribution to society is perceived as insignificant – just as they themselves are. (..) At the same time, feminists publish proclamations: men, you are owed nothing by us!”[30] Vanags also claims that “in the West, pastors during a pastoral conversation with a woman are even apt to leave the door open, because they are afraid of being accused of harassment”[31], thereby blaming feminism for the endangerment of men. At other times Vanags mocks feminists’ striving for equality by publishing on FB a meme in which a man pressed to the ground apologizes for oppression beside proudly standing women[32] (thereby suggesting that talk of women’s oppression or discrimination is foolish), or shares an article that denies pay differences between women and men.[33]
In J. Vanags’s case, his attitude towards feminism may have been influenced by the ideas of the notorious Canadian J. Peterson. Peterson is dubbed the “custodian of the patriarchy” because of his ultra-conservative views on gender.[34] On his TW account Vanags shared Peterson’s tweets or quotations 8 times during 2019 and 2020. Some of his tweets that Vanags has shared are a link to an article that men are the real victims of violence,[35] and an article about how present-day society antagonizes men.[36]
Both in 2016 and still in 2021, the question of gender roles is demonstrated most starkly through advocacy for the “natural” family, that is, a heterosexual couple with children. For example, this year (from 01.01.2021 to 11.07.2021) K. Kalniņš has shared content on his FB profile calling for the defence of gender roles, the family or anti-LGBTQ content a full 73 times. He writes laconically: “A father is a man. A man is not a woman. A woman is not a father”, sharing a blog post that speaks negatively about the Constitutional Court’s ruling to grant “father’s” leave benefits to a woman in a same-sex relationship.[37] Most of the other selected representatives also publish a great deal of content on this topic. On his FB account during 2021 (up to 11.07.2021) J. Vanags shared content on the topic 14 times, R. Otomers – 42, J. Bitāns – 32, A. Vančenko – 101, A. Pavlovičs – 26, E. Kalekaurs – 7, while V. Pirro – 4.
On his FB profile R. Otomers expresses displeasure that Great Britain has chosen to rename “mother” as “birthing parent” in official documents, with an added comment, “The further it goes, the crazier it gets…”[38] and indignation at a case in which a programme’s credits indicated only “parent” without a sex-specifying qualifier.[39]
Opposition to alternative family models characterizes the social network content of all the representatives selected for the study. Returning to 2016, popular among ELCL clergy is the video campaign of the association “Ģimene” (Family), in which various people call for the defence of the heterosexual family. A. Vančenko shares various materials from this campaign 4 times during December 2016.[40] V. Pirro,[41] E. Kalekaurs[42] and R. Otomers[43] also pass on the materials.
In 2021, in turn, the central events that again brought the family question to the fore are the already mentioned Constitutional Court ruling to grant “father’s” leave funds to one of the mothers, and the events in Hungary, in which the Hungarian government adopted a decision to ban LGBTQ education in schools – a decision condemned both by international experts[44] and by EU country leaders.[45]
On social networks ELCL representatives have enthusiastically shown support for Hungary in the struggle to suppress the rights of the LGBTQ community. A. Vančenko,[46] A. Pavlovičs,[47] J. Bitāns[48] and K. Kalniņš[49] have added a frame in support of Hungary to their profile pictures. In addition, K. Kalniņš shares a full 2 times a demand for the resignation of Prime Minister K. Kariņš over his condemnation of Hungary’s political decision.[50] Likewise he shares a post written by J. Bitāns, which states that “Hungary keeps inspiring!”[51] A. Bobinskis, for his part, writes: “May God grant that there were more politicians in Europe like Viktor Orbán!”[52] As a reminder – Orbán has actively opposed gender equality,[53] rejected the Istanbul Convention,[54] and his government promotes the ideas that women should not worry about pay differences between the sexes or compete with men in the professional sphere, but should rather devote more attention to home life and the raising of children.[55] On several occasions an image appears on the clergy’s social networks with a quotation from a Hungarian minister: “Only women and men live in Hungary. All other fairy-tale persons may leave our country if they do not like indisputable facts.” This is shared by V. Pirro[56] and R. Otomers.[57]
All these cases confirm how significant a value the preservation of traditional gender roles, and the prevention of potential change, is among ELCL representatives.
Support for the Hungarian government indicates that, unfortunately, the other side of the phrase “for the family!” or “for family values!” is queerphobia. As for the concept itself – a queer person is “a person who is not heterosexual and/or whose gender identity does not correspond to the gender identity assigned to them at birth”.[58] “Queerphobia” is a derivative of “homophobia”, which is “a dislike of or prejudice against homosexuals”.[59] The concept of queerphobia uses the first part of the definition – dislike and prejudice – expanding its object to all queer people, not only homosexuals. Among ELCL representatives, queerphobia is expressed most vividly by declaring non-traditional gender or sexual identities to be ideologies, fuelling fear of queer people and spreading false information about what these identities mean.
For example, ELCL representatives repeatedly equate homosexuality with paedophilia – this is done by J. Vanags,[60] A. Vančenko,[61] and P. Naumovs.[62] In addition, P. Naumovs calls homosexuality an illness and urges that homosexuals be treated as sick.[63] A. Bobinskis, for his part, considers transgender people to be sick, writing: “[I]f a person has mental health problems, they should seek help from specialists, not demand that the Church and indeed all of society regard their deviation as the norm.” Yet in the very same paragraph he contradicts what he said earlier and links transgender identity with a deliberate moral transgression: “[I] am convinced that in those cases where men claim to be women, sometimes behind all this there is in fact considerable shamelessness.”[64] These views contradict the consensus conviction of the most prominent psychology and health organizations that sexual and gender identity is not an illness – a conviction that has been established since as far back as the closing decades of the last century.[65]
On the profiles of ELCL clergy, unflattering and usually false information is spread about the queer community and the moral stance of its individuals. J. Vanags shares an article claiming that homosexuals and transgender people are not wronged, but rather are themselves the ones who do harm to others.[66] Likewise he shares information that same-sex couples are bad parents[67] and their children grow up unhappy.[68] J. Bitāns characterizes queer morality as destructive.[69] R. Otomers spreads the view that sexuality is a moral choice and supplements it with the false information that “today the majority of LGBT people themselves emphasize that homosexuality is their choice, rather than something innate that cannot be changed”.[70] K. Kalniņš shares a tweet stating: “A sex change is a way of drawing attention to oneself. A fashion fad cultivated by the LGBT” [71] and a tweet claiming that “[t]he current imposition of LGBT ideology on society promotes the emergence of transgender people and the like.”[72] Kalniņš also shares a tweet by the association “Ģimene” (Family), which misrepresents statistics on victims of violence (the statistics state that members of the LGBTQ community are more often victims of violence) and claims that “people of the LGBT community are more violent in their mutual relationships than heterosexual partners”.[73] Continuing the tendency of misrepresented information, on his TW account Kalniņš spreads an article that homosexuality is not genetic, interpreting it to mean that sexual orientation is a choice or does not exist at all.[74] Likewise he shares a video in which aggressively disposed men in Georgia break onto the balcony of an office of LGBTQ activists and destroy their flags, expressing support for such conduct.[75] For context – on 5 July 2021 the pride march planned in Tbilisi, Georgia was cancelled after violent conservative groups attacked activists and journalists and broke into the activists’ office. The attack ended with the stabbing of a tourist – according to some sources he was attacked for wearing an earring.[76]
In addition, queer people are positioned as a threat to children. Given that a threat to children usually provokes strong negative emotions in adults, such rhetoric can be called manipulative. J. Vanags spreads a humorous gay choir song whose words are “we will convert your children / we will make them tolerant and fair”, as a message seriously threatening children.[77] K. Kalniņš spreads the news that a study by the association “Mozaīka” on the sexuality of secondary school students “endangers the children’s psyche”.[78] Likewise he shares a tweet that urges people to guard children from activists[79] and a tweet expressing the view that the “goal of this unnatural ideology [LGBTQ]” is “the grooming of children”.[80]
Queerphobia is closely intertwined with the understanding of the family in J. Bitāns’s view, as he writes: “When sex is disharmonized and it is impossible for a man to be a mother, and for a mother to be a father, where a homosexual couple is unable to realize what is possible only for a man and a woman, becoming father and mother to a child, then this insurmountable arrangement of God and law of nature can be replaced with a reality-substituting term, “Parent 1” and “Parent 2″”.[81] In addition, his view is that “in former times God ordered such sinners [queer people] to be stoned to death, but now he no longer punishes them thus, because at the Last Judgement God himself, with his angels, will condemn them to torment in hell”.[82] He also holds that belonging to the LGBTQ community is to be ranked in the same category as crimes such as theft and murder.[83]
A. Bobinskis is laconic in his queerphobia, writing: “God, deliver Latvia and other countries too from the satanic LGBT ideology!”[84] R. Otomers, for his part, shares a comic that falsely (the image comes with a correction from an FB fact-checker) claims that liberals support hormone therapy administered to small children. The image is supplemented with the comment “the ideology of the left-wing liberast”.[85] Likewise Otomers has shared on his profile images from a protest outside the Saeima in favour of natural families, in which slogans can be seen such as “Anyone can become free from homosexuality” and “The cohabitation of disoriented people is not a family”.[86] The post was further shared by A. Pavlovičs, A. Vančenko and I. Pavlovičs, and S. Ratnieks pressed “like” on it.
K. Kalniņš, for his part, has shared on FB a blog article expressing the view that sexual orientation does not exist at all – there exists only “marriage and unchastity”.[87] Another article that Kalniņš has shared is Vija Beinerte’s markedly homophobic article, which characterizes members of the LGBTQ community as people who deliberately undermine the institution of the family.[88]
Among several clergy an infographic is also spread that purports to show the “true” goals of the queer community – first to legalize partnerships, and then to turn children into a commodity and surgically change children’s sex without parental permission. This post has been shared by J. Bitāns[89] and A. Pavlovičs[90], while K. Kalniņš, M. Kalējs and S. Ratnieks expressed their support for it with a “like”.
Queerphobia has also manifested itself in direct connection with the WO question, with J. Vanags claiming that “[t]he method that allowed Western churches to bless same-sex couples followed after they allowed the ordination of women. These are two consecutive steps that follow one another.”[91] This suggests that a role in the choice to ban WO was played by fear of the church’s further liberal development towards the acceptance of same-sex couples.
The topic of gender roles is frequently discussed on the social networks of ELCL clergy, from which it can be concluded that strict conformity to gender roles – with the heteronormativity that follows from it – is one of the most important values of ELCL representatives. WO, in turn, is something that threatens the stable, traditional conceptions of what is permissible for the representative of each sex, and thereby threatens one of the most important values. For this reason the WO ban is understandable as a declaration of attitude on the question of gender roles and a warning to those who might perhaps wish to deviate from traditional conceptions – if you want to belong to the ELCL, you must believe that gender roles are biologically determined and that only conformity to them is a Christian value.
4. The fight against “gender ideologues” and “ideologues”
In cultivating the conceptions, crystallized in the previous chapters, about the defence of culture and values as well as strict gender roles, a situation in which the ELCL must position itself against an “other” is inevitable. This in turn leads to the conceptions that there exists a culture war, the loss of which would endanger everything that is important and sacred. The rhetoric that ELCL representatives use embodies ideas about a clash of cultures and their own endangerment in the face of the adversary.
J. Bitāns writes: “The war of liberal and conservative values, when it crystallizes, is revealed as a war of evil and holiness.”[92] A particularly belligerent adversary, in the view of ELCL representatives, is the “LGBT lobbyists”.[93] K. Kalniņš demonstrates the conceptions of this fight, saying: “[T]he genderless ideology (..) declares war on our nation’s fundamental values, on the values of society and of human identity. (..) [T]he ideological war will be far more tragic, and its consequences far more unpredictable, because already now we read what absurdities are happening in countries where the gender ideologues have got their way.”[94] His rhetoric in the interview is exalted. Adversaries are cast in an unflattering light, while those who voice the view he represents are portrayed as being in danger. Kalniņš continues: “We see how this absolutely minoritarian group of gender ideologues seeks opportunities to legalize, on a state scale, its destructive and morally annihilating genderless ideology, imposing it on others through the media, forcing its way into schools and even kindergartens. (..) All this together leads society, the nation and the state towards ruin. It is a spiritual leprosy under whose influence the moral core of society rots, and the nation perishes.”[95] In a similar line of thought, J. Bitāns compares the LGBTQ with the USSR, saying that this community “wades into a foreign land and calls self-defence aggression and the waging of war”.[96] In this way the LGBTQ community is constructed not as people who wish to be accepted and respected, but rather as attackers and ideologues.
The motif of the fight is also identifiable in the tendency of ELCL representatives to ascribe hidden aims to seemingly ordinary events, such as the ratification of the IC. R. Otomers[97] and J. Bitāns[98] share on their FB profiles an infographic about how the IC will bring a new world order, sexualize children and force society to raise children according to the postulates of radical feminism. J. Vanags too is convinced that, if the IC is ratified, “the state of Latvia will be obliged to look at our lives through the spectacles of this [social constructionism and radical feminism] ideology and to regulate us accordingly.”[99]
Among ELCL representatives a narrative is constructed that the world as we know it stands on the threshold of destruction. For example, R. Otomers quotes an article by the former psychotherapist V. Rudzītis – who lost his certification[100] – which states: “In this description of the (homosexual etc.) family Christians see a cultural regression, a resurfacing of savagery, but the psychology ‘specialists’ – various family models. They want to imagine themselves as bearers of light, but in reality they are destroyers of human progress, who themselves see no further than the end of their own nose. (..) If we follow the advice of such psychology simpletons, then within a few decades the entire edifice of Western culture, including the economy, will collapse.”[101]
Views unpalatable to ELCL representatives are frequently called propaganda or lies. For example, on TW K. Kalniņš shares a piece of news in which an opinion article condemning Hungary’s politics is called “Tvnet propaganda”[102] and a tweet in which queer activists are accused of spreading propaganda.[103] He further spreads a meme in which “LGBT propaganda” is depicted as a girl blowing a large musical instrument into another girl’s ears, preventing her from avoiding it.[104]
One of the sub-motifs of the fight is the fight for freedom of speech. A. Pavlovičs shares an article by the former University of Latvia lecturer H. Tumans, which states that “a global attack on freedom of speech has begun” and “today censorship rages in all media, including on the internet, which until now was considered a free space”[105] and an article by B. Rudevska on the threat to freedom of speech.[106] On his TW account J. Vanags too shares an article by Rudevska, which states that in Europe practically “all views consistent with a conservative and/or Judeo-Christian picture of the world on marriage, the family, human sexuality, immigration, Islam and other ‘hot’ topics” are regarded as hate speech and suppressed,[107] and his own article on cancel culture (cancel culture), in which Vanags criticizes the adversary (who in this case is the “social justice warriors”) for intolerance towards other people’s right to express their opinion.[108] Minister M. Golubeva’s initiative to take action against hate crimes is also interpreted, in K. Kalniņš’s understanding, as action against freedom of speech (his retweet).[109]
The rhetoric of fight or war is significant for arousing the interest of society – it fosters anxiety, urges people to choose a side to stand on, positions representatives of differing views as a threat and intimidates. Incidentally, culture-war rhetoric is not a concept unique to Latvian society – it is identified and studied throughout Western society, and some thinkers point to its democracy-threatening character.[110]
For the promotion of the conceptions of a culture war, it is important to portray the conservative part of society as the victims of this fight. Among ELCL representatives this is done insistently. This tendency is confirmed by A. Vančenko’s sharing of the quotation “Today it is the correctly oriented, unvaccinated, healthy white person who thinks with their own head who is starting to feel the most discriminated against.”[111] Discrimination is also the leitmotif in a post by J. Vanags (shared also by V. Pirro), which states that US universities discriminate against their Christian employees.[112] But J. Bitāns shares an article by Vija Beinerte, which claims that in the West people are dismissed from their jobs for ideological reasons[113] and compares the conservative part of society with the oppressed dissidents in the USSR.[114]
J. Vanags warns that within the framework of the new culture everyone will be in danger: “Foreign lawyers have studied the typical profile of a ‘hate speech criminal’. Who is he? A simple, ordinary average citizen, a father or mother of a family. Quite often clergy are persecuted. Here too it may happen that more than one Catholic priest, Lutheran or Baptist pastor will end up in the dock, because they read out from the pulpit a relevant passage of the New Testament or quoted the words of the Catholic Church’s catechism about homosexuality…”[115] In this way fear of the adversary and of change is fostered.
Likewise the archbishop compares present-day Western culture with a minefield, “in which the role of detonator wires is played by ever-new principles of political correctness. If you step on even one, you are done for. One ill-considered joke or an article published twenty years ago, and cancel culture (cancel culture) will see to it that you lose your job and income, are unable to obtain a credit card, and that on social networks streams of hatred are constantly poured over you.”[116]
K. Kalniņš, for his part, paints a picture in which present-day culture transforms the political landscape, writing that “this new ideology is aimed at enslaving people’s free will and reason, and it has the hallmarks of a totalitarian regime. If this criminal ideology breaks into strategically important state sectors – the courts, the media, the armed forces, state institutions – then a change of power will take place, and that is what is currently being attempted covertly.”[117] Kalniņš particularly emphasizes that the man is the real victim of the adversary’s ideology: “What is now directed against the man, declaring him the only perpetrator of violence in society, is in reality hidden, ruthless emotional violence against every man living in Latvia!”[118] J. Bitāns too shares an article by V. Beinerte, which claims that white men and fathers are threatened by the culture war.[119]
In addition to positioning the adversary in the cultural and political sphere, Kalniņš also emphasizes its threat in the personal sphere: “[E]vil conquers man and the world, as it slowly and consistently takes away the most precious thing of all, breaks into our homes, takes away our children, takes away masculinity and femininity, kicks our family hearth to pieces, in order to create a genderless and identity-less mass that follows dull, fleeting lusts and for whom nothing is sacred and true.”[120]
A. Pavlovičs too – albeit in a more moderate tone than Kalniņš – observes that “the days have come when one must delve into questions and understand what is happening to Western civilization, what is happening to us, and what tomorrow may be like. Lord, have mercy!”[121]
Particularly endangered, according to the rhetoric of ELCL clergy, are precisely Christians. K. Kalniņš claims that the persecution of Christians in Western society is already taking place and “no one wishes to tolerate Christian values and a life of faith. In Soviet times Christians were thrown out of their workplaces; now, if a person reveals that they are a Christian, often they are either not hired or are unable to receive a promotion at work.”[122]
The aim of this kind of rhetoric is to intimidate readers with gloomy future scenarios and to call on them to act to resist changes in society. K. Kalniņš issues a call to act with the words: “Should we let our hands drop, seeing that the evil spirit of unchastity has created its ideology and an army of adherents in order to destroy the order created by God, which is marriage and the family, which is the identity given to men and women from birth and determined by biology?”[123]
The most active appeals on the profiles of ELCL clergy concern precisely calls to support the “natural family”, that is, to oppose the provision of rights to same-sex couples and families. A. Pavlovičs shares an appeal to join hands in order “to stand firm and hold on to the future of our children and of the whole nation!”.[124] R. Otomers writes: “Today we need the voice of every reasonable person who is not afraid to stand up for the truth – for marriage, for the family in which there are both biological parents – a father and a mother, for the right of children to both parents, for the right of an unborn child not to be killed in abortion, for fundamental Christian values.”[125] A. Vančenko too calls on his followers to act and asks them to sign a petition against the IC[126] and the European Citizens’ Initiative “Mum, Dad and Children”.[127]
In the ELCL narrative, Christians and the entire conservative part of society are in a defensive position, while everyone else – activists, the government, Europe, feminists, queer people, the socially progressive – are attackers and enemies. Everything the adversary stands up for is ascribed evil – sometimes hidden – intentions. Particularly endangered, in the ELCL’s understanding, are Christians, children and white men.
The WO ban has become a front line drawn between the ELCL and the adversary – evil, neo-Marxist, postmodern, gender-ideologue Europe – despite the fact that it is very possible that many of the women who would like to be ordained in the ELCL are also conservative-minded and on many of the questions would side with the men’s views. The ban serves rather as a symbol, or a demonstration to the adversary that the ELCL will not yield and will not do what is expected of a present-day Lutheran church.
Conclusions
An examination of the social networks of ELCL clergy makes it possible to conclude that the reasons for the WO ban are to be sought in a broader desire to protect the familiar traditions and values. A significant part of the values to be protected consists of strict and unchanging conceptions of gender roles. The regular and exalted rhetoric associated with the loss of tradition and values testifies to anxiety and fear of changes in society and to attempts to persuade others of this as well. Ironically, the WO ban, at a meta-level, is intended not so much to ban the ministry of women, but rather to demonstrate the ELCL’s stance amid the conditions of a culture war that is either apparent or real – depending on interpretation.
Unfortunately, a large part of the efforts to protect what is important to ELCL representatives takes place at the expense of an already marginalized social group – the LGBTQ community. In the social network posts and comments there appears much cultivation of prejudice and dislike, and many ideas that are offensive, false, attacking or openly hostile.
An additional conclusion, which it was not possible to include in the main part of the work, is that, comparing the content published on social networks by ELCL representatives in 2016 and in 2020/21, the rhetoric concerning gender roles and the culture war has been strongly amplified – the mode of expression has become more hostile, the sensitive topics take up a larger part of the profiles examined, and there are far more posts on these topics. Whereas during 2016 the number of FB posts related to gender roles was: 16 (J. Vanags), 6 (E. Kalekaurs), 2 (K. Kalniņš), 0 (J. Bitāns), 13 (A. Vančenko), 7 (V. Pirro) and 14 (R. Otomers), then in the half-as-long (!) time period from the beginning of 2021 until 11 July the number is: 14 (J. Vanags), 7 (E. Kalekaurs), 73 (K. Kalniņš), 32 (J. Bitāns), 101 (A. Vančenko), 4 (V. Pirro) and 42 (R. Otomers). This indicates that WO was only one of the first openly taken steps in the direction of further polarization, and gives cause for concern about how this process will continue to unfold in the future.
Since within the framework of this study it was demonstrated that the WO ban is only one of the many manifestations of a social process that, adopting the terminology of ELCL representatives, can be called a culture war, it is possible to claim that the thesis – the main reasons for the ban on women’s ordination in the ELCL derive from extra-biblical sources – has been confirmed.
Sources used
Bitāns, Jānis, FB profile. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/janis.bitans.
Kalekaurs, Edijs, FB profile. [accessed 15.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/edijs.kalekaurs.
Kalniņš, Krists, FB profile. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/krists.kalnins.1.
Kalniņš, Krists, TW profile. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://twitter.com/krists_kalnins.
Otomers, Roberts, FB profile. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/roberts.otomers.
Pavlovičs, Aldis, FB profile. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/aldis.pavlovics.
Pirro, Viesturs, FB profile. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/viesturs.pirro.
Vanags, Jānis, FB profile. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/janis.vanags.7545.
Vanags, Jānis, TW profile. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://twitter.com/arhivanags.
Vančenko, Aigars, FB profile. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/aigars.vancenko
“Archbishop Vanags: The ordination of women is a step towards the recognition of gay marriage”, Jauns. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://jauns.lv/raksts/zinas/18352-arhibiskaps-vanags-sieviesu-ordinacija-ir-solis-uz-geju-laulibu-atzisanu.
Beinerte, Vija. “On kneeling and the backbone”. Apriņķis. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: http://www.aprinkis.lv/index.php/viedokli/25472-vija-beinerte-par-celos-mesanos-un-mugurkaulu.
Burton, Neel. “When Homosexuality Stopped Being a Mental Disorder “. Psychology Today. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hide-and-seek/201509/when-homosexuality-stopped-being-mental-disorder.
Gall, Lydia. “Hungary’s Family Minister Undermines Equality for Women”. Human Rights Watch. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/12/17/hungarys-family-minister-undermines-equality-women.
“Hungary rejected ratifying a treaty to protect women from violence, because it said it promoted ‘destructive gender ideologies’ and ‘illegal immigration'”. Insider. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.businessinsider.com/hungary-rejects-treaty-to-protect-women-2020-5.
Kalekaurs, Edijs. “Our church is open to everyone, but not to everything”. Valmieras ziņas. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.valmieraszinas.lv/edijs-kalekaurs-musu-baznica-ir-atverta-visiem-bet-ne-visam.
Kalniņš, Krists. “The Constitutional Court’s ruling degrades the understanding of the concept of the family”. Katedrāle. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: http://www.katedrale.lv/index.php?id=24030.
“Latvia and 16 other EU countries condemn discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in a letter”. LSM. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.lsm.lv/raksts/zinas/arzemes/latvija-un-16-citas-es-valstis-vestule-nosoda-diskriminaciju-pec-seksualas-orientacijas.a410360/.
ELCL website. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: http://www.lelb.lv/lv.
“LGBT+ campaigners in Georgia call off pride march after office attack”. Reuters. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/protesters-storm-lgbt-campaigners-office-tbilisi-before-planned-march-2021-07-05/.
Meiere, Agnese. “Archbishop Jānis Vanags: To look into one’s own hell and to see one’s own heaven”. Santa+. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.santa.lv/plus/raksts/ieva/arhibiskaps-janis-vanags-ielukoties-sava-elle-un-ieraudzit-savas-debesis-40766/.
Nebehay, Stephanie. “U.N. rights expert decries Hungary’s new anti-LGBT law”. Reuters. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/un-rights-expert-decries-hungarys-new-anti-lgbt-law-2021-06-25/.
Otomers, Roberts. “For the natural family!”. Apriņķis. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: http://www.aprinkis.lv/index.php/viedokli/22339-macitajs-roberts-otomers-par-dabisku-gimeni.
“Poland, Hungary block ‘gender equality’ from EU social summit”. Thomson Reuters Foundation News. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://news.trust.org/item/20210507084633-5a25k.
Rozenberga, Māra. “The psychotherapists’ association annuls Rudzītis’s certificate; he is not saddened by it”. LSM. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.lsm.lv/raksts/zinas/latvija/psihoterapeitu-biedriba-anule-rudzisa-sertifikatu-vins-par-to-nav-apbedinats.a108911/.
Stanton, Zach. “How the ‘Culture War’ Could Break Democracy”. Politico. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/05/20/culture-war-politics-2021-democracy-analysis-489900.
Vanags, Jānis. “The concept of the family is not formless like water”. New Conservative Party. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://konservativie.lv/2020/11/19/arhibiskaps-janis-vanags-gimenes-jedziens-nav-bezformigs-ka-udens/.
“Vanags: in women’s ordination the ELCL chose to identify itself with a traditional church”. Tvnet. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.tvnet.lv/4719423/vanags-sieviesu-ordinacija-lelb-izvelejas-sevi-identificet-ar-tradicionalu-baznicu.
“Vanags: Women and men are equal, but they may have different tasks”. Tvnet. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.tvnet.lv/4695640/vanags-sievietes-un-viriesi-ir-lidzvertigi-tacu-viniem-var-but-atskirigi-uzdevumi.
Veidemane, Elita. “Jānis Vanags: Nietzsche spoke not of God’s blood, but of ours”. NRA. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://neatkariga.nra.lv/intervijas/338908-janis-vanags-nice-runaja-nevis-par-dieva-asinim-bet-par-musejam.
Veidemane, Elita. “Jānis Vanags: Turning a crisis from famine into a fast”. NRA. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://neatkariga.nra.lv/intervijas/338750-janis-vanags-padarit-krizi-no-bada-par-gaveni.
Veidemane, Elita. “Krists Kalniņš: What will we say to the Son of God?”. NRA. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://neatkariga.nra.lv/intervijas/334101-krists-kalnins-ko-mes-teiksim-dieva-delam.
Lexico. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.lexico.com.
Merriam-Webster. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary.
[1] Constitution, ELCL. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: http://www.lelb.lv/lv/?ct=satversme.
[2] J. Vanags’s tweet. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://twitter.com/arhivanags/status/717072800276553733
[3] J. Vanags’s FB post. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/janis.vanags.7545
[4] Information from the FB profiles of ELCL representatives.
[5] “Vanags: Women and men are equal, but they may have different tasks”, Tvnet. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.tvnet.lv/4695640/vanags-sievietes-un-viriesi-ir-lidzvertigi-tacu-viniem-var-but-atskirigi-uzdevumi.
[6] “Vanags: in women’s ordination the ELCL chose to identify itself with a traditional church”, Tvnet. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.tvnet.lv/4719423/vanags-sieviesu-ordinacija-lelb-izvelejas-sevi-identificet-ar-tradicionalu-baznicu.
[7] “Edijs Kalekaurs: Our church is open to everyone, but not to everything”, Valmieras ziņas. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.valmieraszinas.lv/edijs-kalekaurs-musu-baznica-ir-atverta-visiem-bet-ne-visam/?fbclid=IwAR2p8ENDiKrhWUQSfGnA1DCpqbXOKC4EzAV2GhwDCkdcQB4nVtluS03EbJg.
[8] I. Pavlovičs’s comment on FB. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/ivarskupcis/posts/10205276421984679?comment_id=10205278405314261.
[9] E. Kalekaurs’s comment on FB. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/ivarskupcis/posts/10205276421984679?comment_id=10205277918342087.
[10] Elita Veidemane, “Jānis Vanags: Turning a crisis from famine into a fast”, NRA. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://neatkariga.nra.lv/intervijas/338750-janis-vanags-padarit-krizi-no-bada-par-gaveni.
[11] “Archbishop Jānis Vanags: The concept of the family is not formless like water”, New Conservative Party. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://konservativie.lv/2020/11/19/arhibiskaps-janis-vanags-gimenes-jedziens-nav-bezformigs-ka-udens/.
[12] J. Vanags’s comment on FB. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/janis.vanags.7545/posts/1170655832950767?comment_id=1170805959602421&reply_comment_id=1170931269589890.
[13] J. Bitāns’s FB post. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/janis.bitans/posts/3756523377769329.
[14] J. Bitāns’s FB post. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/janis.bitans/posts/3875183289236670
[15] “Archbishop Jānis Vanags: The concept of the family is not formless like water”, New Conservative Party, op. cit.
[16] Elita Veidemane, “Jānis Vanags: Nietzsche spoke not of God’s blood, but of ours”, NRA. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://neatkariga.nra.lv/intervijas/338908-janis-vanags-nice-runaja-nevis-par-dieva-asinim-bet-par-musejam.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Elita Veidemane, “Krists Kalniņš: What will we say to the Son of God?”, NRA. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://neatkariga.nra.lv/intervijas/334101-krists-kalnins-ko-mes-teiksim-dieva-delam.
[19] Veidemane, “Jānis Vanags: Nietzsche spoke not of God’s blood, but of ours”, NRA, op. cit.
[20] J. Vanags’s FB post. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/janis.vanags.7545/posts/4269469343069385.
[21] A. Vančenko’s FB post. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/aigars.vancenko/posts/10222941761245768.
[22] Vija Beinerte, “On kneeling and the backbone”, Apriņķis. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: http://www.aprinkis.lv/index.php/viedokli/25472-vija-beinerte-par-celos-mesanos-un-mugurkaulu.
[23] Heteronormativity is “the belief that everyone is naturally heterosexual, and that heterosexuality is an ideal superior to homosexuality or bisexuality.” (European Institute for Gender Equality)
[24] “Vanags: Women and men are equal, but they may have different tasks”, Tvnet, op. cit.
[25] A. Vančenko’s FB post. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/aigars.vancenko/posts/10222957253633068.
[26] A. Vančenko’s FB post. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/aigars.vancenko/posts/10222368209227326.
[27] A. Pavlovičs’s comment on FB. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/aldis.pavlovics/posts/1375440169475379?comment_id=1375499056136157.
[28] J. Bitāns’s comment on FB. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/janis.bitans/posts/3963771540377844?comment_id=3965432363545095&reply_comment_id=3968284476593217.
[29] J. Vanags’s comment on FB. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/janis.vanags.7545/posts/3347223201960675?comment_id=3348422088507453&reply_comment_id=3352894218060240.
[30] Agnese Meiere, “Archbishop Jānis Vanags: To look into one’s own hell and to see one’s own heaven”, Santa+. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.santa.lv/plus/raksts/ieva/arhibiskaps-janis-vanags-ielukoties-sava-elle-un-ieraudzit-savas-debesis-40766/.
[31] Ibid.
[32] J. Vanags’s FB post. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/janis.vanags.7545/posts/4104356722913982.
[33] J. Vanags’s FB post. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/janis.vanags.7545/posts/1045140595502292
[34] “Jordan Peterson, Custodian of the Patriarchy”, The New York Times. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life.html.
[35] J. Vanags’s tweet. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://twitter.com/arhivanags/status/1131649511137452032.
[36] J. Peterson’s tweet, shared by J. Vanags. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1083357841900167168.
[37] K. Kalniņš’s FB post. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/krists.kalnins.1/posts/10219962016547571.
[38] R. Otomers’s FB post. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/roberts.otomers/posts/3301966426571878.
[39] R. Otomers’s FB post. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/roberts.otomers/posts/3257730800995441.
[40] A. Vančenko’s FB post. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/aigars.vancenko/posts/10209732688867214.
[41] V. Pirro’s FB post. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/viesturs.pirro/posts/1406745226033085.
[42] E. Kalekaurs’s FB post. [accessed 15.07.2021] Available online https://www.facebook.com/edijs.kalekaurs/posts/1262619260462410.
[43] R. Otomers’s FB post. https://www.facebook.com/roberts.otomers/posts/932787260156485
[44] Stephanie Nebehay, “U.N. rights expert decries Hungary’s new anti-LGBT law”, Reuters. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/un-rights-expert-decries-hungarys-new-anti-lgbt-law-2021-06-25/.
[45] “Latvia and 16 other EU countries condemn discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in a letter”, LSM. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.lsm.lv/raksts/zinas/arzemes/latvija-un-16-citas-es-valstis-vestule-nosoda-diskriminaciju-pec-seksualas-orientacijas.a410360/.
[46] A. Vančenko’s profile picture. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=10222890460803289&set=a.1475288735444.
[47] A. Pavlovičs’s profile picture. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=1480917865594275&set=a.146398712379537.
[48] J. Bitāns’s profile picture. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=4199369756818020&set=a.528879380533761.
[49] K. Kalniņš’s FB post. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/krists.kalnins.1/posts/10219961143725751:1.
[50] K. Kalniņš’s FB posts. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/krists.kalnins.1/posts/10219996669493873 and https://www.facebook.com/krists.kalnins.1/posts/10219965669278887.
[51] K. Kalniņš’s FB post. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/krists.kalnins.1/posts/10219907229817937.
[52] A. Bobinskis’s comment on FB. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=4199369756818020&set=a.528879380533761&comment_id=4200483623373300.
[53] “Poland, Hungary block ‘gender equality’ from EU social summit”, Thomson Reuters Foundation News. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://news.trust.org/item/20210507084633-5a25k.
[54] “Hungary rejected ratifying a treaty to protect women from violence, because it said it promoted ‘destructive gender ideologies’ and ‘illegal immigration'”, Insider. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.businessinsider.com/hungary-rejects-treaty-to-protect-women-2020-5.
[55] Lydia Gall, “Hungary’s Family Minister Undermines Equality for Women”, Human Rights Watch. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/12/17/hungarys-family-minister-undermines-equality-women.
[56] V. Pirro’s FB post. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/viesturs.pirro/posts/5888030494571180.
[57] R. Otomers’s FB post. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/roberts.otomers/posts/3302315143203673.
[58] “Queer”, Merriam-Webster. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/queer.
[59] “Homophobia”, Lexico. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.lexico.com/definition/homophobia.
[60] J. Vanags’s FB post. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/janis.vanags.7545/posts/1305960019420347.
[61] A. Vančenko’s FB post. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/aigars.vancenko/posts/10222940483773832.
[62] P. Naumovs’s comment on FB. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/janis.vanags.7545/posts/1305960019420347?comment_id=1306644616018554&reply_comment_id=1306964145986601.
[63] P. Naumovs’s comment on FB. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/janis.vanags.7545/posts/1305960019420347?comment_id=1306644616018554.
[64] A. Bobinskis’s comment on FB. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/janis.bitans/posts/3991350857619912?comment_id=3997280290360302&reply_comment_id=4001187879969543.
[65] Neel Burton, “When Homosexuality Stopped Being a Mental Disorder “, Psychology Today. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hide-and-seek/201509/when-homosexuality-stopped-being-mental-disorder.
[66] J. Vanags’s FB post. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/janis.vanags.7545/posts/1304477506235265.
[67] J. Vanags’s FB post. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/janis.vanags.7545/posts/1152679211415096.
[68] J. Vanags’s FB post. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/janis.vanags.7545/posts/1079390938743924.
[69] J. Bitāns’s FB post. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/janis.bitans/posts/3767439440011056.
[70] Roberts Otomers, “For the natural family!”, Apriņķis. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: http://www.aprinkis.lv/index.php/viedokli/22339-macitajs-roberts-otomers-par-dabisku-gimeni.
[71] K. Blumberga’s tweet, shared by K. Kalniņš. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://twitter.com/KBlumberga/status/1410896068422868993.
[72] K. Blumberga’s tweet, shared by K. Kalniņš. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://twitter.com/KBlumberga/status/1410898434740084742.
[73] A tweet by the association “Ģimene” (Family), shared by K. Kalniņš. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://twitter.com/asocgimene/status/1408807756287688705.
[74] A. Kudors’s tweet, shared by K. Kalniņš. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://twitter.com/AndisKudors/status/1413031669125234688.
[75] A tweet shared by K. Kalniņš. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://twitter.com/akmens/status/1412100810033467392.
[76] “LGBT+ campaigners in Georgia call off pride march after office attack”, Reuters. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/protesters-storm-lgbt-campaigners-office-tbilisi-before-planned-march-2021-07-05/.
[77] J. Vanags’s FB post. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/janis.vanags.7545/posts/4803670552982592.
[78] K. Kalniņš’s FB post. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/krists.kalnins.1/posts/10219745948306000.
[79] A tweet shared by K. Kalniņš. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://twitter.com/tantenoIaukiem/status/1413225380467679238.
[80] A tweet shared by K. Kalniņš. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://twitter.com/Mikipele6/status/1409110113508544512.
[81] J. Bitāns’s FB post. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/janis.bitans/posts/3745703235518010.
[82] J. Bitāns’s comment on FB. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/janis.bitans/posts/3787572594664407?comment_id=3788256051262728&reply_comment_id=3788307417924258.
[83] J. Bitāns’s FB post. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=4197577983663864&set=pcb.4197579040330425.
[84] A. Bobinskis’s comment on FB. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/janis.bitans/posts/3708508409237493?comment_id=3716224988465835.
[85] R. Otomers’s FB post. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/roberts.otomers/posts/3347906888644498.
[86] R. Otomers’s FB post. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=3136501413118381&set=pcb.3136501889785000.
[87] K. Kalniņš’s FB post. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/krists.kalnins.1/posts/10203272367196768.
[88] K. Kalniņš’s FB post. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/krists.kalnins.1/posts/10219691257618767.
[89] J. Bitāns’s comment on FB. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/janis.bitans/posts/3734439599977707?comment_id=3735233729898294&reply_comment_id=3741233149298352.
[90] A. Pavlovičs’s FB post. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/aldis.pavlovics/posts/1358456877840375.
[91] “Archbishop Vanags: The ordination of women is a step towards the recognition of gay marriage”, Jauns. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://jauns.lv/raksts/zinas/18352-arhibiskaps-vanags-sieviesu-ordinacija-ir-solis-uz-geju-laulibu-atzisanu.
[92] J. Bitāns’s FB post. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/janis.bitans/posts/3718789121542755.
[93] K. Kalniņš’s FB post. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/krists.kalnins.1/posts/10219829730800510.
[94] Elita Veidemane, “Krists Kalniņš: What will we say to the Son of God?”, NRA. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://neatkariga.nra.lv/intervijas/334101-krists-kalnins-ko-mes-teiksim-dieva-delam.
[95] Ibid.
[96] J. Bitāns’s comment on FB. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/janis.bitans/posts/3734439599977707?comment_id=3735233729898294&reply_comment_id=3741233149298352.
[97] R. Otomers’s FB post. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/roberts.otomers/posts/3199070806861441.
[98] J. Bitāns’s FB post. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/janis.bitans/posts/3708508409237493.
[99] Veidemane, “Jānis Vanags: Nietzsche spoke not of God’s blood, but of ours”, NRA, op. cit.
[100] Māra Rozenberga, “The psychotherapists’ association annuls Rudzītis’s certificate; he is not saddened by it”, LSM. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.lsm.lv/raksts/zinas/latvija/psihoterapeitu-biedriba-anule-rudzisa-sertifikatu-vins-par-to-nav-apbedinats.a108911/.
[101] R. Otomers’s FB post. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/roberts.otomers/posts/3189426964492492.
[102] A tweet shared by K. Kalniņš. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://twitter.com/AOzoli1/status/1411715463873245192.
[103] A tweet shared by K. Kalniņš. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://twitter.com/tantenoIaukiem/status/1413225380467679238.
[104] A tweet shared by K. Kalniņš. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://twitter.com/TalavasB/status/1409779382097432577.
[105] A. Pavlovičs’s FB post. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/aldis.pavlovics/posts/1395635957455800.
[106] A. Pavlovičs’s FB post. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/aldis.pavlovics/posts/1456087461410649.
[107] A tweet shared by J. Vanags. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://twitter.com/guntarsv/status/1396704796153950208.
[108] A tweet shared by J. Vanags. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://twitter.com/arhivanags/status/1363906446614794241.
[109] A tweet shared by K. Kalniņš. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://twitter.com/DievaSuni/status/1410973625855918088.
[110] Zach Stanton, “How the ‘Culture War’ Could Break Democracy”, Politico. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/05/20/culture-war-politics-2021-democracy-analysis-489900.
[111] A. Vančenko’s FB post. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/aigars.vancenko/posts/10222931005256875.
[112] V. Pirro’s FB post. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/viesturs.pirro/posts/1180579591982984.
[113] J. Bitāns’s FB post. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/janis.bitans/posts/4221914331230229.
[114] J. Bitāns’s comment on FB. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/janis.bitans/posts/4220318228056506?comment_id=4220714261350236
[115] J. Vanags’s FB post. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/janis.vanags.7545/posts/4118509121498742.
[116] Veidemane, “Jānis Vanags: Nietzsche spoke not of God’s blood, but of ours”, NRA, op. cit.
[117] Veidemane, “Krists Kalniņš: What will we say to the Son of God?”, NRA, op. cit.
[118] Ibid.
[119] J. Bitāns’s FB post. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/janis.bitans/posts/3751588444929489.
[120] Veidemane, “Krists Kalniņš: What will we say to the Son of God?”, NRA, op. cit.
[121] A. Pavlovičs’s FB post. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/aldis.pavlovics/posts/1362092824143447.
[122] Veidemane, “Krists Kalniņš: What will we say to the Son of God?”, NRA, op. cit.
[123] Krists Kalniņš, “The Constitutional Court’s ruling degrades the understanding of the concept of the family”, Katedrāle. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: http://www.katedrale.lv/index.php?id=24030.
[124] A. Pavlovičs’s FB post. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/aldis.pavlovics/posts/1326609937691736.
[125] R. Otomers’s FB post. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/roberts.otomers/posts/3280499135385274.
[126] A. Vančenko’s FB post. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/aigars.vancenko/posts/10208140407741181.
[127] A. Vančenko’s FB post. [accessed 14.07.2021] Available online: https://www.facebook.com/aigars.vancenko/posts/10208068055132411.