Posted on 09/30/2004 4:42:17 PM PDT by Destro
Orthodox Church drawing converts from other branches of the faith
Saturday, September 25, 2004
By CHARITA M. GOSHAY Repository staff writer
AN ENDURING FAITH. The Very Rev. John Peck, pastor at Holy Assumption Orthodox Church in Canton, ministers to many converts of Orthodox Christianity like himself. Peck said Orthodoxy attracts people who are tired of congregational splits and denominational infighting.
CANTON -- The Very Rev. John Peck calls his faith “a religion off the radar.” The pastor of Holy Assumption Orthodox Church at 2027 18th St. NE for three years, Peck is overseeing a growing congregation that includes a sizable number of Christians who grew up in non-Orthodox denominations.
Peck said Christians are growing tired of churches that constantly change their doctrine or are splitting as a result of bitter divisions.
In contrast, Peck said, the essence of Orthodoxy has remained unchanged since it was born in the first century.
The Christian Church was a single entity until 1054, when it split into two parts, Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Protestantism was created as a result of a split from Catholicism in 1517.
“I wasn’t looking for Orthodoxy,” said Kim Krajci, a member at Holy Assumption for nine years. “It was the people that drew me in. My husband was Catholic and I was with the Friends. We weren’t worshipping together. I told him, ‘Wherever you go, I’ll go.’ A nun with whom he worked and a friend of his from college told him about this church. The people here are very loving. They manifest Christ. I find that irresistible.”
Unlike many Orthodox parishes that have strong ethnic identities, Holy Assumption does not. Peck, whose first parish was in Fairbanks, Alaska, conducts the liturgy in English.
“I don’t know Latin. Apart from (Eskimo), English is the only language I know,” he said with a smile.
A smiling Diane Wilkinson said that when she told her father she was converting to Orthodoxy, he asked her if she were becoming Greek.
Raised Catholic, Wilkinson said she joined the Charismatic movement, which led her to several Protestant churches in search of the truth.
“It irked my husband that there were so many denominations,” she said. “He was looking for the one true church, if it existed. I was looking for a real worship experience. People are really struggling with what is worship. They’re not looking for a make-it-up-as-you-go-along church. Everything you could want for your life is in Orthodoxy. You just have to take advantage of it.”
Peck said that like himself, about 60 percent of his members are converts. Most recently, the church has produced the Very Rev. Stephen Frase of Tuslaw, a Protestant convert and Malone College graduate who recently became a priest.
Peck himself grew up a Lutheran, then joined the Episcopal Church with his wife. They left Protestantism 12 years ago. Peck has been a priest for seven years.
Though Orthodoxy remains somewhat of a mystery, Peck said there’s less ignorance about the church these days.
“In Orthodoxy, there’s no arguing about basic Christian things that have been taught,” he said. “The tether of slicked-up Christianity has been turned loose in terms of theology and worship. We just don’t go for that.”
Peck said Orthodoxy requires commitment of its members. For example, the Orthodox are required to fast much more often than other Christians.
“It’s off the radar,” Peck said of his faith. “It takes a long time to complete the conversion process. That’s not popular.”
“This is a practice of faith that asks you to live a certain way, to act in a certain way,” Krajci said. “When I became a Christian, I was looking to live the Christian lifestyle. I even looked at several Christian communities. I didn’t understand until I came to Orthodoxy that I’d found it.
“There are a lot of people who think the guys in black do it all. ‘Liturgy’ means ‘work of the people.’ You work to worship. It’s not entertainment,” she said.
After attending one of Akron’s largest nondenominational churches for years, Kalle Obeng said she lost faith when the church changed its doctrine.
“When a church changes its doctrine, there’s a rift in that church,” she said. “People become disillusioned.”
Obeng said the experience sent her on a quest to study early church history.
“I visited different denominations and finally asked myself, ‘What am I supposed to be looking for?’ ” she said.
Obeng said a friend invited her to Holy Assumption, and that during the second time she attended, she had a revelation of the Virgin Mary as the mother of God and of the church.
That was eight years ago.
“It hasn’t been an easy thing, but it’s been a great thing,” she said.
Obeng, who is biracial, said she feels comfortable with Orthodoxy, which has deep roots in Africa.
Peck said Orthodoxy is appealing because it cuts across cultural boundaries though its doctrine remains unchanged.
“To the Orthodox, Catholicism is the Protestant Church,” he said. “It’s Orthodox-lite. I don’t mean that in a bad way. The framework of Catholic services is Orthodox. The Roman Church doesn’t do anything the way they did 100 years ago, let alone 500 or 1,000 years ago.”
“Continuity is a tremendous aspect most Protestants don’t understand,” Krajci said. “Repeating the same things week after week is an anathema in a culture that wants change.”
“There’s freedom in accountability,” Peck said. “Our newest liturgy is 1,300 years old.”
I agree with your statement of what the Church teaches with regard to marriage, but the Greek in +Paul doesn't really go into that. The reason I mentioned what I understand to be the actual meaning of the Greek is to point out that difference between the active Greek word and the passive English translation may be telling. In the first instance the wife departs from her husband, in the second, she is separated from him. Actually the passive would seem, at first blush, to support the Church's position, but perhaps the active voice better explains the Church's attitude on compassionate correction in the face of sin which has destroyed a spiritual union.
I would ask you to elaborate on this because it is not exactly clear to me how you came to that conclusion. What you are saying is that the wife departs from versus separated from somehow brings compassion into the first and not into the second?
I think the comapssion is the way of life for the Church regardless of grammar. The sinners are seen as sick, fallen, who are in need of spiritual healing and medicine regardless of the sin.
The difference between spiritual and legalistic breakage of the bond is pronounced and clear. When we say "divorce" it means legal devorce. There is nothing in the NT to support this. In Mt 5:32 Jesus dismisses the OT Jewish practice of giving a certificate of divorce because the Church does not recognize legal divorce. The only legal divorce is death of one spouse as far as the Churhc is concerned.
"I would ask you to elaborate on this because it is not exactly clear to me how you came to that conclusion. What you are saying is that the wife departs from versus separated from somehow brings compassion into the first and not into the second?"
Well, at various points along this thread there has been discussion of the innocent/guilty spouse issue. What I am saying is that if the verb in question is active, it could imply that the wife has committed the sin, thus is in need of reconcilliation with the Church and this would be in accord with the Church's position on Divorce and re marriage. If the verb is passive, then the wife has been separated from her husband, something has acted upon her to make her leave...her husband's actions? Compassionate correction wouldn't be needed for an innocent spouse. Her sin? Then compassionate correction is in order? On the other hand, I may be reading more into this verb than is there, which is why I said the difference may, in this context, be insignificant.
I can't be the judge of that, but I can repeat what the Church is teaching, which is not necessarily semantic: the wife, even though she is innocent, is committing adultery by re-marrying (Mark 10:11-12). It is not what caused the separation, it is the fact that no one on earth has the authority to dissolve a marriage, and by remarrying one is engaging in adultery. The Church gives in to someone re-marrying out of pcompassion because it is better for them to be with someone then to fornicate (that is, if not being married is not an option).
Your second Post (#260):
In order to harmonize the Gospels (because of course the Gospels cannot contradict -- God Forbid!!), we must understand that some of the Gospels provide a "summary" of which the other Gospels provide greater detail. For example the reference you provide in Mark should be regarded as a Summary of the teaching in Matthew 5:32, which does elucidate a Biblical Exception in the case of Divorce:
This passage is especially important, because herein Jesus Christ presumes it as a given that the Divorced Spouse will eventually Re-Marry (obviously, if the Divorced Spouse remained Celibate, there would be NO "commission of adultery" to even consider!!).
Jesus Christ herein teaches that such a Re-Marriage after Divorce DOES constitute Adultery -- except in such case as the Divorce was granted for reason of Unchastity. Obviously, in such a case, it can only be deduced that a Divorce granted for reason of Adultery is Biblically Valid, and VOIDS the original contract as being a Fraud -- thus assigning no Moral Liability to the Victim Party, as though the Contract never existed.
No, Kosta. Paul is not here referring to a Biblically-Valid Divorce (Greek apostasion, as taught by Christ) but rather to the Pagan Roman tradition of divorce-by-separation.
Paul instructs his Greco-Roman readers that the Pagan Roman tradition of divorce-by-separation is a false and illegitimate practice, and gives them in 1 Corinthian 7:10-11 these Two teachings (Three, counting 1 Cor. 7:15):
ALL THAT SAID, however, it does not change the fact that a Divorce granted for Reason of Adultery is absolutely Valid and appropriate under Biblical Law, according to the teachings of the Old Covenant and Jesus Christ Himself in Matthew 5:32, the Commsiion of Adultery dissolving the Marital Contract as a Fraud which is therefore NULL and VOID, as though it never existed.
God Himself speaks of Divorcing Israel in Jeremiah 3 and Hosea 2, for reason of her Adultery; if it is not therefore appropriate for the Church to grant a Biblically-Valid Divorce for reason of Adultery, then how could God have Divorced Israel? Shall the Law-Giving Father and the Law-Keeping Son not be the perfect Examplars of the Law of God?
Divorce granted for Reason of Adultery is Biblically-Valid, Moral, Appropriate, Legitimate, Just, and Right. It is a REAL Divorce, nothing imaginary about it, and it is Biblically-Valid and assigns no Moral Liability to the Victim Party whatsoever; for Adultery VOIDS the Marriage Contract as though it had never existed. If it were not so, then how could God have Divorced Israel? Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? (Genesis 18:25)
Best, OP
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.