Translate

Sunday, October 28, 2018

What Would an Orthodox Bishop Say?


A recent headline read:

"Pope Francis Says Accusations Against Him Are an Attack on the Church"

What is an accusation?  "a charge or claim that someone has done something illegal or wrong."

What is an attack? "take aggressive action against (a place or enemy forces) with weapons or armed force, typically in a battle or war...an aggressive and violent action against a person or place."

By definition, an accusation of wrongdoing IS NOT an attack. In fact, Christians have a responsibility to confront those who have committed wrongdoing or a criminal act., be they layman or Hierarch. This would include doctrinal and civil matters.

What would an Orthodox Bishop say to this? Would he agree with the Pope that one should not confront a Bishop with accusations, that it is an attack on the church? Would he consider any accusation an attack? Would he bring his ecclesiastical power to bear on the accuser to shut them up or close them down? Would he threaten to suspend them from communion or to excommunicate them? It might be a little easier for a Bishop to consider doing so if an accuser can be deemed an attacker and an enemy of the church. Then the accuser can be ostracized and the focus be diverted to the character or methods of the messenger and away from the message. 

But...

What if the accusation is accurate? What if the accuser has followed the steps according to the biblical principle:

"Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, 

#1 go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

#2  But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

#3  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."

What if the accuser has even followed the rules of a particular Synod in bringing an accusation? Would an Orthodox Bishop still deem him an "enemy of the church", a "tool of Satan?" Would the same Bishop have an aversion to the accuser appealing to a higher authority than he? If the accused Bishop is a Metropolitan, would not the appropriate course of action be for the accuser to appeal to the Patriarch?

Is an Orthodox Bishop above the laws of God or the rules of the church? Is he sinless, errorless, outside the bounds of obedience? Should he not be the first to listen to an accusation, the first to search his own heart, the first to show humility, the first to show forbearance and love toward the accuser? Indeed, he should at least be the last to be defensive or to engage in retribution via his ecclesiastical power. 

A Bishop's power is not his own and the Church he pastors is not his own. It is the body of Christ and all are called to live righteously within it, particularly those who shepherd the flock. What might be the result of a BIshop, rightly accused, who turns his ire on the accuser? Psalm 109 suggests one option:

Hold not thy peace, O God of my praise;

For the mouth of the wicked and the mouth of the deceitful are opened against me: they have spoken against me with a lying tongue.

They compassed me about also with words of hatred; and fought against me without a cause.

For my love they are my adversaries: but I give myself unto prayer.

And they have rewarded me evil for good, and hatred for my love.

Set thou a wicked man over him: and let Satan stand at his right hand.

When he shall be judged, let him be condemned: and let his prayer become sin.

Let his days be few; and let another take his office.

What would an Orthodox Bishop say? Whatever it may be, he would be wise to remember that 
The Lord shall judge his people. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Monday, October 08, 2018

"Priest: Here’s Why Bishops Cover Up Abuse"

The Orthodox Church as a whole has typically dealt with such matters within its rank, in a prudent and timely manner. Orthodox laymen and clergy alike have deemed sexual misconduct, especially involving clergy, and in particular, perpetrated against an innocent minor, as dangerous leaven and have determined, time after time, not to follow the path of the Roman Catholic church in sweeping such conduct under the rug or simply transferring the perpetrators. There is the propensity of some, however, to prioritize the protection of the office of the priesthood, the image of the local church or jurisdictions, while being indifferent to the victims. In doing this, they adhere to a "well the priest can be corrupt but the institution still authentic" mantra, while failing to act righteously or lawfully in dealing with a criminal priest. 

Rod Dreher, the Senior Editor of the American Conservative, in his article, "Priest: Here’s Why Bishops Cover Up Abuse", speaks to this issue: 
"It is true that the validity of the sacraments do not depend on the worth of the priest through whose hands they are consecrated — this is true in the Orthodox Church as well — but this truth can easily be perverted into indifferentism toward the subjective character of the Christian life, and conversion. Many Catholics I know have had to compartmentalize their spiritual lives to deal with this scandal and other related scandals among the clergy, repeating to themselves the dogmatic truth (and I believe it is true, just so you understand me clearly) that however faithless, cowardly, and corrupt the priest may be, the Eucharist really is the Body of Christ. God bless them for that; I did that for a couple of years, but couldn’t keep it up. The thing is, though, when bishops and priests treat the Eucharist and the laity with such contempt, people may cease to believe in the authority of those priests when they teach that this is what the Eucharist is, and what the sacraments are. It begins to look like a sham."

"Pluck Out The Eye"

“As we walk the unerring and life-bringing path, let us pluck out the eye that scandalizes us-not the physical eye, but the noetic one. For example, if a bishop or presbyter-who are the eyes of the Church-conduct themselves in an evil manner and scandalize the people, they must be plucked out. For it is more profitable to gather without them in a house of prayer, than to be cast together with them into the gehenna of fire together with Annas and Caiaphas.” — St. Athanasius the Great, PG 26:1257c

Tuesday, August 28, 2018

On The Systemic Pedophilia Culture of The Roman Catholic Church


I have recently seen statistics of the pedophilia that occurs in many religious denominations. It is true that in some interpretations of the statistics, the Roman Catholic Church is not the most prolific offender, however, the statistics do not take into account the ecclesiastical structure of each denomination listed. In many cases, there is no hierarchy or a less cohesive one. Many of the reported cases are from independent groups with no accountability or hierarchy, an individual pastor or youth pastor is arrested, etc. The statistics are taken from arrest records and public reporting. It seems, however, that others, who are more organized, may be more practiced at not getting caught.

The Roman Catholic Church is the epitome of church hierarchal structures. It is top-down, with bishops and dioceses and international, national, state, regional and local clerical supervisors. It is somewhat revealing that defenders of the hierarchy in the matter of systemic pedophilia,  use the reasoning, "Well, we aren't the worst." This is nothing but deflection. The Roman Catholic Church is the worst because they not only have a systemic culture of pedophilia but a systemic culture of hierarchical cover-up. Their established and written rules in dealing with individuals who commit acts against children are indictable.

"Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's and unto God that which is God's," shows us not only the sin of the individuals who prey on children but the equal sin of a church that allows it. Pedophilia is a crime and failure to report a crime is a crime. That it takes the civil authorities, investigators, and journalists to expose the systemic culture of the crime of the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church, shows it has abdicated its heavenly mandate. That the Roman Catholic Church is well practiced at avoiding detection of its crimes shows it has abdicated its righteous standing as the body of Christ and has given in to a carnal syndicate mentality. Reporting a crime, by one of its clergy, to authorities, should be the first act. In America and most other civilized nations, no one is above the law, no politician, and certainly no clergy.

The 300 priests, indicted in Pennsylvania, should be arrested and tried as should all others who have been exposed at various times. The Bishops who supervised them should be investigated and if found to be accessories, be arrested and tried. The Pope, who is now accused of covering up the crime of one of his bishops, should be investigated, and if found to be an accessory to a crime, arrested and tried. He should be, but I am not privy to the agreement between the governments of Italy and the Vatican. It is possible that no pope can be indicted by civil authorities. It is possible that there is some sort of immunity such as the United States Government affords a visiting diplomatic dignitary. "Raped a kid did ya?! Well, we are sending you home for that." In any case, Roman Catholic Clergy in America have no such immunity. If Jerry Sandusky were a Catholic Priest perhaps he would have just been given counseling and assigned to another university.

The Eastern Orthodox Church is not without it perpetrators of such crimes. But it is not a top-down ecclesiastical body. Good and faithful Bishops must act according to the principles of the scripture and abide by the civil laws of the country in which they serve. Pedophilia happens in the Orthodox Church, but a systemic culture in the Orthodox church is harder to achieve and harder to determine. One must have hope in the public reports of Orthodox Bishops dealing quickly and decisively with its clergy who commit such sins/crimes against children. If, in any case, a bishop or priest or another clergy in any Orthodox jurisdiction follows the current and historical practice of the Roman Catholic Church, the same scriptural and civil laws should apply- investigate-arrest-trial.

Anyone, be they layman or clergy, who reports or turns in a perpetrator of a crime in the church, the body of Christ, is performing a righteous act, a holy act in the spirit of Christ even if he disobeys the edict of the hierarchy. One must first and foremost obey Christ. Yes. the hierarchy is the representative of Christ in the Church, but an edict by such is null, void, and powerless if it is an edict to participate in a sin against the body Christ Himself. In this case, one must disobey in order to be in true obedience. One must be willing to suffer the ire or repercussions of man in order to serve Christ and inherit His Kingdom:

"Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
It is a deception for layman or clergy to think that silence, privacy, keeping it in-house, dealing with the perpetrator in equal measure to the victim, is the more righteous endeavor for the reputation of the Church. The position that the Church as a whole must be protected from public scandal because the sins of the clergy do not negate the power of the sacraments, is untenable.

Rod Dreher, the Senior Editor of the American Conservative, in his article, "Priest: Here’s Why Bishops Cover Up Abuse", speaks to this issue: 
"It is true that the validity of the sacraments do not depend on the worth of the priest through whose hands they are consecrated — this is true in the Orthodox Church as well — but this truth can easily be perverted into indifferentism toward the subjective character of the Christian life, and conversion. Many Catholics I know have had to compartmentalize their spiritual lives to deal with this scandal and other related scandals among the clergy, repeating to themselves the dogmatic truth (and I believe it is true, just so you understand me clearly) that however faithless, cowardly, and corrupt the priest may be, the Eucharist really is the Body of Christ. God bless them for that; I did that for a couple of years, but couldn’t keep it up. The thing is, though, when bishops and priests treat the Eucharist and the laity with such contempt, people may cease to believe in the authority of those priests when they teach that this is what the Eucharist is, and what the sacraments are. It begins to look like a sham."

So what is the Church to do with clergy who repeatedly have committed acts of immorality? Well, let the civil authorities do what they must, but we must also follow the scripture.

 "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump."

"It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate... And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have gone into mourning and have put out of your fellowship the man who has been doing this? 
Don’t you know that a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough? Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old bread leavened with malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 
I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people. 
What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside.
 Expel the wicked person from among you.


What is the result of failing to expel from the Church such perpetrators, especially perpetrators who are clergy?

"Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men."
It seems there is a substantial amount of trodding going on and the Roman Catholic Church is now under the foot of men. Be wary and be careful, Orthodox brethren, lest we too lose our savour. 


Thursday, January 04, 2018

A 2018 Bulletin To My Baptist Friends


Do you agree with this statement?

Quote: I think that everybody who loves Christ, or knows Christ, whether they're conscious of it or not, they're members of the body of Christ... whether they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddist world, or the Christian world, or the non-believing world... they may not even know the name of Jesus... and they turn to the only light that they have and I think that they are saved and they're going to be with us in heaven."


Drum roll ...

Wednesday, November 29, 2017

Left Behind? I sure hope so!

"Left Behind"? Sure Hope So!
[This article was originally titled: Dissecting Dispensationalism or Judaism is a Religion not a Race]

In keeping with the purpose of this BLOG I won't provide a complete doctrinal or historic treatment on the theory of Dispensationalism. There are many good resources out there in which to dive a little deeper. Here, you will find definitions and outlines and a few personal perspectives to inform you as to the subject matter looking at the Dispensational view VS the Orthodox view. Being a former Dispensationalist I understand first hand the affront any opposition to the Dispensationalist way of thinking is. For years I thought that such a view was the predominant one, that all others were insignificant. Just the discovery that the Dispensational view of scripture and prophecy was the minority view and predominantly a western evangelical, relatively recent creation, was enough for me to start asking questions. My paradigm shift did not come instantly, but my willingness to question Dispensationalism came upon me suddenly.

One late night I was reading a book by an evangelical charismatic author. The whole of the book contained much that I would not adhere to today, but the most provocative thing I discovered was the fact that the author did not believe in the pre-tribulation rapture, the cornerstone of much Dispensational thought. The theory states that "All believers will be raptured from the Earth before Christ returns." The author simply challenged the reader to justify the usage of the scripture Matt.24: 37-41 as a proof text that believers would be snatched away off the earth and unbelievers would be "Left Behind".

"As it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be when the Son of Man comes...they suspected nothing 'til the flood came and swept them all away...This is what it will be like when the Son of man comes...one is taken the other left."

The question presented was "who is actually left?.

I was a teenager in the 70's when the "good" contemporary Christian music was new and abundant. One of the most popular songs was "I Wish We'd All Been Ready", based on the passages from Matthew. "Two men walking up a hill, one disappears and one is left standing still. I wish we'd all been ready." One thing we all knew for sure, based on the premise of this song, we didn't want to be left behind! So the answer to the question posed that night, some 20 something years later, was found in the phrase, "As it was in the days of Noah". So how was it in the days of Noah?

Matthew 24: 37-41
"As it was in Noah's day, so will it be when the son of man comes. for in those days before the Flood people were eating and drinking, taking wives, taking husbands, right up to the day Noah went into the ark, and they suspected nothing till the flood came and SWEPT THEM ALL AWAY. This is what it will be like when the Son of man comes. Then of two men in the fields, one is taken the other left; of two women grinding at the mill, one is taken the other left."

Do you see it yet? Here is the scripture from Genesis:

Genesis 7:23-24

"Everything on the face of the earth was wiped out, people, animals, creeping things and birds; they were WIPED OFF THE EARTH AND ONLY NOAH WAS LEFT, AND THOSE WITH HIM IN THE ARK."

So as Matthew compares the coming of the Son of Man to Noah's day. Who was left? The righteous. Who was taken? The unrighteous. When I first discovered that this scripture had been usurped by the Dispensationalists to prove their hypothesis and interpreted to say the opposite of what it says, I had to ask myself a question. What other scriptures have been usurped?

My next major Epiphany was the discovery of Tim LaHaye's book "No Fear Of The Storm", a treatment on the Dispensational view of the Rapture. Now, I am educated but I don't hold claim to any special ability or intelligence. Even so, I found the reading of LaHay's book bringing back the elementary skills I had learned in Philosophy 101. A sound argument is sound and the conclusion is valid only if it begins with a solid premise. If premise A and premise B are true then conclusion C is true. Conversely, if either premise "A" or premise "B" is false then conclusion "C" is erroneous. I found LaHay's book not only to be full of hypothetical premises based on ideas and preconceptions rather than scriptural proofs, but on more than a few occasions there were outright contradictions. In one instance, LaHay denounces the accusation some have made that Dispensationalists believe in the three comings of Christ. In the next paragraph he refers, as fact, to the "third time Christ comes." I was so amazed by the unreasoned, contradictory, and unintelligent diatribe and the obvious effort to prove the Dispensational viewpoint in the absence of verifiable scriptural evidence, that I set out to simply outline the weakness of his ability to argue. Thanks be to God for my discovery that that had already been done. A man named Larry Simmons had already taken the time to outline all 14 of LaHay's "14 Reasons For Believing The Pre-Trib Rapture." For a deeper and more provocative study I highly recommend Simmons' free internet book, "Unmasking Pre-Trib Fallacies".

So my paradigm was shifted and soon came the discovery that what I had been raised in was not what the Church across the world believed. In fact, the Church as a whole looks upon the Dispensational theory as a bizarre and puzzling aberration that invaded the western evangelical movement just 150 years ago. The most common question I get when discussing this matter with any one is, "What difference does it make?" The premise here is that it is silly to argue over when or if Christians will be zapped off the earth before Christ returns or whether they will be "caught up to meeting him in the sky" at the end. The difference it makes is profound, for Dispensationalism isn't just about the Rapture but contains an entire system of theories and doctrinal treatments that redefine the relevance and definition of "Church", redefines the purposes and reasons for the coming of Christ and the New Covenant and promotes practices and mindsets that directly effect the way individuals live out their lives, prepare for persecution, and "work out their salvation." For example, look at the four basic points in the system of Dispensationalism in relation to the Church:

1. God has two distinct people, Israel and the Church, and is pursuing two different programs in history with them.
2. There is little or no continuity between Israel of the Old Testament and the New Testament Church.
3. The Church and the Church age (extending from Pentecost to the "Rapture") is a "parenthesis" or "intercalation" into history, the existence of which was not prophesied or foreshadowed in any way in the Old Testament.
4. Christ offered an earthly, political kingdom to the Jews, but they rejected him and so he formed a new people, the Church, from both Jews and Gentiles.
5. The New Covenant was not for the Church but for Israel, just as the Kingdom is a future, earthly reality meant only for the Jews and not a spiritual reality inaugurated by Christ and/or located in some way in the Church today. (See Matheson, Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God? 1995, pp 17-18)

So if you believe in the Pre-Tribulation Rapture, just know that that theory comes out of the same system of beliefs that promotes the above five points. But what does the Church teach?

Contrary to the accusations made toward the Orthodox teaching on this matter, the Church does not negate the importance of Israel and the Old Covenant.

"Catholic doctrine emphasizes that the promises given to Old Testament Israel and the covenants made with it are brought to fulfillment in the New Covenant instituted by Christ. The Church and the New Covenant are in continuity with the Old Covenant and fulfill it precisely because Jesus Christ, the founder and head of the Church fulfilled the Law (Mt 5:17-18) and the prophets (Luke 24:44) and founded a New Israel (MT. 16:16-19.") ("Will Catholics Be Left Behind", pp 217-218)

So Israel is the Church and the Church is Israel. Dispensationalists share the same ideology as the Judaizers of Jesus day who looked for an earthly kingdom. Christ was very clear that that was not what he came to establish and yet the Dispensationalist still see the Modern-day Nation of Israel as the hope of the world and the fulfillment of biblical prophecy. They even assert that the temple must be rebuilt, that animal sacrifices must be reestablished, and that Christ will reign in this earthly kingdom for 1000 years. There is only one problem, it is not true and the Church has never taught it or held it to be true. This theory extends from just a few million evangelical, Dispensational, western, cultural diatribes who do not realize that they are giving more credence to the writings of men such as Darby, Scofield and Ryrie (who lived during the last 150 years) than the continuous teachings of the Fathers and Martyrs of the faith and the universal Church.

The Literal Interpretation Method
One word on the Literal Interpretation method used by Dispensationalists to arrive at doctrinal conclusions. While the Holy Scripture is true, it is not all "literally true." If one approaches the study of Dispensationalism, the Rapture, etc. using this approach, one subjects himself to a myriad of possible subjective interpretations. You will also find that the Literal interpretation method used by Dispensationalists to prove a text is done so without consistency. For instance, a Dispensationalist will say that "locusts" in a prophetic passage actually refer to modern-day helicopters. This is obviously not a literal interpretation. The same Dispensationalist will then interpret the usage of "1000" to mean a literal 1000 years. This presents a problem in light of how the term "1000" is used elsewhere. For instance: If "My Father owns the cattle on a 1000 hills (Ps 50:10)", who owns the cattle on hill number 1001? "1000" simply means "complete, all, forever." Yet, the Dispensationalist will interpret scripture based on this subjective method. A good rule of interpretation would include taking a look at what has been "taught at all times, in all places, by all the Church." Simply put, on any given doctrinal matter, look at what Christ said, then what the Apostles said, then what the Disciples of the Apostles (the Church Fathers) said, then verify it by the truth the Church has preserved for 2000 years. If you have problems with the disunity of the Church today seeing the divisions of Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant, then at least look at the doctrines established during the first 1054 years when the Church was ONE body. Ask yourself which is more reliable, the writings of modern men who look back and interpret the meaning of truth in isolation according to their own opinion, or the original foundation of truth-"The Church of the living God, pillar and support of truth." (1 Timothy 3:15)

The mindset of the Dispensationalist includes the idea that God had plan "A" that he offered to his chosen people, the Jews, but they rejected it, so God had to go with plan "B". He was forced to change his plan and form the Church to give the Jews time to turn things around. So, they say, the Church is just a temporary substitute until God's original plan can work itself out. This mindset follows the same theme as those who fully attribute the mess humanity is in with the choice Adam and Eve made. Would the Dispensationalist really suggest that God was taken by surprise in both instances? Did God say to himself in surprise:

"Damn it (I use the "literal" sense of the word) I had such a good plan set up and now I am going to have to do something else. Those pesty humans! They are so unpredictable! Oh, well...let's see..that's it. I 'll do this, this and this and see if that works. I hope they don't screw it up this time?"

Here is the question: Was God surprised when Adam and Eve sinned or did He know from the beginning that they would do so? Likewise, was God surprised when some (not all) of the Jews rejected him or did He know they would from the beginning? It is unimaginable that anyone would attribute to God such a wishy-washy, cause and effect, human attribute, but this is what the Dispensational theory does. The Church has always held that God's plan for mankind included the sin of Adam and Eve and the rejection of Him by the Jews. Man would be in need of a savior and God would become incarnate in Jesus the Christ to bring that salvation. The Old Testament Covenant is a forerunner of the New Covenant and salvation is extended to His chosen people-Israel- made up of Jews and Gentiles-The Church. We are not waiting for some future earthly Kingdom that hinges on the earthly Nation of Israel-the Jews. Dispensationalists fail to understand that Judaism is a religion not a race and that not all Jewish leaders consider the Nation of Israel the epicenter or the prophesied future of Judaism. Establishing His Church was God's plan from the beginning.We are awaiting the glorious return of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords to bring an end of the age (earthly humanity) and a beginning to eternity (Heavenly humanity). Members of the Jewish religion, along with members of any other religions who embrace Yeshua as the Messiah will be included.

Dispensationalism is an aberration from the truth. I hope you will not dismiss this article but will study on your own. to understand what the Church as a whole has held on this matter. I recommend the book "Will Catholics be Left Behind?" by Carl E. Olson, Ignatius Press.

The Downward Spiral Of The Remnant ROCOR Blog Co-Administrators



sacrilege
The intentional desecration or disrespectful treatment of a person, place, thing, or idea held sacred

In a disturbing act of sacrilege, Minas Michael Christie, co-administrator of the Remnant ROCOR blog with Joanna Higginbothm and Father Gregory Williams has photo-shopped and posted a photo containing the icons of Christ and the Theotokos, He has placed, what appears to be, a ventriloquist dummy over the icon of Christ, and over the Icon of the Theotokos is a child on a carnival carousel zebra, with, what appears to be, a man holding a machete and a severed head. The photo, has had its copyright obscured and is posted on a blog that Christie independently operates. The original copyrighted photo appears on the JTO blog to the right. Reader Nathan Lee Lewis, administrator of the JTO blog appears in the photo with the two icons in the background. The photo is taken in front of the altar of the Saint Symeon Mission where Reader Nathan Lee Lewis leads a Reader Service. The icons were originally blessed by the former priest Father Anastasious Hudson of the GOC, and hang over an altar that was built per his instructions and where he once officiated and blessed the holy Eucharist.

This downward spiral into this bizarre behavior follows a confrontation by Christie's own priest at which time Christie was asked to take down the offensive and ofttimes profane blog. Christie apparently refused to do so. In recent days JTO has posted several expose's of the conduct of Christie and Higginbotham, who participates on his blog. Father Gregory Williams has rejected requests to intervene or to curtail his co-administrator's on-line public conduct, although he is fully aware of the nature the conduct takes. In this it is hard to not consider him complicit in their conduct. Christie's blog is still linked as a "Member" blog on the Remnant ROCOR blog and Joanna Higginbotham continues to participate in the comment section on Christie's blog. With very few exceptions, Christie and Higginbotham are the only ones commenting on the blog. 

For one to mock another is serious enough. For one to mock another in public is serious still. For one to use the photos of holy icons as tools of mockery is a perverse act. 

"Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.…"