Attachment To One's Kinsfolk

For many years when I would ask God to show me His will, he would repeat the same thing to my mind- a scripture reference: Mark Chapter 10. When I first turned to this scripture, at His prompting, verses 29- 31 were made Rhema to me.

"And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's, But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life. But many that are first shall be last; and the last first."

Indeed, I did leave my brethren, my relatives, the religion and culture of my father and siblings, and thus, their desires for my future. I left their influence. Even so, many, many years of persecutions were endured before I was able to fully, in my heart and emotions, separate myself from them in order to fully attend to the path onto which God had placed my feet. This blog, initiated in 2006, shows some of that Journey. Still today, I get the ire of my siblings when I make commentary and comparison of the orthodox Christian Church, established by Christ and His Apostles, to the doctrines and practices of the Baptist faith, established by the Anglican, "self-bapizer", turned Mennonite, John Smithe. Responses from my siblings usually denigrate into  ad- hominems. 

Saint Symeon The New Theologian saw this struggle, in his own experience, and with the monks under his care. Those who would follow Christ, who would hear the call of God in their lives. who were still emotionally bound by the sincere love of their family and their sincere desire to be at peace with them, were continually distracted, pulled to and fro by their relative's selfish desires and wishes for their future. They have not heard the call of God in your heart, how could they? So, they cast dispersion on it. We struggle not to take such casting to heart and to remember the promise of God to all of us... But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time... Indeed, missing of the approval of my family. and the limited times I get to see them, is no sacrifice compared to the promise of God shown true in my life. His path is the most joyous and His family is the most devoted.  My earthly family has been replaced, and that right well.

Here are the words of Saint Symeon, who does not take lightly the meddling of relatives who interrupt the sanctifying process of God in his life and try to include him in their fate- by drawing him back into their family unit. 

"Wretch as I am, I have been the first to realize this. As I lie in a pit of mud, I realize my own faults. I cry out from below and call to all who pass by outside,

 'Get yourselves away, brethren, from this most horrible pit, and go by the straight way, which is in Christ!' 

Let no one turn aside to the right or to the left and fall in here where I am in my wretchedness and misfortune, and so be deprived not only of earthly benefits, but of heavenly ones as well! The most wicked one, the enemy of our souls, the devil by means of his manifold machinations time and time again casts most men, or nearly all, together as in heaps into such a pit. He often uses this one means, 

ATTACHMENT TO ONE'S KINSFOLK,

like a lasso to drag them off. The enemy brings it around the neck of every one who has accepted this attachment and pulls and drags them off together to such frightful precipices and dangerous pits of sin from which there is no escape, and ever plunges them into the abyss of despair. Once he has brought them down into the depth of hell and bound them (Prov. 14:12), he leaves them there. 

I implore you, brethren, let us flee from this destruction."

Related Articles: It's All Relative

                           My Apologies For Slamming

Blogger Troll Confesses To Criminal Record- "Big deal"

[JTO Editor's Note: I write this article in the Third Person, hoping that it not be perceived as a personal defense of myself or anything that has occurred to me. For my part, I am content to allow God to use persecution to buffet my soul and have posted my view on such HERE. But, for the cause of Christ and His Holy Church I come to the defense of God's people who are the targets of an enemy who "roams to and fro, seeking whom he may devour."] 

A blogger troll has confessed to his criminal record. In a Comment posted to the JTO blog, Minas Michael Christie of St. Petersburg, Florida, admitted to a criminal history that includes drug possession and criminal trespass. Public records show that Mr. Christie was arrested for and charged in three separate offenses in 1983, 1986, and 1997.

"Both the pot cases were in the 80's and the felony charge was dropped to a misdemeanor", Christie said in a correspondence with JTO. "If you must know, I bought $10 worth in a sting operation, received a $100.00 fine and that was it. The trespass charge in 97, was over a domestic dispute with an ex girlfriend, the cop ordered me to leave and when I didn't fast enough to his liking. I was charge with trespass after warning, jailed over the weekend and released with time served. Big deal."

Now, all would agree that if we repent, God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and cleanse us from all unrighteousness, but an obvious, arrogant, rebellious, and lawless sense of entitlement seems to characterize Mr. Christie's conduct still today. "Quite frankly, I am not in monastic obedience to anyone...", Christie said.

JTO first learned of Mr. Christie four years ago when he began to attempt to post comments on the JTO blog. The vitriolic and false nature of the comments, laced with name calling, sarcasms, and profanity, did not warrant posting. JTO's refusal to publicly post his comments, brought a barrage of accusations from Christie of "censorship!"

JTO subsequently learned that Mr. Christie had previously been removed as a writer on the Orthodox news site, News From The Underground (NFTU), allegedly for his conduct toward the readers and commentators there. According to public posts, Mr. Christie then proceeded to launch a public campaign against the administrator of NFTU, even to the extent of publicly criticizing the physical appearance of the administrator's wife. A recent post by the editor of the NFTU website, exposes the story behind his removal from the site. Elsewhere, Christie has also attempted to publicly post a comment criticizing the physical appearance of a 9 year old Orthodox boy as looking "like a little girl with that hair and the clothes he is wearing."

One might think, by his conduct, that the internet troll, Minas Michael Christie, is anything but an Orthodox Christian, but, as of this time, Mr. Christie is listed on his Blogger Profile as an administrator of three Orthodox blogs: Rocor Refuges Read More, ROCOR Refuges, and Remnant ROCOR, all three operated by Joanna Higginbotham of Oregon. Ms. Higginbotham, whose site says she is part of "ROCA under Vladyka Agafangel", has repeatedly joined Mr. Christie on various blogger forums in personally attacking individuals, including the JTO editor, with the aim to discredit them and cast dispersion on their character. In fact, one of the features on the side bar of her Remnant ROCOR directs the reader to avoid authors and blogs she deems to be "safe" or "unsafe", prompting one Orthodox clergyman to sarcastically retort to another besieged blogger, "I am so glad you linked Joanna's blog. Now, after all of these years I know who is "Ortho-safe and who is not." Another orthodox blogger has referred to them as "very angry people."

Several of Higginbotham's posts have appeared denouncing and ridiculing individuals by name as being demonized or in need of salvation, and include invitations to other bloggers to join them in their denouncements of individuals. One Higginbotham post includes two photos of an individual standing in what appears to be a liturgical setting. Under the photos are the tag words, "parasite" and "subhuman psycopath" with a detailed description of her target's other perceived sins. 

More recently, Higginbotham posted a doctored photo of JTO author Nathan Lee Lewis, which was apparently lifted off of a FaceBook post. The heading says, Narcissism in the Church. Over the face, is pasted the face of another man. In the comment section below the photo, Higginbotham says, "The face is Sam Vankin, a self-realized diagnosed psychopath." The caption says, "BACK HOME I USUALLY WEAR MY BLACK ROBE. BUT IN HOLLYWOOD I JUST FLASH MY 100-KNOT PRAYER ROPE." In the Comment section, Minas Christie adds, "Looks like Sam Hollywood to me."

The original photograph of Lewis (at right), also an Orthodox Reader and a film producer, was actually taken by Lewis' wife as they sat in a quiet outdoor Virginia cafe on their 33rd anniversary trip. Through inference, one can only assume that both Higginbotham and Christie are of the opinion that Orthodox Christians in the film industry, or at least this one Orthodox Christian, is a two-faced psychopathic hypocrite. In any case, where does public defamation of character, libelous statements, slander, sarcasms and mockery, such as those posted by Higginbotham, and supported by Christie, fit into the Orthodox Christian ethos? What can be said of an Orthodox BLOG or person that promulgates such?

Although Higginbotham's blog contains disclaimers that, "This is a privately owned blog. It is not and has never been an official organ of any ecclesiastical organization", Metropolitan Agafangel's name and jurisdiction are still predominately displayed. The high profile of her blogs in English have the de facto effect of being the American voice for the jurisdiction that is predominately Russian speaking. The tone and posts of some of her blogs refers to "enemies" of the church, which include almost anyone outside of Agafangel's jurisdiction. Is it any wonder, then, why Higginbotham so endorses the likes of Christie, who shares in and even often leads the vitriolic and destructive charge to publicly discredit individuals and orthodox jurisdictions whom they don't favor?

Christie and Higginbotham's techniques of public, personal, character smears are not limited to the lower ranks of Readers or Orthodox Filmmakers. Their focus goes beyond defending the faith or simple commentary concerning the authenticity of a Bishop's succession or the validity of an Orthodox jurisdiction. Without foundation or evidence, they use the technique of raising questions as to the character and integrity of Church leaders, posting captioned photos laced with fictitious quotes and mocking sarcasms. Another recent Higginbotham post focuses on Metropolitan John LoBue. Both the captions on the photo and the comments between Higginbotham and Christie below the post, infer that this faithful bishop and monk, defender of the Faith, and Metropolitan of a major Orthodox Old Calender jurisdiction is a liar. Using conjecture alone, both Christie and Higginbotham have a public conversation between themselves in the Comment section, with one brave blogger adding a comment, telling them, "Cut it out."

Although Higginbotham lives in Oregon, she claims Father Gregory Williams, of Holy Annunciation, Liberty, Tennessee, as her priest. When asked about his relation to Higginbotham and to her claim that he was her priest, Father Gregory affirmed that it was true. It was only after many months of correspondence to Father Gregory by JTO, and written appeals concerning both Higginbotham's internet conduct and her relation to Christie, that Christie's name disappeared from her blog, and inflammatory and personal indictments toward the JTO blog and JTO author Nathan Lee Lewis were also deleted. The new doctored photo post of Lewis would infer that she only temporarily heeded the words of her priest. A recent written appeal to Father Gregory concerning the current activity of his parishioner, Joanna Higginbotham, went unanswered, but in a prior response, Father Gregory stated, 

"I've known Joanna for a very long time. She lived here for quite a while (maybe more than a year; I've forgotten), had me up on a pedestal within a few weeks, left in a rage when I wouldn't take her orders to baptize her future son-in-law while he was living "without benefit of clergy" with her pregnant daughter, then marry them. For several years I was public enemy #1 so far as she was concerned, with endless letters to bishops, other clergy, you name it. After a few years of getting no "satisfactory" response, she went on to someone else. After the marriage (accomplished quite uncanonically & resulting in a reprimand to the offending priest from the bishop) collapsed in disaster and the defection of most of our brethren to the MP, she changed her mind. I have little or no control over her activities, either by e-mail or blog (of which she also has many). Before setting her sights on you, she engaged in a war with [another parishioner]... If I thought it would do any good, I would issue a "cease and desist" order." 

Most of the attacks by Mr. Christie and Ms. Higginbotham, sometimes joined by a Reader Daniel, have been toward Orthodox clergy or laymen who are in good standing with their various Bishops. In the midst of Christie's abusive internet conduct, Ms. Higginbotham has commended him, "Minas has a good solid reputation in our Church. He is not a convert, all his known ancestors are Orthodox", Higginbotham said. It is not known whether or not Higginbotham knew of Christie's criminal background when making this endorsement.

While Ms. Higginbotham works in the open, providing e-mail and biographical information, address, phone number and photos, Mr. Christie has attempted to remain in the shadows, providing no contact information, e-mail, or biographical profile. Even his Blogger Profile has only the name "Minas", with no other personal information. The irony in Christie's stealth methods is the fact that he has clearly expressed his intent to expose others who decide to have anonymity on the internet. Christie recently prided himself in his ability with an attempt to "expose" an Orthodox blogger. This blogger did not operate an orthodox blog, dealing specifically with religious issues, but rather, was an Orthodox Christian with a blog sharing his various personal interests. Still Christie attacked,

"[name omitted], your (grammatical error is Christie's] not very good at protecting your secret identity on Facebook. As ex star [again grammatical error is Christie's] reporter for a internet [once again, grammatical error is Christie's] Orthodox news clearinghouse, which shall remain anonymous, I feel it my duty to report on this breaking news. You are [name omitted] and your trophy wife is [name omitted]...I think it's time the world needs to know just who [omitted] is..."

This attempt brought the blogger's ire toward Christie and Higginbotham, when he told them to "get a life" and provided a link to the Irish drinking song, "Bugger off You Bastards Bugger Off!" The blogger "excommunicated" them from ever again posting comments on his blog.

Mr. Christie's harassing tactics includes cryptic suggestions that he is privy to information such as private Facebook photos, that he has copied and pasted even deleted posts and other materials, with the inference that he intends to use them to embarrass or discredit the subject. This type of intimidation, along with, likening people to apes, calling them liars, accusations that one has paid money in order to be tonsured, and profanity-laced tirades, are common tactics. It is important to note that these attacks are not doctrinal in nature, nor matters of the church, but personal character assassinations in which Mr. Christie is engaged. Saul Alinsky would be proud as Christie faithfully follows his rules, especially:

1. "Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon." There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. 

2. "Keep the pressure on. Never let up." Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.  

3. "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

Ms. Higginbotham shares in these tactics under the guise of some self-proclaimed, spiritual mandate to protect what she deems to be the authentic church. Regarding a barrage of internet attacks on an individual, in which she was participating, Higginbotham encouraged others to join her, "If we love Orthodoxy and truth, we will not permit a brother to remain comfortable in delusion",  Higginbotham said. The take-away from that discourse is that Higginbotham, Christie, and their associates, are the "we", and deliberately intend to inflict continual discomfort on those they publicly attack. Although there is no "Saint" Alinsky,  his bible, Rules For Radicals, is certainly their guide. In an early e-mail exchange between JTO author Nathan Lee Lewis and Ms. Higginbotham, in which Lewis encouraged her to follow the biblical guidelines (Matthew 18) in dealing with a brother she deemed to be in sin- to not deal with it in public- but first go to him privately, then take two more witnesses- then as a last resort take the person before the whole church--and always done under the guidance of the bishops- Higginbotham replied, "Don't you Bible thump or Bible-bully me, Nathan. Remember that WE wrote the Bible and it is not open to your interpretation for you to twist into your imaginary justification for your erroneous ideas." One wonders which of the words of Jesus, Higginbotham finds erroneous. In addition, Higginbotham asserted that because she had consulted her "we" group, and had sent Lewis e-mails, pleading with Lewis to "repent", that she had fulfilled the scripture and was thus doing the work of the church. One blogger, coming to the defense of Lewis after a public attack stated, "If the way people treat him on his blog is their idea of being an Orthodox Christian, then I don't want to be one."

JTO has refused to post comments from Mr. Christie (or Higginbotham) for four years. In those four years, JTO has not responded in first person to Mr. Christie, though the conduct of Mr. Christie and Ms. Higginbotham have been the inspiration of several blog posts- their identifying names never used, until now.  Mr. Christie is right in one thing that he attempted to post in the JTO Comment section, that a blogger is in the public eye and must expect to be attacked. His own conduct has partially been the catalyst for the recent establishment of at least two Orthodox blogs specifically designed to push back on Christie and Higginbotham's abhorrent conduct in the body of Christ. See HERE and HERE. It is true that "For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again", and both Higginbotham and Christie are now being isolated by the righteous indignation of those they have attacked, and former associates are distancing themselves from them.

Although it is an embarrassment to the body of Christ for such discord to be displayed publicly to a perishing world, the non-Orthodox looking in on this event should know that good Orthodox Christians will not stand for the unchecked conduct of those who sow discord among the brethren and will speak to it- privately if at all possible (as JTO has attempted for four years to do), but publicly if necessary. Even Christ picked up a whip when he needed one.

What Mr. Christie did not know is that JTO has been researching the whereabouts and conduct of Minas Michael Christie for those four years. That research includes publicly available information, various internet activity, and a background check. A Florida attorney, specializing in internet libel and defamation, has also been consulted concerning Mr. Christie's alleged personal threats and intimidation to JTO author Nathan Lee Lewis and others. So, when Mr. Christie attempted recently, after several months of relative quiet, to post on JTO another comment, laced with false accusations and profanity, and with his comments on the new doctored blog photo posts, it seemed time to shine light into Christie's shadows. In response to Christie's recent attempt to post a comment on the JTO blog, JTO simply posted a link in the JTO Comment section for the Dade County Criminal Court. Mr Christie arrogantly shot back with his "big deal" comment. What is not included in his confession above is Mr. Christie's attempt to divert attention to himself by defaming another fellow blogger and promptly sending JTO (via the JTO Comment section) a link to a criminal court on another site. The link was complete with the mugshot and stats of a female perpetrator. Mr. Christie claimed it was the wife of a fellow orthodox blogger. Mr. Christie was wrong. JTO has confirmed that Christie's tit-for-tat claim was blatantly false. The name was wrong, the state was wrong, the person was wrong--it was not the wife of the blogger. Christie's actions, in writing, were libelous, slanderous, and defamatory. The blogger has been notified of Mr. Christie's slanderous actions toward he and his wife.

JTO needs not comment further on the despicable actions of someone who would stoop so low as to publicly attack the family members, including wives and children, of good Orthodox Christians, not to mention faithful Orthodox clergy in good standing with their Bishops, and the Bishops, themselves.  It is JTO's editorial view however, that Minas Michael Christie should see the light of day shine on his destructive deeds. Sowing discord among the brethren is a tool of the devil and Mr. Minas Michael Christie has proven himself to be as "Minas the Devil". Indeed, he has seemed to thrive off of the attention. This post will no doubt give him more fodder, but at least all will be in the light and his desired anonymity- gone. Father Gregory Williams and his Bishop, Agafangel, should also shine the light of day on Higginbotham and her vitriolic internet conduct toward individuals and churches. Not only is Agafangel's name displayed, but for years, Father Gregory's name has appeared as a contributor on Higginbotham's blog- along with Minas Christie. Others on this list would do well to disassociate themselves from bloggers such as Higginbotham who are the catalyst and enablers for such destructive discourse.

In an Alinsky-type communication, Higginbotham has published a public statement that is the antithesis of what she and Christie are actually doing. The tactic is to accuse others of the very thing you are doing so as to disguise your own tactics and divert attention. We see it often in politics. Unfortunately, we also see it in this case. Higginbotham writes:

In the words of the Prophet Nathan, when confronting the sin of King David, "Joanna, thou art the [woman]!"

Early efforts of JTO to communicate with Christie by inviting a private e-mail conversion were all rejected. Appeals to priests connected to both Higginbotham and Christie have also failed to fully curb both of their appetites for public destructive discourse. They have presented themselves as the public gatekeepers of what and who is holy and orthodox, though there is nothing holy or orthodox about their conduct. Non-Orthodox who are considering a Journey To Orthodoxy, must know that these two nor their "we", do not represent the Orthodox Faith and are under no-one's authority. They are islands unto themselves, propagating a personal agenda. Their conduct has also been a tool to prevent Old Calender True Orthodox jurisdictions from finding a place of communion. Bishop Agafangel would do well to curb Higginbotham's and Christie's, public, negative representation of the church he pastors. They are indeed despised by many in the orthodox world and by association, so is His Eminence Agafangel and Father Gregory Williams. Brethren, this ought no so to be!

Expect to see a flurry of public vitriolic activity directed toward JTO and author Nathan Lee Lewis as a result of this post and others who are now speaking out. More lies, conjecture, insinuation and libelous statements are sure to come. Christie has even attempted to do JTO author, Nathan Lee Lewis, personal and financial harm with fabricated accusations regarding his business and livelihood. Through his company, Rocky Top Pictures, Lewis is currently producing a pro-life feature film, and a feature film on the life of Saint Moses The Black, among others. Now, Higginbotham seemingly has joined Christie in this effort to slander Lewis' character and thwart these efforts. Such conduct brings to mind the words of Christ, "Render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar and render unto God that which belongs to God." To engage in public slanderous and libelous statements is illegal - and in this case, appeal to Caesar, is a viable option. For four years JTO has followed the principle, "Do not answer a fool in his folly, lest you become like him" , but there comes a time when one must push back on those who would, as a matter of deliberate practice, harm the cause of Christ by intentionally harming his children, or anyone for that matter. Lewis' business is Limited Liability Corporation (LLC) and is represented by an Entertainment Attorney who recently was successful in getting the New York Times to retract false information concerning Lewis that they had posted. Christie and Higginbotham's attempts at attack-journalism certainly do not rise to the literary skill or readership volume of the New York Times, but the same law applies to both. Neither Christie nor Higginbotham are above the law, nor are they beyond the reach of litigation designed to protect the interest of an LLC.

Ms. Higginbotham should guard her own reputation and that of her blogs. Google has recently censured her for Copyright Infringement. Her response was to proudly post all correspondence between her and the owners of the material she illegally posted and the Google letter. Her own sense of entitlement would not allow her to repent, even when publicly rebuked by Google for her illegal activity. Copyright infringement is a federal crime.

Accordingly, Mr. Christie might consider the hypocritical irony of exposing the splinter in his brother's eye when he has a very large criminal log in his own.

https://www2.miami-dadeclerk.com/CJIS/CaseSearch.aspx

Enter Minas Michael Christie to see the full PUBLIC criminal record.

But, of course, to Mr. Christie, his own sins are no "Big deal ".

One question for Christie and Higginbotham concerning those whose reputations -their chosen enemies -that they seek to diminish: Does the scripture teach us to hate our enemies or to love them, to condemn them or to pray for them? The answer to this question will dictate what their future actions should be in the body of Christ. Yes, we must stand for the truth, but the public personal destruction of individuals is not the way of Christ. For JTO's part, both Higginbotham and Christie are prayed for everyday by name as we are commanded to do.

One request for Christie and Higginbotham: Love the Lord your God with all of your heart soul and might and your neighbor as yourself. Tend to your own life. Guard your own soul and leave the souls of individuals you deem to be "enemies of the church" to God.  At the very least, talk to your "enemies" PRIVATELY, especially when they invite you, and plead to them for their soul's sake. At the very most, contact their Bishop or priest. In this, you may secure their salvation. What you are doing now accomplishes the opposite.

One comment for Father Gregory Williams and Bishop Agafangel: You have a maverick female blogger engaged in independent vitriolic discourse under the banner of your ministry. She is causing discord among the brethren undermining the very church you seek to defend. She has become your de facto spokesperson to the world via her several blogs. She enlists the aide of men, not under your pastorate to assist her in the personal destruction of the characters of godly men. She is accountable to no one, not even you, as she speaks to jurisdictions and Bishops as one of your members. To do nothing to curtail this Jezebelian activity is to endorse it. For, indeed, Joanna Higginbotham is influenced by a Jezabel Spirit and Minas Michael Christie is her Ahab.

A word to all who have been similarly attacked by Higginbotham, Christie, and their "we":
Take heart. Both Higginbotham and Christie are entering a time of isolation. Their deeds are being exposed. Good men are rising up and prophesying against them, and their time for freedom in vitriolic expository conduct is coming to an end. And, like Jezabel and Ahab of old, watch as these words are fulfilled before your eyes:

"Because you have been a divider, God will cause division among you. You will be cut off- isolated- alone. Strife will fill your days and peace will be far from you. You will be cast down and the dogs will feast on your flesh."

Lights! Camera! Religious Pluralism!

I was recenty made aware of a video on You Tube being used to promote a Church of Christ.  This Church of Christ, in Jonesboro, Arkansas, ironically my old stomping ground, was using the medium of video to advertise to the general public. Being in the film and video industry, and having once served on the staff of several Protestant churches, including one in Jonesboro, I am very familiar with these cookie-cutter videos, available from several companies, and marketed as promotional pieces for use by local churches. At one time, my own former church was considering using one of the promotional videos. The usage fee was about 3-5000 dollars, with a guaranteed exclusive viewing area for a period of time. The videos were well-produced, and there were a variety from which to choose. The selected video would be customized to include the church's name, logo, and other contact info.  At first glance, I liked the video, as it seems heartwarming, and loving. On its face, the use of video to spread the gospel is a great idea. I have always advocated making certain that people know you exist as a local Church. Even as an Orthodox Christian, I see the evangelical value of such. I have even defended an Orthodox church's use of billboards when the Orthodox critics raised an uproar. I also push back against the tendency of some in the Orthodox Church, who seem to consider the use of media, to spread the gospel, somehow worldly, and unspiritual. I also share the concerns, of some, that such a tool should not be used as a substitute for individually bearing witness of the gospel, and by personal example of the exemplary Christian lives each should lead. The absence of this relegates the local Church to a social club, and such marketing-videos, as mere advertisement. In this way, churches can become mere business competitors. The competition centers around who can offer to the most people, family-oriented activities, the gym, the trips, the social groups, all under the name "ministries."

There is nothing inherently wrong with using the media in welcoming non-Christian, non-churched people to come to Christ, and become a part of His Church. The problem I have with this particular video is not its existence, rather, its content and compromising message. It presents a message that invites people to come as they are, to be a part of the Church, without presenting the prerequisite of becoming a Christian through repentance. It presents an easy, no strings attached, Christianity, which is foreign to the Faith of our Fathers.  This is what I posted as a comment on You Tube:

"Sorry, but this is the epitome of religious pluralism run amok, where Scripture and Tradition are irrelevant and must bend to whatever makes one feel comfortable. It is a dangerous blend of half truths. Frankly, I am surprised to see such from a Church of Christ, which typically holds to a standard of faith and practice. Attempting to become relevant, this particular church has become irrelevant by compromising with the world. Kinda makes you feel warm and fuzzy, though."

Watch the video below:

In the video, each excuse for not coming to church is raised by a presumed non-Christian, and then a response to that excuse is given. Let's look at both and evaluate the truth of each:

Excuse: "I can't come to church until I get my life together."

Response:  "Church is how I got my life together." "New Beginnings"

JTO: This is actually a good exhortation. It is likened to "the well do not need a physician..."

Excuse: "Church is filled with a bunch of hypocrites."

Response: "There is always room for one more." "Imperfect people welcomed."

JTO: The video makes a mistake in accepting the false premise of the excuse and attempting to answer it. The second part of the response, "imperfect people are welcomed", should be answered by explaining what Christ meant when he said,

"Be ye therefore, perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect."

Perfect righteousness and obedience to the Lordship of Christ is the call of every man. An unchurched man may not understand the nature of grace, forgiveness, and the power of God to save and make righteous those whom He has saved. It is misleading to make a man think that imperfection is the excepted norm. And remember, the excuse was not about the unchurched having a sin or two, it was an accusation that even the righteous, the Church of Christ, are not, indeed, righteousness. "Christians are hypocrites", was the accusation. It seems that such an excuse-maker is also an accuser and has no desire to leave his unrighteousness. So, to appease his sin, by implying that "you and we are all the same" is a lie, and does nothing to bring him to repentance or into the Church.

The first part of the excuse, "there's always room for one more (hypocrite)", is an invitation that does not have a scriptural basis. What is a hypocrite, anyway?

Definition of Hypocrite:

1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

Now let's unravel the faulty premise: The Church is not "full" of hypocrites. Can hypocrites be found in a given Church? Yes, but for the most part, Churches are filled with sincere individuals who strive to be righteous, but always find themselves falling short. Saint Paul said,

"For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I."

Was Paul a hypocrite? No, but he  understood the sin nature. The false premise presented in the video and accepted by this local Church of Christ, confuses the sin nature of man with the state of  hypocrisy. All members of churches have a propensity to sin and do sin to varying degrees. There is not "room for one more" hypocrite, and an invitation that such conduct is acceptable, is not scriptural. When and where in the scripture did Christ or His disciples say, "come on into the Church as you are, hypocrites." In fact, the Church is told to cast out hypocrites, who leaven the whole loaf. Christ, himself, gives the order of Church discipline in the book of Matthew,

 

"And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell [it] unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican."

Where in the world did we get the idea that all are welcomed into the Church, anyway? Yes, God desires that all should be saved, but the entire Church is made up of baptized believers who walk in community with one another, in a constant state of repentance, not on a come-as-you-are basis. It seems that this Church of Christ has forgotten that, 

"Many are called, but few are chosen".

Can an unrepentant person come to a Church service? Yes, if they will.  But are we to compel them and  accept them into community on a "come as you are basis"? No. This is not the gospel. Repentance and baptism is the prerequisite. The original Orthodox Church has always accepted catechumens, but catechumens come in a repentant state, already professing a desire to come into the Church. In the early days of the Church, the catechumens were not even allowed to remain for the entire Liturgy, for they were not yet baptized, and could not be present when the Eucharist was received. A prayer was said for them,

Deacon: Pray, ye catechumens, to the Lord.

People: Lord have mercy.

Deacon: Ye faithful, for the catechumens let us pray, that the Lord will have mercy on them.

People: Lord have mercy.

Deacon: That He will catechize them with the word of Truth.

People: Lord have mercy.

Deacon: That He will united them to His Holy Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

People: Lord have mercy.

Deacon; Save them, have mercy on them, help them, O God, by thy grace.

People: Lord have mercy.

Deacon: Ye catechumens, bow your heads to the Lord.

People: To Thee O  Lord.

Priest: That they also with us may glorify Thy most honorable and majestic name: of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages.

People: Amen.

Then the catechumens were ushered out of the Temple.

Deacon: As many as are catechumens, depart; catechumens, depart; as many as are catechumens, depart; let none of the catechumens remain; as many as are of the faithful, again and again, in peace let us pray to the Lord.

Although the catechumens are allowed to stay in the Temple today, the prayer is still prayed aloud by the priest. This practice is not a rejection of the catechumens nor a way for one group to exhibit some kind of spiritual superiority, it was to protect the seeker, who, in his unbaptized state, does not dare come charging into the presence of God. This is the very reason people were warned,

"Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged."

The Church of Christ and many Protestant denominations, don't know what the Orthodox Church has known for 2000 years, that Christ, Himself, is actually present in the Eucharist.  It is this lack of understanding that allows this Church of Christ to treat, as common, the Body of Christ, making it a club where all can be members by just signing up. "There is always room for one more hypocrite and if you are willingly imperfect, you are just like us, so come on in!"  They have failed to see that salvation is not an event where one gives a mental or emotional assent to the truth, but salvation is a process that begins with repentance. In the original Orthodox Church, one first becomes a catechumen. This period can last a year or more. The Orthodox Church recognises that salvation is not served up on a plate like cookies, with the slogan "It's free, take one." In their effort to extend grace to the unchurched, this local congregation has mistakenly believed that Christ's commission to,

 

"Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature",

 

has been fulfilled by virtue of the fact that they have an edifice in a city with lots of stuff going on. They have flipped the commission to "go" by saying, "come", to the extent that they appeal to the base sin-nature of man who, in his desperately wicked heart, doesn't want to be told he is a sinner in need of repentance. Instead, this local Church, through this video, gives the message that the sinner can remain exactly as he is and still be a part. Again, this a false gospel. A person who points at the Church and yells, "hypocrites", is not repentant. They have presented a faulty and false premise as an excuse to remain in their sinful state. God has never welcomed hypocrites, He has always welcomed repentant hypocrites! A Christian response would be to tell such a person that they must repent of their sins, turn from their wicked ways, die to self, and follow Christ. Without repentance, there is no salvation. The Church welcomes repentant sinners, not willful ones.

The Rich Young Ruler is a case in point. Did Christ welcome him "as he was"? No. He challenged him to give up all that he had and, only then, could he follow Christ. Such a challenge was intended to reveal the true, unrepentant, heart of the young man. The Scripture says that he went away sorrowful, and Christ let him, saying,

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of  a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven." 

Christ is either Lord of all or He is not Lord at all. To compel anyone into the Church, under any other premise, is a false gospel.

Excuses:  "All they care about is your money".

Response: "They care about me." "People are priceless."

JTO: The excuse may be warranted, given the propensity for many churches to pour vast sums of their money into edifices, structures, buildings and grounds, while simultaneously giving only minor attention to the immediate financial and physical needs of individuals. The response does not seem to answer the excuse, but, rather, deflects it. A better response would be to tell them, "God loves a cheerful giver! It is the love of money, not money itself, that is evil. Our Church cares for the poor, the widows and the orphans, and the vast percentage of the money we have goes for that cause." The scripture says, 'Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, [and] to keep himself unspotted from the world.'" If a Church is not emphasising this, then they do give a valid reason for the excuse. I don't see, on the Church's website, any reference to widows and orphans. I do see a "Ministry Model", which is typical of modern church growth techniques, requires vast sums of money, and, of course, includes a gymnasium or recreation center. So, yes they do "care about" your money. It is necessary to raise vast sums to keep such an operation going.

Excuse: "Is there some kind of dress code"?

Response: "The code is. 'Wear some clothes'." "Come as you are."

JTO: Yes, it is good to welcome people of all economic classes and not reject anyone because of what they cannot afford to wear, however, to suggest that it is okay to wear any manner of dress is compromise with the world and diminishes the holiness of the worship setting. The inherent problem here, is the fact that the Church of Christ and other Protestant offshoots, do not have a narthex, nave, iconostasis, or sanctuary. Most just have an auditorium, where all are free to roam at will. There is no altar, for there is no Eucharist and no priest. What would be the altar, is simply a stage for speaking purposes. Apparently, Alexander Campbell did not have access to this part of the life of the Church when he attempted to fashion his new religion after the early Church. He assumed that all Christians sat around informally in homes and were equals-no priests. He overlooked the fact that early Christians also continued to attend the Temple services as well and were governed by Apostles, then Bishops. As the church spread and grew to the point of needing independent structures to house the worship of God, the buildings were patterned after the Temple and Bishops ordained priests to assist in the work and administer the holy sacraments.

Do we, or do we not, meet with the Holy God in worship? Is the worship building sanctified (set apart) or is it not? The original Orthodox Church considers the material world holy because God owns and sanctifies it. So, what one wears in the presence of God, in this Holy Temple, is important. This is why the clergy have always vested. How would you dress to meet the President or a King, or even for a job interview? And yet, the woman on the video is wearing a t-shirt, adorned with Native American artwork, seeped in subliminal pagan imagery, emblazoned across her bosom. In fact, did you notice she even shakes her breasts? Modesty is a scriptural virtue and has been lost in this western culture. My wife, in her post,  Where Is Your Gold Ring, says it best,

"'Let us glorify and bear God in a pure and chaste body, and with a more complete obedience; and since we have been redeemed by the blood of Christ, let us obey and give furtherance to the empire of our Redeemer by all the obedience of service, that nothing impure or profane may be brought into the temple of God, lest He should be offended, and forsake the temple which He inhabits.  The body is God’s temple, and we are the priest of that body-temple! In a very real sense, we are as answerable to God in how we conduct ourselves in our body, as the priest is in how he conducts himself during the Liturgy! Just as the body is expected to be pure, the manner in which the body is displayed is expected to be pure."

Yes there is a dress code, in and out of church! To promote anything else is compromise with the world. If a person is in need of modest clothing and has no means of acquiring it,  then the church should provide it. This is the scripture and tradition of the Church, though maybe not this particular COC. 

Excuse: "Church just makes me nervous."

Response: "I was nervous at first and then I felt right at home." Right where God wants you."

JTO: The video actually gives a good first answer to this excuse. The reason for a person's discomfort can vary, but a person's comfort level is not the main priority of the Church. For instance, the revelation of sin in a person's life can make them uncomfortable. A Church that has a high priority to make people comfortable, in order to get them to Church, will compromise with the world in order get people to stay in the Church. Such a Church will find themselves eventually compromising truth, such as homosexuality is sinful, and Christ is the ONLY way to heaven. The book of The Revelation, in looking at the state of the Churches in the last days, gives this warning to those who would be a part of her,

"So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth."

Those aren't really words of comfort, now are they? I think Christ is more concerned for their souls. This local Church, through this video does not follow His example.

Since the buildings of the Church of Christ are not sanctified, then one can understand why holiness in dress has been denigrated to a substandard which says, "Dress code? Yes, just don't come naked."

Excuse: "I'm not sure I believe everything you believe."

Response: "But you can still belong." "Doubt welcome"

JTO This is probably one of the most glaring and dangerous half truths. No. A person cannot belong to the Church without believing the truth. The response confuses disbelief with doubt. It is one thing to be ignorant of the truth or question the validity of a truth, but disbelief is an act of the will. The scripture says,

"Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool",

but this was an invitation for one to receive forgiveness through repentance, not for one who refuses to accept or believe the truth.

The Apostles told Christians to separate themselves from those who did not follow the truth they were handed, not to make them "belong". To say one can still belong if he doesn't believe, is the height of compromise and negates the validity of the Church. Truth becomes relative and ceases to be certain. Yes, Jesus ate with the publicans and the sinners and was criticised for it, but he went to where they were to call them out of the world. He did not move the worldly conduct to the Temple.

A better response would be to invite the unbeliever to come to a Question and Answer class, on or off the church property, to discuss the matters. If the non-believer hears and believes, then you have won their souls, but don't tell them they can still belong, as a disbeliever. This is not the gospel.

Excuse; "Church is for wimpy, girly men."

Response: (Video shows two non-girly men flexing their muscles) One says, "You want to say that again?"

Saint Ignatius Killed By Lions

JTO: One wonders how these non-girly men, portrayed in the video, would fare when faced with the are girly men compared to the martyrs of the faith who were men and women of God and have a special place in heaven. I doubt that either of  these non-girly men, nor I, will ever match the faith of those saints and martyrs who have shed real blood. Unless a man is willing to lay down his life, deny himself and follow Christ, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.real persecution that is going on all over the world, and that may, one day, come to America. A better response would be, "Girly men? Tell that to the 80 million Orthodox Christians who were savagely annihilated in Russia by the Bolsheviks. Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of Christians who are today being massacred in Indonesia, Iraq and throughout the entire Middle East and Africa, as we speak. Tell that to the Fathers of the faith who were tortured, beheaded, or ripped apart by lions, throughout the ages. Don't show them one obese man and one pierced-eared muscle man, trying to act tough, and call that, manhood. The men in the video 

"If you deny me before men then I will deny you before my father which is in heaven."

One who uses this excuse should be told that he is a girly man, if he does not follow Christ. He must be willing to literally die for Christ. It takes courage to do so. If he is not willing to die, then he cannot become a Christian nor be a member of the Church.

Excuse: "If you knew me and what I've done, you wouldn't want me."

Response: "If you knew me and what I've done, you wouldn't be worried." "Forgiven."

JTO: This excuse seems to come from a sincere heart, that is ready to admit that they are a sinner. This response is actually a good and redemptive one. We are all sinners and there is forgiveness for all...if one repents.

The final invitation of the video attempts to sum up the excuses and responses:

"You can come to my Church even if you were brought up Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Mormon, Lutheran Pentecostal, Presbyterian, Church of Christ, Southern Baptist, a little bit of everything and a whole lot of nothing. You see it's not about a religion, its about a relationship. So please come to my church where nobody's perfect, where beginners are welcome, where socks are optional, grace is required, forgiveness is offered, where hope is alive, and where it's okay to not be okay-really."

JTO: The only problem with the video summary is the fact that it does not sum up the content of the video! It also adds a different subject- One can come to their church no matter what their religious background. This sounds right initially, but then the video resorts to the old, "religion is a bad word" idea. For any Church of Christ to say they are not a religion, and that religion is a bad thing, is not honest or at least  shows a propensity toward political correctness. If the following definition of religion is true, then the Church is religious and should be unapologetically so! It is NOT just a relationship!

 re·li·gion  /rɪˈlɪdʒən/  [ri-lij-uhn]

–noun

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.

5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

7. religions, Archaic . religious rites.

8. Archaic . strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.

—Idiom

9. get religion, Informal .

a. to acquire a deep conviction of the validity of religious beliefs and practices.

b. to resolve to mend one's errant ways: The company got religion and stopped making dangerous products.

Origin:

1150–1200; Middle English religioun (Old French religion ) Latin religiōn- (stem of religiō) conscientiousness, piety, equivalent to relig ( āre ) to tie, fasten ( re- re- + ligāre to bind, tie; compare ligament) + -iōn- -ion; compare rely

This subject is akin to a dialogue I had with a local pastor concerning his Church's publicised motto, "The Spiritual But Not Religious Church." ( Read: Since When Is Religious A Bad Word? and Since When Is Religious A Bad Word? Part Two) As in that instance, this Church of Christ is conforming to the world and presenting a diminished Christianity. It certainly is not presenting the Faith of our Fathers. It is attempting to compete with the world by getting people to the property by any means, offering them an activity-based atmosphere and making them part of the club, with little or no strings attached.

"Well we must get them here first and then we can reach them", you may hear.

And then when you get them there, you spring the real faith on them? Let me know how that works for you, and when you find your church has become a revolving door of unrepentant sinners, in an out, in and out, which is typical of such a church growth method, you won't have to look far for the reason. The Scripture teaches us,

"Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it."

Southwest Church Of Christ of Jonesboro, Arkansas: How wide is the gate and how narrow is the path that you have presented through this video? In case you don't understand:

WIDE is wrong and leads to destruction.

NARROW is right and leads to life.

By the way, I can admire Alexander Campbell for his attempt to "restore the church and "the unification of all Christians in a single body patterned after the church of the New Testament." The only problem is, he didn't go back far enough. The Church was here  all along, and is still here today. It never left- It is the Original Church, the Church of the Apostles- The Orthodox Church-since 33 A.D.

Other Related Articles:
Why I Left The Church Of Christ For Orthodoxy
Leaving "The Faith" to Get To The Faith
The "Church Of Christ"

My Apologies For "Slamming"

1. systematic argumentative discourse in defense (as of a doctrine)

2. a branch of theology devoted to the defense of the divine origin and authority of Christianity 

I have been lately accused of "slamming" Baptists. The accusation, delivered by a series of e-mails, came from a person who has taken issue with the fact that I reference Baptists and my Baptist  heritage when discussing the faith. This apparently is such an offense to the person that they have concluded that my conduct is unbecoming of a Christian. They have resorted to sarcasms, name-calling and judgments about by motives and character. I have offered, on two occasions, to speak, in person, with the offended one, but I have been turned down.  The offended one has yet to offer a critique or comment on the issues in the content of my posts. In fact, they made a point of letting me know they do not and would not ever go to the JTO blog, but for the fact that someone alerted them to one of my posts. This prompted the shoot-from-the-hip e-mails.

Make no mistake, I welcome discourse on a private level and provide my e-mail publicly for those who wish to talk privately. I have found, however, that this shoot-the-messenger approach of personal attack, is a common response from those who know little about apologetic discourse. I have even seen this from Orthodox believers who have the misguided view that we are never to say a disparaging word about anything. This view comes from ignorance of the fact that The Faith Of Our Fathers was propagated by apologetic discourse. Saint Paul the Apostle used the term apologia (απολογία), which means "in defense of",  in Acts 26:2, when he told Festas and Aggripa "I make my defense". In this same way, I apologize, as should we all.  A baptist-based university offers this similar definition of "apologetics:

"Christian Apologetics is an essential interdisciplinary field of study that has as its goal the defense of the great truths of the Christian faith. Indeed, the Apostle Peter thought it important enough to exhort all believers to be prepared always to give a defense (apologian) to everyone who asks about the hope that we have in Christ (1 Peter 3:15)."

Is engaging in apologetics "slamming"? I can only assume the offended one understands the definition of the word "slam"-to criticize harshly. Given that the word, "harsh", means undue exacting, I would have to ask the offended one to point out what, in the discourse of my posts, has been undue? Defending the faith includes, as a necessary element, the exposing of ideology and doctrines that are foreign to the Faith, and, therefore, foreign to the Church, which was established by Christ and His Apostles. Any validly acquired offense should only be taken as a result of  the dissemination of untruths, not by the act of apologetic discourse. Apologetic criticism is only undue if it is false. Then it is characterized by "not a valid argument" not as "slamming". That I use my personal experience and relationships as a frame of reference for my apologetics is not only not undue, it is necessary.

It is a challenge to communicate with those who are unable or unwilling to have a reasonable discussion of the issues. It is especially challenging to communicate with those who, through insecurity, pride, or other emotional entanglements, resort to personal attacks, innuendos, and false assumptions as this offended one and others have. It is impossible to keep them on the subject. I have discovered a good tool for rooting out those who do not understand apologetic discourse (Please keep this a secret). In my response to them, I refuse to answer any personal accusations or to defend myself, but, rather, I repeatedly state the points of  the issues in question. Eventually they either 1. disappear, never having come to the truth, or they 2. become more aggressive and persistent, hurling new variations of old personal attacks. When the latter occurs, I have to discern when it is time to cut off the lines of fruitless discourse. To do so seems abrupt to the offended one, and they deem such an action as "cutting and running". Some people thrive on argument. They must win. How unfortunate it is when any such one has not learned the art of productive argument. In this case, there can be no winners and I will not provide a forum for such a losing endeavor.

Yes, I do "slam". I duly criticize, the Baptist theology, doctrine, and mindset, being that it is a man-initiated denomination, founded by John Smythe, the "self-baptiser", in the 1600's and looks very little like the Church of our Fathers. Baptists don't even reflect the belief of the tenants of the Lutheran Reformation. Baptists place their faith in the truth of the tenants and doctrines of an English, Anglican Preacher, all the while assuming they are following the Apostolic faith handed down to us. They are not. Why is that important? Because one will never know the fullness of the faith unless he is safe within the gates  where the "pillar and foundation of all truth" resides- the Church, the Orthodox Church, the original Church that has been here for over 2000 years, and for which Christ has promised, "The gates of hell will not prevail against." 

Authentic, respectful, apologetic discourse is what I offer here on Journey to Orthodoxy, but the offended one will not participate. Instead, brief, bullet-bearing e-mails are shot at me accusing me of the very conduct in which they are engaging. I am encouraged, however, that JTO, is visited daily by hundreds from all over the world, and from almost every religious persuasion, who do understand proper Apologetic discourse.

So, herein, I have offered My Apologies For Slamming. Now, you may offer your apology to this apology but, be careful not to say anything for which you may have to apologize.


Other related Articles:
Drive By Bloggers
 It's All Relative

Drive-By-Bloggers or DBBs

A RECENT COMMENT FROM A DBB AFTER READING

"'FREEDOM IN WORSHIP' OR IS ORTHODOXY CHARISMATIC?"

"Well good for you! So glad you've found yet another true way to worship. So long as you don't expect everyone else on the planet to bow in sync with your bow, more power to you. Not everyone is willing to give up the way they worship, the way that's right for them, because it's not right to you. Your truth is not everyones truth, and with so much left before you're fully integrated into the orthodox faith can you truly be giving advice, and telling people in such an open forum that this is the right, the truth, and the only way to go. Lets just say this has been hashed and rehashed in your lifetime and its to your discredidation." ANONYMOUS

As you might understand, due to the public nature of this BLOG, I, upon occasion, receive several negative Comments. Anyone who has made the Journey To Orthodoxy has dealt in some measure with rejection and personal attacks. This is especially true of those who make the drastic shift from some form of Protestantism. I hesitate to post negative Comments like the one here, especially when they are Anonymous. The motives of the author are always in question. I call them drive-by-bloggers or DBBs. They want to shoot at you and run without sticking around. They aren't even sure if their bullet hit the target. It seems to do them good, somehow, just to pull the trigger. One of the most significant differences between me and this DBB is the fact that I put my name on my public forum and take responsibility for what I say. I also am under the authority of my priest who has visited my BLOG and because of my submission to him, he would be given the power of edit if he so chose. In fact, I recently submitted to him a BLOG article that I am withholding from posting at his recommendation until I can gather more information on the topic. So, the DBB does raise at least one valid question concerning my authority to BLOG. Unfortunately it is difficult to appreciate the validity of DBB's Comment due to the noise of DBB's whizzing bullets. But I'll try.

DBB, You are right to point out that I have "found yet another true way to worship". By that I understand that you have knowledge that, in my Journey To Orthodoxy, I have been passionate about truth and worshipping the Lord relative to the knowledge that I had, and that I shared, taught, and expressed, according to that knowledge, and that sometimes that knowledge was wrong. So, your inference would be correct if you are suggesting that once I believed that and now I believe this. Isn't that the way of a Journey, especially one so deep as the pursuit of God? Do you not come upon paths that you didn't know existed, only to discover that the path you were on, that seemed to be the way, was not even near the main road? I understand how, in observing my path-finding toward the main road of Orthodoxy, I might have appeared to be meandering. My own Protestant Father referred to my Journey as the "Religion of the Month Club." But, if one reaches the destination,the main road, can't one's willingness to meander be given a measure of credit for the outcome?

DBB, You are right to acknowledge that I have taught others to "bow" in certains ways that seemed right at the time. It is also true that I carried a "bow" and my quiver was full of arrows with my own monogram. I must confess that I sincerely, but presumptuously, used my bow to pierce the hearts of others with what I believed to be the truth. I sincerely, but at times arrogantly, thought myself a warrior for God. I was wrong. God's arrows are sufficient and his bow is far superior to mine. Since you visit my BLOG, I would hope you would read my articles on Truth and Authority. If you do, you may understand that one of my most significant paradigm shifts is the fact that I no longer hold as a right, my own opinion on anything. My BLOG is not an advice column and it is certainly not a place to express my own opinion on what truth is. Truth has already been established by the Fathers of the Faith. I am sharing the existing truth I have discovered not the new truth I have created. So you are on target on this one. My "truth is not everyone's truth", unless the truth I espouse is that which has been handed down by the Apostles. There is only ONE truth.

DBB, In my article to my daughters I express the fact that they can bring up any number of wrongs I have committed and they will probably all be true. You may be able to do the same. I am a sinner saved by grace, but I am a sinner in a continuing process of repentance. "Hashing and rehashing" is a good thing. It would behoove anyone to spend a "lifetime" doing so. To cease to hash would be to my "discreditation." Fortunately, and by the grace of God, my most confusing hashing days ended in April 2006 when I was Chrismated into the One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. It was there (See my 50 Year Journey article), that one of my new brothers in the faith said these words, "Welcome Home." My entire hashing Journey has been about finding the Faith of Our Fathers. Everyone who makes it to their moment of Chrismation in the Orthodox Church says the same thing, "There is no place to go after this. There is no other destination." Part of the Orthodox Liturgy contains this prayer which we pray every week, 

"We have seen the true light. We have received the heavenly Spirit. We have found the true faith. Worshipping the undivided Trinity, for he has saved us."

 

Now, I can, in my admittedly feeble way, spend my next 50 years learning what the Church has taught about light, truth, and worship, for 2000 years.

Finally DBB, The familiarity of your Comment and the fact that you desired to remain Anonymous, suggests you might personally know me and that at sometime along my journey I offended you. If this is the case, I am compelled of heart to ask you to forgive me a sinner and to not hold to my account the wrongs I may have done to you. I also ask that you allow me to make recompense to you personally. Will you put down your weapon DBB and sup with me? May the grace of our Lord be upon you and your family.

"Lord, Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner."