Comments Posted By Jane Rachel
Displaying 211 To 240 Of 1,100 Comments
Dear George, I want to take time out to say that I think you are a true gentleman, and thanks for all you’ve done blog-wise. I just plain old like you. You are cool.
Also, Helga, thanks for all your contributions, too.
And, um… well, I guess that’s it, then.
Thanks to all. Thanks to all the good priests and bishops out there, and to all who comment here. Seriously.:)
Signed, not really “Jane Rachel,” but, well, me.
» Posted By Jane Rachel On May 14, 2012 @ 9:59 pm
I remember how disappointed my parish priest was when Metropolitan Herman was chosen over Bishop Seraphim; how disgusted he looked when he reported back that the popular vote had been overridden by the Holy Synod; and how wistfully sad that the Bishop of the Midwest would not be the Metropolitan.
» Posted By Jane Rachel On May 14, 2012 @ 7:17 am
To Father Hans: Instead of turning the blog comments off and not reading them, you should jump into the fray and talk to them, Father Hans. It would be good practice. And because you are Orthodox and have the True Faith, you could present Orthodoxy and nothing else to them .Not your personal opinions or ideas, and not your politics or your conservatism or your Intelligent Design beliefs. They hate Intelligent Design and I don’t blame them for that. But just tell them about Orthodoxy. They will listen to that, I know it. It’s beyond any understanding they have, and you had some good things to say about the mystery of creativity. Or, you can just stay on Orthodox radio and talk about Atheism to all the nice Orthodox people who tune in.
» Posted By Jane Rachel On April 20, 2012 @ 8:52 pm
Oh gosh, I thought God was in control.
» Posted By Jane Rachel On April 20, 2012 @ 8:40 pm
Father Hans, I liked it most when you kept breaking into “father” mode towards Matt.
» Posted By Jane Rachel On April 20, 2012 @ 8:23 pm
I didn’t say “any politician we want” as if we who might not support a politician you support are going to willy nilly follow any old politician like the stupid people we are, though it’s happened many times that Orthodox have followed horrible politicians. I said any politician we like. I am saying Orthodox adults are free to support the politician that they choose to support. I thought we were free to decide who we want to support like any other people living in this country. Aren’t we?Apparently not. You sound like Baptists. I just read a guy say this on a Facebook discussion:
Jeremy, I am indeed Protestant, but more than slightly Calvinistic, as I am a five pointer. In addition to that I am Puritanistic, Presbyterian, and consequently do believe in penal substitution when it comes to Christ’s work, and would assert most firmly via Scripture that anyone who doesn’t believe this last is not a Christian, no matter what he says, as this is the heart of all.
Further, I would have you recognize that you have just given way to contradictions, that is, you have just tacitly asserted that mutually exclusive and contradictory opinions, as the difference between Roman Catholics and Protestants on such subjects as the worship of Mary and other Saints, the infallibility of the Pope, etc., can both be correct at the same time in the same way. This is to make God contradict himself, which is impossible; consequently, they can’t both be right. Note: That is not to say that all Roman Catholics are damned, nor that all Protestants are saved, for these issues may or may not be damning, whereas the issue of the atonement would be, all I mean to say is that you are asserting impossibilities, for, not only does plain reason deny what you say, but the Bible itself plainly does.
It’s not the content I’m posting, it’s the attitude. It’s not the politics I’m talking about, it’s the attitude.
Do you get to decide who other Orthodox should support? Ahem.Well, you guys are absolute. There’s no discussion to be had. That’s why I didn’t take much time writing a comment.
It’s the attitude that there is no discussion. The Platonic Form. It’s scary. This would drive me away faster than anything. I’m glad the Church didn’t teach me what you are pushing. I want to tell my friend who is asking questions about Chrisitianity about Orthodoxy, but I would never direct her here. The fighting she might be able to understand. The human side of it. She might be able to get past the corruption of the leaders she might read about here. But this attitude thing… would turn her off immediately. She wants Truth. You may say what you believe is true, but if you cap that “t” and make it Truth, you are stepping out of bounds. You can’t mix the two and make them one. There are George’s opinions and he posts them, and there are discussions about that. There are posts about Orthodoxy and there is discussion about that. But you cannot mix the two. Orthodoxy is beyond the UNIVERSE.
» Posted By Jane Rachel On April 20, 2012 @ 8:17 pm
Here is a link to a blog that links to a debate between Father Hans Jacobse and Matt Dillahunty, president of the Atheist Community of Austin and host of The Atheist Experience. Matt Dillahunty comments on the debate experience with Father Hans a few posts down.
» Posted By Jane Rachel On April 20, 2012 @ 1:20 pm
William F. Buckley and “Firing Line.” Noam Chomsky and William F. Buckley Debate back in 1969. Sigh. Those were the days.
» Posted By Jane Rachel On April 20, 2012 @ 1:08 pm
Father Patrick wrote: “Orthodox support for …” [insert name of any particular politician at any particular point in time here]..
Question: What’s wrong with Orthodox supporting politicians?
Answer: Absolutely nothing. Orthodox can support any politician they like.
Question: What’s wrong with Orthodoxy supporting politicians?
Answer: Everything. Orthodoxy cannot support politicians. It is an impossible concept.
» Posted By Jane Rachel On April 20, 2012 @ 12:42 pm
Heracleides: His Grace did say this about himself regarding Bishop Benjamin, “I must confess to being perhaps naive and irresponsible…” and a lot more about it, here on Monomakhos last September. You can read his entire post here:
» Posted By Jane Rachel On April 10, 2012 @ 9:48 am
Thank you, Heracleides!
» Posted By Jane Rachel On April 10, 2012 @ 9:27 am
Being human means never having to say you’re sorry.
No one in their right mind would dispute that the media – all media – is biased. They can’t help themselves. Come to think of it, they could choose to be a little less biased, but then, no one would follow them and they wouldn’t make any money, which is the only thing that makes it possible for them to survive, I mean, not as news organizations, but as individual people who have to make a living.
All humans are biased. We have a tendency, or leaning, or bias, towards our own, because we feel safe when we are with our own kind. I don’t think bias works as well as it used to, now that the world has filled up with people and humans from every tribe and nation are forced to interact with each other. Walking down the streets of Minneapolis after ten years away, I had to make myself accept what I was seeing. It wasn’t the same city, but it was what it was, and there were a lot of new people from many nations, who came there simply because they needed to survive, and they had been through a lot, just like me. How does right-wing conservatism view immigration?
Well, I believe that as humans, and especially as God-fearing humans, even though we can’t escape our tendency to be biased towards our own, we can work to break free of the kind of adamant bias that divides and separates. And still, most people won’t do that. They will stay put and hunker down, especially if they are comfortable. It is not easy to get away from it because 1) we refuse to see it in ourselves, but we love to point it out it in others; 2) we tend to hunker down inside our bias when spotted by anyone who does not fit our world view; and 3) we hate others for being biased and believing they are right, but love ourselves for being the only ones who are right. It’s called tribalism. It makes for a very messy, complicated, frustrating, and wonderful world.
» Posted By Jane Rachel On April 9, 2012 @ 8:56 am
Raisa, I hope those Orthodox people who hurt the Orthodox people of Alaska will apologize and ask forgiveness. Wouldn’t that be AMAZING?!? Life is sad at times, isn’t it? But also beautiful. The garden sounds lovely! We had clam chowder today made with carrots we saved over from last year’s garden and the asparagus is sending up shoots.
» Posted By Jane Rachel On April 22, 2012 @ 6:39 pm
Heracleides, I realize you think it shows lack of character but in my opinion, it doesn’t matter if someone says they are leaving and then returns. I don’t think any less or any more of that person for doing so. It’s hard to stay away when you continue to read and want to comment, but if you do you might lose face, well who really cares? It’s rather like leaving a conversation while being there at the same time. I would feel the same way if you left, or any of the contributors who make me think outside the box. I have to say there are times I take a stance for the sake of questioning or challenging the other side, just to try to keep the thinking about it alive, so it doesn’t languish in the mud, if that makes sense. I want to think through all the issues being discussed. I can’t think through them if I accept everything I read as “gospel” without questioning it, because all points of view are so strongly presented, and they often clash so completely.
Speaking of sometimes controversial and almost always thought-provoking contributors on Orthodox discussion sites, Father Ambrose in New Zealand is another Orthodox contributor to blogs I’ve been reading for many years and have grown very fond of. He’s sick with cancer and in his nineties, I believe. He’s on my mind a lot lately, so I wanted to take the opportunity to wish him all the best in every way. I believe he reads this blog since he commented a couple of months ago. You know me, Fr. A, but I haven’t used my real name here. Many thanks – or should I say much love and many prayers of thanks to God for all you’ve done, including helping people all over the world learn about Orthodoxy, for your witness to the Light of Christ, and all your labors for the physically and spiritually poor and needy, whether on the internet, or where you live.
» Posted By Jane Rachel On April 22, 2012 @ 10:10 am
Your Grace, several people will miss your presence here, that is, if you have really decided not to comment here at all. I have no problem with you or your comments, or even that you would tell people to “Get a life in Christ” for any reason or other. Does that make me a bad person too?
For some reason the phrase, “April is the cruelest month…” came to mind, so I’ll post the first part of The Waste Land. I’m an artist with an artist’s brain, so it has some odd meaning to me, and seems appropriate to the situation, maybe I thought of it only because it’s April and snowing outside. I’m not sure why. But in any case, thanks again for all your comments.
T.S. Eliot (1888–1965). The Waste Land. 1922.
The Waste Land
I. THE BURIAL OF THE DEAD
APRIL is the cruellest month, breeding
Lilacs out of the dead land, mixing
Memory and desire, stirring
Dull roots with spring rain.
Winter kept us warm, covering 5
Earth in forgetful snow, feeding
A little life with dried tubers.
Summer surprised us, coming over the Starnbergersee
With a shower of rain; we stopped in the colonnade,
And went on in sunlight, into the Hofgarten, 10
And drank coffee, and talked for an hour.
Bin gar keine Russin, stamm’ aus Litauen, echt deutsch.
And when we were children, staying at the archduke’s,
My cousin’s, he took me out on a sled,
And I was frightened. He said, Marie, 15
Marie, hold on tight. And down we went.
In the mountains, there you feel free.
I read, much of the night, and go south in the winter.
What are the roots that clutch, what branches grow
Out of this stony rubbish? Son of man, 20
You cannot say, or guess, for you know only
A heap of broken images, where the sun beats,
And the dead tree gives no shelter, the cricket no relief,
And the dry stone no sound of water. Only
There is shadow under this red rock, 25
(Come in under the shadow of this red rock),
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust. 30
Frisch weht der Wind
Der Heimat zu,
Mein Irisch Kind,
Wo weilest du?
“You gave me hyacinths first a year ago; 35
They called me the hyacinth girl.”
—Yet when we came back, late, from the Hyacinth garden,
Your arms full, and your hair wet, I could not
Speak, and my eyes failed, I was neither
Living nor dead, and I knew nothing, 40
Looking into the heart of light, the silence.
Öd’ und leer das Meer.
Madame Sosostris, famous clairvoyante,
Had a bad cold, nevertheless
Is known to be the wisest woman in Europe, 45
With a wicked pack of cards. Here, said she,
Is your card, the drowned Phoenician Sailor,
(Those are pearls that were his eyes. Look!)
Here is Belladonna, the Lady of the Rocks,
The lady of situations. 50
Here is the man with three staves, and here the Wheel,
And here is the one-eyed merchant, and this card,
Which is blank, is something he carries on his back,
Which I am forbidden to see. I do not find
The Hanged Man. Fear death by water. 55
I see crowds of people, walking round in a ring.
Thank you. If you see dear Mrs. Equitone,
Tell her I bring the horoscope myself:
One must be so careful these days.
Unreal City, 60
Under the brown fog of a winter dawn,
A crowd flowed over London Bridge, so many,
I had not thought death had undone so many.
Sighs, short and infrequent, were exhaled,
And each man fixed his eyes before his feet. 65
Flowed up the hill and down King William Street,
To where Saint Mary Woolnoth kept the hours
With a dead sound on the final stroke of nine.
There I saw one I knew, and stopped him, crying “Stetson!
You who were with me in the ships at Mylae! 70
That corpse you planted last year in your garden,
Has it begun to sprout? Will it bloom this year?
Or has the sudden frost disturbed its bed?
Oh keep the Dog far hence, that’s friend to men,
Or with his nails he’ll dig it up again! 75
You! hypocrite lecteur!—mon semblable,—mon frère!”
» Posted By Jane Rachel On April 21, 2012 @ 10:23 pm
I’m glad to hear it, George. Will do.
» Posted By Jane Rachel On April 21, 2012 @ 10:46 am
Raisa, I appreciate your response. I don’ t know what to say, but that’s okay because it’s not up to me to say anything else. I’m very sorry for all your pain and loss, and for the loss of the valuable items.
» Posted By Jane Rachel On April 21, 2012 @ 9:14 am
No, Whooping Cranes are not extinct!!!!!!! Please don’t say that, even in jest!!
It’s definitely “whopper.” Two “p”s, one “o.”
» Posted By Jane Rachel On April 19, 2012 @ 8:44 pm
Yes, but it hit a memory chord. It was a sudden surge of appreciation for all people who work hard for others without asking anything in return, without letting anyone know what they are doing, and appreciation especially for both my grandmas and grandpas, all my great-grandmas and grandpas, great-great grandmas and grandpas, aunts, uncles, my mother, my father, my sister, my brothers, my neighbors, my friend Viola, who recently died at 105, many of my other friends, and all the church ladies who make cabbage rolls without guile. Oh, and Saint Herman of Alaska. Oh, wait! What is the name of the female Saint who carried bricks by night to help, what, build a church?
Holy Blessed Saint Xenia!
» Posted By Jane Rachel On April 19, 2012 @ 8:29 pm
The scenario we were presented with on ocanews is absolutely unacceptable on every level. I stand by all the questions I asked and everything I’ve said, though I have had a lot of conversations about it in real time, and have done a lot of thinking about it. If Bishop Nikolai was a good man before he went to Alaska, and this is shown by his reputation and his career, he cannot suddenly turn into a totally different person, and not only a “bad” person, but a monstrously, horribly, unthinkably bad person. Trash novels aren’t even written as poorly as that scenario played out on ocanews.
Let the truth be told. Just make it feasible.
And I do not believe that little old ladies are automatically holy, either. Nor do I believe that old men who sometimes write with an acerbic bite are automatically unholy. Nor do I believe that a person should believe everything they read.
Still, working tirelessly with your hands for the sake of the Church, with no money but a lot of giving, and being grateful to God for a good family hit home.
» Posted By Jane Rachel On April 19, 2012 @ 7:43 pm
Others put a dollar in the plate. I didn’t have money, but I had the will, so I gave of my time and effort. God accepted my labors, hopefully, and I’m grateful I was able to come home to carry on a long and beautiful family tradition of serving The Church.
This, I get.
And for me, it is enough.
» Posted By Jane Rachel On April 19, 2012 @ 3:26 pm
Nifty! Just because I think it’s interesting and there is still much to learn, I did a search on the museum web site for “Lydia Black” and found several references, including this article. Here’s a quote from that article:
“There are about 1100 books and 1200 paper articles in the museum’s library, as well as 100 films, 20 audio recordings, and 220 maps” said Special Projects Manager Katie St. John. “Most of these materials were given to the museum, including a large collection of books from anthropologist Lydia Black.”
I think that is cool.
» Posted By Jane Rachel On April 19, 2012 @ 12:09 pm
Raisa (you have a nice name, it’s pretty.) wrote: “When Nikolai threw all the library books out on the street, many came to take them rather than have them carried to the garbage dump.”
Did Bishop Nikolai actually “throw” “all” the library books out on the street? Why were the books removed from the library? Were they catalogued and on shelves when they were taken out of the library and thrown on the street? Were the books in good shape? Were they “all” thrown out, and were they thrown out physically, as in, “tossed” out without regard or respect for them as books? Did you see him “throw” them out out the street? Were they in boxes? Was the word put out that people should come and take them if they wanted them?
Raisa wrote: “Several generous families brought archival papers to the Seminary thinking they would be used to help the students in their studies. One set was finally ‘loaned’ to the Aliiutiq Musuem after a lengthy ugly issue, and the other, who knows?”
Were the archival papers ever made available to be used by the students? Does the Aliiutiq Museum still have the papers? Why was it wrong to loan them to the museum? Should someone write to the museum and ask for them to be returned? Why was the issue “ugly”? Raisa, I don’t mean for you to answer all the questions, and everything doesn’t have to be explained, but I keep thinking there is more to it. Why were people offended, and how did all of this anger come to rest on Bishop Nikolai’s shoulders? Is it that they would like to know what happened to the items? I would want to know. The museum looks like a great place to donate things of value in order to protect them, but the person who originally owned them should know where they went. Also, were all the items that you mention were donated by families originally theirs? I can imagine there was a lot of moving things around from place to place over the decades, and that not everyone in the community agrees with everyone else about where these should go. (Please understand, I am a person who really cares, not some dumb person behind a keyboard in the lower states who doesn’t give a rat’s petootie about Alaska.)
Raisa wrote: “Handmade candle stands from the Aleutians donated, disappeared, old books, books of Fr. Yakov in his own handwriting, translated by Dr. Black, disappeared.”
I am very much enjoying the Alutiiq Museum web site http://alutiiqmuseum.org. What has made you come to the conviction, or know for certain, that Bishop Nikolai is responsible for the disappearance of these valuable items? Is any other explanation possible, other than the one you present, which is that he stole them, sold them for his own gain, gave them away without regard for anyone, or threw them away. As if he had no respect and hated all native people and everything to do with Alaska. That’s the picture we’ve been presented with, and it just doesn’t fit. It doesn’t make sense.
Raisa wrote: “…one elder speaking at coffee hour was told by Nikolai “Shut up! You bore me”.
I have respect for that elder. At the same time, I’ve also been misquoted, especially when everyone is already convinced I was the bad guy in the scene. Later, hearing what was said by somebody else, who said somebody else said I said that, I couldn’t believe my ears. I could not believe that people would say that I said THAT when I know I didn’t say it. I was there, and I know what I said or did not say. I also know people can mishear things because we all do and can’t help it.There are things that have been said that Bishop Nikolai said, that I would have to hear from the person under oath, and I don’t know if I could believe it even then that those actual words were spoken by him. Are you absolutely sure that Bishop Nikolai told someone that she should be thrown over a cliff? Would the person who says they heard it swear under oath that he said that? Using quotes means that you are ready to testify those were the person’s exact words, and that you know he said them.
Raisa wrote: ” If you or anyone really want or needs to know all the things that went on, ask someone who was/is here. ”
Well, I’m asking.
Raisa wrote: “.And all native parishioners and choir, and seminary students, please step to the rear of the church. I’ve even seen the native students walk out in anger. Don’t blame them.”
Did Bishop Nikolai actually order the native folks to go to the rear of the church, in the sense you portray, which is that he was acting like the white racists in the south who ordered African-American people to the back of the bus? Is there any other way of looking at it? Any other explanation other than racism? Because that’s what you are saying. You are saying that he was discriminating against the native Alaskans. That he was a racist, and that the non natives got to be in the front while the natives were pushed to the back. Are you one hundred percent sure? If you really think it over (I’m not insulting you), would you be willing to testify under oath (not that you would ever need to do that, but I’m saying), are you that absolutely sure that he was deliberately discriminating against the natives? Is there any other explanation?
I would like to add one more thing. I live in my own home state now, but I’ve lived in other countries located literally on the other side of the world from my home. I never did adjust fully to my surroundings while I was there. The culture, the language, the ways of the people were very different from what I was used to at home. It was extremely difficult to be in settings where another language was being spoken that I couldn’t understand. I knew the people could have spoken English but they forgot I was there. It’s a very uncomfortable place to be. You feel like a square peg that has to somehow fit into a round hole, but you can’t carve yourself into that shape no matter how hard you try, and it’s not made any easier when some of the people don’t really want you there. I think on the other side, that the people who lived there also struggled with figuring out where I was coming from because my own native language and culture and life experiences were so different from theirs.
» Posted By Jane Rachel On April 19, 2012 @ 9:18 am
Anna, there are a lot of people who are completely unconvinced that wrong was done to these men, and remain adamant that Mark Stokoe somehow “saved” the OCA from their corruption.
If Bishop Nikolai is released by the OCA and accepted into ROCOR, and if that’s what he wants, then fantastic. Maybe after that there won’t be any more need to “rehash” the past. He will be working as a bishop again, and being a bishop is his calling. Right now he’s not even allowed to enter the church he built. In a way, if he is able to serve as a bishop, this will be a vindication for him. Also, a lot of us lived through this mess, so for those of us who believe justice was not served and real wrongs were committed by leaders still in power, it’s still fresh and painful. There will not be healing until some of these wrongs are made right. There has been no resolution and no reconciliation. This public forum is the only place there is for us. If people don’t want to read it because it’s too painful, well, they don’t have to read it. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.
» Posted By Jane Rachel On April 18, 2012 @ 8:02 pm
Is it possible that Bishop Nikolai was shutting down a comfortable situation (things missing, money missing, secrets locked in closets) and he was actually taken down by numerous people for various, dark reasons? Some followed, some listened and jumped to conclusions, some were manipulated, some led. It has to be that this is the case. I mean, I can’t see it any other way. Look who their bishop is now! And when I read what Bishop Nikolai has written, I can’t believe that a man who writes the way he does, who has had a career without blemish to the point where the Nevada governor names a day after him (and all this is without mentioning the good that has also been spoken about him by those who know him), is an abusive monster, as he has been betrayed, and I do not believe it because I cannot reasonably “get there from here.” This inner contradiction actually proves within my mind that what was written about him by many of these folks was the result of a manipulated public mentality carefully crafted to incite the “righteous” crowd to cry out “crucify him!’, created by those behind the scenes leaders who really wanted to take him down because he was dangerous. As in, “SCARY.” And he must have been. I can picture it. As in, “GET OUT OF THIS TEMPLE!” Now I’m speculating. Oops.
As in the case with Father Robert Kondratick, it does not add up to a realistic picture as it was presented, no matter how many “respectable” people were involved in writing those letters. I’ll tell you one thing, I would never have written public letters with very little substance about anyone no matter what they had done. Even this fact leads to the notion that they were not such great, upstanding and wise leaders. What was wise about what they said, and the way they vilified him without any real substance? I should know it’s possible, it happened to me, too. No. I can’t see that there is any other path than the one I’ve been on; that is, to come to the same conclusion as always, which is that all those letters and complaints are without any real substance, and that I continue to support and respect Bishop Nikolai as I always have. There is no other way for me to go. Look at the pattern. It happened twice, to two separate men, in the same way, at the same time, with the same shady characters running the show, with the same motivation behind it, and then it happened again, and again.
All right, then. Go ahead, Rosabel, give it your best shot.
» Posted By Jane Rachel On April 18, 2012 @ 6:26 pm
Your Grace, I’ve recently read, again, many of the negative letters concerning Bishop Nikolai that were written by clergy and lay people in Alaska, and posted on ocanews. They seem pretty upset. I do want to understand. Would you let us know us your feelings and observations as well as what is the truth, if you can tell us, about all that?
Here are a couple of links:
» Posted By Jane Rachel On April 18, 2012 @ 4:35 pm
All right, then. Glad to hear THAT’S cleared up.
Here was Nikos’ statement from this morning:
The OCA will continue to languish until it allows +Nikolai to be released to another jurisdiction, lifts the discipline against Fr. Kondratick, apologizes to Fr. Fester and reprimands Bishop Maymon. Our “leaders” also should apologize to +Jonah. No great fanfare, just do it. The world will not stop spinning on its axis, but in that “single moment” the OCA will have returned from its exile and with a chance to lead. If not, we will see this branch wither and die.
Kudos to ROCOR and to the MP who want +Nikolai restored. Yes, Stan, The Centre blesses +Nikolai serving.
» Posted By Jane Rachel On April 18, 2012 @ 12:38 am
Okay, I want to get to the bottom of this. What are you saying, Heracleides? The bailing out? The letter? What?
» Posted By Jane Rachel On April 17, 2012 @ 7:54 pm
Heracleides wrote: “Benjamin = scoundrel – therefore – Nikolai = saint”
Heracleides, I appreciate your unflinching push for clarity.
Bishop Nikolai wrote, among many other things:
“Believe me I have shortcomings and one of them that is necessary for me to
improve is how I am perceived as to strict. One can give the same medication
with honey and it goes down easier than with vinegar.” (http://www.dioceseofalaska.org/askvladyka/)
I believe based on what I’ve read, that Bishop Nikolai sometimes had to use “vinegar” rather than “honey.”. I’m not justifying Bishop Nikolai’s actions for personal reasons, nor putting biased glasses on when interpreting what people write. I was not there. I have considered everything Rosabel Baldwin and everyone else has written. I am not remotely convinced that Rosabel has the ultimate understanding. Although I wasn’t in Alaska, I have been there and done that. Humans act in predictable ways.
Of COURSE Bishop Nikolai is not “A Saint”! Why are the icons of Saints stylized?
The letter to Bishop Benjamin was for Bishop Benjamin’s eyes alone. What Bishop Nikolai wrote would not drive me away from the Church, but what Bishop Benjamin DID might have scandalized me, though in the end, it was the truth of Orthodoxy that converted me, and the corruption that in the end nearly killed me. I believe that Bishop Nikolai pushed hard and strong against Bishop Benjamin’s immorality, for Bishop Benjamin’s sake. I am sure he wrote the letter to try to get Bishop Benjamin to look at himself in the mirror, sans rose-colored glasses, and repent. I guess I agree it was a mistake to help get him “bailed” out of jail. I don’t believe for even one second, based on what I’ve learned about Bishop Nikolai, that he did that out of corrupt motives. I believe he did it out of love and hope.
» Posted By Jane Rachel On April 17, 2012 @ 7:32 pm
Back To Stats Page
In Bishop Nikolai’s own words:
In addition to being accused of “selling” Alaskan lands, I have also been accused of “mortgaging Alaskan properties.” First, I would like to ask, who in today’s world has not legally sold property to upgrade or reinvest the proceeds? Yes, I have done this, and all the property that has been acquired is in the name of the Diocese of Alaska. In addition, my Diocesan Council has been apprised of every action we have taken. And the results: the old chancery I inherited was appraised for $325,000. It was sold for its appraised value and a down payment was placed on a new Chancery and a small apartment complex. This apartment complex was later sold for almost twice what we paid and the new Chancery was paid off. We then invested the remainder on a downtown property that currently serves as the Russian Orthodox Museum and Holy Trinity Chapel. God willing, this will grow into a center for our Church in the years to come. In addition, we paid off the Diocesan vehicle. As of today we have an approximate $345,000.00 mortgage on the Museum property. This is the ONLY mortgage we have! That property and the current Chancery are valued at approximately $1.5 million. I think most would agree that this is pretty good return on investment over the past five years considering what we had to start.
What am I missing here? Anybody?
» Posted By Jane Rachel On April 17, 2012 @ 4:03 pm