| Report Details the Horrific Experiences of Christians in North Korea Interviews with Christians in North Korea have revealed a horrendous amount of torture, reports Premier . The Korea Future Initiative, an organisation that aims to equip other countries with information about North Korea to instigate change in the country, has detailed the experience of Christians there. It discovered 270 victims of religious persecution through interviews, 215 of which were Christian and 56 adhered to shamanism and two from other beliefs. 60 per cent were female. They found that Christians have experienced a number of penalties for being associated with Jesus Christ, such as arbitrary arrest or detention, imprisonment, interrogation, refoulement, punishment of family members, torture and sustained physical assault, sexual violence, execution and public trials. There were 149 charges of religious practice; 110 charges of religious activities in China; 78 charges of possessing religious items; 77 charges of contact with religious persons; 72 charges of attending places of worship; and 22 charges of sharing religious beliefs. It found that crimes were committed by people from various organisations, including the Korean People’s Army, the Workers’ Party of Korea and Ministry of State Security, with abuses taking place in 25 government offices. The report reads: “In one case, a victim, who was a member of an underground religious group, was found to be in possession of a bible. The victim and their partner were arrested and sentenced to a political prison camp. In another case, a Korean Workers’ Party member was arrested for possession of a bible and executed at Hyesan airfield in front of 3000 residents. Another respondent told investigators how their relative was arrested for possession of a cross and a bible. The victim had been reported by their partner and was arrested by a named BSC officer. The respondent’s family were not informed of the fate of their relative.” It also explains that interviewees were repeatedly warned in lectures not to read bibles and to report anyone who owned a bible: “Fear of arrest led one adherent to destroy their bible. Another respondent explained how their family member would go to great lengths to conceal passages from the bible that they would distribute in their hometown for fellow Christians to collect. |
| Evangelical Protestantism teaches that the Bible alone is a sufficient guide to the Church in matters of doctrine and practice, since its teaching is clear enough to be understood by any Christian guided by the Holy Spirit. In the words of the late J. I. Packer (in his “Fundamentalism” and the Word of God ), the Bible “contains the principles for its own interpretation with itself. Furthermore, the Holy Spirit…has been given to the Church…to enable them to interpret it rightly and understand its meaning”. In practice this means that individual believers are able to interpret the Bible rightly on their own, for “the Bible does not need to be supplemented and interpreted by tradition” (pp. 47, 48). The varied history of Protestantism provides its own refutation of this claim, for pious men of intelligence within Protestantism have produced wildly varied interpretations of the Bible, resulting in the existence of thousands of different Protestant denominations. This reveals that the Bible does not “contain the principles for its own interpretation”, but that something exterior to it is required as the interpretive key to its meaning. The Orthodox answer to the question of how God guides the Church is quite different. It takes a corporate approach to divine guidance, rather than the individualistic approaches of Catholicism and Protestantism, focusing upon the Church as a whole as the locus of divine guidance. God has not promised His guidance to any single individual—neither to individual believers nor to the Pope—but to the Church as a whole. After debate, argument, and discernment, the Church believes that the final conclusions reached by the majority will be reliable and true. This final result of course takes time and the path to consensus is usually messy. But when the Church finally makes up its mind, Orthodoxy believes that its conclusions will be sound and not subject to revision. Part of the process of reaching an international consensus about matters of the faith involves the work of the Church’s pastors—i.e. their bishops. This has been the Church’s practice since the days of the apostles. When the Church was torn by its first real controversy (about whether or not to receive uncircumcised Gentiles into the Church as full members), it met in council in Jerusalem to debate the matter and reach a consensus (Acts 15). This consensus of the apostles and pastors of the mother church (presided over by James, the bishop of Jerusalem) was considered authoritative, reliable, and divinely guided, and so their decision was hailed as the work of the Holy Spirit as well as the work of the assembled leaders (Acts 15:28). |
| We Orthodox Christian hear this question quite often. In fact, it strikes a much deeper issue, namely, the issue with the Holy Tradition, which incorporates the works by the Holy Fathers. Here is a 101 on the Holy Tradition and why, according to the Church, you can’t understand the Bible without it. Is the Bible Enough? The correlation between the Holy Scripture and the Holy Tradition has been hotly contested between the Orthodox and the Protestants for centuries. It was as early as the 16 th century that Protestants proclaimed their famous doctrine of Sola Scriptura (Latin for “only the Scripture”), claiming that the text of the Bible is enough for proper Christian living. They declared that the Bible contains just enough information for our salvation and that the Tradition was a later and useless invention, which Christians had to get rid of as quickly as possible. Orthodox theologians radically oppose this approach. The Church teaches that the Holy Tradition is the earliest way of transmission of the Divine Revelation. The Holy Tradition existed before the Holy Scripture and served as its basis. It isn’t hard to grasp it: even during our everyday lives we experience something first and then express our experiences in written form, if necessary. Aside from that, even the Bible admits that the Holy Tradition comes first. Thus, we learn from the book of Genesis that God talked with Adam, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses directly. We see that Abel already knows how to make a sacrifice of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof to God (Gen. 4:4). Noah knows which animals are “clean” and which are “unclean” (Gen. 7:8). Abraham knows the tradition of tithing when he gives tithes to Melchizedek, king of Salem (Gen. 14:20). It is worth pointing out that none of them read the Scripture because there weren’t any written Scriptures at those times. Old Testament characters lived without the sacred texts of the Scripture for many centuries. Likewise, early Christians did without the written New Testament because they tuned their spiritual and everyday lives in accordance with the oral Tradition of the Church. |
| Wycliffe Associates has agreed to launch new Bible translation projects for 250 language groups in Nigeria. The international organisation, that works to advance Bible translation, hopes to begin projects within the next year for large groups in the West African country that are unable to read scripture in their dialects. Bruce Smith, President and CEO of Wycliffe Associates, said in a statement: “Despite the challenges the Christians are facing, they actually are emboldened…and strengthened in their faith and seeing that the real changes that need to take place within their communities and within their nation are spiritual changes. “They see scripture in the local languages as a key element in bringing truth and bringing light into the darkness and changing the perspective of people in their own country. “For them, this isn’t a ‘nice project’. This is life or death.” There have been several attacks against Christian communities since the start of 2019. Smith’s comments follow recent reports that up to 130 Christians in southern Kaduna have been killed within six weeks. Wycliffe Associates have urged people to pray for both believers and Bible translators in Nigeria. “We often hear the stories of unrest, of violence, of church bombings, those kinds of things that are happening and as I often say we should take that as reminders to pray for both the believers that are there but also the Bible translation efforts that are already underway behind the scenes,” Smith said. He added that there are opportunities to get involved with the teams in Nigeria by volunteering with Wycliffe Associates and by donating funds to help provide technology and training to the Bible translators already in the region. Code for blog Since you are here… …we do have a small request. More and more people visit Orthodoxy and the World website. However, resources for editorial are scarce. In comparison to some mass media, we do not make paid subscription. It is our deepest belief that preaching Christ for money is wrong. Having said that, Pravmir provides daily articles from an autonomous news service, weekly wall newspaper for churches, lectorium, photos, videos, hosting and servers. Editors and translators work together towards one goal: to make our four websites possible - Pravmir.ru, Neinvalid.ru, Matrony.ru and Pravmir.com. Therefore our request for help is understandable. For example, 5 euros a month is it a lot or little? A cup of coffee? It is not that much for a family budget, but it is a significant amount for Pravmir. If everyone reading Pravmir could donate 5 euros a month, they would contribute greatly to our ability to spread the word of Christ, Orthodoxy, life " s purpose, family and society. Also by this author Today " s Articles Most viewed articles Functionality is temporarily unavailable. Most popular authors Functionality is temporarily unavailable. © 2008-2024 Pravmir.com |
| Philaret’s guidelines for translation raised difficult, legitimate questions that Russian society in the 1820s could not handle without public discussion-which occurred only later in the century. For example, for those troubled by the divergence of the Russian translation from the Church Slavic, especially with regard to preference given the Hebrew, explanation had to be made that would satisfy those unfamiliar with ancient languages. Again, the Hebrew and Greek texts enjoy a complex relationship that needs to be understood on a case-by-case basis. This translation was finally published in segments: the Gospels in 1819, the entire New Testament in 1820, the Psalter in 1822, and the rest of the Old Testament in 1825. With the printing complete, the new tsar not only suppressed the new translation, but completely destroyed it. In 1856 Philaret personally urged the Holy Synod to undertake a new translation that would provide “the Orthodox people with the means to read Holy Scripture for instruction in the home and with the easiest possible comprehension” (Florovsky, The Ways of Russian Theology, Part II, p. 123). This project began as a repetition of the 1820s debacle. Although Philaret’s purpose appears commendable, his efforts were opposed by some backward-looking colleagues, notably Metropolitan Philaret (Amfiteatrov) of Kiev and the new ober-procurator of the Ministry of Religious Affairs, Count A. P. Tolstoi. Since the project had been successfully opposed in 1824 and 1842, when it was proposed again in 1856, many of the 1820s reasons against it were repeated: mistrust of the Hebrew Bible, translations from the Hebrew by Pavskii and Makarii caused controversy, the Greek Church did not allow vernacular Greek, Russian was accused of being less expressive than Slavic, other liturgical books had not been translated, and only Church Slavic translations were used liturgically (which remained the case throughout the Soviet Period). To the credit of scholarship and Philaret, the Bible project was completed, now under the Holy Synod and the metropolitan’s watchful eye. The Gospel Book was published in 1860, the complete New Testament in 1862, fascicles of the Old Testament in 1868, and the complete edition in 1875. All subsequent synodal editions, revised and republished until the decade before the Russian Revolution, depended on this one; revisions were handled by the technique of citing the correction in the footnote and moving it into the text in the subsequent printing. When the Moscow Patriarchate published a half million Bibles in 1988 to commemorate the millennium of Christianity in Rus’, it republished the last prerevolutionary revision of Philaret’s Bible. |
| Given the comparatively late publication date of this book (1999) the reference to the trust of children in Roman Catholic clergy without further comment is surprising, to say the least. But it adequately illustrates the popular trust in clergy of all churches in the mid-1950s. Things have changed dramatically since that time, and not just in the Roman Catholic Church. Clergy who once fulfilled the role of standard-bearers of public morality have now been relegated to the minor role of functionaries of more or less embattled religious communities. The days when men such as Bishop Fulton Sheen or Harry Emerson Fosdick could command widespread and respectful attention from multitudes are long gone. Even the comparatively recent attempt of men like Jerry Falwell to suggest that they spoke for the silent “moral majority” looks dated. In Canada and in the United States the Christian churches have forfeited their privileged status as the moral voice of the people. The so-called “culture wars” raging in the United States bear testimony to this. Untroubled and uncontested Christian hegemony has given place to warfare between the churches and the forces of secularism. The progress of the war is irrelevant to the issue at hand; what matters is the fact of the warfare itself. Christians in the West increasingly feel themselves to be challenged, if not under siege. The citadel of a triumphant Christendom has fallen; now a campaign of skirmishes and of rear-guard action has begun. In western secular society, the Bible commands also little or no cultural respect. Oaths may still be taken upon it in court, but this is an essentially meaningless vestige of a former time, rather like the classic wedding oath which states that the partners being married will stay together “until death do us part”. Increasingly the Bible is regarded as the textbook of a segment of the general population, rather like the Qur’an is for the Muslims, except that the Bible is more likely to be found in hotel rooms. The fact that a teaching can be found in the Bible has no cultural weight—as citations from the Bible about the sinfulness of homosexual behaviour abundantly demonstrate. Bluntly put, society as a whole does not care what the Bible says. If it reinforces secular social norms (such as its condemnation of racism) its quotation will be allowed. If it contradicts secular social norms (such as its condemnation of homosexual practice) it will be shouted down and denounced as a relic of an old out-dated world. Its former role as an arbiter of social behaviour has long been swept away. |
| Metropolitan Hilarion: The language of worship is an issue that has been discussed in the Russian Orthodox Church for a very long time, at least since the 19th century, when St. Theophan the Recluse wrote on this topic. The problem here is complex and must be addressed in a comprehensive manner. Simply to translate the Byzantine liturgical texts of the 8th century into Russian does not mean to make the service more understandable. I conducted one simple experiment when I served in the Hungarian diocese: we had a Russian-speaking parish, and at one service I read the Great Canon of Penitential Andrew of Crete, not in Slavonic, but in Russian. People in the same way did not understand anything in Russian, just as they do not understand this text in Slavonic. Why? Because this is a complex theological text that was written in an era when people, and especially the monks for whom this text was written, knew the Holy Scriptures very well. Now people for the most part do not know the Holy Scriptures, even our Orthodox believers. It is almost impossible to simply understand such a complex theological text by listening, even in Russian. That is, the question here is not to translate the texts into Russian, but to make the service more accessible and understandable. For this, in some cases, the Russian language can be used. For example, His Holiness the Patriarch suggests to priests who have a desire for this and have a corresponding request in their parish to read passages from the Epistle and from the Gospel in Russian, not in Slavonic. In some parishes, such readings are done in both Slavonic and Russian, as, for example, in the parish wh ere I serve. But the issue of understanding worship can be fully resolved only due to the fact that the meaning of the service will be constantly explained to people and they themselves will be serious about reading the Holy Scriptures. Without knowing the Holy Scriptures, the Bible, and not only the Gospel, but also the Old Testament, it is impossible to understand the service. |
| Initiative of the Holy Alliance was taken by the Russian Emperor, Alexander I, but inspiration came to him from the German pietistic and mystical circles (Jung Stilling, Franz Baader, Mme. Krudener). The Emperor himself was quite convinced of his theocratic vocation. He felt himself called upon to assume religious leadership in his country and to bring together all denominations. Alexander was well read in the mystical and pietistic literature of the West and had personal links with various mystical and revivalist groups. He was especially attracted by the doctrine of the Inner Light. He wanted to propagate the pure and “Inner Christianity” in his country. A special ministry was created in 1817, the “Ministry of Spiritual Affairs and National Instruction”, and, under the leadership of Prince Alexander N. Galitzin, it immediately became the central office of Utopian propaganda. Another center of this Utopian ecumenism was the Russian Bible Society, inaugurated by an imperial rescript in December, 1812, immediately after Napoleon’s retreat from Russia, and finally reorganized on a national scale in 1814. Many local branches were established throughout the Empire. Prince Galitzin was the president, and prelates of different Churches were invited to act as vice-presidents or directors: Eastern Orthodox, Armenian, and even the Roman Catholic and Uniate Metropolitans. All had to co-operate in the propagation of the Bible as the only source and only authority of true Christianity. The Russian society was in standing cooperation with the British and Foreign Bible Society, and some representatives of the latter were always on the Russian committee. The main purpose of the Bible Society was, as in Britain, “to bring into greater use” the Word of God, so that everyone could experience its saving impact and meet God, “as His Holy Scriptures reveal Him”. The unbreakable rule of the Society was to publish the Sacred Books “without any notes or explanations”, in order not to contaminate the Divine Word by human opinions and not to compromise by partial interpretations its universal significance. Behind this rule was the theory of “mute signs” and “the living Teacher, dwelling in the hearts”. |
| 16. Ioann Damaskin (1987) – Ioann Damaskin, prp. Slovo na Uspeniye Presvyatoy Bogoroditsy [St. John of Damascus. The Word on the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary]. Zhurnal Moskovskoy Patriarkhii, 1987, no. 8, pp. 49–51. (Russian translation). 17. Ioann Zlatoust (1989) – Ioann Zlatoust, svt. O knige rodstva Iisusa Khrista (Mf. 1:1–17) [St. John Chrysostom. About the book of the kinship of Jesus Christ (Matthew 1: 1–17)]. Zhurnal Moskovskoy Patriarkhii, 1989, no. 1, pp. 45. (In Russian). 18. Kirill Turovskiy (1987) – St. Kirill Turovskiy. Slovo o rasslablennom v Nedelyu 4-yu po Paskhe [The word about the relaxed, on the 4th of the Pascha]. Zhurnal Moskovskoy Patriarkhii, 1987, no. 4, pp. 29–30. (In Russian). 19. Veretennikov (1989) – Makariy (Veretennikov), archimandrite. Perevod Psaltiri yepiskopa Brunona Vyurtsburgskogo Dimitriyem Gerasimovym v Novgorode [Translation of the Psalter of Bishop Brunon of Wurzburg by Dimitri Gerasimov in Novgorod]. Zhurnal Moskovskoy Patriarkhii, 1989, no. 1, pp. 73–74. (In Russian). 20. Glukharev (1990) – Makariy (Glukharev), archimandrite. Predisloviye k «Alfavitu Biblii» [Foreword to the «Alphabet of the Bible " ]. Zhurnal Moskovskoy Patriarkhii, 1990, no. 12, pp. 72–73. (In Russian). 21. Nevskiy (1991) – Makariy (Nevskiy), metropolitan. O velikikh delakh Bozhiikh po Svyashchennomu Pisaniyu Novogo Zaveta [On the great works of God on the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament]. Zhurnal Moskovskoy Patriarkhii, 1991, no. 5, pp. 66–68. (In Russian). 22. Men’ (1991) – Men’ A., archpriest. Kak chitat’ Bibliyu [How to read the Bible]. Zhurnal Moskovskoy Patriarkhii, 1991, no. 1, pp. 65–70; no. 2, pp. 63–69; no. 3, pp. 67–70; no. 4, pp. 63–68; no. 5, pp. 72–76; no. 6, pp. 65–76; no. 7, pp. 59–70. (In Russian). 23. Mud’yugin (1982) – Mikhail (Mud’yugin), archbishop. Vera v bogoslovii svyatogo apostola Pavla [Faith in the Theology of St. Paul the Apostle]. Zhurnal Moskovskoy Patriarkhii, 1982, no. 12, pp. 125–127. (In Russian). 24. Brovkovich (1988) – Nikanor (Brovkovich), archbishop. V den’ svyatykh pervoverkhovnykh apostolov Petra i Pavla [On the Day of the Saints of the First-Great Apostles Peter and Paul]. Zhurnal Moskovskoy Patriarkhii, 1988, no. 7, pp. 46–49. (In Russian). |
| 8. Preobrazhenskiy (1991) – Vasiliy (Preobrazhenskiy), bishop. Besedy na Yevangeliye ot Marka [Conversations on the Gospel of Mark]. Zhurnal Moskovskoy Patriarkhii, no. 10, pp. 44–46. (In Russian). 9. Voronov (1987) – Voronov L., archpriest. Slovo Bozhiye v zhizni Tserkvi [The Word of God in the Life of the Church]. Zhurnal Moskovskoy Patriarkhii, 1987, no. 3, pp. 70–75; no. 4, pp. 61–67. (In Russian). 10. Deruga (1989) – DerugaV. (V.N.Dyshinevich) Slovo Bozhiye dlya belorusskogo naroda (k 470-letiyu izdaniya Biblii) [The Word of God for the Byelorussian people (to the 470th anniversary of the edition of the Bible)]. Zhurnal Moskovskoy Patriarkhii, 1989, no. 4, pp. 70–72; no. 5, pp. 74. (In Russian). 11. Zhila (1989) – Zhila S., archpriest. Problema glossolalii v russkoy pravoslavnoy ekzegetike [The problem of glossolalia in Russian Orthodox exegesis]. Zhurnal Moskovskoy Patriarkhii, 1989, no. 10, pp. 71–74; no. 12, pp. 73–74. (In Russian). 12. Zen’kovskiy (1991b) – Zen’kovskiy V., archpriest. Vera i razum v svete bibleyskogo Otkroveniya [Faith and Reason in the Light of Biblical Revelation]. Zhurnal Moskovskoy Patriarkhii, 1991, no. 3, pp. 70–74. (In Russian). 13. Zen’kovskiy (1991a) – Zen’kovskiy V., archpriest. Khristianskaya vera i sovremennoye znaniye [Christian faith and modern knowledge]. Zhurnal Moskovskoy Patriarkhii, 1991, no. 2, pp. 70–72. (In Russian). 14. Vendland (1990) – Ioann (Vendland), metropolitan. Bibliya o mirozdanii [The Bible about the Universe]. Zhurnal Moskovskoy Patriarkhii, 1990, no. 6, pp. 74; no. 7, pp. 74–75; no. 8, pp. 73–74. (In Russian). 15. Shakhovskoy (1989–1991) – Ioann (Shakhovskoy), archbishop. Sputniki Damasskoy dorogi [Satellites of the Damascus road]. Zhurnal Moskovskoy Patriarkhii, 1989, no. 10, pp. 38–39; no. 12, pp. 35–36; 1990, no. 1, pp. 50–51; no. 3, pp. 51; no. 4, pp. 46–47; no. 5, pp. 42–43; no. 8, pp. 52–54; no. 9, pp. 59–60; no. 11, pp. 50–51; no. 12, pp. 50–51; 1991, no. 3, pp. 49–51; no. 4, pp. 44–45; no. 5, pp. 49–50. (In Russian). |
|
|
