(Eastern Orthodox Only) Are forced conversions immoral?

[ArmyMatt]

It should be said that I hate the term Proselytism, because in the context of Ecumenism - a dead movement now that all of the people who were going to end war through peace, love, and rock and roll are dying of old age, having not accomplished any said goals (what as of recently has occurred productively within the movement other than banal platitudes stated by clergymen? Indeed, Ecumenism is a stagnant movement that has accomplished nothing within the past 60 or so years, with all the optimism we saw in the 90s and early 2000s dead) - it has taken on so many different meanings that so many different people take on.

Proselytism, etymologically means "to convert people," and that's how the term has historically been used, as it has origins from the Septuagint Old Testament. Such a definition seems to have gone through somewhat of a change with a connotation of forceful persuasion, but what this change is is so ambiguous and is defined arbitrarily by so many people; some people have interpreted the term "proselytism" as to force conversion on people through political and social pressure, others have interpreted that as simply trying to convert people knowing it will bring divisions, others use it in terms of adapting rites and religions practices to one's own religion, others use it to refer to any missionary work whatsoever, others use it to refer to discussing religion with anybody whatsoever - and to only mutually respect each other's differences.

To say that the lattermost three interpretations are un-Orthodox is so contradictory to the history of the entire Church, although I have no problem saying that forced conversion - the formermost definition - is immoral. Given the context of buzuix02 interpreting such a term as condemning "missionary work," and "bringing division," I have no problem saying his interpretation is heresy.

you are not an Orthodox bishop, so you don't determine what is or is not heresy. especially since you aren't Orthodox.

 

[TheLostCoin]

being disobedient is not the same as heresy.

and you needn't teach us about our own history.

With avenues like Public Orthodoxy and Orthodoxy in Dialogue, it seems that some Orthodox do need to be taught their own history.

 

[TheLostCoin]

you are not an Orthodox bishop, so you don't determine what is or is not heresy. especially since you aren't Orthodox.

You're right, I'm out of line. God forgive me.

 

[ArmyMatt]

With avenues like Public Orthodoxy and Orthodoxy in Dialogue, it seems that some Orthodox do need to be taught their own history.

sure, by other Orthodox. and neither me nor buz supports either of those sites.

 

[Not David]

I thought buz talked about proselytism of heretics such as Evangelicals and JWs toward Orthodox. That's why he mentioned Greek laws against that.

If it is about proselytzing non-Orthodox, then I am confused since there is a long history of that happening like TheLostCoin mentioned.

 

[buzuxi02]

Heresy. If this were really true, the Orthodox wouldn't have canonized Saint Cyril and Methodius, who converted the Slavs, Saint Vladimir, who converted the Rus, Saint Herman of Alaska, who converted the Native Alaskans, and Saint John Maximovith - the lattermost who actually operated a Western Rite Orthodox Church in France. Not to mention Saint Benedict of Nursia, who went into Pagan temples and smashed idols, converting them to Churches.

If it is actually true, then Orthodoxy is objectively false and deserves the most detestable anathematization possible.

Question: My interest in Orthodoxy from a Roman Catholic background has, in fact, brought in a lot of division in my family. Am I sinning?

Whether the Romans, or Ethiopians, or Slavs or the Mayans of Guatamala or the 3rd century inhabitants of Edessa, the society converted by taking direction from their leaders, whether tribal or king. Societies are not converted because a few random inhabitants convert but because the society as a whole decides to go that direction.
There has never been any nation en masse converting to any religion through proselytization only when its kings decide to take them there.
I remember speaking to a Salvadorean co-worker who told me his little village in El Salvador had a RC church, Pentecostal church, Baptist church, and a Jehovah Witness temple. Let's not get into how western governments use christianity and her inept missionaries as a weapon of western imperialism as they have in Korea, pre communist China and now in the Ukraine.

 

[E.C.]

I probably shouldn't ask, but okay...why is this? And do your leaders agree with you or is this your personal opinion? I know there are a lot of Eastern Orthodox in parts of Africa now...I don't think the Eastern Orthodox faith got there by people not proselytizing, so I am not sure what you mean by this.

Side note,

Orthodoxy originally reached Africa via St Mark the Apostle who was later martyred there. Not too long later, Orthodoxy spread to Ethiopia and North Africa. The Ethiopians today are still predominately Ethiopian Orthodox and North Africa later experienced Islamic invasions as well as the Great Schism with parts of that region following Rome's path.

Now, in more recent history, Orthodoxy was invited to Uganda by a few Ugandan Anglican clergy who were fed up with Anglicanism's "modernization" and looking for alternatives. They read about the Orthodox, became intrigued, and traveled up to Alexandria to ask the patriarch there to send missionaries to teach them about Orthodoxy. I believe this was sometime around the 1950s. Orthodoxy tends to appeal to Africa partly because there isn't a colonial attachment to it like Catholicism and Protestantism. Orthodoxy is also the only indigenous Church in Africa (points for autocephaly) and encourages the usage of the local vernacular languages.

 

[All4Christ]

Orthodoxy does not allow proselytism. Whether this be heterodox missionaries in the middle east looking to divide up the Christian's further, or even in Greece where it's against the law to proselytize.
It's not the missionary's job to divide up communities and towns and villages into opposing religious camps. It's not their job to "buy" the natives faith by opening up health clinics and giving them "services and utilities" to demonstrate their God's superiority. A missionary is to get to know the natives and their way of life and to befriend the leaders of the tribe or city or whatever. Conversions come from the top down, not by tearing families apart into competing ideologies.

Where did your source come from with this? Obviously they shouldn’t buy people into the faith, but providing services to people is showing love. Proselytize means to share one’s beliefs, not just “sheep stealing”. There is nothing wrong with sharing what we believe. Do you think IOCC is wrong?

 

[All4Christ]

Orthodoxy does not allow proselytism. Whether this be heterodox missionaries in the middle east looking to divide up the Christian's further, or even in Greece where it's against the law to proselytize.
It's not the missionary's job to divide up communities and towns and villages into opposing religious camps. It's not their job to "buy" the natives faith by opening up health clinics and giving them "services and utilities" to demonstrate their God's superiority. A missionary is to get to know the natives and their way of life and to befriend the leaders of the tribe or city or whatever. Conversions come from the top down, not by tearing families apart into competing ideologies.

A missionary is to show the love of God. Orthodox evangelism is showing the love of God. It is being willing to speak to what we believe. It is volunteering at a soup kitchen or giving hospitality to those in need. It is being charitable and thinking of others over ourselves. It is visiting the sick and the people in prison. It is caring for the orphans, the widows and the poor. If someone can serve others by opening a health clinic, then that is a wonderful service to help people. If they help people after a disaster, then they are doing what we are taught to do through scripture. If they are willing to share why they do what they do, then they are doing what we should be doing. Sharing our faith isn’t coercion - and sharing our faith isn’t just in words.

I’m thankful that people didn’t skip telling me about Orthodoxy just because my “nation” isn’t Orthodox!

We are to share the good news - and that’s not hiding it inside the church alone or just sharing with leaders of nations. If we could only share with leaders of nations, then St Paul would be going against our teachings, which is of course not accurate. We don’t intentionally participate in “sheep stealing”, but we certainly can share our faith.

 

[All4Christ]

“Nothing is more frigid than a Christian who is indifferent to the salvation of others. Indeed I wonder if such a person can be a true Christian. To become a disciple of Christ is to obey his law of love; and obedience to the law brings joy beyond measure and description. Love means to want the best for others, sharing with them the joy of love. So the Christian feels compelled to speak to others about the law of love, and the joy of obeying this law. Of course, many people are shy about speaking to others; in their case actions motivated by love will be a most eloquent testimony. But those who are not shy will surely want to express their joy at every opportunity. There is no need to use fine words or elegant phrases; even the most uneducated people can convey joyful love by the spirit which accompanies their words. Even slaves have been known to convert their masters and mistresses by the sincerity of their speech.”

– On Living Simply, St John Chrysostom

 

[dzheremi]

Side note,

Orthodoxy originally reached Africa via St Mark the Apostle who was later martyred there. Not too long later, Orthodoxy spread to Ethiopia and North Africa. The Ethiopians today are still predominately Ethiopian Orthodox and North Africa later experienced Islamic invasions as well as the Great Schism with parts of that region following Rome's path.

I'm a little bit confused why you quoted my post. Is this directed towards me in particular? Did I say something wrong? I'm Coptic Orthodox, so I'm well acquainted with our brothers and sisters in the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, and how Christianity came to Africa with St. Mark our Evangelist.

Now, in more recent history, Orthodoxy was invited to Uganda by a few Ugandan Anglican clergy who were fed up with Anglicanism's "modernization" and looking for alternatives. They read about the Orthodox, became intrigued, and traveled up to Alexandria to ask the patriarch there to send missionaries to teach them about Orthodoxy. I believe this was sometime around the 1950s.

Yes. Met. Kallistos Ware mentioned this is The Orthodox Church, if I recall correctly. There are Eastern Orthodox in Uganda and (if I recall correctly; I don't actually own the book anymore) Ghana who have histories like this. It's wonderful to see people turning away from churches forced on them by colonial powers to more faithful, ancient ways of worship.

Orthodoxy tends to appeal to Africa partly because there isn't a colonial attachment to it like Catholicism and Protestantism.

The same is true in Latin America and among people from that region, and I would assume probably most all where Christianity came with colonialism. There are Antiochian Orthodox churches in Mexico, Venezuela, and Guatemala that are full of native people from those countries, and when a Mexican lady showed up to our liturgy (Coptic Orthodox Church of St. Bishoy) in Las Cruces, NM some years ago she told us that she was interested in the Coptic Orthodox Church because it was a church of the native people of their country (Egypt), in a way that the Roman Catholic Church could never truly be in her home country, because it was forced on her people largely against their will. People are very attuned to this difference.

 

[mothcorrupteth]

Orthodoxy does not allow proselytism. Whether this be heterodox missionaries in the middle east looking to divide up the Christian's further, or even in Greece where it's against the law to proselytize.
It's not the missionary's job to divide up communities and towns and villages into opposing religious camps. It's not their job to "buy" the natives faith by opening up health clinics and giving them "services and utilities" to demonstrate their God's superiority. A missionary is to get to know the natives and their way of life and to befriend the leaders of the tribe or city or whatever. Conversions come from the top down, not by tearing families apart into competing ideologies.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I take Buz more to be condemning a particular type of proselytism, not "proselytism" per se as we generally speak of it in English (i.e. mission work). I mean, these anti-proselytism laws in Eastern Europe basically get passed because Prots (or worse: JWs) come in and don't have any sense of caution about their effect on fragmenting families and communities. Christ taught us that this fragmentation will occur, but what doesn't process with many Prots is that this doesn't mean you go looking to cause fragmentation. When you engage in forceful tactics, let alone outright forced conversion, you buy a very small short-term victory at the cost of a potential long-term victory with the culture. Respecting the context of the whole society is how Orthodoxy won Alaska. Not respecting the context of the whole society is what cost Catholics Japan.

 

[GoingByzantine]

I probably shouldn't ask, but okay...why is this? And do your leaders agree with you or is this your personal opinion? I know there are a lot of Eastern Orthodox in parts of Africa now...I don't think the Eastern Orthodox faith got there by people not proselytizing, so I am not sure what you mean by this.

Is this ^ somehow immoral...or is the judgment just of the way that it got to be there in the first place?

In the case of many sub-Saharan Orthodox churches, it was not a missionary movement that led to the mass conversion of people. Rather these churches originated when local church leaders sought out Orthodoxy and then converted their congregations. As I recall, this was the case in Uganda, Ghana and a few other countries. A similiar movement led to mass conversions in Central America among the local indigenous community. The key thing with these movements is that they were not "prosleytism" in the conventional sense. A bunch of white dudes from Europe/North America didn't go to some rural African village and force Orthodoxy on people, their local church leaders instead sought out the faith and then converted their own congregations. This is much the same way as how Russia for instance converted to EO.

What I believe that buzuxi is getting at is that the Evangelical way of "prosletyzing" is not compatable with Orthodoxy. Indeed many evangelicals use things like food, clean drinking water, and shelter as a tool to convert people. They aggresively go to lesser developed countries under the guise of humanitarian aid, and then more or less bribe poor villagers to become Christian by providing people with basic services. This is not compatable with Orthodoxy, although I will admit that some Eastern Orthodox (especially overzealous converts) do try these methods.

 

[dzheremi]

Yes, I understood that after his reply. Like some other posters, I was initially confused because in English we do not use the word "proselytism" to refer only to the work of these bad actors, but also to missionary work more generally.

 

[All4Christ]

In the case of many sub-Saharan Orthodox churches, it was not a missionary movement that led to the mass conversion of people. Rather these churches originated when local church leaders sought out Orthodoxy and then converted their congregations. As I recall, this was the case in Uganda, Ghana and a few other countries. A similiar movement led to mass conversions in Central America among the local indigenous community. The key thing with these movements is that they were not "prosleytism" in the conventional sense. A bunch of white dudes from Europe/North America didn't go to some rural African village and force Orthodoxy on people, their local church leaders instead sought out the faith and then converted their own congregations. This is much the same way as how Russia for instance converted to EO.

What I believe that buzuxi is getting at is that the Evangelical way of "prosletyzing" is not compatable with Orthodoxy. Indeed many evangelicals use things like food, clean drinking water, and shelter as a tool to convert people. They aggresively go to lesser developed countries under the guise of humanitarian aid, and then more or less bribe poor villagers to become Christian by providing people with basic services. This is not compatable with Orthodoxy, although I will admit that some Eastern Orthodox (especially overzealous converts) do try these methods.

Honestly, if you aren’t bribing people, what is wrong with trying to help people who are disadvantaged? Coming to live in a place and doing something like opening up an orphanage, for example, isn’t forcing people to become Orthodox. If we only witnessed to people through waiting for local leaders to search for Orthodoxy, then the places with no knowledge of God would have no chance to learn about Orthodoxy.

A good example of Orthodox evangelism is the process of bringing Orthodoxy to Alaska. That is the epitome of Orthodox evangelism. Another example is St John Maximovitch of Shenghai. He founded an orphanage there in China and was quickly involved in local charities.

Bribing people is wrong. Evangelism in its proper context, however, certainly is compatible with Orthodoxy

 

[All4Christ]

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I take Buz more to be condemning a particular type of proselytism, not "proselytism" per se as we generally speak of it in English (i.e. mission work). I mean, these anti-proselytism laws in Eastern Europe basically get passed because Prots (or worse: JWs) come in and don't have any sense of caution about their effect on fragmenting families and communities. Christ taught us that this fragmentation will occur, but what doesn't process with many Prots is that this doesn't mean you go looking to cause fragmentation. When you engage in forceful tactics, let alone outright forced conversion, you buy a very small short-term victory at the cost of a potential long-term victory with the culture. Respecting the context of the whole society is how Orthodoxy won Alaska. Not respecting the context of the whole society is what cost Catholics Japan.

Certainly I agree that we need to respect the context of the whole society as not use forceful tactics. The missionaries in Alaska still proselytized though and often went village to village teaching about Orthodoxy. They translated scripture, developed catechisms and opened schools. Considering that, the missionaries there weren’t bribing. They were evangelizing. Sharing the good news.


At times, and I am referring to something I noticed in the general populace of Orthodoxy, it seems that some throw the baby out with the bathwater so to speak, in regards to avoiding methodologies employed by some other Christian groups.

 

[mothcorrupteth]

Honestly, if you aren’t bribing people, what is wrong with trying to help people who are disadvantaged? Coming to live in a place and doing something like opening up an orphanage, for example, isn’t forcing people to become Orthodox. If we only witnessed to people through waiting for local leaders to search for Orthodoxy, then the places with no knowledge of God would have no chance to learn about Orthodoxy.

A good example of Orthodox evangelism is the process of bringing Orthodoxy to Alaska. That is the epitome of Orthodox evangelism. Another example is St John Maximovitch of Shenghai. He founded an orphanage there in China and was quickly involved in local charities.

Bribing people is wrong. Evangelism in its proper context, however, certainly is compatible with Orthodoxy

No, I don't think you're wrong, either. And--Buz can correct me if I'm misinterpreting him, here--I don't think Buz is saying it's wrong to go to a little African village as a team of Orthodox medical professionals and pay witness to our faith in the process, or even to bring a priest with those doctors and nurses so he can tend to their spiritual needs. But I think if you go there and start actively pushing people to convert, or otherwise imply that your medical services are contingent on the success of the missionary activity, you are indirectly bribing the people. Whatever your intentions are, they are likely to think you will only treat them medically if they make gestures of conversion in return. But if you go there and send off the vibe that you're willing to help whether they convert or not, that you're asking for nothing more than common respect in return, you won't get immediate nominal converts, but you will change more minds in the right direction.

 

[All4Christ]

No, I don't think you're wrong, either. And--Buz can correct me if I'm misinterpreting him, here--I don't think Buz is saying it's wrong to go to a little African village as a team of Orthodox medical professionals and pay witness to our faith in the process, or even to bring a priest with those doctors and nurses so he can tend to their spiritual needs. But I think if you go there and start actively pushing people to convert, or otherwise imply that your medical services are contingent on the success of the missionary activity, you are indirectly bribing the people. Whatever your intentions are, they are likely to think you will only treat them medically if they make gestures of conversion in return. But if you go there and send off the vibe that you're willing to help whether they convert or not, that you're asking for nothing more than common respect in return, you won't get immediate nominal converts, but you will change more minds in the right direction.

I agree with the approach you listed here. I have seen (in other contexts), however, some Orthodox irl as well as online who seem to think anything like that is wrong and is forceful, since it resembles what some non-Orthodox missionaries do. Some seem to feel it is ok to just stay in our churches and not reach out to the community. That is concerning in my opinion.

 

[mothcorrupteth]

And again, that's something Prots don't understand because they view salvation as an instantaneous state change, not a process of evolution. When you see it as a process, you're more comfortable with little steps to success. When you want an instantaneous change, the process can feel like you're wasting your time.

 

[mothcorrupteth]

I agree with the approach you listed here. I have seen (in other contexts), however, some Orthodox irl as well as online who seem to think anything like that is wrong and is forceful, since it resembles what some non-Orthodox missionaries do. Many seem to feel it is ok to just stay in our churches and not reach out to the community. That is concerning in my opinion.

Well, I don't doubt it, and that's definitely off base. But all I mean to say is that I'm not convinced yet that Buz is on that side.