Many people in America (including other Christians) live out their lives without so much as hearing about Orthodox Christianity, let alone having the chance to authentically experience it. And those who do know about the Eastern Orthodox Church often hold to misconceptions they hear from other Western Christians. In this post, we address and correct some of those myths circulating about the Church.
13 minutes
Misconception #1: The Orthodox Church is the same as the Roman Catholic Church
Many Protestants object to the Orthodox Church because they conflate it with Roman Catholicism. While there are indeed certain similarities between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, there are far more differences between our confessions.
For instance, we view Church authority differently, especially when it comes to the infallibility and supremacy of the Roman pontiff, or pope. Additionally, the Eastern Orthodox Church views sin, salvation, marriage, grace, what happens after death, and even the relationship between the Three Persons of the Trinity, differently than the Roman Catholic Church.
We may both have liturgical worship, clergy, sacraments, apostolic succession, and intercessory prayer to Saints; however, a deeper look at our faiths shows just how dissimilar they really are. We are so different, in fact, that our churches are not in communion, and haven’t been for nearly 1,000 years now.
Misconception #2: The Orthodox Church is an offshoot of the Roman Catholic Church
This second misconception usually stems from ignorance of Church history, as it implies Roman Catholicism came before Orthodoxy. Not only that, but it also implies the Orthodox Church is nothing more than a “protest” movement against Roman Catholicism. Neither of these implications are historically accurate.
For the first 1,000 years of Christianity, only one Church existed. And it was “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic” (per the Nicene Creed). The early Church was:
- conciliar: relying on Ecumenical Councils to distinguish doctrine from heresy
- collegial: all Bishops, in all Patriarchates of the Church, possessed equal authority
In the early Church, there were five major Patriarchates: Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, and Constantinople. Because of his connection to both Sts. Peter and Paul, the Patriarch of Rome received the title of Primus Inter Pares (“first among equals”). However, he possessed no more authority than any of the others. In fact, a Bishop with a diocese the size of Buford, Wyoming, had the same “authority” as a Bishop with a diocese the size of Texas.
When Rome ceased being Catholic
Over several hundred years, the Greek East and Latin West drifted apart. This ultimately resulted in the Great Schism of AD 1054. Some 40 years prior to that official break, the Orthodox began to remove the Roman Patriarch’s name from the diptychs (prayers for Orthodox bishops). This indicates that whatever the Roman Patriarchate had become, it was no longer regarded as what the other Patriarchates remained. It had departed from Orthodoxy, no longer being conciliar and collegial in some way.
In AD 1054, the Pope “excommunicated” the Patriarch of Constantinople in one last effort to assert “authority” over other Patriarchates. Of course, all the other Patriarchs ignored this, as the Pope had no such authority. Therefore, to distinguish themselves from the radical changes being implemented by the newly dubbed “Roman Catholic Church” (a religion that now had only one head and had begun having its own innovative councils), the other Patriarchs adopted the term “Orthodox” from the Church’s own tradition. For the Orthodox, Roman Catholics are indeed the first Protestants.
Misconception #3: The Orthodox Patriarch and Catholic Pope are pretty much the same.
Many people unfamiliar with Orthodoxy tend to think our Ecumenical Patriarch (EP) is the equivalent of the Roman Catholic Pope. However, there are a number of important differences between the two.
Perhaps most importantly, Orthodox Patriarchs do not have the right/power to make dogmatic pronouncements for the Church as the Pope does. Only a properly organized Synod (Church Council made up of several hierarchs) can make those kinds of decisions. Of course, a Patriarch can influence members of the Synod, but he can’t unilaterally decide anything on his own. In fact, Orthodox Patriarchs can’t even order Orthodox Christians to vote for a particular politician. Their leadership is limited to internal, managerial decisions of the Church hierarchy. Everything else is in the hands of the Synod.
Misconception #4: You must be a certain ethnicity to be an Orthodox Christian.
This misconception is actually quite understandable; however, it is untrue. Many people have not heard about the Orthodox Church in the United States. And if they have, they have more than likely seen a church affiliated with a particular ethnicity (ex. the Serbian/Russian/Greek Orthodox Church). This affiliation consequently leads people to think that church is only for Serbians/Russians/Greeks. And in many cases, this assumption often reflects reality, because the demographic of that church happens to be majority Serbian/Russian/Greek.
When Orthodox Christians immigrated to the United States, they formed churches under the jurisdictions of their home countries. Naturally, they sought to worship together and preserve parts of their culture and heritage in the musical tradition and iconography in their parishes. However, that did not mean others were not welcome or that one needed to share that ethnicity to seek membership.
The truth is everyone belongs in the One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Orthodox Church, because Christ calls all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the Truth.
Misconception #5: The Orthodox Church is a “federation” of nationalistic churches.
Unfortunately, you can often find this misconception perpetuated in some encyclopedias of religion, and by some Orthodox Christians themselves. This myth, however, is based on the heresy of phyletism, which the Church condemned in AD 1872 when the Bulgarian community of Constantinople attempted to create a bishopric of parishes open only to Bulgarians.
There is only one Orthodox Church, with several jurisdictions or Patriarchates. These are not different “denominations”, as most non-Orthodox Christians assume. Rather, all Eastern Orthodox Christians may commune in any Eastern Orthodox Church, regardless of the ethnic and cultural tradition of that Patriarchate. Every Eastern Orthodox church believes the same dogmas, professes the same Faith, and celebrates the same divine services. The religious designation of Russian/Serbian/Greek/etc. in Orthodox practice denotes an administrative distinction, not a religious or doctrinal one, as is quite normal in the Protestant world.
In other words, there is a Russian Orthodox Church in that Russia has a Patriarchate for localized governance, but not in the sense that it has a Russian doctrine. The same with Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Bulgaria, Georgia, Serbia, Romania, etc.
Misconception #6: Orthodox Christians worship idols.
Someone simply taking a cursory glance at the Orthodox Church may find our spiritual practice of venerating icons, relics, and Saints a bit off-putting. Many Protestants accuse the Orthodox of idolatry, of making gods out of and worshiping the objects and people that occupy an important place in the life of the Church. However, we do not make gods out of anyone or anything aside from the One True God. Nor do we worship icons, relics, or the Saints from whom we ask intercessions.
Icons
In the Second Commandment, our Lord forbids us from creating idols (this is literally what “graven image” means in Exodus 20:4) and worshiping them. Many mistakenly take this to mean that any image we create is automatically an idol and therefore has no place in the spiritual life of a Christian. However, we see icons in use in the Old Testament itself. And churches with icons that date back as far as the third century have been found in archaeological digs.
Read More: Does The Second Commandment Forbid Icons?
At the Seventh Ecumenical Council (before the Great Schism), the Church made incontestably clear the Church’s position: Icon use is not merely acceptable, it is the correct way in which to worship. For the Orthodox, icons are a connection between earth and the heavenly reality beyond our comprehension and reach. When we venerate an icon of Christ by kissing it or bowing to it, we pass our devotion and love to the One depicted within that icon. Not to the wood and paint.
Because Christ became incarnate for our sake, He sanctified all matter. He became a physical person who could be seen, touched, embraced, and kissed. Therefore, we can create an image of Christ because He was a real person. By using icons in worship we affirm the real, physical, Incarnation of our Lord.
What puzzles the Orthodox is the Protestant insistence on rejecting the Seventh Ecumenical Council, while unanimously accepting the majority of the other Ecumenical Councils and their teachings about Trinitarian theology and the two natures of Christ.
A note about the Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary
Many Protestants are also quite uncomfortable with the Orthodox Church’s esteemed view of the Virgin Mary. Partly because of a distrust of Catholicism and partly from a deep (and honorable) desire to ascribe glory only to God, they often believe that we worship Mary.
However, we do not worship her; instead, we honor her as the Theotokos (Gr. “God-bearer”; cf. Third Ecumenical Council, AD 431) as our highest exemplar of the faith, and as our most faithful intercessor. The title of God-bearer is aptly appropriate, as it demonstrates the reality of the Incarnation and the proper view of the Trinity. The Virgin Mary’s womb became the temple of the uncontainable God, and she literally bore God in the flesh. As such, she is worthy of our respect and honor.
Keep Reading: Was the Virgin Mary Always A Virgin?
This ancient hymn summarizes our view of Mary beautifully, “It is truly meet and right, to bless you. O Theotokos, who are ever blessed and all-blameless, and the Mother of our God. More honorable than the Cherubim, and more glorious, beyond compare than the Seraphim. Thou who without defilement did bear God the Word. True Theotokos, we magnify you!”
Misconception #7: Orthodox Christians believe they earn their way to heaven
Another misconception many have is that Orthodoxy teaches a works-based salvation. In other words, that we can somehow earn our way to heaven. However, this is not what Orthodox Christians believe, nor has the Eastern Church ever taught this.
Just as the Scripture tells us, we believe we are saved by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9), and that only because of God’s mercy. We do not deserve it, nor can we earn it. However, we also acknowledge that faith without works is dead (James 2:14-26), and that we must actively live the life of a Christian if we expect to one day attain salvation. In other words, God gives His grace to all mankind, fully and completely. However, it is up to us whether we decide to cooperate with it and work out our salvation with fear and trembling, or not.
Misconception #8: Orthodox Christians don’t believe in the Bible.
Because of the strong emphasis on Sola Scriptura, most Protestants falsely accuse Orthodox Christians of not believing in, respecting, or reading the Bible. More often than not, this assumption also comes from a place of ignorance, from those who have not experienced the divine services or studied the canonization of the Scriptures and their use in the early Church.
Read More: How To Refute Sola Scriptura
While some Orthodox could definitely benefit from developing a much deeper relationship with the Holy Scriptures, as a Church we revere them just as much as our Protestant neighbors. We believe the Bible is the Word of God, given to the Church, interpreted by the Fathers, and lived out in the world by the people.
The Divine Liturgy – which the Church celebrates every Sunday – overflows with love for the Scriptures. If you listen carefully to the prayers and hymns, you will hear references to and passages from the Psalms and other books of the Old Testament. Additionally, passages from the Epistles and Gospels are read, in accordance with the Church’s liturgical seasons and ecclesiastical calendar. Our services may look different from those of Protestant churches. But that doesn’t mean we don’t love or believe in the Scriptures!
Moreover, when Orthodox Christians read the Bible, we tend to approach it differently. We don’t typically hold to the “my Bible and me” mentality. Rather, we read the Bible through the interpretive lens of 2,000 years of Church history. As part of the history and Tradition of the Church, the Holy Scriptures must be interpreted within that context. Doing so helps to guard against heretical interpretations and false teachings.
Misconception #9: The Orthodox Church is a dead religion
Yet another misconception about the Eastern Orthodox Church is that our faith is “dead”. Because her worship is liturgical in nature – focused on ritual prayer – many interpret Orthodoxy as a dead religion; however, they fail to see the importance of ritual in other parts of life.
For instance, Americans have a ritual for graduation from high school or college. Additionally, we go through a ritual when we want to inaugurate a new president, and we almost always shake someone’s hand when we meet them.
Rituals define the things that are important to us. Therefore, it makes sense that rituals would also define worship of the One True God, which is the reason we exist! Far from being a dead religion, Orthodoxy is very much alive with sights, sounds, and smells designed to transport us temporarily to heaven.
Of course, half-hearted Orthodox Christians who just “go through the motions” can make Orthodoxy a dead religion. I’m sure we’ve all experienced shaking someone’s hand and we knew that they didn’t really mean it. But that doesn’t mean shaking hands is a bad/dead ritual. It is good and has meaning; it just has to be done with the heart.
Misconception #10: There is no way to know if the Orthodox Church is the True Church founded by Christ. Everyone else claims that, too.
The final misconception we’ll explore in this post is the belief that we cannot possible know if the Eastern Orthodox Church is the True Church. Contrary to popular belief, not every church claims to be the True Church. Instead, most of them claim to be living in the same manner as the first Christians, to have adopted the same beliefs, or to be likewise following Jesus. They do not, and cannot, credibly claim to be the actual physical, historical Church founded by Christ.
To do so, they must present evidence that:
- Christ actually founded a Church
- that Church is historical, not one of mere personal affinity, attitude, and intellectual belief
- every consecrated Bishop of that Church serving today can trace his position back in a line of legitimate succession from Christ, through the Apostles, their successors (e.g. St. Timothy), their successors, and so on.
This is why the Orthodox Church has always – and will continue to – keep meticulous records of the line of Apostolic succession of Her Bishops and the very real physical component of the Church.
The Church as the “Israel of God”
Many people, including some Orthodox, believe that Orthodoxy came into existence only 2000 years ago. However, while Protestant churches often distinguish between themselves and Israel, the Orthodox Church denies this distinction. In fact, it is heresy to claim that the Jews continue to be the “people of God” based purely upon their ethnicity, since Christ has come and become the fullness of all mankind. Orthodoxy is the original religion of man (e.g. Sts. Adam and Eve), the continuation of the Israel who awaited and received Jesus who is called Christ.
The Orthodox understanding of our history isn’t a mere 2,000 years old. We hear God talking to us in the person of Moses of the coming Christ. Israel received her King, and therefore we are His people. The ancient genealogical succession at the beginnings of our Gospels is fulfilled in Christ, who creates in Himself the apostolic succession fulfilled in the Church. Therefore, we do not merely “trace” our lineage to the beginning; we have never once ceased to actually, continually be the people of God.
As Orthodox Christians, we need not go around “claiming” this; we need to simply keep being as we are. And if people don’t wish to believe that, history stands firmly in opposition to them.
Conclusion
If you have questions about how to respond to the misconceptions and objections of others, your spiritual father or any Eastern Orthodox priest would be the best resource.
What other misconceptions about the Orthodox Church have you come across in conversation? Are there some of these misconceptions you once held yourself? Let us know in the comments below!
Read More: Do Christians Worship The Same God As Jews And Muslims?
18 Responses
You made some interesting points. I am curious, however, about your response to the dialogue between Christ and Peter when Jesus said to him specifically “You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it”. the verse does seem to imply Peter as not just an equal, but the foundation, and if that is so and impossible to be destroyed by the gates of hell, then how do you explain that very foundation being not part of the Church anymore? wouldn’t it be the other way around: stay with the foundation if you want to be part of the Church? I’m not trying to start a fight. just trying to understand.
Grace,
Christ is in our midst! Thank you for your question. The foundation of the Church rests in St. Peter and the Apostles upholding the proper doctrines of the Faith. That means that every bishop was part of the foundation of the Church, not just one man. While St. Peter was indeed the first among equals, he did not hold supreme authority over the Church; he shared that authority among his brother bishops.
Thus, when the Roman Catholic Church began to deviate from the teachings of the Church and cave to the influence of external secular thought, it was not the foundation of the Church that moved. If you will allow some creative license, we will try to illustrate. Rather than the foundation of the Church moving, it was the stones set on top of that foundation that began to shift and remodel themselves. They continued to move and rearrange to the point where the stones that made what we know as the Roman Catholic church, were no longer part of the original foundation.
The Roman Catholic church often makes the claim that Rome is the see of Peter (his episcopacy, or where he served as bishop), despite there being little to no proof of him ever having been there aside from the time of his martyrdom. So we cannot and should not equate St. Peter with the Roman Catholic church, because such a claim was introduced as a novelty to justify things like papal supremacy and infallibility. We talk about all of these things in our post about the differences between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. We highly recommend giving that a read!
Please feel free to post any follow-up questions. God bless!
Calling Mary God-bearer or Mother of God is worship and idolatry. She only gave birth to his human nature. The divine person pre-exists her. “Mothers are mothers of persons not of natures.” For us, becauae nothing of us pre-exists co ception, but for Jesus his Divine Nature and Person pre-exist conception and thus Mary is not mother of all of him but only of his human nature. Everyone saying otherwise is going to hell for making her into a goddess queen mother of the gods.
Joe,
Christ is in our midst. What you are describing is a heresy called Nestorianism, which was condemned by the Church at the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD. Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man, One Person. He is not two people inhabiting one body, and this is what you would have to claim for the Theotokos to only be the mother of the man Jesus Christ. We urge you to turn from this error and thoroughly investigate your claims. To willfully remain in heresy is anathema, and you will have damned yourself. Should you seek to learn more, read about the Third Ecumenical Council. God bless.
The real 7th ecumenical council os Hiera that correctly said icons in worship is idolatry, so you had a vile woman call a new council, which is invalid since women cannot speak in the church, and the same woman blinded her own son so she was trash, and therefore ocon worship is from a trashy whore Irene.
Joe,
Christ is in our midst. This is the last comment we will publish from you. It is also the final comment to which we will respond. Because of the nature of Christian persecution, many Christians worshiped underground in the catacombs. We have archeological evidence from the earliest centuries of the Church of the existence of these icons and their use in theological education, as well as worship. Icons declare the reality of the Incarnation and have been a vital part of Orthodox worship since the beginning (the Apostle Luke himself created the first known icon).
You remove 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 from its historical context, and are egregiously doing the same in reference to Empress Irene. 1 Corinthians was written to the Church of Corinth. The societal assumption of the time was that women didn’t need to listen to or try to learn during worship services because they weren’t able to comprehend the teaching. Therefore, they would sit in the back and gossip/talk amongst themselves. Saint Paul asserts that the women should keep silent as well and listen, in effect saying that women are capable of learning, too!
Regarding Empress Irene, she was hardly the first to support the veneration of icons. As we have already established. Icon veneration did not originate with Irene, and therefore its legitimacy as a spiritual practice within the Church has nothing whatsoever to do with her alleged actions regarding the blinding of her son, who was a known iconoclast who married his mistress instead of the woman chosen to be his wife. Be careful throwing around accusations when you do not know the full story. God bless you, and may you repent of these heresies before it is too late.
I applaud the way you handled this responder, who seems to represent what is wrong, way wrong, with protestant christianity—always protesting something.
I also appreciate your reply! I am trying to learn more about the Greek Orthodox Church as my boyfriend is looking to become a member. We have previously discussed the context of “women being silent in church”. He said women shouldn’t make announcements even like potlucks. Can you please help me understand women’s role in church more? I’ve seen things vary online.
Anonymous,
Christ is in our midst! Thank you for your comment and your question. There are two verses your boyfriend may be referring to with respect to “women being silent in church”. 1 Corinthians 14:34–35 and 1 Timothy 2:11–12. We will explain the context of each of these verses and encourage you to share this explanation with him.
First, concerning 1 Corinthians 14:34-35: During this time, the prevailing view in society was that women could not learn complicated things; therefore, there was no need for them to listen quietly while someone was teaching. Instead, they would go to the back and gossip. Such behavior carried over into the divine services, and St. Paul insists that women must also be quiet, listen, pay attention, and learn, because they are just as capable of doing these things as men. If a woman has trouble understanding something that is taught, she can ask her husband for help understanding afterwards. In other words, a woman has just as much responsibility for understanding her faith as a man. This verse is a condemnation of idle chatter during worship and instruction, not a blanket ban on women speaking altogether.
Secondly, concerning 1 Timothy 2:11-12: In the church at Ephesus, women tended to try to usurp authority in a disruptive manner, particularly with respect to false teaching. The Greek word for quiet used in this verse can be translated as “peaceable” or “calm”. It does not mean “absolute silence” as we tend to equate it in English. Essentially, this verse emphasizes a respectful and orderly demeanor for learning. Naturally, in the Orthodox Church, only men can serve as clergy. Outside of that, women are often given roles in which they minister to others, especially to women and children. We are equal in the eyes of the Lord, and yet we fulfill uniquely distinct roles.
We hope this helps you. If you have any follow-up questions, please feel free to reply to this comment. God bless you!
Thank you so much for your quick reply! This is very helpful and I will share this with him. You said women could teach children, does this apply to boys as well? My boyfriend has historically thought there was a differentiating factor.
Does women not being able to teach men only pertain to ministering, or also jobs outside of the church? I feel like times have changed a lot and a lot of women have to work so does the church believe it is fair for a women to excel in her career, and potentially surpass the earnings of her husband?
Anonymous,
Christ is in our midst! You are most welcome. Yes, women can teach both male and female children. And yes, the prohibition in 1 Timothy primarily applies only to formal church settings; women’s ability to teach or share knowledge with men outside the church, or within the home, is not restricted by Orthodox teaching. There are, indeed, many Orthodox women who teach in secular universities and contribute to theological education, even preparing seminarians for the priesthood! As far as career success is concerned, the Church does not place any legalistic restrictions. We avoid getting legalistic about such things, as they detract from our true purpose. In short, the value of a husband and the value of a wife are not based on worldly achievements, but on spiritual growth. So long as your career as a wife does not negatively impact your spiritual growth or the spiritual growth of your children, the Church will not counsel against your choices. God bless you!
Wow thanks again for the prompt and thoughtful response! The last time I attended an orthodox service (I currently attend a non-denominational church), I noticed that when the kids were fussy or needed tended to, it was primarily the women handling them or taking them out. I think to some this gender role would make it seem like a women’s spiritual growth or undistracted learning is less important than a man’s. I could also see the point of her serving her husband in this was so that she sacrifices her own reception of the service for her husband’s. At my church, we have a nursery so that couples with children can equally participate in the service. I am curious what the Orthodox Church’s belief is on this. Thanks for everything and God bless you too!
Anonymous,
Christ is in our midst! And you are, once again, welcome! When mothers with young children often come into the church, we encourage them to think about their dedication to their children (especially during worship) as an offering to the Lord. Bringing the children and allowing them to be in the presence of the Lord is pleasing to Him, and it exposes them to worship and to the spiritual life at an age when they are pure enough to respond to it in love and wonder. Even if they are crying or hungry or moving about every two seconds, they are in His presence, and that is what matters. There will come a time when the mother will (someday) be able to worship alongside her children in peace. Her sacrifice when the children are young is only temporary. (We spoke with the mother of a three-year-old boy who herself grew up in our parish before sending this off to you!) And while it seems painful and isolating when the mother goes through that kind of constant caring for the child, the Lord is there caring for her by producing spiritual fruit inside both her and her child.
You are correct in that this sacrifice is also for the benefit of her husband, especially because most husbands are unable to attend other services during the week due to work obligations. Either way, it is a sacrifice that should not be belittled or overlooked.
Many of our churches have nurseries or soundproof “cry” rooms attached to or near the nave (main area) of the church. Some churches also have the service streaming to a TV or via a radio in the church’s basement or social hall. We take to heart the Lord’s command to let the little children come to Him, and we are always looking for ways we can improve our ministry to mothers and to the littlest parishioners among us. Blessed day!
I appreciate the explanation! Is the husband encouraged to be dedicated to his children as well? Could the parents choose to take turns between who takes the kids out if needed? Could the husband serve his wife that same way, especially if she is recovering from birth? I think I struggle with the idea of feeling isolated during that time.
The Orthodox Church we are looking at has services outside of the 9-5, so regular attendance shouldn’t be an issue for either of us. I understand there can be mutualistic sacrifice though, especially in the dynamic you are outlining. I am curious how strict gender roles are, when I do feel like it’s not always financially feasible to be a single income household. I think it’s really interesting how to be orthodox in a modern world in general!
I understand and appreciate the sentiment of children being involved in the service and my church has them involved till the message. Then the children are split into their age groups for children’s church. Would that not be considered in God’s presence as well? I always thought it was more of an age/developmentally appropriate space to share the message with them. Thank you again for all your feedback! It really is great to have a space for this. God bless!
Anonymous,
In the Scriptures, St. Paul calls the husband to an even higher calling than the wife. He is to love his wife as Christ loves the Church. At its core, this is a calling of sacrifice, of unconditional love and compassion, and it does not simply stop with the wife herself. If the covenant between a husband and wife bears fruit – children – then this calling of love, compassion, and sacrifice extends to the children, too. Orthodoxy tends to shy away from “legalistic” approaches to most matters, whether practical or theological. Therefore, with the guidance of a priest, the husband and wife can work out a system that works best for their family. Essentially, yes, you could choose to take turns, if that arrangement sounds like it would work best.
Those earliest days with a new baby when the mother is recovering can often feel quite isolating. In those situations, we always counsel the mothers to reach out to the wife of their parish priest. She often has the resources to connect them to other mothers in the parish and can provide spiritual support through prayer and home visits during that trying, yet blessed time. Husbands are indeed encouraged to help in every way possible when their wife is recovering from birth, especially if surgery is involved and recovery will be elongated.
As far as gender roles are concerned, the Church only places a restriction on women entering the priesthood, as the Apostles only chose men for those roles and we continue that ancient tradition. Other than that, the Church will not enforce particular gender roles or tell women that they must be a stay at home mother, etc. While there is indeed a model for what brings a wife fulfillment in the Lord, we do not force everyone to conform to that against their will. There are many Orthodox women who find themselves called to such a life, who make things work with a single income and resolve to live a simpler life. And there are others who do not. Neither is “right” or “wrong”, because in both situations there are idols that could draw us away from our true purpose of communion with God. Does that make sense?
When it comes to children in worship, Orthodoxy has always wanted the children present for the entirety of the worship service, as our worship culminates not with a sermon/message but with the Eucharist. In many parishes we do have Sunday School, either before worship or after, but very rarely during. This is because we do not want the children to miss anything that occurs, as all of it is an encounter with the divine.
Blessed day to you!
Hi! Thanks again for your response. I am curious what the higher calling for a husband entails. I asked my boyfriend if though the husband should be the main provider for the family and do all he can as the man of the house, and didn’t entirely agree. Does the Orthodox Church promote men being called to higher responsibility for their family or it 50/50 between a husband and wife?
The church helping a young family makes sense to me! The assessment on gender roles is also logical. Thank you for explaining children in worship. 🙂
Anonymous,
We wrote a great article on husbands and their calling, which we recommend giving a read. This will at least give you a basic understanding of his obligation as a husband. When it comes to duties in the household between husband and wife, there is no “hard-and-fast” rule for all Orthodox families. Some couples opt for a 50/50 split and agree to take care of specific chores around the home. Others, in which the mother stays at home, may agree that the husband works outside the home and the wife takes care of the home and children, reserving physically laborious tasks that she cannot handle for her husband (or for a professional). Does that help answer your question? God bless!
Hi Thank you for your reply! I will definitely check that out! That makes sense. 🙂 I appreciate all your help, would probably find me in an another comment section as I continue researching!