www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Russian AOG church

And did you notice that the Ukrainian Lutherans call their seminary "St. Sophia"? And call their dioceses "eparchies"?

I have found certain comments here deeply offensive, and I want to make sure that I have not communicated my offense without being clear as to what the matter is I find offensive.

My displeasure is over two issues.

1. The pastoral leadership, to its great credit, has ceased using the terms heretical and schismatic towards those Christians not in communion with her for better than 40 years now (the entire adulthood of most posters here, I would guess). In a forum in theory dedicated to ecumenism, one poster chooses to revive the term heretic for Protestant Christians.

Orthodoxy, to our fault I believe, has not been as advanced as Catholic pastors but certainly the more ecumencially inclined of us avoid those terms as well. In the past and still today by more conservative Orthodox, the term heretic is used towards Catholic and Protestant Christians.

Nevertheless, it can be said that Catholicism still see Protestantism as heresy in a certain sense, and Orthodoxy sees Catholicism and Protestantism as heresy in the same sense.

Since it was the other poster who chose to introduce the term heretic and then (cravenly, I think) suggest that Orthodoxy should join up with one group who we see as heretics (his, of course) against another group (the one he does not belong to), I simply responded using his terms.

The somehow, I am anti-Catholic for using a common measure.

2. A parish of the Orthodox Church in America (OCA), which cashes my annual dues check, lists me as a member in its rolls, and administers me the sacraments is now vilified as a non-canonical church because of my association with it and is subject to vile and unfair accusations.

I find this attack on OCA to be uncalled for and contrary to the most fundemental principles of ecumenism.

Axios

Axios, I believe the above quoted line is the one that caused offense. You may not have intended it but with that statement you essentially were stating that non-Orthodox have no right to comment on issues within the Orthodox Church. The logical extension of that remark would be that you yourself would not comment on issues in Churches other than the one you say you belong to.

I agree with this. But it was not necessary for Axios to respond in the manner he responded in.

The Church (at least the Catholic Church) has moved away from using the term �heretic� to describe a people or a Church. It is permissible to state that a position is heretical but it is now considered to be uncharitable to call a person a heretic, unless that person once held a position and now openly rejects it. Many reject this nuance. I support it since the use of the term is now considered to be insulting in our pluralistic society. It is much better to simply acknowledge the differences between Churches and that some of them are heretical than to call people heretics. This may seem like a fine line in the use of the term but it does help to soften hearts and open others to hearing one�s testimony of the position of his or her Church.

Your profile provides a link to a home page for a church that is considered to be a non-Church by the Orthodox Church in America. If you actually accepted the teachings of the OCA you would not be linking to a Church that openly rejects the teachings of Orthodoxy. You should not be surprised when people who view your profile and the website referenced there conclude

--

In general I agree with this point of view. We must always strive to accept people but must never give the appearance of accepting teachings that are against the Commandments.

--

That is correct. The problem in this case is that Axios oftentimes claims to speak for Orthodoxy yet his stated position on numerous issues is a rejection of Orthodox teachings. Because he rejects some very basic teachings of Orthodoxy it renders anything else he states about Orthodoxy suspect. Axios, by his stated opinions on certain topics, has set himself up as a lightning rod. This, in my opinion, appears to be purposeful.

As I have stated before, we are free to respond to his posts and attempt to change his opinion on various topics but no one should conclude anything about one�s personal lives merely by the opinions they post here.

I am really getting sick of every time someone doesn't like something that Axios posts, they immediately attack him for being gay. I have rarely seen him discussing his personal life on this forum, but others are always bringing it up. I just can't understand why this fixation on homosexuality by so many of the posters on this forum, our administrator in particular. I think there are much worse sins that could benefit from having so much energy focused on them....hunger, loss of jobs among so many of our folks and others, famine and war around the world, bigotry and racism, immoral financial dealings by major corporations that suck the life blood from the working class, etc. Why this constant fixation on what someone does in the privacy of his or her home? If it is a sin, then it is between the individual and his/her spiritual director and God. Too often I think those who claim to be trying to bring someone back from what they think to be a life of sin are nothing more than spiritual meddlers...and they just want to feel superior to the other person. Not only that, they want to feel like they have a direct pipeline to God and know his mind. I am really getting sick of the pettiness and hatred on this site. Chances are good I won't be part of it any longer. I'm over you folks, some of you just need to get life. Moe

Moe,
I suggest that you read this whole thread again and see if he was attacked for being gay as the first thing said.

I pointed out that he doesn't speak for all of orthodoxy frist. Then all I did was support someone who pointed out that in reality axios is not orthodox.

Sin is sin, period. I have a real problem with those who wish to "rate" sin and then only attack sin that they think is "worse".

All sin seperates us from God.

I think it is very telling when you say "Too often I think those who claim to be trying to bring someone back from what they think to be a life of sin are nothing more than spiritual meddlers", so if we do not agree with what you see as sin and do not agree with how you "rate" that sin then we are "spiritual meddlers" (what ever that is).

Sin is not just an individual matter, especially when that sin involves society and very important health concerns and I am not only speaking of sexual sin here, there is also addiction and other things in this group.


David

I think that the whole concept of a Forum is to address ideas and issues. When this happens around here, it's really wild and good. When the "ad hominem" stuff rears its ugly head, normally charitable people can get sucked into the witch-burning mentality.

While it is perfectly natural for individuals to align themselves with one or another social group (including churches, dioceses and parishes) and as a consequence tend to defend that group, it also tends to lead us into all sorts of "us vs. them" interactions. Perhaps if we focused more on the ideas being presented, and not on a person (and his/her church affiliation, politics, age, lifestyle, physical beauty , etc.) we would all fare better.

When the Forum got started, it was mostly populated by Byzantines, but soon became a town-square for Orthodox and Roman Catholics, some Protestants, Oriental Christians, and the occasional Moslem, etc. There are some who came with their matches and kindling ready for witch burnings because they felt that the Forum, being Eastern and Catholic, would be a fortress for a monolithic world-view. They have been, I'm sure, sorely disappointed.

The key to the success of this (and any) Forum, is in dealing with ideas, news and the occasional recipe (or joke), and not in castigating people for being what they are nor for worshipping where they do.

And all in all, I think that when we do this, we are doing God's work. I like to try to make Jesus happy. (For obvious reasons.)

Blessings!

The "Axios" organization that is linked to in the profile in question, at least what I know of it (I know a few people who are members of that organization), does not present itself at all as a "church", a "Church", or anything of the sort. It is an organization of Eastern & Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Catholic persons who -- at least those of whom I know personally -- are members in good standing with their canonical Orthodox and Catholic parishes. There are also clergy of those Churches in good standing who participate in their meetings and lead them in prayer (usually Vespers). There is no "ecumencial"[sic] sharing of the Holy Mysteries involved, nothing going on that is not permitted to any other "ecumencial" gathering. It is a social, charitable, and spiritual organization.

You can feel free to disagree with the "lifestyles" of those who belong to it, or you may discredit the basis on which they have come together in the organization, but if you are saying that they are presenting themselves as a "Church", then you are bearing false witness. I suspect Axios himself would vouch for these facts but he's already probably tired of having this thread about the Assembly of God "church" in Russia being instead turned into a discussion of him.

Lemko's experience is also mine.

A colleague of mine, Greek Orthodox, was dying of AIDS. He was afraid to contact his priest. Axios connections got a canonical Orthodox priest to his bedside when the clergy in general were afraid both of the disease and the stigma of ministering to "them". Axios also arranged a panachida and a small meal for his family after he died.
I was asked to write a short article on AIDS for the newsletter, which I did. Later, an OCA priest, a Ukrainian Catholic priest and a Ruthenian priest all contacted me personally and said to contact them privately should anyone else ever need a priest. And, while working professionally in public health and HIV/AIDS, I saw a lot of similar situations.

Axios did a good service for people who were in need. And no, it's not a "church".

Blessings

Moe,

Thank you for your post.

First, I think it is not appropriate for you to conclude anything about Axios� private life. It is only appropriate to respond to the comments on the issues he makes. I assume him to be a typical adult American who is married and has 2.3 children.

Second, Axios has defined his position as one of rejecting Orthodox teaching on certain issues. He states that he belongs to the Orthodox Church in America yet the website he links as his personal website is one that denies important teachings within Orthodoxy.

Third, Axios has a style of posting which incites arguments. He often presents his positions on issues � which he is free to hold � as the teachings of Orthodoxy. It is only logical that anyone who is familiar with the actual teachings of Orthodoxy on these topics will be upset when this happens and will properly respond to provide correct information. Because he has publicly rejected Orthodox teaching on some very important issues it is only logical that people should not automatically consider what he posts to be reflective of Orthodox teaching. In this thread he chose to respond to an offensive use of a term in an offensive way. Given his unOrthodox positions on some major issues it is only to be expected that anything he states will be considered only with a large grain of salt.

There is no sin that is merely between an individual, his or her spiritual director and God. There is no such thing as a private sin. Even holding opinions that are rejection of God�s teaching influences the world towards the further acceptance of sin.

The people on this board who challenge those who reject God�s Commandments do not make these challenges because they are spiritual meddlers. They do so because they know that those who reject the Commandments put their salvation at risk. They do so because they love a brother enough to call him to account for the positions he takes. This is a central aspect of our Faith that too many are willing to ignore.

I would've thought that after more than 700 posts, we all might have caught on both to Axios's generous ecumenical outlook as well as the wry style of his posts - in this case hoisting SPD on his own heretical petard. By the same token, SPD's unusually high upper-to-lower case ratio is presumably equally well-known, so...
(shrug emoticon).

But I like to offer a comment, FWIW, on another point raised in this thread - the idea "spiritual meddling". And while specific comments on the thread rasied these ideas to me, I don't mean them specifically, but in a very general sense.

I think that the idea of trying to provide direct spiritual guidance to another person is very serious business. Maybe it's something that should be avoided altogether without training in spiritual fatherhood. While it may seem to make sense to confront a sinner with their sins, to give tough love, there is a risk of potentially serious unintended consequences. Suppose that you are dealing within someone who, while internally remorseful, is nevertheless having a difficult time with temptation and is repeatedly missing the mark. (Who among use does not have habitual sins?) Will tough love help? Maybe. But what if, instead, it leads to a depression, a degraded sense of self-worth, of being beyond grace, a sense that one is too unwothry to seek sacramental help, to be within the church at all, to even live at all. I think we could agree that such an outcome is possible. Whose goals are advanced by such an outcome. We have to consider that any council that precipitates such outcomes are not, despite the intention, acts of goodenss, acts of Godliness.

There are serious potential problems with confrontation and tough love. Comfort the afflicted. And if you want also to afflict the comfortable, then pray earnestly for the wisdom to know who's who. Does anyone, on this planet, honestly think that homosexuals are in the comfortable category?

It bothers me quite well when someone says that sins are "private." It isn't so!

If a person commits a sin, he/she affects the world (indirectly) and causes suffering in the world from it.

Suffering in the world? How? How about this, I was born Deaf, is that something that I deserve to have? No. I believe my hearing disability is the result of sin in the world...the fall of humanity. Just like death, is the cause of sin.

Having any disability, diseases of any kind, sufferings and death is NOT NATURAL. It's not the way God intended. But it happened because of sin.

But thank God for His Holy Resurrection, that at the end, all things will be restored in Christ.

Otherwise, if the sin is "private" then there would be no use for the Mystery of Repentence. But since all sins aren't private, so therefore there's a need for the Mystery. WHY? Because when the person approaches the Mystery of Repentence, he not only repents himself to God, but also during that process the person is "admitted back" into the Church fold (community of God), so therefore he also repents himself to the Church. Because everytime a person commits a sin, he/she is "excommunicated" in a way (I can't think of a better word than excommunication, so someone on this forum who's an expert in theological approach to this term, please do correct me and provide an appropriate term, thank you.).

Furthermore, we must avoid this "attitude" or "concept" of private sins. It's very DANGEROUS mentality, especially when someone says that "issue of abortion is between the person and God." It is also very dangerous due to reckless disregard for humanity (failure to recognize one's sins affecting the world)....if you stop and note that there are so much sufferings in this world at this day and age...more diseases...more faminine...more persecutions...more wars...etc. more than it has ever been before.

Thanks to my father's sins, my hearing is paralyzed with Deafness, resulting in numerous sufferings that one can't even begin to know.

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

If I may make just a few comments.

I have commented on my views of gay people being allowed to participate in a pro-life witness (allowed this year, thanks be to God), on state-sanction and unsanctioned violence against gay people, on acts of deliberate economic harm to gay people, etc. In 742 posts I have refused to discuss the issue of the morality of homosexual actions in 741 of them. On one occassion, the Administrator made several demands that I state my views. I resisted until he posted what I interpeted as a threat to take action against me (maybe misinterpeted by me -- I write this not to make any accusations, just to explain my personal state of mind). With what I thought was a 'gun to my head', I made what I recall a very vague, though forced, response.

On the orignal matter, let me apologize for beign overly rhetorical and for suggesting my views are universally accepted within Orthodoxy.

If I may, in humilty, rephrase what I originally posted in a more polite way.

Some people (myself included) pray and act with the hope that the Russian Orthodox Church may bring the message of Christ to the people of Russia who do not know Him. Concurrently, we pray and act with the hope that all possible harmony may be achieved with those Christians who are not Orthodox.

Others, it seems, would like to see Russian Orthodoxy link up with one body of non-Orthodox Christians to oppose another body of non-Orthodox Christians.

I make no claim as to which is the proper Orthodox view. Mine is the first. I would be intersted in reading of a defense of the latter.

Axios

djs,

Thank you for your post.

I submit for your consideration that there is a big difference between openly and actively proclaiming Gospel Teachings on any issue and providing spiritual guidance to another person. Spiritual guidance occurs when a Christian and his or her spiritual father or mother work together to help the individual Christian grow in the Lord. Witnessing the goodness of the Lord and identifying His clear Commandments is something all Christians are called to do. The two are quite different and should not be confused. Too often well meaning Christians stifle the proclamation of the Gospel by stating that Christ and His Teachings should not be proclaimed because they might cause offense or be misunderstood. A Christian who expresses disapproval of someone engaged in blaspheming God, stealing, living together outside of heterosexual marriage, etc., (or even expressing disapproval of those tolerating such behavior) is doing the correct thing.

Admin

--

Axios,

Thank you for your post.

I must take issue with your account of your posts. Yes, you certainly have posted that homosexual activist groups should be allowed to participate in pro-life activities and the unacceptable violence that occurs against homosexuals. You have also make numerous posts suggesting that homosexual sexual activity is something acceptable to Orthodoxy and that those who hold to God�s commandments are somehow homophobic. When called to account and to clarify your position you alter your positions slightly without really answering questions or affirming that you upholding the Orthodox Teaching. The very website you list as your homepage is for a group of individuals who have rejected Orthodox teaching on this issue, replacing it with one of their own creation. That organization is not in any way Orthodox. People who are Orthodox and homosexual are called by Orthodoxy to live a chaste lifestyle just as Orthodoxy calls unmarried heterosexuals to live a chaste lifestyle. They are certainly not encouraged by Orthodoxy to band together to seek societal acceptance for sinful sexual activity.

Christians are called to accept homosexual individuals as human persons worthy of respect while simultaneously always clearly rejecting even any appearance of acceptance of sinful sexual activity. As an Orthodox Christian, your Church calls you to always witness the complete and unblemished Gospel. It is your responsibility to accept and find ways to teach all those Orthodox you encounter that they must defer to the moral values taught by the Orthodox Church and not to replace God�s Commandments with personal choice (which, sadly, has occurred in most aspects of American life). You may once again tell me that I cannot speak for Orthodoxy or, that since I am not part of the OCA, I have no right to comment. If you do then you are only fooling yourself because I have confirmed what I have stated previously to be true. You will believe what you choose to believe. But I must always urge you to witness the teachings of Orthodoxy, lest you unintentionally lead someone astray.

Admin

--

At this point I would like to leave this thread open only to djs and Axios. I will close it tomorrow. I ask those who wish to continue to discuss the original topic to began a new thread.

I think Dr John's posts have been the sanest and most compassionate on this entire thread.

I have no such recollection of having stated any such thing and would appreciate it if such citiations could be provided.

I do not beleive nor never have posted that to hold to God's commandments is homophobic. Certainly some individuals might believe in the immorality of homosexual activity and concurrently be homophobic.

I never once raised the issue of the morality of homosexual acts, so I had no statement on that issue of which to clarify. Others made demands I make a statement on the issue. My preference is not to.

I appreciate the fact it is no longer being falsely asserted that the organization calls itself a church.

I would further prefer not to discuss if I am living a chaste life, but if you insist, I will.

Christians will differ as to if 'worthy of respect' still allows homosexuals to be imprisioned for sexual activity.

keeping up appearances isn't always the best way to practice Christianity

Axios