Jesus Was Not A Trinitarian

Order On Amazon

There is a growing concern among evangelical scholars that evangelicalism, its doctrine of God and of the Gospel, may not be as securely rooted in Scripture as is often uncritically imagined. The accounts of the historical Jesus and his saving teaching, given us in three corroborating reports in Matthew, Mark and Luke, are often played down in favor of a set of verses from the letters of Paul. That "treadmill" of favorite evangelical proof-texts also relies heavily on John's Gospel. This unbalanced use of Scripture results in a distortion of Jesus' claim to be Messiah, Son of God, in relation to his Father whom he defined as "the only one who is truly God" (John 17:3).

The crux of the problem lies in this fact: Jesus' own very Jewish creed, which he affirmed as the most important truth of all in agreement with a Jewish scribe (Mark 12:28-34), has been allowed no voice in the traditional creeds recited in Church. Worse still, when the unitary monotheistic creed of Jesus and Paul is advanced as the necessary bedrock of good Christian thinking, its exponents are likely to be charged with upsetting the longstanding findings of the church councils. They are even made unwelcome in church settings.

Anthony Buzzard invites scholars and laymen alike to take seriously Jesus' Jewish creed, his recitation of the Shema, "Hear, O Israel," which proclaims God to be one single Lord. Defining God and His Son biblically remains part of the unfinished work of the Reformation. The evidence placed before the reader shows that a major paradigm shift is needed if Christians are to worship their God in spirit and in truth, uncluttered by the philosophical and confusing ideas of God which form part of received church tradition. Buzzard's thesis has enormous significance for the discussion among three great world religions -- Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

Choose You This Day Whom You Will Serve

 Why are you still a Democrat?

Senate Democrats Unanimously Defeat Anti-Infanticide Bill — Would Require Doctors to Save Babies Born Alive During Abortion Procedures

Senate Democrats Unanimously Defeat Anti-Infanticide Bill — Would Require Doctors to Save Babies Born Alive During Abortion Procedures | The Gateway Pundit | by Ben Kew

A Mother Maligned

Carole Stephens, the mother in Rape and the Holy Man, shared this early email exchange with JTO. After an initial letter of support, Carole Stephens says a priest she consulted, Father Kent McCaffery, changed his tune, questioning the veracity of the story and her other children's testimony regarding the event with her daughter. 

"An old email from Fr. Kent back in the day.  If you post it take [daughter's] name out.  Fr. Kent ended up gaslighting me and calling my older siblings liars for bringing it up with me. [Redacted sentence].    Everyone thought I was a trouble maker in the day." 

Dear to Christ Juliana, [*]

[Daughter] was a child when this happened. She was grievously assaulted and then coerced into silence and cover up. Horrible violence has been done to [daughter]. The fact that [daughter] is now an adult is immaterial. You still have a mother's responsibility to report this horrible crime to ROCOR and to law enforcement and to seek legal council. If you choose to fulfil your responsibility you should send a written complaint against Fr. Matthew and his Matushka stating the facts as you know them. Make sure that you keep copies of all correspondence you have had with all parties involved. May God give you grace to do the right thing for the glory of Christ's Kingdom.

Address to send complaint to ROCOR:

His Eminence Metropolitan Hilarion (Kapral) 

Synod of Bishops

75 E. 93 Street

New York, NY 10128

I am praying for Christ to strengthen and comfort you in this trying matter.

Blessings to you!

Carole Stephens did report it to ROCOR.

*NOTE: Juliana is Carole Stephen's baptismal name.

A Summary Of Elizabeth William's Role

Another clarifying summary from an Anonymous commenter on: 

Elizabeth’s Role in Covering Up and Remaining Silent

1. Silence About Personal Abuse:

• Elizabeth allegedly endured mental abuse from Matthew for 27 years but did not report or address it publicly. Her silence allowed him to continue serving as a priest without his personal conduct being scrutinized, which indirectly enabled further harm.

2. Active Cover-Up of Past Allegations:

• Elizabeth is accused of playing a direct role in covering up the 2004 rape allegations involving Carole Stephen’s 15-year-old daughter.

• Allegedly, she attempted to buy the victim’s silence, offering money in exchange for not pursuing the accusations further.

• In addition, Elizabeth is said to have bullied and pressured the victim into staying quiet, potentially using her position as the priest’s wife to intimidate or manipulate the situation.

3. Failure to Protect the Vulnerable:

• Rather than advocating for justice or supporting the victim, Elizabeth’s alleged actions may have contributed to suppressing the truth and shielding Matthew from accountability.

• This enabled him to continue his role as a priest, where he allegedly perpetuated pastoral abuse, harming other parishioners spiritually, emotionally, and psychologically. As well as his own alleged abuse against his own children.

4. Complicity Through Inaction and Action:

• By remaining silent and not reporting to law enforcement about her own abuse and her children’s sexual abuse and actively working to suppress the allegations against Matthew, Elizabeth played a role in maintaining the facade of his moral and spiritual authority.

• Her alleged actions have been interpreted as prioritizing the protection of her family’s reputation over justice and the safety of others.

5. Impact of the Cover-Up:

• The attempts to silence the 2004 victim and the long-standing inaction have had significant consequences, leading to further harm within the parish community.

• These actions have fueled distrust, anger, and division, as the community grapples with the extent of the cover-up and its impact on other victims.

6. Moral Responsibility:

• While Elizabeth may have been a victim of mental abuse herself, her alleged role in covering up Matthew’s actions and silencing a victim has raised serious ethical questions.

• Her actions have not only delayed justice for those harmed but also perpetuated a culture of silence and unaccountability within the Church..

A Summary Of The FMW/ROCOR Matter

Thanks to this JTO Anonymous Commenter for summarizing so adequately the JTO coverage of the Father Matthew Williams/ROCOR matter. This commenter was able to wade through the myriad of emotions and comments to clarify the issues as presented on this blog. The JTO Editor would welcome the commenter to submit future articles to be highlighted here. (Please contact: journeytoorthodoxy@gmail.com)

In summary, the 2004 rape allegations against Carole Stephen’s daughter have become a focal point for understanding how Matthew’s alleged abuse has been allowed to persist and why the current situation has escalated into a broader reckoning for the Church and its handling of abuse cases. And whom suppressed and covered for him.

1.Unresolved Allegations:

• The rape allegations from 2004 appear to have never been fully addressed or transparently resolved. This lack of resolution has left a shadow over Matthew’s character and ministry.

• The failure to hold Matthew accountable at the time created an environment where his behavior was not scrutinized, potentially allowing further abuse to occur.

2. Impact on Credibility:

• These past allegations have resurfaced in light of the current accusations of sexual and pastoral abuse. They add to the perception that there has been a pattern of harmful behavior that went unchecked for years.

• Many are questioning why someone with such serious allegations in their past was allowed to remain in a position of spiritual authority.

3. Erosion of Trust:

• The parish community is grappling with the knowledge that Matthew was allowed to continue as a priest despite such serious allegations, both past and present, which has eroded trust in the Church’s leadership and accountability mechanisms.

• The lack of transparency surrounding the current allegations has fueled anger, gossip, and speculation, contributing to the current climate of division and distrust.

4. Connection to Current Accusations:

• The resurfacing of the 2004 allegations has prompted many to see a pattern of abusive behavior, tying Matthew’s past actions to his alleged abuse of his children and parishioners.

• These connections have intensified calls for accountability, both for Matthew and for those who allowed him to remain in ministry.

5. Church Leadership’s Role:

• Questions are being raised about whether the Church’s leadership failed in its duty to investigate the 2004 allegations thoroughly and take appropriate action.

• This perceived negligence has contributed to the current crisis, as it suggests a broader failure to protect vulnerable individuals and address misconduct.

Comment Profile on Father Matthew Williams

The following comment is worthy of profile:

Unknown commented on "Source: "Fr. Matthew Is Severely Bipolar""

The situation of a woman enduring alleged mental abuse from her priest husband for 27 years, while he remained in ministry, raises serious ethical and moral concerns. While no one can fully understand the complexities of her circumstances, it’s important to reflect on why allowing this to continue unchecked was deeply problematic—not just for her but for the broader community.

"First, the priesthood is a position of immense trust and spiritual authority. If someone is abusive in their private life, it is reasonable to question their ability to lead others with integrity and care. Abuse in any form—mental, spiritual, or otherwise—can deeply harm the victims, and allowing such an individual to remain in ministry risks enabling further harm to others.

Second, enduring abuse silently, though often a result of fear or manipulation, can unintentionally enable the abuser to continue unchecked. In this case, the alleged victim’s silence meant that her husband’s abusive behavior could extend beyond their home and into the lives of parishioners. This raises the question of accountability: was there an opportunity to seek help or intervention that could have prevented harm to others?

Finally, transparency and accountability are essential in the Church, especially regarding those in positions of power. While it’s vital to approach such situations with compassion for the abused, it is also necessary to advocate for the protection of the broader community. Failing to address abuse—whether through silence, fear, or systemic inaction—can lead to widespread harm and erode trust in the Church’s leadership.

This situation underscores the importance of creating safe avenues for victims to report abuse and ensuring that leaders are held accountable. Abuse, whether in the home or in ministry, must never be tolerated, and the Church must prioritize protecting the vulnerable and ensuring that its leaders embody the virtues they are called to uphold.

Carole Stephens Comment

 

"The fact remains that Elizabeth and Matthew harassed my daughter at college to keep them safe once I found out about the assault and began my own investigation to pinpoint where to make my police report before the statute of limitations expired. This was twelve years ago. Elizabeth herself sent my daughter home crying and told her that no one should ever find out about this attack. Bipolar disorders are real, I guess, but also an excuse for bad behavior. Does that give a person license to shoot up a restaurant or a movie theater? Position is what she wanted to protect at great cost to my family. Had I found out after the event and still within my parental rights I would have prosecuted. It sounds like she didn’t protect her own children for the sake of position. What are you defending ? I knew them as newlyweds and five years before the assault on my child. Betrayal at its worst!"

Notable Commenter Exchange on Father Matthew Williams

 

A Monk Once Said...

 

Let those who weren't bitten advocate for those who were. 

Take time to heal.

Source: "Fr. Matthew Is Severely Bipolar"

From a verified source close to the situation:

Fr. Matthew is severely bipolar, diagnosed and medicated in 2004. He went off those medications in 2022, beginning a downward spiral at that time.

The present situation is caused by victims having flashbacks and remembering childhood events, not recent actions.

These accusations were known to the Metropolitan in Mid-September, by Fr. Matthew's own confession (The family of course made their own reports, and were thorough). Action was not taken until the first week of December despite much pressure from the family.

The family is in contact with local authorities regarding criminal charges. It is a long process requiring care and discretion. I obviously cannot say more.

The attitude of the hierarchy is that this should be quiet. It was represented to the family that it is their duty to forgive and forget. This is not an option.

A whole lot of people are making huge assumptions on limited information. I understand why they're doing this, but I have seen plenty of plain lies being thrown around. Hopefully this provides useful context.

None of the family are protecting Fr. Matthew. Any indication to the contrary is ridiculous.

I want to add that Matushka [Elizibeth Williams] was investigated for neglect, and was commended on her handling of Fr. Matthew by CPS. Their words: "You did it exactly right".