Orthodox Church drawing converts from other branches of the faith

cantonrep.com ^ | Saturday, September 25, 2004 | CHARITA M. GOSHAY

[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.”

[FormerLib]

And as we have seen, the Orthodox will change with the times.

And some Roman Catholics will participate in false witness, as you have proved to us.

[Conservative til I die]

And as we have seen, the Orthodox will change with the times. And some Roman Catholics will participate in false witness, as you have proved to us.

Has the Orthodox Church relaxed its teaching on using contraceptives? Yes or no. True or false.

[FormerLib]

Failing, not evil. There is a difference.

By the way, it appears that Roman Catholics and Orthodox currently use contraception at approximately the same rates, yet you prefer to spend your time throwing stones at us. Interesting.

[FormerLib]

It is more accurate to say that "contraceptives" now include methods beyond what was originally condemned. Those methods that were previous condemned remain so, thus there has been no change. New methods that are not abortiofacient may be used in some cases, sort of like that "natural family planning" that we hear so much about from some Roman Catholics. This means that the teachings have not changed but that the methods available did.

[Conservative til I die]

By the way, it appears that Roman Catholics and Orthodox currently use contraception at approximately the same rates, yet you prefer to spend your time throwing stones at us. Interesting.

The only thing interesting is that you can't tell the difference between people doing something *in spite* of their Church's forbidding of it, and people do something *condoned* by their Church, regardless of whatever mealy-mouthed pap like "moral failing" that they might call it.

I'll be more clear: RCC = using contraception is forbidden. OC -= using contraception is allowed.

[Conservative til I die]

Natural Family Planning is *not* contraceptive.

con·tra·cep·tive ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kntr-sptv)
adj.

Capable of preventing conception.

n. A device, drug, or chemical agent that prevents conception.

Having sex only on certain days in order to minimize the risk is about a galaxy's difference from the use of contraceptives.

In NFP, you have sex - with your spouse only- of course, which leads to the natural end of marital sex. That is, to be graphic, ejaculation by the male, into the female. This is what wives and husbands do, and it is certainly allowed and encouraged by God. The only thing special about it is that you are having sex on certain days to minimize the risk of pregnancy. However, the idea is that you accept that there is a possibility of pregnancy, and you obviously wouldn't be allowed to abort the child if you should get pregnant. But again, there is nothing wrong with this. If there was, then all sex where the wife isn't successfully impregnated would be considered evil. Sex between a wife and husband is both procreative and a sign of love, bonding, and partnership.

This is so clearly different than wearing a condom or using some sort of chemical that either stops the sperm from going where it needs to go or killing the sperm once it goes where it needs to go, or fooling the woman's egg into thinking it's already pregnant. You either know that and are being dishonest or are just ignorant.

[Destro]

Orthodox are not fundamentalists. It is as simple as it is complex to explain. What is meant by "no change" and what determines Orthodoxy is adherence to the 8 ecumenical councils and then the pan-Orthodox councils. The Orthodox do not consider pan-Orthodox councils to be ecumenical without Rome and thus pan-Orthodox councils can not touch upon the first 8 ecumenical councils. Catholics on the other hand recognize 21 "ecumenical" councils.

To claim that the Church does "not change" is to deny the rulings of the 8 ecumenical councils and adopt Islamic like mind think.

Of course the Church both east and west say that the religion is not being changed but defined more accurately. What the ecumenical councils do is try to correct errors in the perfect religion that imperfect man through imperfect understanding corrupts.

The Church Fathers rightly figured that the Holy Spirit acting through the mechanism of the whole Church's council via debate and discussion and confirmed by vote of the ecumenical bishops would get at the truth.

Contraception's allowance in severly restricted and limited circumstances is a pan-Orthodox council ruling and would not be binding upon returning to a unified church which would have to take everything back to the first 8 ecumenical councils.

The Catholics on the other hand altered the faith 13 times (!) and considering these innovations as ecumenically binding and not Pan-Latin ones.

[Destro]

Using your dogma - how can the Catholic church not condemn sex in marriage between infertile couples as fornication if no child can be produced for that union?

And the so called rhythm method is in reality another form of contraception.

[FormerLib]

Natural Family Planning is *not* contraceptive.

What is it's purpose then and how does that differ from the purpose of other contraceptives?

Webster's defines "contraception" as deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation. Natural Family Planning does prevent conception, does it not? It appears to be a distinction without a difference, quite simply, and an example of the sort of changing teachings that you were just throwing stones at us about.

But hey, throw another stone. What the heck.

I notice that you've perverted the fact that the Orthodox may approve contraception is some cases to the statement that Orthodox approve of conctraception, implying in all cases. Such a perversion of fact is the essence of "bearing false witness."

[Conservative til I die]

Of course the Church both east and west say that the religion is not being changed but defined more accurately. What the ecumenical councils do is try to correct errors in the perfect religion that imperfect man through imperfect understanding corrupts.

How can the perfect church have imperfect doctrine? Doctrine that might be a part of that Church for over a millennium? Maybe this was just poor phrasing on your part, but how perfect can a church be if it takes them 1900 years to figure out what is OK when it concerns contraception? This is not meant directly as a comment towards the Orthodox, but can also be applied generally.

Orthodox are not fundamentalists.

Right, I understand this. But what I mean by this, and this could be because I'm coming from a distinctly Catholic POV, is that if something is "truth" it always has to be truth. It can't become nuanced like a John Kerry speech. While no one expects the Orthodox or the Catholics to be fundamentalists like Muslims are (I think it was you or someone else here who made that analogy, a good one, I think) or even the Amish, and live in frozen time however many centuries ago. But there is a difference, IMO, in changing details like what language the Mass is in, or what kind of vestments priests wear, and things like that don't change the essentials of the faith, and changing views on abortion, homosexuality, contraception, etc. (And again, this is not directed specificaly at the Orthodox).

I think the best way to clear it up, is to dispense with the nuances and just ask you outright, which types of contraception are allowed:

condoms?
IUDs
Birth control pills?
Morning After pill?
That new birth control patch?
Spermicide creams?
Any others I might have missed?

[Destro]

Talk about offering flase witness:

http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/c/c0605100.html

Contraception: Intentional prevention of conception or impregnation through the use of various devices, agents, drugs, sexual practices, or surgical procedures.

[Destro]

Talk about offering flase witness:

http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/c/c0605100.html

Contraception: Intentional prevention of conception or impregnation through the use of various devices, agents, drugs, sexual practices, or surgical procedures.

http://www.medicalonline.com.au/medical/contraception/rhythm.htm

The Rhythm Method of Birth Control or Natural Family Planning

The rhythm method of birth control involves working out this period of fertility, which will differ slightly with each woman. Intercourse is then restricted during this time.

This method of contraception has been known about for thousands of years but it is only in modern times that the art of working out the fertile period has been converted into an acceptable scientific procedure.

[Destro]

How can the perfect church have imperfect doctrine?

The Church is imperfect because it is made up of imperfect men. The doctrine is perfect but men are not - not even the Pope.

Infallibility on doctrine is only given to an ecumenical council alone. They ecoumenical councils remove errors and define devine truth as they have done 8 times since Pentacost.

[Conservative til I die]

To equate using condoms, spermicides, and the pill to choosing not to have natural, normal sex on certain days of the month is silly.

Now please answer my previous question and tell me if using condoms, birth control pills, and spermicides is permissible in the Orthodox Church, and also tell me whether this has always been the case or if these are new "rules".

And also please stop calling me a liar just because you don't agree with mine and the Church's views on just what is contraception.

[Destro]

How can it have always been the case when such devices did not exist in the past? How can you deny the rythym method used by the Latin Rite is also a recognized form of birth control?

In any case an ecumenical council can decide such a thing - where evidence is brought forth and debated. Return to the 8 ecumenical councils and then the unified church can make an authoritative ruling.

[Conservative til I die]

But the doctrine is not perfect. It either was perfect and is not imperfect, or was imperfect and now perfect. Or was imperfect and still imperfect, though less so.

I pulled some quotes from a reputable site showing the evolution in doctroine:

In the first edition, first printing (1963) of The Orthodox Church by Timothy (Kallistos) Ware - a widely-cited and authoritative source on Orthodox teaching -, the author states (page 302):

Artificial methods of birth control are forbidden in the Orthodox Church.

The first edition, revised 1984 version of The Orthodox Church, however (NY: Penguin Books, page 302), states (emphasis added):

The use of contraceptives and other devices for birth control is on the whole strongly discouraged in the Orthodox Church. Some bishops and theologians altogether condemn the employment of such methods. Others, however, have recently begun to adopt a less strict position, and urge that the question is best left to the discretion of each individual couple, in consultation with the spiritual father.

The second edition, revised 1993 version of The Orthodox Church reveals even further alarming departure from Orthodox and previously universal Christian Tradition (page 296; emphasis added):

Concerning contraceptives and other forms of birth control, differing opinions exist within the Orthodox Church. In the past birth control was in general strongly condemned, but today a less strict view is coming to prevail, not only in the west but in traditional Orthodox countries. Many Orthodox theologians and spiritual fathers consider that the responsible use of contraception within marriage is not in itself sinful. In their view, the question of how many children a couple should have, and at what intervals, is best decided by the partners themselves, according to the guidance of their own consciences.

Or note another statement from a revered Orthodox Patriarch, in 1968:

We assure you that we remain close to you, above all in these recent days when you have taken the good step of publishing the encyclical Humanae Vitae. We are in total agreement with you, and wish you all God's help to continue your mission in the world.

{Telegram from Patriarch Athenagoras to Pope Paul VI, 9 August 1968, reprinted in Towards the Healing of Schism, ed. & trans. E.J. Stormon (1987), p. 197}

[Conservative til I die]

You're dodging the question. For the third time, are the Orthodox allowed to use condoms, spermicides, and the pill? And, has this always been the case, even after these things came into existence.

[FormerLib]

Now please answer my previous question and tell me if using condoms, birth control pills, and spermicides is permissible in the Orthodox Church, and also tell me whether this has always been the case or if these are new "rules".

I can state unequivocally that the Orthodox Church had no "rules" whatsoever on birth control pills prior to the existence of said pills. Funny how that works out.

[FormerLib]

How can you deny the rythym method used by the Latin Rite is also a recognized form of birth control?

I believe it involves putting one's fingers into ones ears and shouting "I'm not listening, I'm not listening!"

[Conservative til I die]

I can state unequivocally that the Orthodox Church had no "rules" whatsoever on birth control pills prior to the existence of said pills. Funny how that works out.

Your obnoxiousness aside, I have already thrown a bone to this line of thinking and asked a) if the OC allows birth control pills (and other contraceptives) to be used, and b) if *since the existence of these contraceptives* has changed its teaching on them. That is, birth control goes into use say in 1940, and the Orthodox Church says no you can't use it until 1960, and then says yes you can use it.

Yet no one wants to actually answer simple questions that I am asking. Funny how that works out.