Is it possible for Orthodox Christians to keep divisive practices private for the unity of Christians?

Question

For instance, in keeping with the admonition of the apostle Paul, if you thik something is fine and yet it disturbs others, you should keep it private between you and God, not being offensive to the conscientious worship of others. I think of the image issue. I as a Christin find this very disturbing and offensive, yet there are many things in orthodox practice that I like. I think if the orthodox church is serious about uniting-- not dividing or asserting offensive rules or seeking to override the Christian freedom of others, they should make it an order -to keep dubitable practices private to one's own home and not brought into the public worship where many of differing opinions come together. This would perhaps help to bring unity a bond of peace and love, waiting for our day before God our judge to see if what we thought and did in private and public, our services or abstinence from certain services will be condemned or commended. What do you think?

I offer this as one who seeks unity with all sincere, faithful, obedient Christ followers.

In short, is it possible to relegate image adoration to private practice, leaving it to individual to worship God as they thinkl acceptable before God but not to divide the whole body for their opinion or mode of thinking? I think it would be greatg if all the ancient churches could do this, removing objections.

Vashung the difference is that traditional protestants don't introduce things that are debatable, the more ancient churches did and still do. There is nothing that Protestants do that is contrary or questionable but image worship is debatable and therefor questionable and therefore should be left to conscience but not instituted so as to lose a whole nation of people. Think of the loss that the Catholic church inflicted on itself by abusing itslef and others, overriding people's freedom in Christ and offending. Sure some stayed faithful to their teachings but it would only be stronger and better if we were all in one church seeking unity and not our private desires in questionable things.

Doug I agree with you if comprimise means any lessening of our devotion to God, but that is not what I mean nor advocate. I believe that the churches should stay faithful to history, tradition and such but the imag eissue I think is something that can be left to privacy without opening the door to liberal comprimise. I myself prefer a rigid, dutiful church as well. I want a robust, confident , assertive church but all in the right matters. Part of the justification of having images in the early days was its said usefulenss for the illiterate, that condition is no longer present. In fact images have led to much confusion and near idolatry if not clear idolatry for many who have a cult worship of saints and leave of God, mutliplying intercessors. What I suggest is also a command from the aopstke who soke by the holy spirit, so that all that can be said is that pelple would be giving up something that is not a command for something that is clear and commanded as the will of God

unity is not more important than fidelity

Answer 1

Jesus told us what to do and how to do it, at the Last Supper.

The Orthodox, the Byzantine, and the Latin Churches all know that God is very particular about the manner in which he is to be worshipped.

Your idea of unity is fine as far as it goes, but when it serves to undermine the very purpose for which we gather, than things have gotten out of hand.

The Catholic Church tried your idea after the 2nd Vatican Council, and all that came of it was confusion.

Answer 2

What exactly is an "Orthodox Christian'? Do you mean Catholic? If so, which one Eastern or Western? A persons religious beliefs are purely personal and should stay that way.
History shows us what can happen when one group tries to force it's brand of worship onto another. Let well enough alone, and believe what you think is right.

Answer 3

If anyone needs to adjust, it's the Latin (Western) Christians, not the Eastern (Orthodox). They are the original Christianity. Or at least closer to it than the Latin church. The Western church seceded from Orthodoxy in (as I recall) 1054. The apostolic church was Greek-speaking, not Latin-speaking.

The followers of Jesus were first called "Christians" at Antioch, not Rome. Peter set up the church at Antioch and lived there for years. If he ever went to Rome at all - and this is not clear - it was not until way later than when he established the Eastern church.

Answer 4

Citing a better example may be more appropriate. Is there any specific Orthodox denomination you have in mind?

The Orthodox church follows the Lord's mandate to love your enemies and bless those who persecute you. All evil things eventually see the light of day and one never knows when the Lord will exact his hand upon those with whom he is in disfavor. This goes for parents who shun gay children and for gay people who have not confessed to their sins. This also goes for priests who have sexually abused children - the Lord exposes their evil deeds to the community and the community takes appropriate but respectful action.

Answer 5

We are to hide what is BAD, not what is GOOD. Veneration of Holy Icons is a GOOD thing.

Why don't we make Protestants go along with Old Church ways instead? That would get rid of division also... (this is sarcasm, btw, to point out how rediculous your question is)

Answer 6

Any practice the Lord accepts as Holy is found in His Holy Word.