Comments Posted By Ronda Wintheiser
Displaying 1 To 30 Of 73 Comments
» Posted By Ronda Wintheiser On February 10, 2013 @ 10:37 pm
I don’t think we can examine the question of women in combat in a vacuum. It’s not a “stand alone” question. It’s related to what is happening in a larger context; in the context of American culture. Women in combat IS related to legalising abortion. It’s related to transgender mutilation, to homosexual “marriage”, to divorce, to who raises the children if both parents insist on having a career…
What seems obvious is that men and women sometimes get confused about who they are. A man demanding that a surgeon alter his body because he wants to be a woman is the same kind of thing as women insisting that they be able to become un-pregnant at any time by having access to legal abortion. Both of them are ignoring or outright rejecting what God has made them to be.
The question of women in combat is just one piece of the larger picture — the question of what a man is and what a woman is; it’s an ontological question, not a question of rights or power or a competition of who gets to do what.
Unfortunately, that is what it has been reduced to.
The writer of the essay is looking at men and women ontologically. When he says that a man will instinctively protect a woman in combat, he is pointing out that this is something men do instinctively; it’s consistent with the nature of a man — just as it is consistent for a woman to instinctively be nurturing.
That doesn’t mean a woman cannot be protective or a man cannot be nurturing.
The question he’s asking is whether it makes sense to base policy or practice on the exception rather than the rule; if it makes sense to treat women the same way we treat men or expect women to be and do what men are and do.
Maybe my tongue-in-cheek or even sardonic style doesn’t help when it comes to communicating in this medium, and I’m sorry I’ve started this out in such a way that you seem to feel the need to defend yourself.
I figured your husband had read the essay.
I was disappointed that you both were dismissing the arguments the writer of the essay made. To my mind, they are reasonable if not downright compelling.
I didn’t write anything believing YOU to be “one of these ‘demanding women’ ” ; this isn’t about you, or about me, either.
It is about whether a man is interchangeable with a woman and vice versa.
When I asked what’s wrong with just being a woman, I used the word “just” not as a way to dismiss or reduce or minimize what a woman is.
What I should have asked is: What is wrong with simply being a woman?
What I meant by that was that it’s ok with me as a woman that I don’t get to do everything a man gets to do. I’m content with doing what I, as a woman, was designed to do, and like it or not, that is being a mother.
I realise that not all women can or will be biological mothers. However, it seems to me that, ontologically speaking, it is possible to be a mother even if you never bear a child. A mother is someone who gives life, who nurtures it wherever it is, who coaxes it into growth.
I suppose I’m really going to get myself in trouble now, because I’m going to say this: To me, a woman in combat is absolutely antithetical to what she is made to do and be — a LIFE giver. NOT a life taker.
In saying that, I also have to assert that MEN are not designed to be life takers, either. War and being a warrior is NOT NATURAL for ANY human being because DEATH is not natural. And while that question is not irrelevant, I’m going to arrest my own digression and go back a step.
You wrote: “I think there might be something awful about ‘JUST’ being a woman…”
You used the word “just” in that sentence to mean ONLY.
There is no such thing, Saunca. There is no such thing as being ONLY a woman.
What is tragic about this new policy of making it possible for women to be in combat is that it is seen by so many as a question of equality; that prohibiting women from being in combat is somehow to say that they are less than men; inferior to men — ONLY women.
Saying a woman can’t be a priest isn’t to say that she is somehow less than or inferior to a man. Not all men can be priests, nor can all men be soldiers. That doesn’t make them somehow inferior to men who are priests or men who are soldiers.
The thing that bothers me most about women being in the military is the question of what happens when and if a female soldier becomes pregnant. What will happen to that child?
» Posted By Ronda Wintheiser On February 10, 2013 @ 9:40 am
The only thing wrong with being a woman, Ms. Sheppard, is that women are sinners, and that means they do things that earn them complaint and criticism.
Being able to accept that my half of the human race is capable of doing things wrong doesn’t even come close to meaning that I think there is something wrong with being a woman! Geez!
You wrote that “In truth, men and women were created to compliment one another, but there have been times when God chose a woman over a man to LEAD men into combat.”
I think you meant “complement”, eh? (I do think they were created to compliment each other, as well; love that Freudian slip… ) Regardless, with that argument, we could make the case for ordaining women to be priests, couldn’t we?
God has never chosen a man to be a mother. Nor a woman to be a priest.
What do you make of that? Is it meaningless?
Just because there have been times in human history when a woman has led men in battle, or a man has had to raise his babies himself doesn’t mean we can generalise those roles and switch them out willy nilly. Does it?
Do you honestly not see what sense the arguments that the author of the essay is making?
» Posted By Ronda Wintheiser On February 9, 2013 @ 3:10 pm
Well, then, “Saunca”, I guess maybe your husband needs to read this essay, eh?
All of his “feelings regarding women in combat” are about a woman’s side of the deal.
He’s completely ignoring the impact on the men.
Typical of men. Protect women at their own expense.
As a woman, I am so tired of women demanding to have and do everything men have and do.
What’s so awful about just being a woman?
What do you think of men who insist that they are women trapped in male bodies and insisting that a surgeon mutilate them so that they can have and do everything women have and do?
Women seem to be always tantruming about one thing or another. Things are never quite good enough for us. First we want to be unpregnant at any time so that we can compete with our male counterparts in the business world. So give us legal abortion.
Never mind that a human being is slaughtered; I’ve got to have my way.
What if men began to demand the ability to BE pregnant? What if they insisted on a surgery that would provide them with a uterus, and drugs to make their bodies maintain a pregnancy?
Would that be acceptable? Equal enough for you?
» Posted By Ronda Wintheiser On February 9, 2013 @ 9:21 am
Why, Mr. Johnston, would you refer to Metropolitan Jonah as “your boy”?
And was he “dismissed” then, after all? He did not willingly resign???
And are you implying that he is not a “TRUE ” monastic, and somehow Metropolitan Tikhon is?
Apparently, Mr. Johnston, it is you who have an axe to grind.
» Posted By Ronda Wintheiser On January 30, 2013 @ 8:54 am
There were 17 of us who voted for Metropolitan JONAH on both ballots.
» Posted By Ronda Wintheiser On November 15, 2012 @ 12:46 pm
George, I apologise for intruding with a completely off topic comment, but I haven’t been able to get you to respond to a private message I sent you on Facebook, nor an email I sent you using the email address associated with this blog.
Have you received or seen either of my notes?
» Posted By Ronda Wintheiser On September 16, 2012 @ 6:32 am
Whose signature will appear on the application of those delegates whose hierarch is Bishop MATTHIAS… ?
» Posted By Ronda Wintheiser On September 8, 2012 @ 5:47 pm
What would “disqualify” a duly elected delegate? And would that delegate be told WHY they were disqualified?
» Posted By Ronda Wintheiser On September 8, 2012 @ 5:45 pm
Gee, Mr. Stankovich. Perhaps you might try tolerating “threats and attempts at silly intimidation” sometime. Just for something new… ?
» Posted By Ronda Wintheiser On September 8, 2012 @ 5:14 pm
Oh my goodness. Here you are, Fr. Vasile! I’ve been looking for you!
I haven’t been able to spend much time reading the blog lately, so I wasn’t aware that you had joined the conversation.
Nevertheless, your case has been on my mind and heart and I wondered what happened to you. I was able to find your case on POKROV, and I also found some documentation of the civil suit you apparently have filed against… I don’t remember — the OCA? The Archbishop himself?
Anyway, because it is so VEXING to see the Synod come down on Metropolitan JONAH and now Bishop MATTHIAS knowing that your case was NOT addressed, I went to the OCA website yesterday and wrote a note. Here is what I wrote:
What has happened to Fr. Vasile Susan?
Has he been given a new assignment?
Also, is there a suit against Archbishop NATHANIEL from Fr. Vasile?
Fr. John Matusiak responded:
Inasmuch as Father Susan is in the Romanian Episcopate, I would recommend that you contact that diocese for the most recent information. You will find contact info at http://www.roea.org/contact.html.
Father John Matusiak, OCA Q&As
Just a few minutes ago, I wrote back to him:
Fr. John, I am confused.
Fr. Vasile is not listed on the Romanian website.
He is, however, listed on the OCA website as “attached” at St. Sergius of Radonezh Chapel in Oyster Bay Cove, New York; “Most Blessed JONAH” listed as his bishop; the “V. Rev. John A Jillions” as the rector. This is an OCA parish, isn’t it?
I apologise for my ignorance, but I do not understand the term “attached”; however, inasmuch as it appears that he is indeed somehow affiliated with the OCA, I can only repeat my questions.
What happened to him? I understand that he was removed from his parish some years ago by Archbishop NATHANIEL, and that he brought a case to the Synod against the Archbishop that had something to do with the alleged sexual misconduct of one of his priests.
Was he ever reassigned to a parish by the Synod?
Did the Synod ever formally respond to and investigate the case that he brought against the Archbishop relative to his refusal to investigate a formal complaint that was filed against a priest whose presbytera had personally reported her husband to the Archbishop as an active homosexual?
I have a feeling I won’t get any satisfaction from him.
Now I’ll go read what you have written and maybe I will find my answer.
» Posted By Ronda Wintheiser On September 8, 2012 @ 7:53 am
Then there was that lightning bolt in August of 2009 that struck the steeple of a Lutheran church in Minneapolis during the church-wide assembly where the ELCA voted to accept same-sex marriages.
» Posted By Ronda Wintheiser On August 22, 2012 @ 6:32 pm
Two weeks ago, after Divine Liturgy and from the amvon our priest addressed the question of why the OCA had not been commemorated in that Liturgy wherever it was, shortly after Metropolitan JONAH’s ouster…
He said that the only reason for it was that the OCA does not have a Metropolitan and had nothing whatsoever to do with “snubbing” the OCA.
I haven’t been able to keep up with everything here for the past couple of weeks, so maybe the answer is already here somewhere in this mountainous blog… But I’ve been wondering what all ya’ll would say to that…
» Posted By Ronda Wintheiser On August 19, 2012 @ 6:53 am
I admit I was mystified at first, too. I’m always a bit slow on the uptake…
» Posted By Ronda Wintheiser On August 13, 2012 @ 9:40 am
I don’t believe she was quoting Al Pacino. I think she was quoting Ron Stoppable.
Ron Stoppable is Kim Possible’s buddy. (Do you know that cartoon?)
Ron Stoppable says “Boo yah”, which is an exclamation of joy and triumph.
» Posted By Ronda Wintheiser On July 21, 2012 @ 10:37 pm
I am glad the Synod finally gave a reason for what they did. Now there is something to examine. And being almost completely ignorant and unaware of all of the politics involved in the OCA, I appreciate being able to examine a particular examination right here on George’s blog.
Thank you again for that, Mr. Michalopulos.
They accused him of receiving an alcoholic priest. There is also this allegation from a woman about a rape. These charges of necessity give rise to all new questions. Can they be corroborated? Will they be openly laid out for examination?
Or were the two letters offered as a sort of smokescreen to mollify us and make us settle down and leave them to do whatever it is that they are doing?
What about Fr. Susan? Where is he now? What did the Synod ever do to respond to the charges he submitted? Or did that all die with Archbishop JOB?
The charges leveled at the Metropolitan are hollow until they have cleaned their own house. They accuse him of what they appear to be guilty of. The pots are calling the kettle black.
Glen Chancy has written in an Orthodox group on a social medium site elsewhere that although Metropolitan Jonah did not have the administrative experience for this “job”, he is someone uniquely suited to be a diocesan bishop — a position in which he would have acquired skills in handling parishes and their issues. That he would have made mistakes on a local level and not have been subjected to constant, relentless scrutiny by a group of bishops (and I cannot help but wonder if they may very well have resented his sudden rise in popularity. It does remind one of Joseph and his brothers as has been observed elsewhere… “Here comes that dreamer…” )
Anyone who heard him speak — and I did hear him twice, prior to his election — could not help but agree with Glen’s assessment that he would make and did indeed become the most worthy bishop that the OCA has. In a few years, he would have learned all he needs to be a metropolitan. It is difficult to look back and not conclude that it was partly the situation caused by many of the same bishops who are his accusers that resulted in his possibly “untimely” or premature election.
Once he was there, he ought to have had their full support as he learned the skills he needs. I do not believe he had that.
Jane says she is disappointed in Bishop MATTHIAS. I don’t know what to think. I voted for him at the diocesan assembly where he was elected because I sensed his piety and humility, and although I am not ready to jettison my respect for him yet.
I wonder if these newer, apparently pious bishops are being used as shields, in a way, by the “old guard” bishops whose reputations and credibility are very much in question — e.g. why do you suppose +MATTHIAS was the one to write those letters?
And perhaps +MATTHIAS, et al are going along with things, as someone said somewhere, out of their commitment to traditional obedience, etc. Which is, in my mind, Harry, the most obvious conclusion to draw about why Metropolitan JONAH submitted to signing the resignation letter. I have an essay he wrote at some point where he explains using the Jesus Prayer and quotes his spiritual father in seminary: “Do not resent. Do not react. Keep inner stillness.”
I would guess that is where he is striving to be now.
I agree that the only way this can be resolved is for there to be a full investigation by an outside agent of some kind, and for the bishops to open themselves up to scrutiny and take responsibility for what they are responsible for — a debacle. They act as if they are in authority, but that is backward, isn’t it? We are to respond to them as authority, but they are to serve us (the Church) in love, no?
This reminds me of what it is to try to be a submissive wife. Yes, I can submit alright. But if you act in a way that is oppressive or deceitful or contemptuous… you may have my obedience, but you will lose my faith, and worse, my heart.
If they were to humble themselves and clean their own house, I would feel that I could trust them and revere them as holy.
At this point, that word applied to the Synod rings hollow.
» Posted By Ronda Wintheiser On July 19, 2012 @ 9:47 am
How do you know the members of the Synod did not like his speech?
Not arguing with you. Just asking.
» Posted By Ronda Wintheiser On July 13, 2012 @ 10:02 am
I wasn’t there at +JONAH’s election.
However, I remember this:
“Great Lent was rich in spiritual blessings this year. Great Lent began with a Lenten retreat, hosted by St Herman’s and Christ the Savior Orthodox Mission Parish in Anoka on Saturday, March 15. The guest speaker was Fr Jonah Paffhausen, abbot of St John Monastery (OCA) in Manton, California. Fr Jonah addressed the participants on Orthodox evangelism or missions. An Orthodox community is established in the Spirit of Christ as the faithful support each other on the inner journey of repentance, each one of the faithful working to root out of oneself all those angers and fears that rob one of love for God and neighbor. Orthodox Evangelism is rooted in the experience of divine forgiveness and the ability through the grace of God to forgive others. By confronting one’s own sins and overcoming them in the grace of Christ, one begins to radiate the love of God, which is what draws people who are seeking genuineness and love. This is the heart of Orthodox evangelism.
“SUNDAY OF ORTHODOXY
The day after the Lenten retreat led by Fr Jonah was the first Sunday of Great Lent. This is called the Sunday of Orthodoxy. On this Sunday, the faithful commemorate the restoration of holy icons in the worship of the Church by the holy fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council in 787, and again in 841. The icon is a form of religious art that follows strict canons so that it is historically and theologically faithful to its holy subjects: Christ, the Theotokos (Mother of God or the Blessed Virgin Mary) and the saints, in whom God rests. The holy fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council called holy icons “mirrors,” suggesting that they reflect the spiritual realities of the “Kingdom of Heaven within you.” The icon is critical to Orthodox worship and theology because it affirms the reality of the Incarnation. Those who deny the veneration of icons in effect deny the Incarnation of God the Word.
“Traditionally, the Orthodox parishes throughout the Twin Cities area come to St Mary’s Cathedral in NE Minneapolis to celebrate Orthodoxy Sunday together at the service of Lenten Vespers. Fr Jonah Paffhausen was the guest homilist.”
http://www.sthermanmpls.org/newsletter.html (Scroll way down to see photos, etc.)
I wouldn’t say his talks were electrifying. But they were beautiful in their humility and grace and joy. His exhortations were full of hope and a clarity and simplicity of a vision of what it really means to be and live as an Orthodox Christian. He made you want to repent and pray.
Later when I learned of his back to back elections, it didn’t surprise me one bit. It made sense.
I don’t see why we have to say, in retrospect, that His Beatitude’s election was NOT the moving of the Holy Spirit and attribute it to an emotional high of some kind.
I don’t believe that for a minute. That is, for me, what makes the secrecy surrounding the action of the Synod so inappropriate.
» Posted By Ronda Wintheiser On July 13, 2012 @ 8:11 am
» Posted By Ronda Wintheiser On July 15, 2012 @ 7:53 am
Sounds an awful lot like our imminent presidential election — rearranging chairs on the deck of the Titanic…
» Posted By Ronda Wintheiser On July 13, 2012 @ 2:14 pm
I have heard an “argument” that this is not the same Synod that it used to be…
That seems a reasonable argument. Or defense, if you will. That we should not second guess their motivations or their actions; that we should trust them because they are not the “old guard”.
Well, sure, I can trust the office of a bishop. Like a soldier might trust his superior officer. But if I were that superior officer, I would want to EARN that respect and trust because I would want real devotion and love to be behind it going into battle… Anything less than that would be… well… life-threatening.
Trying to give them the benefit of the doubt, not being privy to any inside knowledge, the way this Synod accomplished this, try as I might to be philosophical about it, still leaves me with an uneasy state of mind… Who are these people, and what are they doing? There is a huge disconnect between Them, and Us, and I don’t think we — the nobodys like me here “on the ground” — are responsible for that disconnect.
As I say, I’m just a nobody in a small mission parish. And we have a priest who not only has no administration skills to speak of, but who lacks pastoral skills, as well — he appears to be a misanthropist, to be blunt. He has other strengths, undoubtedly, and he has made many sacrifices to be here with us, but after 11 years, our parish is in deep, steep decline, and to hear him and his wife speak about it, it is our fault (we, the parishioners), and not his.
When Bishop MATTHIAS came to speak to us about this not too many months ago, we were lectured that we ought to be thankful for what we’ve got.
(No smear intended here on the Bishop. I voted for him at the diocesan assembly and I still appreciate him.)
We ARE thankful to have our priest. We are all converts who hoped and prayed and worked for more than a decade to have a parish; we live in a small city that is distant from other cities in our state so that if we wanted to attend Liturgy, we had to travel at least an hour and a half.
Our mission is located in a town with a demographic that would support growth. Our priest (and don’t mistake me here; I love and respect him) has what I would describe as a significant deficit in his pastoral approach and we have seen it literally drive people away.
We do not have the “luxury” of meeting as a council without him in order to ask him to resign. We are stuck working with the guy.
Why shouldn’t we expect the Synod to do the same?
Instead, they “divorce” him.
As much as I recognise the need to be cautious, perhaps, I am stuck with frustration and skepticism about what the Synod has done. Even the letter on the OCA website from Bishop MATTHIAS feels like a condescending pat on the head, as if we are children who do not deserve to know what is happening, or and the sense that he thinks we just couldn’t handle the truth.
Don’t we deserve more than that?
Why should we treat this “new guard” with trust and respect when they don’t seem to be behaving differently from the old one?
I have read criticism that we should not be accusing an entire Synod of collusion, betrayal, and unfaithfulness to the Orthodox moral tradition solely on the basis that they’re not saying as much as we want them to.
Mm, but it’s not solely on that basis. It is on the basis of history, and what should follow from that. Surely they are aware of their “reputation”, if you will, so it wouldn’t take anything more than common sense to tell them that silence would result in what you might describe as the wild speculation, conjecture, and gossip that is occurring: the “word on the street” is that they met without him months in advance, that they composed the resignation letter, that the Chancellor presented it to him at midnight on Friday, that he signed it under duress…
Did someone just make these things up for the fun of it?
But the Synod, with all their alleged gravitasse and wisdom, ought to have foreseen that given their “track record” (whether they individually earned it or not) and therefore would have/should have accomplished everything openly from the gitgo, to prevent any hint of intrigue or collusion or the appearance of evil.
But they didn’t. So now, even if their motivations and objectives were and are as pure as driven snow, they have forfeited the right to claim that by the way they have accomplished this. It is not our doing that it appears to be collusion, betrayal, deceit. I don’t think we are accusing them of those things, necessarily, either — we are pointing out to them that that is how they appear.
It is up to THEM to remedy that, since they created it — not up to us to simply acquiesce and assume it — and the longer they put it off, the worse it gets.
» Posted By Ronda Wintheiser On July 11, 2012 @ 9:15 am
Is there an address for His Beatitude?
And… Is there anything to be said for this band of unholy brothers to hear from we “little people”?
I mean directly. Individually. Since they are so fond of resignation letters, what if they were to receive piles and piles of them?
» Posted By Ronda Wintheiser On July 9, 2012 @ 9:35 pm
I just received a response from my priest. He wrote:
“Each parish remits payment to the national administration; individuals,
(per se) do not. I believe you would have to convince the parish council
that they should withhold your portion of our assessed figure, thereby
putting (our parish) in arrears.
“I can make further enquiries if you wish to pursue this.”
I am more inclined to simply withdraw my membership — on paper, that is.
I fear pursuing it would be too divisive in a parish already floundering…
» Posted By Ronda Wintheiser On July 9, 2012 @ 7:00 pm
I would also like to know who the source is for all of this inside information.
I have not heard from my priest yet in response to my query about my individual assessment being withdrawn.
I realise he needs to think and pray, and I am sure he is talking with other priests, etc…. so I am not impatient. However, it occurs to me — since he knew nothing of this on Sunday when I asked him about it and he seemed somewhat nonplussed when I implied that it is my opinion that the Synod is rife with corruption — that I may have to explain myself to him.
While I can certainly can give him an earful of allegations from what I have gleaned here, I have no documentation for any of it; it is all what could be described as hearsay and gossip. No?
I understand that those who are close to the situation may need to protect themselves from retribution.
However, if there is any way to document any of the facts that some of you have put forth about how this came about and why, I would appreciate hearing that or being directed to it.
Thank you, all of you who are sticking up for Metropolitan JONAH. I know some people think he should stick up for himself, but I think his humble response and refusal to stick up for himself is an appropriate Orthodox Christian response.
In my mind, it places him into a similar category with lambs to the slaughter, as has already been suggested, and also unborn children, who are voiceless and defenseless and whom he was willing to stick up for.
He is paying the price for that. I consider him a kind of martyr on their behalf, and I would not be surprised if they — unborn children — are advocating for him in return.
And so should we.
» Posted By Ronda Wintheiser On July 9, 2012 @ 6:37 pm
The readings for today are instructive. Here they are, pasted in from the OCA website:
Romans 16:17-24 (Epistle)
Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them.
For those who are such do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by smooth words and flattering speech deceive the hearts of the simple.
For your obedience has become known to all. Therefore I am glad on your behalf; but I want you to be wise in what is good, and simple concerning evil.
And the God of peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.
Timothy, my fellow worker, and Lucius, Jason, and Sosipater, my countrymen, greet you.
I, Tertius, who wrote this epistle, greet you in the Lord.
Gaius, my host and the host of the whole church, greets you. Erastus, the treasurer of the city, greets you, and Quartus, a brother.
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.
Matthew 13:10-23 (Gospel)
And the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?”
He answered and said to them, “Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.
For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him.
Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.
And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says: ‘Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, And seeing you will see and not perceive;
For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.
But blessed are your eyes for they see, and your ears for they hear;
for assuredly, I say to you that many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.
Therefore hear the parable of the sower:
When anyone hears the word of the kingdom, and does not understand it, then the wicked one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is he who received seed by the wayside.
But he who received the seed on stony places, this is he who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy;
yet he has no root in himself, but endures only for a while. For when tribulation or persecution arises because of the word, immediately he stumbles.
Now he who received seed among the thorns is he who hears the word, and the cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and he becomes unfruitful.
But he who received seed on the good ground is he who hears the word and understands it, who indeed bears fruit and produces: some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.
» Posted By Ronda Wintheiser On July 9, 2012 @ 8:48 am
I’m all for that.
» Posted By Ronda Wintheiser On July 9, 2012 @ 8:43 am
I have no intention of leaving my parish. It is a tiny mission parish and I moved to this town ten years ago to finally be in a parish after ten years of living without one after my chrismation in 1991.
I should clarify. I took Helga’s suggestion and sent my priest a note a few minutes ago. I told him I could no longer in good conscience continue to support the OCA under the direction of this Synod and that I would like to request that my individual share of the assessment to the OCA be withheld if that is possible.
That is what I mean by “walking out”. I mean how can we collapse the OCA; starve them out as someone said earlier? I want the thing to die a quick death, not drag it out over the next 5 years as has also been suggested. That will just mean many more casualties.
I defer to everyone’s wisdom. I am short on it, I’m afraid.
» Posted By Ronda Wintheiser On July 9, 2012 @ 8:02 am
George, who is set to replace Bishop Benjamin as locum tenens in Alaska? Is that known yet?
» Posted By Ronda Wintheiser On July 9, 2012 @ 7:52 am
That’s exactly what he meant.
» Posted By Ronda Wintheiser On July 9, 2012 @ 7:50 am
Back To Stats Page
» Posted By Ronda Wintheiser On July 9, 2012 @ 7:25 am