Some Evangelical Christians evangelizing in predominantly Christian countries

[Gleb Yakunin]

....and the bible was written in Greek (part of it anyways) is enough to lead our faith out of this one

Who would understand the bible better than a Greek than Greeks themselves or we need someone to come in and "translate" it for us?

/quote]

Philothei, I was of the understanding that the original letters were written in arabic/Syriac which the first book (Bible) was called 'Peshitta' that St John Chrysostom quoted from. I believe the Syriac OC still uses it.

 

[Dorothea]

Just because Orthodoxy may have been the first church to spread throughout Greece and has thrived for years (centuries), it does not mean that there are people who are not necessarily believers but simply object to something the Orthodox church teaches, therefore they are not practicing believers. They may simply attend the Orthodox Church because it is the only one there. Denying them information about what other faiths teach is not really right.

Again, I don't know where you got that the Greek government is denying other Christians access to other Christian sects. As Philothei pointed out, there's an evangelical sect there (a church(es)), so the citizens of Greece can go to this one and I don't know what else is there. So, your idea that the citizens have no choices is not true. They are free to go to these other churches. This isn't really the subject at hand though. It's about evangelicals from America coming to Greece, Russia and pressuring these people to convert to their Christian faith because they don't think the EO are Christians to be perfectly honest.

 

[Dorothea]

has anyone thought of the damage that is done when people go to another country and tell people that their religion is wrong? the damage is that many people will not trust any form of Christianity, it puts emphasis of division

look at the most secular countries that have a christian history, it started with a plurism of faiths, that leads to disbelief in any faith

Yes.

 

[Dorothea]

The fact of the matter is that there are certain Protestant groups that don’t believe any Orthodox Church as Christian. I am speaking from my personal experience as well as the experience of the Armenian Church. At this point it can no longer be described as “sheep stealing” but rather a wolf in sheep clothing. From my understanding Orthodoxy was introduced in the US in the 19th century, (through Alaska by the way of Russia I think) and by immigrants in the 20th century. That is why they are not all over the country, yet. But they are in areas that are highly populated by immigrants from the corresponding country that they came from. So it is relatively new in the US.

All right. Then WHO ARE THE CHRISTIANS that need to be EDUCATED and given KNOWLEDGE of OTHER CHRISTIAN FAITHS? Sounds to me it's the very American evangelicals going to other countries thinking their Christian brothers and sisters aren't Christian. So, until that is done and these people believe the EOs are Christian, it causes nothing but strife, division, and sometimes loss of Christian faith all together.

eta: Not yelling at you Yeznik. Just frustrated and writing my frustrations.

 

[Dorothea]

The problem is that the Russian Church was persecuted under communism for so long. It is estimated that as many as 20 million Orthodox Christians were martyred.

Thousands of Churches were destroyed. Many bishops and priests were executed or sent to the gulag. Children did not recieve proper catechesis, but were indoctrinated into atheism.

Once communism ended the Church was given no time to recover. Western missionaries swooped in like vultures pecking at the weakened Church.

In the end it will not matter. The Church survived the communists. It will survive this.

Spot on, cobweb.

 

[Thekla]

Here's the thing, those of you who so arrogantly take statements and read way, way more into what is actually meant that anybody ever meant to say, is what sometimes make me wonder exactly what those who belong to certain faiths tell each other about what non-Orthodox/Catholic people do and don't believe.

Well, I do apologise for being arrogant.
I do think in this thread, it would be useful to see the actions as others might. To this end, I have repeatedly posted historical occasions where there was a deliberate effort at deconverting RCs and EOs (in their "native lands"). In these instances, part of the goal was a cultural re-orientation, to a more "western economy/market". If this history is remembered, then is it surprising that present actions might also be seen as falling in line with the previous attempts of the past 100 years ?

In my experience with the EO, other Christian expressions are rarely if ever discussed - even among converts.

Nobody says that we should search for a church that suits our needs. But, there are clearly people who look at what is taught within the RCC and the EOC and realize that some of it doesn't quite jive with Scripture. So, where would that leave someone like me? Stuck? Going, okay, the Bible--the "how to" book for Christians says this, the RCC/EOC church teaches this. These teachings contradict each other or don't necessarily reconcile to each other. So, what does that say about the church (in this case the RCC/EOC)? It's not really representing what God's word, the Bible, tells us. So how much can I trust this church? Is it credible? Is it reliable? Does this church have my best interest in mind, or is it serving itself? So, where should that leave me? I believe that Jesus Christ is God incarnate, that he became flesh and was crucified for my sins. But, I don't believe in the Real Presence or the Perpetual Virginity of Mary or Papal Infallibility or the infallibility of the Magisterium of the church. Do I therefore become a non-believer? Do I become a believer with no church to fellowship within? Or do I attend the only church that is available to me because no other church exists for me to fellowship and worship within?

What the Bible "tells us" is in part a matter of interpretation. As it is with those who don't believe in a literal Resurrection.

I do wonder, if one has a difference of interpretation, does one continue to study the matter ? Is it impossible to continue to spiritually grow and mature within a community one disagrees with ? If someone wishes to leave the EO, then one does. The question is whether the EO in Russia should be targeted for "deconversion".

And further, what ethos is displayed by trying to do this when the Russian EO was emerging from 7 decades of severe persecution.

However, given the circumstances pondered above, one still might be willing to entrust himself to "a" church that professes it is the only church, especially if it is all that one knows or all that is available. However, added to the confusion is the fact that there are two churches who assert that they are the "one true church" established by Christ. These churches claim infallibility for themselves. They claim that they alone possess the fulness of truth. If what both of tese churches assert is true--that one church alone does possess the fullness of truth and teaches nothing but the truth--how do they explain that there are two churches who claim this authority for themselves THEN, attempt to portray a certain communion or unification between the two of them? These two groups falsely claim that they are not really separated, but merely schismatics, then go on to insult, condescend, ostracize, attempt to demean, or continually be offended by--those denominations not of either the Orthodox or Catholic faith.

It seems you refer to myself. Yes, I have raised questions but I have not been deliberately demeaning. I know I have been "read" that way. I also find other posters comments demeaning, but prefer not to assume it was meant in that way.

In all fairness, the RC Church is vilified on GT persistently and frequently; perhaps if demeaning others is the issue, we should start by mending that which is most consistently in evidence.

No, I don't believe that Christianity is a buffet and we should shop around till we find one church that completely represents what we personally believe. However, I don't think that one should feel compelled to subjugate himself to a church merely because it is the only available to him or the only church about which he knows antything, when he clearly does not agree with particular doctrines and dogmas established within these faiths.

I'm not sure why you use the term "subjugate"; perhaps you could explain more ...

And this whining about the fact that non-Orthodox/Catholic missionaries are witnessing to those who are already Christian is childish as well as the way you guys gang up like a pack of rabid wolves and mock every comment and belief expressed by those who dare disagree with your groundless complaints and arguments.

I'm not certain of your age, but I know mine
During the Cold War, the prominent US view was that Russians were "Godless" (despite the existence of the underground Church). We never heard about the plight of the Christians there in the media. Among some Christian circles in the US, I frequently heard that RCs and EOs were not "actually" Christians. And there was the tendency to equate the economic and political system here with Christianity (the idea being that other 'systems' must not be). IMO, political and economic systems are just ways of organising a society; they are just systems.

If one is secure in their faith and believes that it is clearly the one to know it all, why would they care who came to witness to those who may or may not belong to your church? One thing that might help build the ranks of members in your churches is to not be so insulting, arrogant or mocking to those not of your faith. There are some who might give some consideration to your church if it was not represented by such behavior.

We should speak gently, we should hear gently.

I do not recall having mocked or deliberately insulting anyone who is not EO. Disagreed, certainly. But I don't recall making fun or parroting. If I have done so, then I was wrong.

And I am not fearful of others going to Russia. I have consistently stated that:
1. Russia, as a nation, has the right to self-determination. Complaints about her policies, in this thread, have typically expressed disappointments that Russia's policies are unlike our own. I would take the same stance were a Russian to decry US policy on missionaries.
2. The historical record on broad attempts to deconvert (esp. among the Aleut/Russian Orthodox, which was combined with efforts to de-Culturise them whilst introducing economic activities which impoverished the communities) should be remembered when considering Russia's attitude to missionising efforts within her borders post-collapse (USSR). We may not remember this US effort (I do not recall it being taught in my US history classes in HS or College), but as these were Russian Orthodox people, it should be considered for its effect.
3. The different "mindset" of a culture unlike our own should be considered as this is evidence of a respectful disposition.
4. The persecution of the Russian Church should be remembered; the ethos of the actions of missionaries attempting to deconvert at a time when the Russian EO was emerging from the martyr period and oppression under atheism should be considered.

Regardless of what you think about witnessing and missionary work, the fact is that the Church was given a directive by Christ--the Great Commission. If your church is not actively doing this, then there is a problem. Jesus didn't say go "build" a church and wait for would be believers to come knocking on your door.

Have you studied much about EO missions ?

Again, my primary concern is the attempt to de-convert people.

So, for me, if it comes down to the fact that a person's beliefs regarding Christ and His church do not agree with mine, I say let him learn about other faiths. As long as in the end he becomes or stays a believer--that beats not belonging to any church at all.

And that is fine, but remember the Russian "mindset" is not the US "mindset". So what might seem fully reasonable to this culture is not the same to other mindsets.

You are blatantly miscontruing/misrepresenting my whole argument. And, I believe you are doing so intentionally. This is a waste of time for you because you are putting effort into arguing against an assertion that has not been made by me.

I wasn't deliberately making a misrepresentation; there is a different way of seeing, that is not oft considered.
And there is the looking at the phenomenon, and spinning it out to measure the implications.

And restricting one's access to what is taught by all faiths and only allowing influence by one church abolishes freewill.

I disagree; I think 'free will' is a central issue of the relationship with God. I do not see it as a variety of choices, but of one choice made and then God-willing sustained in commitment (and needing to be re-done after stumbles) to God.

Well, like I said earlier, the EOC might want to take a more proactive approach and actively participate in the Great Commission. Like I said, Orthodox churches appear to be rare in the Us.

OK. But then, there are many Churches in the US, no ?

 

[lionroar0]

The fact of the matter is that there are certain Protestant groups that don’t believe any Orthodox Church as Christian. I am speaking from my personal experience as well as the experience of the Armenian Church. At this point it can no longer be described as “sheep stealing” but rather a wolf in sheep clothing. From my understanding Orthodoxy was introduced in the US in the 19th century, (through Alaska by the way of Russia I think) and by immigrants in the 20th century. That is why they are not all over the country, yet. But they are in areas that are highly populated by immigrants from the corresponding country that they came from. So it is relatively new in the US.

Emphasis on yet!!

 

[Dorothea]

Well, I do apologise for being arrogant.
I do think in this thread, it would be useful to see the actions as others might. To this end, I have repeatedly posted historical occasions where there was a deliberate effort at deconverting RCs and EOs (in their "native lands"). In these instances, part of the goal was a cultural re-orientation, to a more "western economy/market". If this history is remembered, then is it surprising that present actions might also be seen as falling in line with the previous attempts of the past 100 years ?

In my experience with the EO, other Christian expressions are rarely if ever discussed - even among converts.

What the Bible "tells us" is in part a matter of interpretation. As it is with those who don't believe in a literal Resurrection.

I do wonder, if one has a difference of interpretation, does one continue to study the matter ? Is it impossible to continue to spiritually grow and mature within a community one disagrees with ? If someone wishes to leave the EO, then one does. The question is whether the EO in Russia should be targeted for "deconversion".

And further, what ethos is displayed by trying to do this when the Russian EO was emerging from 7 decades of severe persecution.

It seems you refer to myself. Yes, I have raised questions but I have not been deliberately demeaning. I know I have been "read" that way. I also find other posters comments demeaning, but prefer not to assume it was meant in that way.

In all fairness, the RC Church is vilified on GT persistently and frequently; perhaps if demeaning others is the issue, we should start by mending that which is most consistently in evidence.
I'm not sure why you use the term "subjugate"; perhaps you could explain more ...



I'm not certain of your age, but I know mine
During the Cold War, the prominent US view was that Russians were "Godless" (despite the existence of the underground Church). We never heard about the plight of the Christians there in the media. Among some Christian circles in the US, I frequently heard that RCs and EOs were not "actually" Christians. And there was the tendency to equate the economic and political system here with Christianity (the idea being that other 'systems' must not be). IMO, political and economic systems are just ways of organising a society; they are just systems.

We should speak gently, we should hear gently.

I do not recall having mocked or deliberately insulting anyone who is not EO. Disagreed, certainly. But I don't recall making fun or parroting. If I have done so, then I was wrong.

And I am not fearful of others going to Russia. I have consistently stated that:
1. Russia, as a nation, has the right to self-determination. Complaints about her policies, in this thread, have typically expressed disappointments that Russia's policies are unlike our own. I would take the same stance were a Russian to decry US policy on missionaries.
2. The historical record on broad attempts to deconvert (esp. among the Aleut/Russian Orthodox, which was combined with efforts to de-Culturise them whilst introducing economic activities which impoverished the communities) should be remembered when considering Russia's attitude to missionising efforts within her borders post-collapse (USSR). We may not remember this US effort (I do not recall it being taught in my US history classes in HS or College), but as these were Russian Orthodox people, it should be considered for its effect.
3. The different "mindset" of a culture unlike our own should be considered as this is evidence of a respectful disposition.
4. The persecution of the Russian Church should be remembered; the ethos of the actions of missionaries attempting to deconvert at a time when the Russian EO was emerging from the martyr period and oppression under atheism should be considered.

Have you studied much about EO missions ?

Again, my primary concern is the attempt to de-convert people.


And that is fine, but remember the Russian "mindset" is not the US "mindset". So what might seem fully reasonable to this culture is not the same to other mindsets.



I wasn't deliberately making a misrepresentation; there is a different way of seeing, that is not oft considered.
And there is the looking at the phenomenon, and spinning it out to measure the implications.

I disagree; I think 'free will' is a central issue of the relationship with God. I do not see it as a variety of choices, but of one choice made and then God-willing sustained in commitment (and needing to be re-done after stumbles) to God.

OK. But then, there are many Churches in the US, no ?

I suppose it's easy for one who's been in America all their lives and had their Christian faith accepted, so they think those who are complaining about being called "not Christian" is whining. I wonder how they would react if a bunch of Christians from another country(ies) came over and started calling them not Christian and trying to deconvert them. Somehow, I don't think that would go over well at all.

 

[Philothei]

The Gospel of John was not in Greek? Or the Revelation? these two at least were written in orgininal greek for sure.. I do not know about the others. Even so I would trust the translation that the Fathers gave. They used this language for doing exegesis on the Bible. St. Ignatios did and also all the Apostolic Fathers.

....and the bible was written in Greek (part of it anyways) is enough to lead our faith out of this one

Who would understand the bible better than a Greek than Greeks themselves or we need someone to come in and "translate" it for us?

/quote]

Philothei, I was of the understanding that the original letters were written in arabic/Syriac which the first book (Bible) was called 'Peshitta' that St John Chrysostom quoted from. I believe the Syriac OC still uses it.[/quote]

 

[Thekla]

On the Peshitta and other Syriac texts:

Peshitta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Thekla]

If variety is to be offered in confessions, what breadth of confessional stances would be considered adequate ?

 

[cobweb]

I suppose it's easy for one who's been in America all their lives and had their Christian faith accepted, so they think those who are complaining about being called "not Christian" is whining. I wonder how they would react if a bunch of Christians from another country(ies) came over and started calling them not Christian and trying to deconvert them. Somehow, I don't think that would go over well at all.

You forgot "after enduring decades of intense persecution during which millions were martyred".

Christians here whine and cry persecution when nativities are removed from the courthouse lawn. How can they dare to tell those who endured torture and the death of millions that they are not Christian?

One priest facing death in a Soviet Prison camp wrote

Many times I have seen the reflection of Your glory on the faces of the dead. What unearthly beauty and joy shone from them; how ethereal and immaterial were their features. This is the triumph of happiness and peace received gracefully, as they silently call upon You. At the hour of my death also illumine my soul as I call: Alleluia!

And western missionaries think they have something better to offer such a man? He loved Christ more than any of us here who sit in our comfy chairs debating Theology on the internet.

 

[obsolete]

You forgot "after enduring decades of intense persecution during which millions were martyred".

Christians here whine and cry persecution when nativities are removed from the courthouse lawn. How can they dare to tell those who endured torture and the death of millions that they are not Christian?

One priest facing death in a Soviet Prison camp wrote [/size][/font]

And western missionaries think they have something better to offer such a man? He loved Christ more than any of us here who sit in our comfy chairs debating Theology on the internet.

The one thing that the church has to offer is Christ. Those who die in Him will rise in Him. No man can produce Him for you. The ones who spend their time promoting earthly gain, protection, exclusivnes, superiority, ancestral heirarchy and the other things they call churches are deluding themselves and others.

 

[lionroar0]

The one thing that the church has to offer is Christ. Those who die in Him will rise in Him. No man can produce Him for you. The ones who spend their time promoting earthly gain, protection, exclusivnes, superiority, ancestral heirarchy and the other things they call churches are deluding themselves and others.

Like that priest? Was he promoting any of those things?

 

[Dorothea]

You forgot "after enduring decades of intense persecution during which millions were martyred".

Christians here whine and cry persecution when nativities are removed from the courthouse lawn. How can they dare to tell those who endured torture and the death of millions that they are not Christian?

One priest facing death in a Soviet Prison camp wrote [/size][/font]

And western missionaries think they have something better to offer such a man? He loved Christ more than any of us here who sit in our comfy chairs debating Theology on the internet.

Yes, sorry, I forgot about mentioning the many millions martyred for Christ. You are right, cobweb. The comfort is that the dear priest you quoted is with His Savior in heaven.

 

[obsolete]

Like that priest? Was he promoting any of those things?

He was testifying to what he saw of those who had Christ in them. If he was using as a means to cashin on it and saying that the priesthood got them that then you figger it out. Christ never was for sale, and anyone telling you different is selling something other than Christ.

 

[lionroar0]

He was testifying to what he saw of those who had Christ in them. If he was using as a means to cashin on it and saying that the priesthood got them that then you figger it out. Christ never was for sale, and anyone telling you different is selling something other than Christ.

"Many times I have seen the reflection of Your glory on the faces of the dead. What unearthly beauty and joy shone from them; how ethereal and immaterial were their features. This is the triumph of happiness and peace received gracefully, as they silently call upon You. At the hour of my death also illumine my soul as I call: Alleluia!"
​

If you even think the below for a second:

If he was using as a means to cashin on it and saying that the priesthood got them that then you figger it out. Christ never was for sale, and anyone telling you different is selling something other than Christ.

This brand of Christianity has no love for their brother.

If one has no love for their brother then he is a liar and does not have Christ with in them.

I would run away from this brand of Christianity that is really no Christianity at all.

 

[lionroar0]

Makes me sick to my stomach.

 

[cobweb]

He was testifying to what he saw of those who had Christ in them. If he was using as a means to cashin on it and saying that the priesthood got them that then you figger it out. Christ never was for sale, and anyone telling you different is selling something other than Christ.

What are you talking about?

The man praised and gave thanks to God for his goodness as he awaited his execution in a prison camp. He was killed by the Soviets.

What exactly do you think he was cashing in on?

 

[Dorothea]

"Many times I have seen the reflection of Your glory on the faces of the dead. What unearthly beauty and joy shone from them; how ethereal and immaterial were their features. This is the triumph of happiness and peace received gracefully, as they silently call upon You. At the hour of my death also illumine my soul as I call: Alleluia!"

​

If you even think the below for a second:

This brand of Christianity has no love for their brother.

If one has no love for their brother then he is a liar and does not have Christ with in them.

I would run away from this brand of Christianity that is really no Christianity at all.

True. One does not know God if one does not love his brother (and enemies for that matter). But also, why would there be seculation of this priest's motives when he is facing death? He's not going to cash in anything.