(Eastern Orthodox Only) Are forced conversions immoral?

[TheLostCoin]

There has been many points in the history of Roman Catholicism where individuals who were not of that faith were forced to convert or face death.

The most notorious case that I know of affected the Serbian Orthodox during the reign of the Croatian Ustashe, the regime of Croatia that was an effective puppet state of Nazi Germany and committed genocide against the Serbs, often times murdering them if they didn't convert to Catholicism.

Now, even though the Roman Catholic Church, at an institutional level, today doesn't believe in the morality of forced conversion, the historical argument for such tactics was that of a Salvation issue - that the Sacraments administered had an effect of removing sins that would lead one to damnation.

The Orthodox (Oriental and Eastern), as far as I know, don't hold to such a state-based system - "state of grace" vs "state of perdition," but rather views the Sacraments as an opening up or continuation of a process of growth towards Theosis.

Here's the kicker, though - with the exception of the Eucharist, the Sacraments do not seem dependent on will when it comes to their efficacious nature, for if it was dependent on will, the Orthodox (Oriental and Eastern) would not baptize and Chrismate babies, who are not capable of rationality to the extent of realizing what exactly is happening.

The only Sacrament that does seem dependent on will for it's efficacious effects is the Eucharist, where those who receive the Eucharist unworthily receive it unto damnation, according to Saint Paul. But if the person isn't unworthy, or isn't capable of being unworthy, the Eucharist still has efficacious effects, visa vi the fact that babies still commune the Eucharist.

So, considering that the Sacraments of conversion can provide long term spiritual benefits regardless of will, why would it be immoral for a Priest to force people to convert, or to secretly Baptize or Chrismate them without them knowing? Wouldn't the Sacraments offer Grace and influence that begins the process of Theosis? And if they cannot or produce Spiritual harm, why do the Orthodox Baptize babies?

 

[ArmyMatt]

confession, unction, marriage, ordination are also use the will...

and if you force a conversion and someone falls away, it's an even greater sin than if they never converted in the first place.

 

[-Sasha-]

confession, unction, marriage, ordination are also use the will...

and if you force a conversion and someone falls away, it's an even greater sin than if they never converted in the first place.

Also, in the case of infant baptism, aren't the Godparents essentially taking this risk willfully onto themselves in a sense? They say the Creed and the renunciations of satan in the childs place with the understanding that they're taking on responsibility in the childs spiritual development, yes? They're promising to help the child grow in their faith, bring them to/encourage them to continue going to Church, etc. and I'm thinking that if they neglected this willfully it would be sinful.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Also, in the case of infant baptism, aren't the Godparents essentially taking this risk willfully onto themselves in a sense? They say the Creed and the renunciations of satan in the childs place with the understanding that they're taking on responsibility in the childs spiritual development, yes? They're promising to help the child grow in their faith, bring them to/encourage them to continue going to Church, etc. and I'm thinking that if they neglected this willfully it would be sinful.

yep.

 

[TheLostCoin]

confession, unction, marriage, ordination are also use the will...

and if you force a conversion and someone falls away, it's an even greater sin than if they never converted in the first place.

But then why Baptize infants, considering that no matter what, some will inevitable fall away? Isn’t such a Baptism a “forced conversion” for all intents and purposes?

 

[prodromos]

But then why Baptize infants, considering that no matter what, some will inevitable fall away? Isn’t such a Baptism a “forced conversion” for all intents and purposes?

That's kind of like saying why force children to eat their vegetables.

 

[ArmyMatt]

But then why Baptize infants, considering that no matter what, some will inevitable fall away? Isn’t such a Baptism a “forced conversion” for all intents and purposes?

no, because conversion is a process, not a one time event.

 

[John100]

In my opinion there must not be forced conversion. Тhis is voluntary.

 

[buzuxi02]

Proselytizing is wrong. In fact most missionary work is immoral and that's why it usually fails. You can use more aggressive tactics when the population is already Orthodox and the wolves in sheeps clothing are trying to convert them away.

 

[dzheremi]

Proselytizing is wrong. In fact most missionary work is immoral and that's why it usually fails.

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?

 

[buzuxi02]

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?

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.

 

[dzheremi]

Okay. Thank you.

 

[rakovsky]

Interesting Tangent- Sharia Law considers forced conversions void, and there have been cases where Islamic Law overturned specific instances of forced conversions from Christianity to Islam, despite there being a history throughout the centuries of forced conversion to Islam.

 

[TheLostCoin]

Proselytizing is wrong. In fact most missionary work is immoral and that's why it usually fails.

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?

 

[TheLostCoin]

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.

Matthew 10:34-39

"Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword.
For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
And a man's enemies shall be they of his own household.
He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me.
And he that taketh not up his cross, and followeth me, is not worthy of me.
He that findeth his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for me, shall find it."

Matthew 28:19-20
"Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you..."

 

[ArmyMatt]

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, because it goes against Christ, and is nothing more than a subjective, postmodernist religion.

even if what buz said is true, it's not heresy, nor does it deserve anathematization, nor does that make Orthodoxy subjective or postmodernist.

 

[TheLostCoin]

even if what buz said is true, it's not heresy, nor does it deserve anathematization, nor does that make Orthodoxy subjective or postmodernist.

Why not? Did not Christ tell the Apostles to teach all nations, and did not Christ say He is, in fact not a peacebringer, but a bringer of the sword, because the passions of humanity will create division in reaction to His doctrines? And what does this say about the history of Eastern Orthodoxy, where proselytism was normative? In addition to all the Saints I listed, wasn't it law in Imperial Russia in order to be a citizen to convert to Orthodoxy?

 

[TheLostCoin]

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.

 

[TheLostCoin]

https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2016/11/03/proselytism-vs-evangelization/
What is the Difference between ‘Evangelism’ and ‘Proselytism’? A Serious Question
What Did Pope Francis Mean By His Remarks About ‘Proselytism?’
Understanding Proselytism
Proselytism or a Global Ethic? | HuffPost

 

[ArmyMatt]

Why not? Did not Christ tell the Apostles to teach all nations, and did not Christ say He is, in fact not a peacebringer, but a bringer of the sword, because the passions of humanity will create division in reaction to His doctrines? And what does this say about the history of Eastern Orthodoxy, where proselytism was normative? In addition to all the Saints I listed, wasn't it law in Imperial Russia in order to be a citizen to convert to Orthodoxy?

being disobedient is not the same as heresy.

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