Do Orthodox Have Dirty Laundry? Ask Saint Athanatious!

Preface to this post: I wrote this post in August of 2006. Rather than post it, I submitted it to my local priest, Father Steven Rogers of Saint Ignatius Antiochian Orthodox Church in Franklin, Tennessee. His response was one of wisdom. He suggested (not ordered) that although he agreed with the content of the post, he found it more productive to discuss these issues face to face rather than in a public forum such as a BLOG. Following his suggestion, I printed and sent a copy of the post with a letter of humility and servitude, to my chief pastor, Metropolitan Philip. It has been ten months and there has been no response. Come King or Bishop, all are answerable to the Lord our God! Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, Have mercy on me a sinner. Here is the post:

Question: "Do Orthodox have dirty laundry"? Answer: "Is the Patriarch Orthodox"? Discussing subject matter dealing with error in the church, especially that which finds as its perpetrator Priests, Bishops, Metropolitans, or Patriarchs, certainly is reason enough to give one pause. I would agree, however, with the German philosopher, Arther Schopenhauer, who said, "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident" , so my pause is brief. I am fully aware that truth must first be presented by a human instrument for this process to be put into motion and that human bearers of truth do not always fair so well. Ask Saint Athanatious! It was the Apostle Paul, that prolific writer of corrective epistles, who spake the heart that all bearers of truth should have, "For me to live is Christ and to die is gain." I was given the name, Paul, at my Chrismation and do ask now, "Saint Paul pray for me."

I read an excellent discourse recently on the history of the Orthodox Church. In it was pointed out the fact that the time is ripe for the Orthodox Church to flourish. Thousands are coming to the faith. From every culture and continent there are reports of, not just individuals, but whole religious groups, churches and segments of society converting to Orthodoxy. My own Priest recently made the announcement during his homily that we could no longer consider our Church in Tennessee a "little country church". Even though our parish is five miles south of town, four miles down a winding, narrow, two-lane road, and nestled in a valley, we are exploding with growth. We have grown to over 350 faithful, have about 30 new catechumens since last Pascha, and receive numerous calls weekly from sincere seekers. We are in the midst of a two-phase building program which includes a new paved parking lot, a parish hall, and a new Temple. We have spawned one mission in the last year and have had requests from three other groups to assist them in starting a mission in their community. Similar things are happening all over America. Soon we will not be able to say Orthodoxy is "the best kept secret". It shouldn't have been a secret to begin with. Ah, but alas, history happens.

I have alluded in earlier articles to my connection with the Charismatic Episcopal Church (CEC), having converted to Orthodoxy from that communion. The CEC is a great example of this move toward the faith. I know of at least five priests in the last several months who have petitioned the Antiochian Orthodox Diocese to bring their entire church into the faith. On their Journey to Orthodoxy some of these honest seekers of truth have asked a series of "what about this" questions. Some of those questions stem from the fact that even in the "Church that is the Church" the Orthodox Faith, one can point to human failures and less-than-wise decisions by Orthodox leaders and individuals. I like how my former CEC Priest has responded to his fellow former CEC priest's "what about this" questions concerning Orthodox Dirty Laundry,

"Would you rather deal with dirty laundry knowing you are in THE Faith or remain where you are and deal with it?"

Dirty Laundry Happens. As examples, consider these two separate incidents, one where an Orthodox Bishop recently fell into sin, and one where a Diocese is being questioned about inappropriate use of money. The stark difference I have found in the Orthodox Autocephelous ethos, is that there is a core heart toward righteousness and purity to safeguard against the propensity for leaven that would leaven the whole loaf. The Bishop who fell into sin was immediately no longer a Bishop (but neither was he cast off as a brother). The errant Diocese is under inside and outside scrutiny and pressure to answer and correct that which would bring shame to the name of Christ and has undergone a change in leadership. We do not live in a vacuum, although at times it seems that may be the cleaner place to dwell. Every Orthodox Christian has to deal with sin in the camp. It has always been so. The calling of Seven Ecumenical Councils attest to that fact. Every Orthodox Christian then and now has faced the challenge of how to respond to errant Bishops and Priests of the Church who need, at the very least, a One Hour Martinizing. It is a fearsome thing to question one in such spiritual authority over you. I mean, who are we? But then again, who was Athanatious?

I have recently discovered what I believe to be a most substantial argument FOR the establishment of an American Church that is unified by the Faith and not by ethnic cultures. One of our Orthodox laundry items is the fact that some decisions of the Church are made based on cultural influences rather than Scriptural or Apostolic Traditional influences. In the current climate of conflict in the Middle East, our Church leaders face a dilemma. Do we offer perspectives of the Church or do we offer our biased cultural opinions? The fact is the Antiochian Orthodox stream of the Church is Arabic, our Patriarchal See being in Damascus, Syria. Our Metropolitan Philip and our Bishop Antoun and others, have been especially burdened as they, along with all of us, have watched the violence in Israel and Lebanon. As leaders of the Church, they have rightly not been content to just watch but rather have chosen to be involved in promoting peace and aiding those who are suffering, especially our Orthodox brothers and sisters.

Our beloved Metropolitan Phillip, who in many ways has been instrumental in providing an environment for thousands of American Evangelicals, such as myself to enter the Faith, on July 25, 2006 issued a letter,
"TO BE READ FROM THE PULPIT AND PUBLISHED IN THE PARISH BULLETIN".

In it he expresses, with all sincerity, his deep sadness for the Lebanese "men, women, and children" who are suffering in the current conflict. He points out that Lebanon is part of our Patriarch of Antioch and that our brothers and sisters in the faith are being personally affected. He appeals to the whole Church to pray and to "give generously to help the suffering people of Lebanon." That he is speaking from a pastor's heart of love and compassion, there can be no doubt. It is important to note, however, that in the same Letter, His Eminence seemingly speaks, not from a pastoral role, but from that of a politician with cultural Arab bias and in doing so, he has unwittingly promoted false terrorist propaganda. Though, "Everyone would agree that the result [of the conflict] is a humanitarian disaster for the people of Lebanon", everyone would not agree with the Arab Islamic propaganda that Israel is evil in its intentions and dastardly in its methods. The Metropolitan's Letter made the statement,

"As you have been hearing in the media (i.e. television, newspapers and the Internet), Lebanon is being systematically destroyed".

This statement begs the question as to whether or not using such biased media sources to prove a point is a trustworthy and factual resource. As a former news and live-talk show Producer with a CBS affiliate and with an earned degree in Radio, Television and Film, I know this all too well. One of my goals as a producer was to make sure that the raw footage that came in from the field was not subject to the common practice of being creatively edited to show the bias of the particular reporter doing the story. Thus, I , like many, have an eye for spotting biased reporting and propaganda. The coverage of the current conflict in the Middle East is a well-oiled propaganda machine supported by international press that is historically anti-west and most assuredly anti-Semitic. It is more than obvious to me that the content of our Metropolitan's Letter has been influenced in this way. For instance, it is true that much destruction is occurring in Lebanon. It is not true that Lebanon is being "systematically" destroyed. The use of such a word infers an intent that Israel does not have in this conflict, and an action that Israel has not perpetrated. It is well known that the "Israeli bombs", a phrase that Metropolitan Philip uses twice in his Letter, are targeting terrorist rocket launchers, missiles, combatants, predominantly in the 20 mile area north of the Israeli border. Israel also is bombing specific and strategic targets across the country to shut off the supply of missiles coming in from Syria and Iran, but this is not "systematic" destruction. The predominant press coverage is focused to give the appearance that all of Lebanon is being carelessly destroyed by a ruthless, heartless, and malicious enemy-Israel.

The Letter also says that,
"Red Cross Ambulances carrying the sick and wounded are being targeted".
It may be true that ambulances carrying the sick and wounded have been hit by exploding bombs or falling debris in this ever volatile war zone. It is not true, however, that these ambulances are "being targeted" as the Letter states. The statement is not only factually unverifiable but on its face does not hold up. The most often used propaganda photo being circulated is that of a pock-marked ambulance with one ten-to-twelve inch, gaping, round hole in the top of it. Any rational unbiased observer would have to agree that a direct targeted hit by an Israeli plane did not cause the damage, unless of course the pilots were dropping bowling balls. "Targeted" implies specific intention to hit. To infer that Israeli pilots search, with bomb trigger finger ready, for "Red Cross Ambulances" to destroy, has no rationality, reason, or merit. The only conceivable rationality, reason, or merit there might be for "targeting", is if the ambulances are deemed a military target. There is no doubt that the Terrorists have a history of using ambulances to spread their propaganda and Terrorist efforts. They transport combatants in ambulances. They transport missiles and other munitions in ambulances. They park ambulances by missile launchers hoping for an air strike so that such propaganda pictures may be taken. Their objective is that such propagandist lies will be shared so as to turn the world against Israel and it's friend, America. Should you determine this is my own personal opinion or that, I too, have been subject to propaganda of another kind, I invite you to scrutinize the documentary Pallywood which shows the extent to which Islamic Terrorists will go to create staged scenes of propaganda using ambulances: www.seconddraft.org. With a simple internet search, you may also watch actual video footage of Terrorists piling into an ambulance with assault weapons in hand being transported to safety during a firefight.

Sadly now, the Terrorist's media propaganda theme that villainous Israeli Jews are intentionally killing maimed, wounded, and dying civilians while brave Arabic Muslim ambulance drivers risk their own lives to whisk them off to safety, has made its way even into the sanctity of our Holy Orthodox Temples via the sincerely intended but biased misinformation in the Metropolitan's Letter. "Brethren this ought not so to be"!

What is bias?
Is it not bias that there is no mention in the Letter of the more than 5000 Lebanonese missiles that have been indiscriminately fired into civilian sections of Israel, killing, "men, women, and children" including Jews, Muslims and Christians alike?
Is it not bias that there is no mention in the Letter of the devastated hospitals, schools, and homes in Israel?
Is it not bias that the Letter does not contain heart tugging stories of Israeli suffering such as the grandmother and her two precious grandchildren who were blown apart by a Lebanese missile irrefutably intentionally directed at civilian targets, or the little Israeli boy blown apart while sitting on a street curb playing, or the teenage boy left dead in a street gutter while his best friend weeps beside him?
Is it not bias that there is no mention in the Letter of the air raid sirens, the bomb shelters, the food lines to help the displaced and bombed-out citizens of Israel?
Is it not bias that the Letter does not mention our Patriarch of Jerusalem and our Bishops and Israeli Christian brothers and sisters in Christ who are suffering and must live in constant fear of instant death by a missile fired from Lebanon?
Is it not bias that there is no mention in the Letter of the 15,000 more missiles that still exist in the borders of Lebanon ready to kill more innocent "men, women and children" within the borders of Israel unless they are taken out by an "Israeli bomb"?
Is it not bias that there is no mention in the Letter of the 13,000 missiles that have been fired into Israeli neighborhoods over the last six years while the government of Lebanon stood idly by and allowed a state supported terrorist militant group who has openly called for the destruction of Israel and America to amass an army intent on that purpose?

When I see a photo of our Bishop and our Metropolitan standing in conference with Islamic leaders, I think, "good, there should be dialogue so that the Church leaders may speak the Holy Scriptures and the Tradition of the Apostles. In this our laundry is clean." But when, out of the same conference, there is issued a nine point rebuke naming and rebuking ONLY Israel, it smacks of ethnic bias and this is Orthodox Dirty Laundry.

On Thursday August 3rd, 2006, the members of the Standing Conference of American Middle-Eastern Christian and Muslim Religious Leaders convened for an emergency meeting to discuss and take action on the current crisis in Lebanon. The meeting was hosted by the Chairman, His Eminence Metropolitan PHILLIP, Primate of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America, and was held at the headquarters of the Antiochian Archdiocese in Englewood, New Jersey.
The members of the Standing Conference expressed their solidarity by unanimously approving the following resolution:
1. A call for an immediate and unconditional cease fire to stop the death and destruction
(A call on whom? Israel only? "Unconditional"? So Israel is to stop the "death and destruction" but you expect them to ignore the firing of Hezbollah rockets into their sovereign nation?)
2. A call for the exchange of prisoners between Lebanon and Israel
(Does this infer that you believe the prisoners Israel holds are not criminals caught in the very act of perpetrating "death and destruction" on Israeli soil? You just demand that they be released?)
3. A call for Israel to withdraw from the Shib'aa Farms, which Israel has occupied since 1967, and all other occupied Lebanese lands.
(Is this not a territorial dispute between nations, including Syria who once occupied the land? To what purpose would our Bishops choose a side on this one?)
4. A call for the international community to give immediate humanitarian assistance to those who are suffering, and to help hundreds of thousands of displaced Lebanese citizens to return to their cities, villages, and homes.
(On this one we would all agree and find it easy to commend our Bishops for their pastoral roles)
5. A call for the international community to help Lebanon rebuild the infrastructure that has been destroyed by Israeli aggression.
(So only Israeli "aggression" is culpable and the government of Lebanon and the terrorist group Hezbollah has shown no aggression?)
6. A call for the UN to investigate the massacre at Qana which took place on Sunday July 30, 2006
(Is not the word "massacre" inflammatory, and does it not suggest willful intention , and do you think the anti-Semitic UN will return a verdict other than the indictment of Israel?)
7. Support for the statement which was issued by the religious leaders of Lebanon who met in Pkerki' August 1, 2006
(For those who would overlook the text of the Pkerki meeting, it is important to know that through our Bishops, the Self Ruled-Antiochian Archdiocese of North America has gone on record as saying: 1. They denounce the Israeli aggression against Lebanon considering it a war crime 2. They hold Israel accountable, morally and financially... asking to file lawsuits against Israel before international courts" 3 "... The national (Lebanese) unity was and still is the basis for resisting the Israeli occupation; and Hezbollah, who represents an essential part or the Lebanese society, is not but one of the constituents of the Lebanese resistance..." So is our Church validating the existance of Hezbollah? To what "occupation" are they referring? Is the Orthodox Church calling for the the destruction of the State of Israel? Is our Church supporting the supporters of Hezbollah whose Iranian President has stated he, "has a religious conviction that Israel's demise is essential to the restoration of Muslim glory, that the Zionist thorn in the heart of the Islamic nations must be removed. And he will pay almost any price to right the perceived historic wrong"?)
8. A call for the implementation of all UN resolutions that address occupied territories in Lebanon and the entire region
(Shouldn't there also be a call for the implementation of all UN resolutions that address the illegality of the armed militia Hezbollah to exist on Israel's border?)
9. A statement deploring the killing of any human being, and reiterating that all killing is against our religious beliefs."
(On this we can all agree)
Has anyone missed the profound fact that the political alignment of our Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian Church archdiocese of North America with its avowed Arabic Islamic enemies gives reason for the United States Government and its Security Agencies to have great concern? Has anyone missed the fact that we are at war with those who want to annihilate us?Some of the very men the Metropolitan and the Bishop were in counsel with were present at the United Nations Security Council when the Israeli Ambassador sliced a knife through their Islamic propaganda. These are the same men who would not look eye-to-eye with the Israeli Ambassador when he pointed out that in all of their words, diatribe and rebukes of the actions of Israel, not one time did he hear the word "HEZBOLLAH", the real cause of the Lebanese suffering. Unfortunately, our Metropolitan and Bishops seem to be following suit.


The Israeli ambassador also had the following to say at the UN Security Council Session and our Bishops would do well to give his words at least as much credence as they have given that coming from biased propagandized Arabic Islamic sources:

"Israel, like any State, has done, and will continue to do, whatever is necessary to protect the lives of its citizens. It has the right and the duty to act in self-defense. And it will spare no effort to bring its abducted soldiers home. In fulfilling this responsibility to protect its citizens, Israel's task is doubly complicated. It must defend itself against an enemy who not only deliberately targets civilians, but who also hides among them, concealing its weapons and rocket launchers in the heart of civilian communities, as well as in mosques and in UN Compounds. For Hezbollah, civilians are not just a target but also a shield. In this impossible situation, in which Hezbollah openly flouts the fundamental humanitarian principle of distinguishing combatants from civilians, Israel has made strenuous efforts to defend itself in accordance with the principles of international law, to direct its attacks against military targets, and to avoid disproportionate damage to the civilians used as cover by the terrorists. At the same time, even as the terrorist missiles fly, Israel has worked to ensure that the humanitarian needs of the population can be met, enabling convoys carrying aid and supplies to reach those who need them and facilitating evacuation of foreign citizens and UN personnel. Could there be a difference more striking or profound than that between Israel and the terrorists it is confronting:

- between those who equip their residential buildings with bomb shelters and those who fill them with missiles;
- between those who drop leaflets entreating civilians to leave the terrorist strongholds; and those who hide rocket launchers beneath unknowing apartment dwellers; or
- between those who mourn the death of every civilian - Lebanese or Israeli - as a tragedy and a failure, and those who see it as a victory and cause for celebration.

I believe that the people of Lebanon, through all the pain and anguish of these past few weeks, have seen through the callous disregard of Hezbollah which claims to fight their cause, but places a weapon next to a sleeping child. I believe that one courageous Lebanese youngster was speaking for many when he wrote on his internet blog: "It is not only Israeli soldiers the Hezbollah has taken hostage, it is us, the people of Lebanon". I believe that it has never been clearer that, for all its talk of bravery, Hezbollah has demonstrated the lowest form of cowardice, cowering behind the weakest members of society. Indeed, in many cases Hezbollah's lethal missiles are fired on timers, so that the terrorist can flee the launching site while leaving helpless families behind to shield a military target. In this, the terrorists have learned well from their sponsors, from Iran and Syria. Just as Hezbollah chooses to hide behind others, and fight from within their homes, so do Iran and Syria demonstrate cowardice and disdain, fighting their wars through proxies, on Lebanese soil. Perhaps more than anything else it is this disdain for the lives of those they claim to be fighting for, this chain of cowardice, which unites Iran and Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas - the Quartet of Terror. During the past six years Hezbollah terrorists, funded, trained, armed and directed by Iran and Syria, have dug their roots deep into Lebanese soil, and have spread their poisonous branches throughout its towns and villages. The evil fruit of this growth has been over 13,000 deadly missiles, murderously directed at the people of Israel. And over the past four weeks Hezbollah has viciously implemented its threats, launching these lethal missiles directly and indiscriminately at the towns of Haifa and Afula, Naharia and Hadera, Kiryat Shemona and Kfar Giladi, Carmiel, Metulla and Akko, and the holy cities of Nazareth and Tiberias, targeting men, women and children, Jewish, Moslem and Christian alike."

A Full transcript can be found at:
http://www.israel-un.org/sec_council/60thUNGA/gillerman8august2006.htm

I eagerly await a second Letter from our Bishops also
"TO BE READ FROM THE PULPIT AND PUBLISHED IN THE PARISH BULLETIN"

that includes the same force and condemnation toward the Arabic Islamic Terrorist group Hezbollah, that they have extended toward Israel. I also eagerly await photos of our Bishops standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the same Islamic Clerics and issuing a nine point statement condemning Hezbollah and all of its Islamic supporters, including the government of Syria, the country of our Holy See. But, if that not be so, then I at least eagerly await a proclamation by the Bishops that they will not in the future allow themselves to be used as tools of propaganda by Islamic Clerics whose very tenants of faith and historic example call for and practice the violent annihilation of the very faith our Bishops hold.

Let the words of King David ring in our ears at this moment in history!
"Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked or stand in the way of sinners"

It would do us well, those who are converts to the Orthodox Faith in America, to see our Bishops being Bishops of the Church first. It would do us good to see our Bishops become aware that their decision to side politically with a certain ethnic group holds the risk of being done in a posture outside of the grace that is extended to their Bishopry. Even the Apostle Paul confessed and delineated when he was speaking his own opinion and when it was the opinion of the Kingdom of God. Surely, no leader in the Church today is above Saint Paul. I pray that our Bishops are also aware that when such political, ethnic bias appears mingled with such Godly pastoral exhortations as found in the Letter, it is a source of true consternation and confusion, especially to Americans.

We would have to ask,
"Why are you lending political support to the enemies of our faith and the enemies of our nation?"
Maybe it is because we are not Arabic and are from the "ethnic melting pot" of the United States, that we have a more accurate vision to see cultural bias for what it is. Maybe it is easier for us to not to forget 9/11 and that it was the same Arab Islamic terrorists who attacked our nation. How many Islamic terrorists and their supporters danced in the streets of Lebanon as we watched the towers fall? Ours is not a battle for the kingdoms of this world but for the Kingdom of God for we war not against flesh and blood!

We Converts in America, for the most part, are not a single-ethnic Church, so perhaps it is easier for us to see ourselves purely as Christians and not a race or a culture. It is still perplexing to us to hear the Orthodox Church referred to as "Greek" Orthodox, "Russian" Orthodox, "Serbian" Orthodox and the like. Perhaps one of the Divine blessings of the existence of the Convert Church in America is that we can bring to the Church a torch to shed light on such Dirty Laundry.

So, please hear us and don't throw the Convert out with the laundry water.

We are the Church of the living God. We are to gather at his Holy Altar and not at our preferred ethnic flagpole. It is indeed true that "There can be no Jew nor Greek, there can be no slave nor freeman, there can be neither male nor female-for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Our heart of compassion in the current crisis in the Middle East should be for ALL who are victims and our criticism of ALL who are guilty regardless of nationality or race. Let us all agree with Shakespeare that, if warranted, "All are punished! All are punished!"

With God's grace, and excepting excommunication, I will continue to do my part in evangelizing the world, as we all should. I will continue to commend the Orthodox Faith, especially the Antiochian Arch-Diocese, to others as the Faith of our Fathers and the place where we all should be quick to confess our sins and faithful to magnify the Holy Trinity. God be merciful to me a sinner, but I will also continue to pray for and dialogue with our Bishops, who guard our souls, that they will remain outside of the political fray and promote only the Faith as found in the Scriptures and Holy Tradition. To do anything else is to open the door to worldly influences that the Holy Orthodox Church has so courageously defended against for over 2000 years. God forbid that 100 years from now or even 1 year from now we are still promoting the traditions of man influenced by our preferred cultural or ethnic bias.

Let us bereave more over the loss of eternal souls than the loss of ethnic Sees. Let there be a Unified American Orthodox Church lest we all succumb to the winds of whatever be the latest cultural, ethnic conflict. Let's clean our Dirty Laundry.
Preserve, oh God, the Holy Orthodox Faith
and all Orthodox Christians unto ages of ages. Amen.

Once Saved, Always Saved?

The Orthodox Church has always held that salvation is a process not an event. One is being saved not already saved. Salvation is by grace through faith, but faith is not based on simple mental assent to a correct belief. Even the demons believe. Faith is right belief as evidenced by righteous works and lived out sacramentaly within the Church. Thus the Church contains the full measure of salvation for man on earth. For a more complete understanding of this doctrine which varies vastly from the Protestant ethos click here: Read More...

TOO FAR EAST?

I have observed a few things on my Journey to Eastern Orthodoxy that have caused me to ask, “Is it possible to journey too far east?” Of course all would agree that one cannot travel too far when one’s quest is for the authentic Church which preserves the Apostolic truth. The fact remains, however, that east is east and west is west and the two meet on the North American Continent. Truth is the same whether in the east or west, but culture and human nature surround that truth. So when does one travel too far East? One travels too far East when one does not apply methods and means of evangelism relevant to the culture to which it is communicating. One travels too far East when the idea of appropriating the prevalent media outlets and technological means of communication, is seen as a threat to the eastern rhythm or pace. One travels too far East when he thinks those who worship with the Western Rite are somehow not fully Orthodox. One travels too far East when those who control the materials of worship and evangelism resist trusting the distribution or usage of such to the hands of the laity. One travels too far East when materials, prayer books, and such are provided at no cost to new convert Eastern Rite Churches, but new convert Western Rite Churches are, for the most part, left to fin for themselves. One travels too far East when some who have the power to bless and support the laymen and women with vision resist doing so because the vision did not originate with them. One travels too far East when the laity who fulfill their role as the fourth part of the priesthood are considered rebellious and outside the work of the Church. A good indicator that you may have traveled too far East is the fact that those who haven’t traveled too far prefer not to include you in their vision for fear that you will demote rather than promote their vision to effectively reach lost souls in the West. Is it possible to travel too far East? It seems so. Is it a given? May it not be so.

To My Roman Catholic Brothers and Sisters

We pray for the day when the East and the West will be reunified. 1000 years of division is long enough don't you think? In the mean time, some of you have many complaints about your church. I won't list them here. You know what your concerns are. What we all agree on is that we love God and want to live our lives for Him. If it weren't for people this world would be a great place to live. Thus the dilemma. So you have left the Roman Church or at least you call yourself Catholic with gritted teeth. Let me ask you to consider something. Even the Roman Church acknowledges the Orthodox as their brothers. The RCC acknowledges that the Orthodox have true succession. The RCC acknowledges the authenticity of the Eucharist in the Orthodox Church. Rather than wait out the needed changes in the RCC which may or may not happen in your lifetime, at least on the North American Continent, why don't you travel East? Worship with us. Become a part of the Orthodox Church. Though it may be somewhat culturally different, it will still be familiar to you and it is the faith of our fathers. Although you will discover that we too have our issues (there are people in the Orthodox Church also), you will find that we have remained relatively free from a Church-wide moral scandal. You may also be delighted to know that our priests may marry and most are. You will also find that we have not altered or added any doctrines or creeds and our worship will look to you much like pre-Vatican 2 RCC worship. Best of all you will find that the Orthodox ethos is centered around building relationship with the Holy Trinity rather than obeying rules of heavy traditions. Rather than staying outside the community of faith, step back in via the Orthodox Church. You are welcome.

What Orthodox DO NOT and DO Believe-Three Common Misconceptions

Orthodox DO NOT believe that oral tradition and other writings are equal to or have greater inspiration than the Holy Scriptures.
Orthodox DO believe that the scripture can only fully be understood in light of Apostolic Tradition as preserved by the Church.

Orthodox DO NOT believe in nor practice the worship of Mary.
Orthodox DO believe in and practice the veneration (holy respect and recognition) of Mary.

Orthodox DO NOT worship icons.
Orthodox DO venerate (holy respect and recognition) the person or story that the icon depicts.

MORE TO COME...

Ancient Ways ,Youthful Thoughts

A young boy who was selected to be an acolyte in an Orthodox church had a deep interest in iconography. The priest would field many questions from the boy concerning what story was being portrayed and who the saint was in a particular icon. On one such occasion before the Liturgy, the young boy noticed a new icon behind the iconostasis. "Who is that?", the boy asked the priest. "That is the Samaritan woman at the well", said the priest. "Oh I know that one," the boy said thoughtfully, "I think my father has visited that well." "Really", said the priest proud that one of his parishioners would be devoted enough to visit such a holy sight. "Yes", said the boy, "I think he brought something back." Oh? What was it?", asked the priest, thinking the boy's devoted father had returned with a vile of well water or a piece of the well stone for their home altar. "I think it was a gift certificate", said the boy.

A New Man, A New Name, An Old Faith

Journey To Orthodoxy says, "Welcome Home" to Denzil Roland and his family who were chrismated into the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church last night in Hot Springs, Arkansas. Father Joseph Bittle of Holy Trinity in Little Rock, administered the sacrament under the the Bishopry of Bishop Antoun, using the Byzantine Rite. Denzil took the name, John, at his chrismation. The newly chrismated, John, continues to lead his church into the Orthodox faith. The former ICCEC church congregation will be chrismated soon. May the Holy Trinity continue to bless and prosper the work of their hands.

Addendum: The former Father Denny is now Deacon John. He was ordained to the Orthodox deaconate on Sunday.

Mary "Ever Virgin"

In my Protestant years which included being raised in a Baptist Pastor’s home and a BA in Religion from a Baptist University all I knew about Mary, the mother of Jesus, was what I saw in the pages of the Gospels. The mindset of Sola Scriptura, or the “scriptures alone”, did not allow for me to consider the fact that the historic figures who lived when Mary did knew how to write and indeed did so about the one they called “the Mother of God.” We cannot find within pages of the scriptures many historic and cultural factors about Mary that have been preserved by the Church for 2000 years. For instance:

• Did you know that the names of Mary’s parents were Johakim and Anna? 
• Did you know that when Mary was a baby her parents dedicated her to God as a Temple Virgin? 
• Did you know that Temple Virgins were devoted to lifelong chastity and abstained from sexual relations their entire life? 
• Did you know that when Mary was about three years old her parents took her to the Temple to turn her over to the care of the Priests and she bound up the stairs in anticipation of her calling to the traditional servitude of lifelong chastity? 
• Did you know that when she was about 12 or 13 years old Mary could no longer serve as a Temple Virgin because her impending menstral period would prevent her from serving in the Temple and thus became a “Virgin of the Lord.” 
• Did you know that in keeping with tradition, the priests looked for a righteous man who would become her protector and guardian and respect her vow of virginity? 
• Did you know that Joseph was an elderly widower with grown children when he agreed to wed and provide for the 13-17 year old Virgin of the Lord named Mary? 
• Did you know that the Church has always held that Mary was “ever virgin” and that she never had sexual intercourse with Joseph because doing so would have been against the laws and traditions? 
• Did you know that when the scriptures refer to the brethren of Jesus that the word “brethren” is a cultural usage which commonly means relatives, including cousins, step-brothers, uncles? 
• Did you know that even the Protestant Reformers such as Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and John Wesley all held that Mary was “Ever Virgin”? 
• Did you know that the idea that Mary gave birth to other children after Jesus is a Protestant view and a relatively new one? 

Let’s see what the early church fathers have said all along:

The Protoevangelium of James

"And behold, an angel of the Lord stood by [St. Anne], saying, ‘Anne! Anne! The Lord has heard your prayer, and you shall conceive and shall bring forth, and your seed shall be spoken of in all the world.’ And Anne said, ‘As the Lord my God lives, if I beget either male or female, I will bring it as a gift to the Lord my God, and it shall minister to him in the holy things all the days of its life.’ . . . And [from the time she was three] Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there" (Protoevangelium of James 4, 7 [A.D. 120]).

"And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of priests, saying, ‘Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, lest perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord?’ And they said to the high priest, ‘You stand by the altar of the Lord; go in and pray concerning her, and whatever the Lord shall manifest to you, that also will we do.’ . . . [A]nd he prayed concerning her, and behold, an angel of the Lord stood by him saying, ‘Zechariah! Zechariah! Go out and assemble the widowers of the people and let them bring each his rod, and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. . . . And Joseph [was chosen]. . . . And the priest said to Joseph, ‘You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the Virgin of the Lord.’ But Joseph refused, saying, ‘I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl’" (ibid., 8–9).

"And Annas the scribe came to him [Joseph] . . . and saw that Mary was with child. And he ran away to the priest and said to him, ‘Joseph, whom you did vouch for, has committed a grievous crime.’ And the priest said, ‘How so?’ And he said, ‘He has defiled the virgin whom he received out of the temple of the Lord and has married her by stealth’" (ibid., 15).

"And the priest said, ‘Mary, why have you done this? And why have you brought your soul low and forgotten the Lord your God?’ . . . And she wept bitterly saying, ‘As the Lord my God lives, I am pure before him, and know not man’" (ibid.). (Full Account)

Origen

"The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity" (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).

Hilary of Poitiers

"If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother’ [John 19:26–27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate" (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).

Athanasius

"Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary" (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).

Epiphanius of Salamis

"We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit" (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]).

"And to holy Mary, [the title] ‘Virgin’ is invariably added, for that holy woman remains undefiled" (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 78:6 [A.D. 375]).

Jerome

"[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view] and quotes Victorinus, bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian, I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. [By discussing such things we] are . . . following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against [the heretics] Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man" (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19 [A.D. 383]).

"We believe that God was born of a virgin, because we read it. We do not believe that Mary was married after she brought forth her Son, because we do not read it. . . . You [Helvidius] say that Mary did not remain a virgin. As for myself, I claim that Joseph himself was a virgin, through Mary, so that a virgin Son might be born of a virginal wedlock" (ibid., 21).

Didymus the Blind

"It helps us to understand the terms ‘first-born’ and ‘only-begotten’ when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin ‘until she brought forth her first-born son’ [Matt. 1:25]; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the Mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin" (The Trinity 3:4 [A.D. 386]).

Ambrose of Milan

"Imitate her [Mary], holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of material virtue; for neither have you sweeter children [than Jesus], nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son" (Letters 63:111 [A.D. 388]).

Pope Siricius I

"You had good reason to be horrified at the thought that another birth might issue from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the flesh. For the Lord Jesus would never have chosen to be born of a virgin if he had ever judged that she would be so incontinent as to contaminate with the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of the Lord’s body, that court of the eternal king" (Letter to Bishop Anysius [A.D. 392]).

Augustine

"In being born of a Virgin who chose to remain a Virgin even before she knew who was to be born of her, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And he wanted virginity to be of free choice even in that woman in whom he took upon himself the form of a slave" (Holy Virginity 4:4 [A.D. 401]).

"It was not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who consecrated this day for us, when the Virgin Mother, fertile of womb and integral in her virginity, brought him forth, made visible for us, by whom, when he was invisible, she too was created. A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at this, O man?" (Sermons 186:1 [A.D. 411]).

"Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband" (Heresies 56 [A.D. 428]).

Leporius

"We confess, therefore, that our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, born of the Father before the ages, and in times most recent, made man of the Holy Spirit and the ever-virgin Mary" (Document of Amendment 3 [A.D. 426]).

Cyril of Alexandria

"[T]he Word himself, coming into the Blessed Virgin herself, assumed for himself his own temple from the substance of the Virgin and came forth from her a man in all that could be externally discerned, while interiorly he was true God. Therefore he kept his Mother a virgin even after her childbearing" (Against Those Who Do Not Wish to Confess That the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God 4 [A.D. 430]).

Pope Leo I

"His [Christ’s] origin is different, but his [human] nature is the same. Human usage and custom were lacking, but by divine power a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bore, and Virgin she remained" (Sermons 22:2 [A.D. 450]).

In their own words…

Are Baptists Protestants? (Part Two) "The Mason Connection"

The Baptist's claim that they are not and never were Protestants may become moot as one wonders whether or not their evolution toward Paganism will in the future even merit the term "Christian Body". How is it that Baptist Pastors, Deacons and Laymen defend with all their might that the Baptist Church is the Original New Testament Church, and yet Baptists make up over 37% of the Masonic membership in the United States? Why do 14% of the SBC Pastors and 18% of the SBC Deacons, worship at the altar of a pagan God as Masons and why are they unequally yoked with other religions who make up the Masonic brotherhood and why do they find fellowship in a pagan Masonic Temple? Something is amiss. Could it be that the autonomy of which Baptists are so proud, is actually a result of the rebellion born of the Reformation and has opened wide the door to deception? The Orthodox Church, which is the historically verifiable unbroken Church of the Apostles, does not allow membership in a secret society, especially the Masons. To their credit, many Baptist writers and theologians recognize the nature of the Masonic order as a false religion with oaths, creeds, temples, and secret initiations dating back to the Pagan Babylonian Religions. Though it be cloaked in good deeds, the Masonic order is a type of the biblical wolf in sheep's clothing. It is a lion roaming to and fro seeking whom it may devour. My challenge to Baptists who claim to be the one, true, church of the Apostles, is to go to your own Baptist Bookstore, now called Lifeway, and pick up a good book on the Masonic order. You will find it in the "cult" section. If you are the true church, there is a cancer among you. Every individual Baptist who practices the Masonic Religion should renounce any association with it. Should they refused to do so, they should be driven out from among you, especially the Pastors and Deacons who do "feed the flock".

Notes on The Masonic Order by former Mason Charles Finney

Masonic Oaths Procured by Fraud

"I found that in taking these oaths I had been grossly deceived and imposed upon. I had been led to suppose that there were some very important secrets to be communicated to me; but in this I found myself entirely disappointed. Indeed I came to the deliberate conclusion that my oaths had been procured by fraud and misrepresentations; that the institution was in no respect what I had been informed it was; and as I have had the means of examining it more thoroughly, it has become more and more irresistibly plain to me that Masonry is highly dangerous to the State, and in every way injurious to the Church of Christ."

Features of an Anti-Christ
"Judging from unquestionable evidences, how can we fail to pronounce Freemasonry an unchristian institution? We can see that its morality is unchristian. Its oath-bound secrecy is unchristian. The administration and taking of its oaths are unchristian and a violation of the positive command of Christ. And Masonic oaths pledge its members to some of the most unlawful and unchristian things:

1. To conceal each other's crimes.
2. To deliver each other from difficulty, whether right or wrong.
3. To unduly favor Masonry in political action and in business matters.
4. Its members are sworn to retaliate and persecute unto death the violators of Masonic obligations.
5. Freemasonry knows no mercy, and swears its candidates to avenge violations of Masonic obligations unto death.
6. Its oaths are profane, taking the Name of God in vain.
7. The penalties of these oaths are barbarous, even savage.
8. Its teachings are false and profane.
9. Its designs are partial and selfish.
10. Its ceremonies are a mixture of puerility and profanity.
11. Its religion is false.
12. It professes to save men on other conditions than those revealed in the Gospel of Christ.
13. It is wholly an enormous falsehood.
14. It is a swindle, obtaining money from its members under false pretenses.
15. It refuses all examinations, and veils itself under a mantle of oath-bound secrecy.
16. It is virtual conspiracy against both Church and State."

Don’t think the Masonic Lodge is a church? Read this:

From the
Entered Apprentice Degree of Freemasonry

“The word Lodge is analogous to that of church, referring not so much to the place of meeting as to the persons assembled. A lodge may therefore at this time be defined as a certain number of Free and Accepted Masons, duly assembled, furnished with the Holy Bible, the Square and the Compasses, together with a Charter, or Dispensation, from one Grand Body of competent jurisdiction empowering it to work.”

Based on this ceremonial Masonic Oath, the Lodge is a church which uses the Bible with the Square and Compass and a Charter or Dispensation. It is the Charter and Dispensation that should give every Baptist pause. By whose dispensation do you worship and take oaths? By whose charter do you order your life? Even the seemingly reverential kissing of the Holy Scriptures is done through the Masonic Square and Compass that is lain on top.

I challenge you to research further the truth of what I say. The site below is the best that I have found that lays bare the this pagan society's secrets. Baptists, until you have removed yourself from paganism and removed the paganism from your midst, your claim to be the original church in faith and doctrine will fall on deaf ears.

Finally, lest you are too angered by my diatribe, know that I am a fourth generation Southern Baptist who found out only a few years ago that my own highly respected Baptist Pastor Grandfather was a 33rd Degree Mason. I have earned the right to speak frankly on this matter.


To read further click on: www.Ephesians 5-11.org
For a "Church of Christ" Perspective Click Here

Are Baptist Protestants?

In an attempt to validate their authenticity and their very existence, some Protestant denominations acknowledge the importance of having a historic line to the New Testament Church. Much of their foundation is built around proving that they are that Church. Growing up a Baptist I was well aware that we believed we were the "one true church", the original, and that all others were tainted, but it was not until after I became Orthodox that I heard the words "Baptists are not Protestant." This was especially surprising to me because I first heard it from the mouth of my Baptist Pastor Father. I had attended a Baptist University and had earned a baptist degree in Religion and had not heard it. I knew that the Baptist seminaries didn't teach it. The existence of the belief that Baptists are not Protestant should not have taken me by surprise since there are hundreds of different types of Baptist groups all with varying "baptist" doctrinal views. It follows that there would be differing views as to the history and origins of baptists. The problem lies with the fact that few Baptist pastors are theologians and even fewer are historians. These less than scholarly men are quick, however, to embrace the writings of a fellow pastor whose pamphlet, "The Trail of Blood", written in the 1930's has been elevated to a status, it seems, greater than that of the councils of the church, the church fathers or the great church historians. Their entire premise is based on a belief that Baptists have always existed but at times were persecuted and driven underground, their documents and verifiable proof of their existence destroyed by the Roman Church. They point to several groups who they say were Baptists. Rather than cover territory that has already been thoroughly charted I refer you to the article by Steve Ray. If after reading his article you can still believe that Baptists existed before the 1500's, then your greatest attribute is faith...blind faith.