Rape and the Holy Man - Part Five - Too Much Liberty?

I recently received comments on JTO that were derogatory and demeaning character assassination attempts directed toward Carole Stephens, the mother in Rape and the Holy Man (see Parts One through Four). I refused to post them; I did post a JTO Editor comment encouraging the commenter not to use ad hominems. The anonymous commenter then turned his/her ad hominems on me, suggesting that I was a biased and poor journalist and a coward for refusing to post comments with which I didn't agree. When that verbal cudgel and manipulation didn't work, the commenter left it with "your gay LOL", and "I know this story firsthand, you do not."

The argument from authority that this commenter presents, is a logical fallacy. A journalist, investigator, interrogator, or Blog Editor, and the like, certainly do not have to have "been there" to find the facts and come to reliable conclusions. I do not present the matters of the current issue of sexual impropriety of Matthew Williams or the utter failure of ROCOR to advocate for the innocent, from a platform of authority. 

I approach my JTO posts on all matters from the perspective of 

 Fact, Opinion, Judgement, Inference, and Argument. 

I believe I present a balance and understanding of the difference between the five while always preferring to provide factual documentation when it is available as it is the most powerful ingredient of any argument.

That being said, the platform from which I speak about this current issue, was initiated from my "firsthand" experience which may not account for much in the eyes of some but should at least give the reader some perspective.

Here is my firsthand account and the platform from which I speak regarding Father Matthew Williams and ROCOR:

My wife and I served with Father Gregory Williams (Matthew's Williams' father). The church, Holy Annunciation, is in Liberty, TN. My wife, who worked with and was mentored by the Arkansas Chef of the Year, organized and planned the Sunday meals. We both acted as chanters for every service, often being joined by two of our five daughters. I eventually assisted Father Gregory at the altar. We also gave financially and regularly.

Although I was willing and made the offer, Father Gregory refused to allow me to assist him in his publishing house, St John of Kronstadt Press. He also refused my offer to travel with him and assist him on his Haiti mission trips.  His refusals seemed odd and cryptic, especially since he certainly needed the help with both.  After being there a while, I became aware of his practice of nude baptisms (both male and female) and his practice of kissing female parishioners on the lips in public. I was surprised at his wife's candor one day when she told me, "He loves women." He would go on periodic "walking trips", as his wife called them, to an undisclosed destination.

We left the church as Father Gregory became increasingly controlling, demanding and manipulative of our time, even when my wife was recovering from injuries from a fall. His attempt to sell us one of his houses was a red flag. Another parishioner had already bought a house from him, which the church still used as its own. Carole (mother), of Rape and the Holy Man also lived in one of Father Gregory's houses and made payments for years toward purchasing it, only to have it, according to her, snatched out from under her by Father Gregory. When we left, we were contacted by a parishioner who said we were just another few in the long line of good folks Father Gregory had "run off."

Father Gregory had many children. A man cannot be held responsible for all of the conduct of his various children, but there was much talk of sexual impropriety, partying and ruckus conduct by the boys. One of the sons, Matthew's brother, had been arrested for drug related crimes and reportedly admitted to his sexual escapades with female parishioners. When I walked the property, I discovered piles of discarded beer cans and bottles behind an abandoned barn on the property and other evidence of it being the local meeting place for wanton conduct and drunkenness. Another abandoned house was strewn with furniture, clothes, boxes of books and other household goods and a mattress or two on the floor.

I also investigated a couple of cabins on the property. Apparently, they had housed former parishioners and also were used by at least one of Father Gregory's sons. The cabin contained old furniture, various trash and numerous photos scattered about on the floor and table. The photos were of the son and "friends" partying, wrestling half-clad. Along with the beer cans, the houses, the drug-related crimes and the photos, it was obvious to me the nature of the environment in which the Williams children, including Matthew, were raised on that large piece of mountainous property. The less-than-wholesome environment was confirmed by Carole Stephen's experience as expressed in a letter she sent to Father Gregory.

Carole Stephens, our fellow Holy Annunciation parishioner, sent this letter to Father Gregory Williams, after later discovering that the then deacon Matthew Williams had allegedly sexually abused her 15-year-old daughter: Excerpt:

"I will need to speak to you.. and it should be with some representation. It is grossly unfair how I have been used and played by not only my husband, but also what was supposed to be my church. I thought of the church as being a refuge for many years. Had I known about the abuse behind the scenes of my precious daughter, I would have not invested so many years of dedicated suffering and hard-earned money. Nothing is worth the price of supplying cheap little whores for sons who are unseemly. I can only say that at least John was upfront about his misdeed, with his wild parties and proclamations of not loving his wife as he solicited the teenage and young women of the parish... he was easy to avoid. But my [daughter]? As a silent victim? I am in a vice and being held very accountable by the Stephens for this unspeakable crime against a once pious promising [school omitted] student, whose spiritual life was sabotaged by none other than God parents of my family. And when I was trying so hard to have a win."

It was in this environment that Carol Stephens lived with her many children, sons and daughters. Her house was not on Holy Annunciation's 400-acre plot of property but was close enough for the family to walk. Her children basically grew up there, being homeschooled and attending services. The dispute over the sale of Father Gregory's house to Carole occurred after Carole's husband became estranged from the family, leaving her the sole provider. The house was in desperate shape with holes in the floor and leaks here and there. I drove Carole home one day but could not drive all the way up to the house because a deep hole in the dirt driveway made it impassable.

At some point, Matthew and Elizabeth Williams became Godparents to some of Carole's children. One of the daughters at age 15 would later babysit for her Godparents and on one such overnight job would allegedly be raped by Matthew Williams. "I knew I shouldn't have left him alone with her", Elizabeth would allegedly tell Carole later.

I recall one of the after-service meals where Carole arrived late, but Father Gregory would not allow her to eat or stay. I was told the reason for this rejection was because she had missed services. I remember feeling that that decision was quite cruel and a punishment of sorts. Carole says the reason for the rejection was because she had recently brought up the accusation of Matthew Williams' sexual assault to her priest, Father Gregory Williams.

...And the persecution and effort to silence Carole began. Father Gregory sent a letter to Carole in answer to the appeal letter sent out to him and others. It included:

"The incident to which you refer (of which neither Matushka Anastasia nor I knew anything till about a year and a half ago) occurred many years ago. The son in question (also unidentified) was an adult, living away from home. The partner/victim was a minor, but has never contacted us in any way; all we "know" even now is exceedingly vague and mostly 3rd or 4th party hearsay... I can only assume that your purpose in broadcasting this letter (I can only identify about 2/3 of the recipients, most of whom have nothing whatever to do with these issues) is to inflict harm on our family and the Church community..."

After Father Gregory Williams was found dead in an outdoor hot tub on the Holy Annunciation property, his son in law, Father Christopher Stanton, moved to the property with his wife, Matthew's Williams' sister, to become priest of the parish. From there, Father Christopher issued a letter to Carole which included the warning not to "slander" Matthew Williams, thus continuing their family's effort to diminish her.

The persecution of Carole Stephens continues to this day by various clergy, in particular the clergy of ROCOR... and, of course, attackers like our "your gay LOL" anonymous commenter. 

"But no one is able to subdue the human tongue. It is a restless evil full of deadly poison. With it we bless the Lord and Father, and with it we curse people, who have been made according to the likeness of God. Out of the same mouth comes blessing and cursing. My brothers and sisters, these things should not be this way." James 3: 8-10

Also See:

Rape and the Holy Man - The Alleged Sexual Crime of a ROCOR Priest

Rape and the Holy Man - Part Two - Appeal of a Mother

Rape and the Holy Man Part Three - All Are Punished!

Rape and the Holy Man Part Four - Sincerely, Carole Anne Stephens

Happy New Year - ROCOR Style

Proverbs 31:8-9

“Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves; ensure justice for those being crushed. Yes, speak up for the poor and helpless, and see that they get justice.”

ROCOR, You cannot now expect to be given "time" to deal with the issue of sexual predators in your midst. You cannot now play the victim. "Oh, the evil one is accusing the church!" No. It is you- "Thou art the man", the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, who has facilitated the evils to abound in your midst. It is the righteous who are accusing the church. 

You knew. You have known for years. Father Anastasy P. Yatrelis allegedly knew within hours of the alleged sexual assault of the 15-year-old Stephens girl. How did he allegedly know? Well, contrary to the circle-the-wagons ROCOR narrative, she REPORTED IT. SHE CAME FORWARD. (Please forgive all-caps shouting, but you don't seem to be hearing very well.) She phoned Yatrelis. She had a conversation with Yatrelis. Did any of your ROCOR investigators ask Yatrelis about that conversation prior to the late Metropolitan Hilarion's statement that the investigation "was curtailed due to lack of accusation on the part of the alleged victim" ?

Father Anastasy P. Yatrelis

Did anyone in the ROCOR Hierarchy or anyone who was empowered to deal with such matters, respond personally to the mother, Carole Stephens, all those years ago? No. How about now? In light of the current circumstances and new accusations, have you contacted Carole Stephens? Do you intend to? She has always been willing to meet. She is willing to meet now. Are you? (journeytoorthodoxy@gmail.com)

Does ROCOR Have A Systemic Problem?

This is a link to an article originally started in October of 2022 and just finished today 12/28/2024. In light of current events regarding St Tikhon and Father Matthew Williams, a relevant question arises:

Does ROCOR have a systemic problem 

regarding the mishandling of sexual predators?

Read: 

     Sex and the Seminarian - A ROCOR Systemic Problem?

ROCOR and Sexual Misconduct

 The Policy and Procedures of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia Regarding Sexual Misconduct by Clergy

 INTRODUCTION 

Allegations of sexual misconduct by the clergy or other representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (the "Church") cause grave concern to the Church and its members and must be diligently investigated, given the potentially devastating effects they may have upon spiritual and emotional well-being of the victims, their families and friends and the community as a whole. The Church condemns any form of sexual misconduct, especially the sexual abuse of children, as these actions are devastating to not only the victims, but to their families and the community. Moreover, such actions are morally wrong and undermine the faith of many of people with regard to the Church and its clergy. The Church recognizes and shares the pain and suffering of the victims of sexual misconduct, and is eager to address that suffering in order to promote healing of all those who are harmed. The Church expects all its clergymen to abide by the Guidelines for the Clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (adopted by the Council of Bishops in 1956) in all their actions. The Church also seeks "to protect the ecclesio-social and personal life of the members of the Church from violations of the rules of Christian morality" ( Regulations on the Ecclesiastical Court and Legal Procedures of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Of Russia ). The Church is committed to acting swiftly and fairly toward every person involved in an effort to determine the veracity of the allegations, determine what actions, if any, must be taken and offer spiritual and emotional support to those in need. The policies set forth herein have been adopted and published by the Church in order to ensure that the Church responds appropriately to allegations of sexual misconduct. This policy shall to apply to the clergy of the Church, including but not limited to: bishops, priests, monks and deacons who are serving in our parishes, schools and institutions. Priests, brothers and sisters who are members of religious orders and lay persons employed by institutions within the Church are properly subject to the direction and supervision of their religious superiors or employers, as the case may be, and we will work with those superiors or employers to address any situations which may develop. This does not mean that any allegations against these persons are to be taken any less seriously; however, direct jurisdiction for matters involving these persons lies with their religious superiors or employers. With the intention to help those who have been hurt by sexual abuse and other forms of sexual misconduct, and also to make every effort to prevent such incidents from occurring, the Church also invites suggestions as to how this policy might be improved and best implemented in order to meet its goals.

 I. SEXUAL ABUSE INVOLVING CHILDREN 

 A. Policy The Church will respond to complaints of sexual abuse made against a priest or other clergy with justice, compassion and charity. In this regard, all persons involved are to be respected and treated with dignity and love, whether it be the person making a complaint of sexual abuse, the family of that person, the clergyman against whom the complaint is made, the parish or the broader Church community. 

 B. Procedures Any person who intends to make a complaint of sexual abuse against a bishop, priest or deacon of the Church, or against any other clergyman, including subdeacon or psalm-reader, or against a parish warden (starosta), may telephone or may write to their 

Diocesan Office of Clergy Personnel at 75 East 93rd Street, New York, NY 10128, telephone 212-534-1601 

(if writing, please indicate a way that you may be contacted, either in writing, or by telephone). The person making the complaint is assured of an understanding and respectful reception. In some instances, a complaint is first brought to a local priest or an official of a school or other Church institution. In such cases, the person receiving the complaint must advise the person making the complaint that the allegation and the identity of the person making the complaint will, to the extent possible and desired, be maintained as confidential. The person receiving the complaint must also make every effort to encourage the person who has made the complaint to contact the Office of Clergy Personnel directly. The person making the complaint is encouraged to be open and forthcoming with all relevant information in order for the Church to properly investigate the allegations, and, where appropriate, address the problem and ensure that victims receive any pastoral or other appropriate care that is needed. 

There are three judiciary levels in the Church, these being the Diocesan Court, the Court of the Synod of Bishops and the Court of the Council of Bishops. In accordance with the Regulations on the Ecclesiastical Court , "Clergymen are subject to the due process established by law in the civil courts in cases of the violation of civil laws or directives of authorities, or finally, the commission of such political or criminal crimes which may at times entail condemnation and punishment by the Church." Also, "Persons occupying administrative positions within the parish, e.g. the rector, the church warden, members of parish councils and auditing committees, and others in responsible positions in parish organizations, in respect of improper or illegal acts that they have committed, may be judged by the Diocesan Court if these acts lead to the harm and detriment of the parish… and also bring about the… moral decline of the parish… or lead to the harm or detriment of individuals who have lodged a complaint against the incorrect or illegal acts of the parish administration before the Church authorities." In all its procedures, the Church is committed to the careful observance of the civil law as well as the canon law of the Church and the Regulations on the Ecclesiastical Court . The Church shall endeavor to fulfill all legal obligations concerning the reporting of such complaints to the proper civil authorities. The person who brings an allegation against a clergyman will be advised of other reporting options available, in addition to reporting the allegations of the Church. The Church treats all complaints as serious. Even if the complaint made against a priest or deacon does not initially appear to be credible, the Church shall nevertheless take every reasonable step to examine the complaint. However, anonymous or otherwise vague and unspecific complaints may be extremely difficult to investigate and deal with, and, therefore, all persons making a complaint are strongly urged to be as factually specific as possible. The person making the complaint is given the opportunity to relate the details of the complaint personally to the Office of Clergy Personnel and/or to another appropriate representative of the Church. During this interview, the person making the complaint may be accompanied by another person, such as a family member, a friend, an attorney or another trusted adviser. The clergyman involved is informed of the complaint made against him. However, prompt action by the Church in response to the complaint is not, and should in no way be perceived as, a determination of guilt of the clergyman. A meeting between the clergyman and the Church is arranged to review the complaint. During such a meeting, the clergyman has the right to be accompanied by an adviser of his choosing, whether it be a friend or family member, an attorney, or another trusted person. If the clergyman against whom the complaint is made admits to its truth, he is immediately referred for clinical evaluation to determine the appropriate type of professional help that will be needed. He is also removed from his ministry and may have other restrictions placed on him. If the complaint initially appears to be credible, those who may have been abused are offered appropriate pastoral care and other assistance--including professional treatment--as may be needed, which is determined on an individual basis. In the case of any complaint that initially appears to be credible, or if the findings of the preliminary inquiry are inconclusive, the priest or deacon will be referred for clinical evaluation. The clergyman may also be temporarily removed from his ministry and may have other restrictions placed on him. If a clergyman is removed from his assignment, the appropriate person or persons from the affected parish or other ministry are informed of the reason for the removal, so that they in turn will be able to respond in a pastorally-sensitive way to the needs of the parish or other affected community. Decisions regarding any public statements must be made on a case-by-case basis; these decisions must balance the desire for confidentiality on behalf of the person bringing the complaint, the rights of the clergyman against whom the complaint has been brought, and the need and desire to identify and minister to others who may have been harmed by any wrongdoing. If a clergyman receives a clinical evaluation, based upon the recommendations of professionals of such evaluation, he may be referred for treatment. The person who has made the complaint is presented to so that a determination may be made on what steps are appropriate in light of the complaint. Both the person who has brought the complaint and the clergyman have an opportunity to review the summary and to respond to it in writing. The factual summary, and any response by the person who has brought the complaint and/or by the clergyman, will be placed in the personnel file of the clergyman. Personnel files of a clergyman are to be consulted in connection with any future assignments. In the final determination is that the complaint is unfounded, the clergyman will be given ongoing support and assistance, as and when needed, in light of the tremendous suffering of a priest or deacon who has been falsely accused. If he has not been removed from ministry, any public statement will depend on the notoriety of the matter and will take into account the wishes of the priest or deacon involved. If the clergyman has been temporarily removed from ministry, and upon determination that the complaint was unfounded, a return to ministry will take place after consultation with him to ascertain his wishes. Decisions regarding any possible reassignment of a clergyman who has engaged in sexual abuse are made on a case-by-case basis. Reassignment to a parish ministry is rarely appropriate, although there may be ministries in which the clergyman can serve under supervision and subject to certain limitations. Because of the complex nature of each individual case, there can be no hard and fast rules about reassignment. However, when such decisions are contemplated, several factors are used in evaluating the possibilities of reassignment. Among these factors are the recommendations of the professionals involved in treating the clergyman, the feelings of the person who suffered the sexual abuse, and the availability of an assignment where the priest or deacon will be able to exercise ministry within appropriate limits. Care and concern will be given to altering the appropriate person or persons in a situation when and if a reassignment is made in order to ensure proper follow up. 

 II. OTHER SEXUAL MISCONDUCT To the extent that the above procedures are appropriate in cases where a clergyman is accused of sexual misconduct not involving sexual abuse of children, these procedures are applied. Determinations are made on a case-by-case basis. However, the policy of the church with regard to sexual abuse of children applies to other forms of sexual misconduct, and such complaints are responded to with justice, compassion and charity for all persons involved. Complaints of other sexual misconduct should also be made to the Office of Priest Personnel of the Church.

 III. Omitted?

 IV. SEXUAL ABUSE OCCURRING IN PARISHES OF THE CHURCH Although the Church may have ecclesiastical authority over its parishes, which are subject to the canon law of the Church, the Church does necessarily have the same legal authority over all of its parishes as civil courts may. Accordingly, the Church may not be able to strictly enforce this policy with respect to those parishes which resist the Church's involvement in complaints and/or allegations of sexual misconduct or sexual abuse by priests, deacons, brothers, sisters or employees of such parishes. However, the Church is committed to the importance of the implementation of this, or a similar policy in all of its parishes and will endeavor to ensure that all complaints and/or allegations of sexual misconduct or sexual abuse are handled by its parishes in a manner consistent with this policy. 

 SYNOD OF BISHOPS, December, 2005

Doh!

Some commenters remind me of the political pundits on election night in 2016. A lot of blowhards until Trump won.

Will these JTO commenters who defended Matthew Williams now say, "I was so wrong"? I doubt it. These comments shared here are nothing compared to what Carole Stephens had to endure from priests and bishops, and naive' parishioners, who all circled the wagons in an attempt to discredit her.

Fr. John Whiteford9:03 PM

If the woman in question is now saying that nothing happened, isn't it quite possible that nothing of the sort alleged actually did happen? Also, in Scripture we have a clear rule: "Do not receive an accusation against a presbyter except from two or three witnesses" (1 Timothy 5:19). At a minimum, I think this would mean we need a victim actually making a charge, and some sort of corroborating evidence, but here you have an alleged victim denying the charge. Given that, how do you expect the Bishops to assume a priest is guilty when Scripture and the Canons say more is required? The idea of due process is a concept based in Scripture, and even priests are entitled to it.

Anonymous12:42 PM

A not-so-former Baptist tries to slander one of the kindest priests in ROCOR. Go take your nonsense somewhere else.

RobertNG1:17 AM

Do you know Fr. Matthew Williams? He is a kind man and a good soul. When I read these emails, I see nothing but crazed hysteria and slander. This is a disgusting article

Theodore_Harris1:09 PM

Fr Matthews is a saintly priest. St Nektarios was accused of raping nuns, several early desert father's were accused of impregnating prostitutes, but in the end (like this story); we see the same "one" is behind these baseless accusations

Theodore_Harris3:04 PM

Fr Matthew will be expulcated either here or the hereafter. This is an attack from the same "one" who baselessly accused St Nektarios of raping nuns and a particular desert father of impregnating a prostitute. Fr Matthew is a saintly priest and anyone who has known him can attest

Anonymous8:20 PM

I met Fr Matthew in 2023 for a friends wedding at his parish. He let me stay in the room at the church for a weekend. He would come to visit me and chat, making sure I had what I needed. Never a weird feeling and I have good instincts from experience. A kind and saintly man. I think these allegations are baseless. I watched him with his Matuska and children, and his parishioners. Slander and persecution are to be expected for men who are going the work of God. We should keep him and his family (and the girl and her mother) in our prayers 🙏🏼

Rape and the Holy Man Part Four - Sincerely, Carole Anne Stephens

ROCOR! It is incumbent on you to act now on behalf of Carole Stephens, her daughter, and her entire family. JTO will facilitate a meeting or communication with her. Please contact via journeytoorthodoxy@gmail.com. You already have her documentation and testimony in Rape and the Holy Man and in your office via a hard copy report sent to and received by your Metropolitan Hilarion. Look again now with fresh eyes at the criminal conduct of Matthew and Elizabeth Williams and some of your own clergy.

"Better is open reproof than hidden love" Proverbs 27:5

The following is a new statement from Carole Anne Stephens:

          To whom it may concern:

I am grieved to hear about the recent allegations of Father Matthew Williams assault on the parishioners at St Tikhon. I always suspected that since he was so protected by his wife and parishioners and allowed to be ordained as a priest after attacking my own 15-year-old daughter in 2008, that he could eventually victimize his own children.

I was not informed about the attack upon my own daughter until she was in college in 2012 (when my eldest son informed me) and she had passed the age of my parental rights. My whole family became homeless as a result of my own investigation and complaints filed with the metropolitan of the ROCOR. I was deemed a rabblerousing instigator at many parishes where I tried to seek help and lost our property that Matthew's father, the late Father Gregory Williams of the Church of the Annunciation, was selling us on a land contract. My daughter suffered a nervous breakdown at the University of Tennessee and was hindered in her studies for a few years. I am not sure she ever recovered and is unwilling to come forward.

Only, Father Gordon Walker of St. Ignatius in Franklin TN, and Reader, Nathan Lee Lewis were willing to take my part. Father Gordon fell ill with cancer shortly after and passed away. Among those who accused me of slander were Father Christopher Stanton, brother-in-law to Matthew, and Father Kentigern McCaffrey of Cullman, Alabama.

Sadly, we were betrayed by the very godparents of my children, Matthew and Elizbeth and Eleni Jolly, who was the personal godmother of my daughter. Eleni kept silent when I entrusted her to pick my daughter up from the bus station after being sent home after the sexual assault by Matthew. Elizabeth Williams warned my daughter, that "this should never be found out". My daughter had served Elizabeth with childcare and was attacked while at their home near Roswell, Georgia. I filed a police report once I found out, but without my daughter, I had no case. She was over eighteen years of age by then. It was just filed away. My daughter cried jagged tears and spoke with Father Anastasy Yatrelis by phone upon returning from Georgia. Eleni swore she would not tell her parents of her emotional condition. Later, after I found out, Eleni said she did not know why my daughter was crying but allowed her to call Father Anastasy from her house. My daughter and her two daughters were friends. All of my attempts to contact Fr. Anastasy were ignored.

Matthew and Elizabeth did try to apologize by phone once the formal complaint hit the desk of the metropolitan. We went 'round and ' round for hours in this conversation with no real admission of the details. They had a lot at stake. I confronted Father John Oliver at St. Elizabeth's in Murfreesboro, TN as he was the one who set up the phone conversation after Matthew had consulted him. Father John had always been" inaccessible", so it was odd that he should call me. I went to see him at his church in person and he told me he never knew why Matthew wanted to contact me. Father Sommers from the metropolitan office was trying to get me to dismiss the issue with a light apology. Everything that was written by Nathan Lee Lewis in his article, "Rape and the Holy Man" is accurate and true. He is the only one who tried to bring justice.

Sincerely, Carole Anne Stephens

Happy Nativity!

 

Yeshua is the Messiah, the MAN Christ Jesus. The only begotten son at birth to be the mediator between Yahweh and men. 

1 Tim. 2:5

For there is one God and one mediator between God and humankind, a man, Christ Jesus...

Yeshua is the "son of man", the "son of David", the "son of God", not God the son. He has a God and Father, the same God and Father of us all. 

John 20:17

Jesus said to her, “Do not touch me, because I have not yet gone up to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am going up to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.’”

Yeshua taught us to worship the One True God, the Father, his God and our God. He never asked us to worship him and never claimed to be his own father, Yahweh. Even in his glorified body, it is the Son of MAN who sits at the right hand of His Father. Yeshua will return, although he does not know when, only his Father and his God knows the hour. Yeshua will reign with his chosen on this Earth. His Kingdom will be for 1000 years, then he will hand all The Kingdom back to His God and our God.

1 Cor. 15: 20-28

But in fact, Christ has been raised from among the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came by a man, the resurrection of the dead also came by a man. For just as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then those who are Christ’s, at his coming. Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to his God and Father, after he brings to an end every ruler and every authority and power. For it is necessary for him to reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy that will be brought to an end is death. For He has put all things in subjection under his feet. But when it says, “all things” have been put in subjection, it is clear that the One who subjected all things to him is not included. And when all things have been put in subjection to him, then the Son will subject himself to Him who put all things in subjection to him, so that God is all in all.

If Yeshua is fully God and Fully man, you would have to believe that he subjected himself to himself after having originally subjected all things to himself. This is nonsensical. Or as the Orthodox Hierarchy would simply say, "It is a mystery."  Or you can consider that Yeshua was the long prophesied human messiah, the divinely conceived man, and Yahweh was his God and Father to whom he was subject, not only in his short time on Earth but in heaven and in the Kingdom to come.

All of this is in the Holy Scriptures you claim to follow. Believe the words of Yeshua not the religious tradition into which you were born. Look it up folks. The hour is late. "Hear oh Israel the Lord our God is ONE God"---not three different persons in one. That three-part view, simply put, is from pagan influence that crept into the church and not solidified until about 600 years after the church was established, thanks to the Roman Emperor Constantine and his successors.

Orthodox people! Search out history and the scripture and do not accept at face value the folklore with which you are presented by your gatekeepers. Reference other related posts on this blog and the links provided for a more in-depth theological study on the topic.

New Year's resolution recommendation: Purchase the following book or read it for free, to see the true documented history of the early church and some of your "saints". It is not what you have been told. Then ask your priests and bishops hard and probing questions about the Trinity Doctrine. You will be met with subterfuge, illogical double-speak, incomplete answers, and the phrase "it's a mystery" will come up a lot, and "because the church says so". You may even be ostracized for daring to question.  Choose this day whom you will serve.

In my journey out of orthodoxy, I was shocked to find how often Church Fathers are referenced for the validity of doctrines when NO records exist. The following book contains the only existing records of the "Early Church Fathers" regarding the late, innovative trinity doctrine.  Read it and then determine why you believe what you believe. Isn't this what God requires of us all? "Be diligent to present yourself approved before God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth."

The church of the first three centuries: or, notices of the lives and opinions of the early fathers, with special reference to the Doctrine of the Trinity; : Lamson, Alvan, 1792-1864 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

The Church of the First Three Centuries: Or, Notices of the Lives and Opinions of Some of the Early Fathers, With Special References to the Doctrine of the Trinity; Illustrating Its Late Origin and...: Lamson, Alvan: 9781331302469: Amazon.com: Books

Not an easy read but may change your life.

May 2025 be the year of your illumination and deliverance. Come join the movement to restore the Church to the original doctrines of the faith. A true 21st Century Restoration. Or you can just call me a heretic, attack my person, cast dispersion on my character and question my status as a Christian. That way you can bypass these doctrinal questions and remain in your stupor. 

Unitarian Christian Alliance - YouTube

Comment to A Commenter on Rape and the Holy Man

To whomever posted this Anonymous comment on Rape and the Holy Man:

"The reports have been made, all those who need contacting have been informed. Nothing is going to be rushed. This will take time to sort out."

 

What reports have been made? Who has been contacted and informed? It is this kind of cryptic tid-bit of information that contributes to the accusation of cover-up and subterfuge. If this commenter is one who has authority, then say so with a name and with all transparency. Let these hurting people know that their leaders are not going to sweep this under the carpet...again.

Rush? Take time? ROCOR has had almost 20 years in regard to Matthew Williams. Do you want another 20? No. You will not be able to wait this one out and hope things die down. Not this time. Be sure your sins have found you out. Admit your failures and redemption will be found. Train all of your clergy in your own requirements in dealing with Sexual Abuse in the Church. Then defrock any clergy who fails to follow your own guidelines. Continue to cover up and obfuscate and you will see ROCOR diminish.

Know this for certain, this former Orthodox Reader and former CBS local news producer will not go away until those of the clergy who failed to protect your flock from this alleged rapist are held to account. If you have not already contacted each of them whose names you have known and whose photos are displayed in a prior post, then your promise that "all those who need contacting have been informed" is false and your words

"...have become a sounding bronze, or a clanging cymbal."

ROCOR! Clean your house, rather, the House of God. If you don't, HE will. It may be time for good whipping.

Final Warning And A Hope - Sent To Matthew Williams

I sent this "final warning and a hope" by registered mail to Matthew Williams. It was signed for by him on January 28th, 2019. It was a handwritten, double spaced 2 1/2-page letter. Here is the context:

Matthew - "Gift of the Lord",

The grace of our Lord has been extended to you, for His love is enduring and He knows that we are but dust and are but sinners saved by His grace. He does require, now, that you confess your sin to your bishop - the sin of sexual violation of an innocent, and the sin of lying to those in spiritual authority over you. He will not, now, hesitate to cover His Church, sheltering its members under His wings. The Church is His and He is jealous for it. For this reason He is issuing you a final warning and a hope- "Whoever conceals his transgression will not prosper, but he who confesses and forsakes them will obtain mercy." Your Lord would remind you once more - only once more - "If you will confess/admit your sin, He will be faithful and just to forgive you your sin and to cleanse you from all unrighteousness." Your soul will be restored and your family will be strengthened and intact. But you will not be a priest. If you do not confess/admit your sin, you will be as the sinning King David and your son will be your Absolom. And you still will not be a priest.
 
Nathan 
1/21/19   4:07 p.m.

Rape and the Holy Man Part Three -All are Punished!

Since the priests and the bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR) previously refused to obey the biblical example of removing an unrepentant sinner from their midst, or even follow their own rules, Regarding Sexual Misconduct by Clergy.docx, perhaps we will allow Shakespeare to pronounce the judgement of God:

"And I for winking at your discords too

Have lost a brace of kinsmen. All are punished."

Six years ago, JTO posted the article Rape and the Holy Man, exposing through documentation the alleged sexual misconduct of Father Matthew Williams and the sin of the ROCOR church clergy who hid, squelched, and otherwise silenced the topic from public discourse. In the intervening years, Metropolitan Hilarion even publicly awarded the accused priest for his "long years of faithful service."

This week, after another alleged victim's frantic appeal to Moscow to intervene, Father Matthew Williams was reportedly suspended. New allegations have come to light. One accusation of sexual abuse at the hands of Father Matthew has reportedly come from his own daughter, now a married adult. Father Williams' name has been removed from the parish website and an interim priest has been installed. Father Matthew Williams is reportedly being cloistered at Holy Trinity Monastery in Jordanville, NY.

JTO has received numerous emails and blog comments concerning recent and past events, and none of the correspondence removes Father Matthew's wife from culpability. In fact, there are renewed accusations that she has enabled her husband to continue his "ministry" unabated. These accusations extend back 10 years or more when the mother of the subject of Rape and the Holy Man sent a scathing letter to Matthew and Elizabeth Williams chiding them for their self-preservation and spiritual hypocrisy.

"[I] thought you were different[.] [I] thought you were the makings of one with a beautiful wife at your side..an officer of the orthodox church. [W]hat about you.? You have confirmed in your own God children that God doesn[']t matter in the face of temptation. I would like an explanation from your wife and from you.  You can ignore me, but that [won't] make the reality disappear that you have done this to us."

All are punished! Top to bottom and bottom to top, numerous clergy need to be reproved, suspended, defrocked. Based on the investigation as shown in Rape and the Holy Man, these are the men/clergy who knew of the specific accusations, who were part of the failure to do nothing, who attempted to threaten and cajole people (including this JTO Editor) to silence and now are fully culpable for the crimes and sins of their priest perpetrated on women and children. ROCOR! Antioch! OCA! Censure these men:

Metropolitan Hilarion

Father John Oliver
Brother-in-law of Matthew Williams

Father Christopher Stanton
Brother-in-law of Matthew Williams

Archpriest Andrei Sommer

                                                                         

Father Mark Rowe

Father Anastasy P. Yatrelis

                                                                                                       

Oh, men of holy orders! Will you, now that your backs are against the wall and the hidden has come to light, ask these previously recommended questions of the accused cloistered priest who, according to you, has served "long and faithfully": 

  The list might start out with these 15, asked in a face-to-face meeting with Father Williams:

1. Did you have any type of inappropriate sexual contact with [name withheld]? 
2. Why do you think the Mother is insistent that her daughter has admitted to her and to her siblings that you had inappropriate sexual contact?
3. What was your relationship with the girl?
4. Did she stay in your home from time to time?
5. Was she staying in your home when the mother, Carole Stephens, alleges that the inappropriate sexual contact occurred?
6. When and how did you first hear of the allegation toward you? 
7. Were you aware of this allegation prior to being ordained a priest in ROCOR and did you make the ordaining entities aware of it? If not, why not?
8. Since hearing of the allegation toward you, have you and/or your wife had contact either personally or by phone or letter with (daughter's name withheld]? If so, what was the purpose and content of that or those correspondences and how many have there been?
9. Carole Stephens has claimed that you and your wife had a lengthy, two-hour, phone conversation with her and that she went "round and round" with both of you. Did this phone conversation occur? If so, what was the purpose and content of the call? Did you admit to the mother that you were guilty of raping her daughter or acting in a sexually inappropriate manner and did you ask for her forgiveness as she has asserted?
10. Have you or your wife at any time offered to give money or financial assistance to Carole Stephens? 
11. Did Father John Oliver attempt to set up a meeting with you and Carole Stephens? If so, what did you think was the nature of the meeting? Did you agree to the meeting?
12. Are you willing to meet with us, Carole Stephens and several of her other children who claim that [daughter's name withheld] confessed to them that you were sexually inappropriate with her?
13. Would you have any objections to us contacting [Daughter] to corroborate your answers?
14. Have you read Carole Stephen's account of the event and her public e-mails she has sent out over the last few years? If so, is her account accurate? If not, what specifically is not accurate?
15. Have you been truthful in your answers regarding this matter to us and others?

...and don't forget to ask:  "What did Fr. Anastasy P. Yatrelis of ROCOR and Father John Oliver of Antioch know and when did they know it?" This same question might be asked of other clergy named in this event.

Orthodox Clergy! After you determine the truth of the past issues then the truth of the present issues may be addressed with less oppression on those who dared to threaten your established order. After this, a public repentance and admission of the utter failure on your behalf to shepherd the people of God, and an apology accompanied with action. People are falling away from the faith because of you. If you do not do this, you will diminish as a church both here and abroad. Repent now or forever lose your peace and God will not hold you guiltless.  All are punished.

Father Matthew Williams

Stumbling Blocks and Judgment

And he said to his disciples, “It is impossible for stumbling blocks not to come, but how terrible it will be for the one through whom they come!

It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the lake rather than that he should cause one of these little ones to fall away.

Watch yourselves."

Hold these entities accountable. 

The time is long past trusting them to show righteousness in this matter. 

 

ROCOR

Orthodox Church in America (OCA)