I received this note yesterday. The author asked to remain anonymous. (Don’t get too exercised over the anonymity. Good substance here.)
Dear George:
Congratulations on the great work you are doing. I agree with you that the whole lavender mafia issue is central to this crisis threatening to destroy the OCA. I have been talking with my friends about this, and they think I’m an alarmist on the subject. You’ve got to be crazy to think that the bishops want gay marriage, they say. Not even Stokoe is pushing for that. I keep telling them that it’s not about pushing openly for gay marriage and social liberalization. It’s about changing the culture of the church to allow that sort of thing to creep in.
I don’t know which of our bishops is gay, though I’ve heard the same rumors that you have, I bet. I look at the example of the Episcopal Church, which is in ruin today, and I am keen to learn from it. If you had said to an Episcopalian in 1970 that the church would one day have openly gay bishops and priests, living in partnerships, nobody would have believed you. How did the door open to it? Not by a full-frontal assault on tradition, but instead by people saying they only wanted “dialogue.” The push for more democracy in the church had something to do with it. Why not? Let congregations take the lead. I do believe that giving the laity more power can be a strength among us Orthodox, but it can be a terrible weakness when activists within the church get the levers of power, and use it to lead the church away from truth and tradition.
Judging by the Episcopal example, it starts by asking for tolerance and dialogue. It includes agreeing to put controversial issues, like homosexuality and gay marriage, off the table as “divisive” — except when we are supposed to “dialogue” about them. The modernizers and lavenders will use whatever strategy works to get what they want. If they get an activist bishop who carries water for them, that’ll do. If they get bishops who don’t agree with them but who are so afraid of controversy or rocking the boat, that’ll do too. The radical organizer Saul Alinsky wrote that political realists (and these people are nothing if not political realists) “see the world as it is: an arena of power politics… .” He said in his “Rules for Radicals” that “all effective actions require the passport of morality.” This is what we see Stokoe up to today: he is using the good name of moral reform in the Church to get rid of the main obstacle (Metropolitan Jonah) to what he and his merry band of brothers really want: the Episcopalianization of the Orthodox Church.
So, when they complain that Met. Jonah was out of line for signing the Manhattan Declaration, they’re not going to say they oppose his beliefs on marriage, because to do that is to oppose the teaching of the Holy Faith. They are going to say — they did say — instead that they are upset that he violated conciliarity. As if the other bishops need to be consulted before an Orthodox primate publicly affirms the teaching of the Orthodox Church on same-sex marriage! You see how this works? They are using the “passport of morality” as a cover to take the OCA in a direction that has meant a slow, painful death for the Episcopal Church.
I am grateful that you are sounding the alarm, George. I was talking to a Catholic friend today, a veteran of similar battles in her own church, and I tried to explain to her what was going on with us. She said, “Oh, boy. You start with congregationalism and conciliarity and dialog, and you end with felt banners replacing icons and elderly women insisting on everything from liturgical dance to a female priesthood.” This lady knows what she’s talking about. Orthodox believers who just want to keep their heads down and keep praying and trust that everything is going to work out for the best cannot afford to be so naive, or they’ll wake up one day and find that Stokoe and his stooges have stolen the Church.
Yours,
Anonymous
I have privately, and in some instances publically, been warining about this occuring in the Greek Orthodox Archdioces. I know the Priest, monks and Bishops that are gay and who are NOT struggling to keep a chaste life. In many cases they flaunt it right in your face, and we have to just accept that is not happening.
I also know very good Orthodox people who are staunche pro-lifers, but also very Pro-Gay Rights. I literally have to shake my head in disbelief at that one. Also, this is NOT a moralistic crusade, but standing up for the Gospel and Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I truly believe that many Orthodox have forgotten that its about Jesus Christ and the Gospel and sharing the Gospel will every and all around us no matter what people think or say about us.
I fear that many Orthodox have forgotten Our Lord.
Peter
We would be better off with properly married bishops as they had many,many moons ago than to have gay ones…behind every good man…you know the rest and its NOT “another good man.”
Married bishops did not prevent these problems in the Episcopal church.
Some people want to believe that once Orthodoxy is planted in a country , that it cannot be uprooted. I would like to remind them that the Churches of Babylonia (Iraq) and Syria were once thriving communities. They disappeared virtually overnight, replaced with a small rag-tag remnant. Let us remember that Western Europe was once firmly Orthodox and slipped away. North America is a good, no ,excellent candidate for this fate. The people who do not assiduously guard their Orthodoxy will lose it and a symbolic remnant will remain. Is that to be our fate? It’s all a matter of synergy between God’s grace and human will. If we are not willing to defend our Orthodoxy , then we will certainly lose it and become another Babylonian Church.
We would be better off with true monastics as bishops. Married bishops haven’t saved the Episcopal Church.
Yes, and this is the threat that +Jonah represents to the established order.
I agree Margaret, …my thought was merely between gay or married bishops. Monastic bishops ARE the ideal.
I agree Brendan, +Jonah is definitily a threat to them…Eis Polla Eti Dhespota!
Actually, purely monastic bishops, as nice as it is, it economia for the episcopacy.
According to the ‘strictness’ of the Tradition, both married and monastic should be the rule.
And we’d be the better for it, I’d say.
Margaret and Akela,
It seems to me the most important qualities for a good and true bishop are neither celibacy nor marriage but holiness, humility and love: This includes (a) a character marked by repentance and a single-minded gaze fixed on Christ; (b) the heart of a pastor and a commitment to be a servant of servants who is determined to equip the saints in his charge for the ascetic work of witness, prayer, fasting and deeds of mercy, and (c) the perfection of illumination (and the experience of theosis, if possible)–like the Apostles themselves, whom each bishop is supposed to succeed, and so he ought to be a man who has seen Christ, risen and victorious, and received from Him the Holy Spirit. [Really the same qualifications apply to priests and deacons, who represent and assist the bishop.]
The Church does not do herself or her members a service when the focus is on externals (such as marital status) though it is “by their fruits that ye shall know them” and it can help if a man has had a household to manage and has proven that he has done so well.
Disciplinary canons are good historic guidelines but they must always be applied with prudence, wisdom and economial; times and exigencies are not always the same: different medicine or differnt dosages are suited for different diseases. There is no doubt that a married episcopate has not saved the Episcopal Church; but a purely celibate one is, unfortunately, no guarantor of health either. Holiness and a true apostolic succession is, and that is what we should be seeking and praying for and nothing less.
Christ is risen. Let us vernerate His third-day resurrection.
lexcaritas
Amen to this, Lex.
Indeed.
The Alinsky quote is interesting.
I think it’s quite true that proponents of radical change are typically clever enough to clothe their demands for change in the language of morality — even if the moral concepts are either novel in themselves, or are being deployed in a rather novel way. The gay activists do this frequently by appealing to the (currently) greatest public morality “sin”: discrimination. Being against same-sex marriage is peddled as being a big sinner in terms of public morals because it violates the prime rule of contemporary public morality: do not discriminate. By painting opponents of same sex marriage as being “bigots” in favor of “discrimination” on the basis of “sexual orientation” (which is clearly, if implicitly (and incorrectly) analogized to race), a “moral” case is made *against* people who are against same sex marriage — i.e., such persons are, themselves, behaving in an immoral way (per contemporary public morality) because they are being “discriminatory bigots”, which is really just a hair’s breadth away from calling them racists.
This has been an extremely effective tactic in terms of shifting “stated” public opinion about same-sex marriage, because it places people under a strong social sanction to not be publicly *against* it, even if they, personally, disapprove of homosexuality. The “public morality” sin isn’t (yet … that will come shortly) disapproving of homosexuality, in itself (people are being given a very temporary pass to have their own views on that for now), but rather “discriminating” against people on the basis of your own disapproval — if you do that, you’re basically akin to a racist, which makes one a social pariah of sorts, especially in the younger generations. That’s a pretty strong social sanction, and it’s proving to be a very effective cudgel in the hands of the gay activists who are pushing through their agenda — basically by successfully characterizing anyone who disagrees as being an immoral discriminatory bigot/racist.
In churches this tactic has played itself out as well, but with different results in each setting. It’s not surprising that the churches who have stood most openly in solidarity with contemporary public morality — such as the Episcopalians and other “mainline” “social gospel” protestant churches, like the ECUSA, the ELCA, the PCUSA, etc. — would be the first ones to embrace fully the gay agenda. They had already embraced the rest of secular public morality and baptized it, if you will, so this was the logical next step. There were dissenters, of course, because there was always a more traditional remnant in these churches, but they were a minority, and they were quite effectively marginalized by the gay rights agenda.
In the RCC, it’s played itself out differently, but also with disastrous results. Although the gay lobby complains when this is mentioned, it’s clear that the very disproportionate numbers of homosexual men in the RC clergy was a substantial contributing factor to the widespread sexual abuse that took place over several decades. This combined with a culture of cover-up and silence, which was also in part based on a shared experience of being homosexual, to create an absolute mess of gargantuan proportions, and one which has stripped many Catholics of their faith more or less completely. The Catholics are now moving towards a policy of not ordaining homosexual men (over the loud objections of the gay community), having finally realized the untold damage these people have done to their church. Regardless, it will take a long time for the RCC to recover from this protracted abuse+coverup scandal.
Among us Orthodox, it will play out differently, yet again. It’s not the ECUSA route of openly embracing secular public morality about sexuality as Orthodox — at least not without a schism from the rest of the Church. It’s more about maintaining a behind-the-scenes power structure that is gay (or gay sympathetic) and therefore stifles the public witness of the Church (either inside the Church itself or outside of it) regarding these issues, full stop. This creates the impression that they aren’t matters of significant concern to Orthodox Christians, and that therefore you can kind of believe what you want about these things. It’s a more subtle approach than the outright embrace of secular morality that we see among the liberal protestants, and a much more ostrich-like approach than we see in the current, post-scandal RCC. But it’s there, alright. And, frankly, I think we have to realize that there are quite a few rank and file laity who are fine with that, because they themselves support gay rights, and don’t want to deal with the “dissonance” of belonging to a Church which speaks openly about the immorality of these acts, and how they are incompatible with an Orthodox moral understanding of sexuality and marriage. So there are plenty of lay people who also want the Bishops and priests to “just shut up” about these issues, like they have done in the past — it creates a comfortable situation for these people, where they can attend the Church they want without abandoning their secular public morality about homosexuality, because, in effect if not in theory, the Church, by refraining from teaching on such matters, has effectively decided to stand aside on them. It’s true that this could eventually lead to a kind of crisis where there is a pressure inside the Church in a few generations to ordain gay people and so on, but that will only play itself out over the longer term, I think. The main short to medium term issue of people like Mark Stokoe is to get the bishops to shut up about gay issues. And it looks like he’s arranged himself to be successful on that score.
You can lead people to untruth as much by what you don’t say as by what you do. If they don’t have the OCA bishops speaking out for gay rights today, they will have achieved a great victory nonetheless by intimidating them into silence. If Mark Stokoe remains on the Metropolitan Council after this meeting, we will know without a shadow of a doubt where our bishops stand on the matter.
We already know they are prepared to release a priest (Fr. Fester) over evidence from stolen e-mails. This is the kind of church we have now. I’m not defending all of what Fester did, but if we are going to have a church that throws priests out on the basis of stolen information, then are any priests safe? That’s bad enough, but if they let Stokoe keep his seat on the MC, then I will leave the OCA and find another jurisdiction. Let them hang.
Brendan, excellent analysis. I will comment more later. In the meantime, readers might be interested in an essay I wrote years ago: Gay Marriage Far Removed From Civil Rights Movement.
Brendan,
I think you’re correct that these things will play out differently in the Orthodox Church than in either Protestant denominations or the RCC.
And in no small part this will be because the processes of Orthodoxy are vastly different from those of western Christianity. And I’m not talking about the Canons, but about Orthodopraxis.
It should not surprise anyone that moral teaching supported by praxis that has been steadily eroded over centuries, will eventually become a mere human construct. It should not surprise anyone that it’s pretty easy to find a wide path should one wish to enter the “culture war” no matter what side you join.
The narrow gate is through repentance, prayer, fasting and mercy. If the Orthodox Church is to avoid the fate of western Christianity, we need to double-down on our spiritual praxis, to do the deceptively simple yet incredibly difficult work of spiritual recommitment and repentance, to reclaim our prayer life and our fasts, and to rediscover what real mercy is.
If we do that, everything else will fall into place. If we fail to do that, even the most well-intentioned and totally hard work will come to nothing.
Excellent comment Brendan in Comment #11. You covered all the bases and hit the nail right on the head. In the long scheme of things, dragging this out over generation or two prepares gays to win this battle by default. The bible is so clear on this matter, but in our information-fatigued world, gays presume (and thus far, successfully so) that if you just keep banging away at a message long enough – even if it’s wrong – people will come to accept it simply because it doesn’t “go away”. Kinda like saturation-bombing. For example, I’ve read that 40% of the Republican party are willing to believe that Obama is a muslim and wasn’t born in the USA.
You don’t hear much about this anymore today – but how about the millions of gays, and now millions of Africans, who are losing their lives to AIDS – because an airplane steward in San Francisco was “monkeying around” with another guy. In the desire to compassionate about this issue, we’ve lost sight of the idea that sex outside of a mongamous, committed relationship to a heterosexual spouse can be life-threatening. In short, sin can be life-threatening.
So Fr. Fester has been relieved of his duties. I cannot wait to see what the OCA will announce come tomorrow when the meeting is over here in Chicago. ECUSA here we come.
I almost hate to bring this up at this time, but it also seems appropos to the quote above, from the Orthodox Christian Laity website no less. Under Project for Orthodox Renewal, Orthodox Women and Our Church, Reflections-Recommendations, The Priesthood, see:
http://www.ocl.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=AboutUs.ThePriesthood
Ugh. I was especially appalled by this doozy:
“History now presents Orthodoxy with a ‘cause’ to ‘commit to just judgment,’ the issue of women’s place and participation in our Church. For fallible human beings to judge this cause justly will be difficult. But given the promise of divine grace, it can be done. The Holy Spirit will not fail us.”
Except that…the argument apparently is somehow that up until now the Holy Spirit has done precisely that– “fail us”– by permitting this clear injustice to fester in the Church for 2000 years, but He will not “fail us” in the future presuming we change our minds. What?? This is poorly argued nonsense, and it is scandalous that it is to be found on the website of a generally well respected “Orthodox” organization.
In my opinion, it stems the WCC and NCC “mindset” which many of our Orthodox participants have (unconsciously?) adopted (like Kriskovsky?) by “osmosis.”
Or by actual theological agreement.
Brendan and Nikos,
Brendan, your analysis is piercing and concise.
Nikos, thank you for sharing the OCL link which is, to use Mark S’s word,'”chilling.” The meaning of marriage and of the nuptial gift of human sexuality began to be undermined when the 1930 Lambth Conference’s condoned the use of artificial contraception and, subsequently (in the 1950s, I believe) when the Eipscopal Church’s officially approved the remarriage of divorced priests. The dam broke in 1976 with the ordination of women (a number of whom were, or later discovered they were, Lesbians) to the priesthood. There was a direct progression from then on to the consecration of the formely married and divorced Vicki Gene Robison in New Hampshire as the PECUSA’s first openly gay bishop. The pace of change has been breath-taking since then with an influx of such persons into the episcopal and clerifcal ranks and the blessing of same sex “marriages.” With that, the Glory has departed and ichabod has been written over the PECUSA as it was over Solomon’s Temple at the time of Jeconiah and the Exile of Israel to Bablyon.
Our Church must not go there. To do so, will be to experience the same fate. The promise that the Gates of Hades will not prevail, is only good for a Church that is founded and reamins on the Rock. (“He who hears my sayings and does them is like a man who built his house on the rock”). “A house divided against itself cannot stand” and “pride cometh before the fall and a haughty spriti before destrcution.” There must have been a resaond that our Lord asked: “When the Son of Man returns, will He find the faith in the earth?”
Tiresias
Interesting that OCL quotes St. Isidore of Pelusium, who was certainly no feminist, having complained about the “misuse” of singing by women and decreed “let them not sing in church and let them stay in the city,” i.e., so as not to bother monks in the desert. (Epistle 90)
This will cause a schism, no doubt about it.
If it causes a schism, so be it. There are plenty of other great Orthodox churches out there–Greek, Russian, Antiochian, etc–As long as we STAY ORTHODOX what is the difference? The OCA seems to be proving to itself and its parishioners that they cant handle their own affairs (3-4 scandals in the last 10 years), so maybe its time for a switch.
Reading the opposing blogs/etc, and the remarks here, all firmly come down on
the side of redressing and remedying past and ongoing sexual and financial
misdoing, blaming/suspecting/reporting that ‘the other side’ has no interest in
really doing anything of the sort going forward and generally has not done the
right thing in the past.
They cite examples. The old guard plainly let misdoing go on, Fr. Fester right in the middle of it all for years- it took a relatively newbie Deacon to finally draw the line. Where was Fr. F all those years? OTOH, the new guy, Met Jonah, while having authority to correct whatnot didn’t. But yah.. he’s the one who’ll fix it and we need to back him and just go for the denial thing.
Is this the ‘Charlie Brown Knot’ of Orthodoxy? Or
Does ‘each side’ prefer ‘the right thing’ happen only to those misdoers they
don’t like?
And, which side ought narcissistic misogynists prefer? ‘Home, no more home to
meeeee, whither must IIII waaaander…’
Tune in tomorrow for the latest in ‘As the Onion Peels’ and ‘As the Gyro Turns’
to answer the great question: Does the EP now prefer Baklava owing to the
Greenness of not-Greek pistachios? Are Englewood Kababs made of Tofu? Are cigars lenten
if you just chew them?
Oy!
Misogynists?
http://www.ocanews.org/news/AlaskaTrouble111506.html
Again, misogyny?
Harry,
Yes or no, is active homosexuality, or even the appearance thereof, something that should be accepted by the Orthodox Church? Should we now change the theology of the church to say that same sex marriage is OK?
Same gender sexual conduct finds only instruction to stop in the scripture. The church rules are clear that activity is incompatible with keeping any church clergy rank or position of church decision making. People who do that generally live less long than people who don’t, and people who do that have higher rates of serious, painful and chronic disease. Therefore, if you’re a Christian, it is an occasion for compassion, not fear or adding to problems.
Harry, welcome to the club. Enough health professional who is honest will tell you the exact same things which you just wrote. You’re being disengenuous however in your conclusion that because we are Christians and should be compassionate (true), we have to tolerate it where it exists in the clergy/episcopate because we want to be nice and not add any more “problems” to these people (false).
+Jonah is not a hater or gay-basher. He understands the problem of sin in all our lives. As a Christian he also understand compassion and the need for repentance and not vindictiveness. As an administrator, he must also be made to understand that the repentance is between the offender and God, and so the Primate must act to remove any offenders as the need arises.
George, You are amazing at putting conclusions under the names of people who just wrote exactly opposite. You just did it to me, and that’s what makes me think there’s problems elsewhere in this ocatruth effort as well.
Somehow you decide my position is that we should tolerate it right after I wrote that it’s incompatible with keeping church rank or decision making posting. Huh?
And how, exactly, is it we should believe +Jonah’s view is as you have written?
Well, duh.
The real erosion is this: First theology becomes the sociology of religion. Then prayer becomes metaphor. Then liturgy becomes theater.
Once it’s all about us, its only about us.
Chris, you assume too much. Those who are on the “side” of +Jonah want to let the chips fall where they may. Stokoe is only interested in taking down his enemies.
George,
I keep looking for the larger lessons here, not the immediate ones.
If we wish to keep Orthodoxy pure, we need to keep it about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We need to keep it about Jesus Christ who rose from the dead. We need to keep our focus on the Holy Spirit, the Comforter who inspires.
Anything that removes our focus from this, no matter how well-intentioned or seemingly urgent, undermines Orthodoxy.
My fear for the Orthodox Church is not the fate of ECUSA, but that of the RCC. The three steps I outlined above is what has happened to that Church.
I was recently at a funeral of a relative, a pillar of his community, a service that lasted more than 90 minutes and was served by no fewer than 5 priests, including a Monsignor and the Superior of an order. The Church was full beyond standing room only. God got about 7 minutes of attention, the rest was on my relative and his family and the community.
I found the entire thing depressing, in a 15 minute Panikhida we pray more to God than the Catholics did in a 90 minute funeral.
That’s how Icons really become felt banners.
Right on Harry! As a conservative, life long Republican, and signer of the Manhattan Declaration, I would not mind discussion of culture war issues in any context BUT in the context of the current crisis. This red herring (actuallly a deliberate bait-and-switch ploy) detracts from serious discussion of any issue. And, I suspect that all of these defenders of “true Orthodoxy,” to paraphrase the Membership Chairman, Deacon Bryan Patrick Mitchell, are more concerned about the personalities than the issues.
Carl, yes that’s the sense I have of it as well.
What these people suggesting leaving the OCA and schism and so forth don’t want anyone to notice is: It isn’t better elsewhere, just more money to cover it up and fewer people who care enough to bother to try. Can’t cope with disagreements among bishops in the US– try dealing with Turkey. Or, Damascus. Or Moscow. Sure, from a couple oceans and continents away, they’ll do better. Right?
George (not M) No such thing as Orthodox CHURCHES. If we are all one body (as we are) the same problems will surface (and have) in each of the jurisdictions you name. The difference is the manner in which such problems are handled. (Nobody is doing it well on national level although local parish health can be quite good).
Switching to avoid the problems just won’t work (anyone who left the Antiochicans for the OCA not long ago care to comment?) Switching where there is a real and valid reason of spiritual health is another thing.
The Church is a mess, always has been a mess, will always be a mess until our Lord returns.
The real problem is in following the mind of the world (like refusing to recognize homosexuality for the disordered, sinful and harmful state it is) and calling vice virtue and virtue vice. (Nietzche: the transvaluation of all values).
Equating retention of office by willful sinners with forgiveness and compassion is just such a transvaluation.
Tiresias and Brendan, some really good analysis there I believe. Thanks. What is not fully clear to me is what side of truth Met. Jonah really stands on when push comes to shove and he is faced with having to do the hard work of disciplining offenders for the protection and good of the Church. What does the SMPAC really have to show us about this? If I have learned nothing else in my 50 odd years of life, it is that actions, not words, show what is really in the heart when all is said and done. I really like what Met. Jonah has preached about what the real nature of the bishop’s authority ought to be and also about the Church’s responsibility to uphold traditional Christian morality, etc., but will he act on those words or is some other agenda in play? We’ll know more of substance on this after this week I hope.
I suspect we may never know the real truth of the matter, unfortunately. It would be nice if we did, but we could have known the contents already — it is not new. I doubt we will know the contents of the report anytime soon, other than, perhaps, in cites and quotes that are favorable to those who win the day.
Karen, the question is instead: “will he be aloud to act to…”?
I think you meant, “will he be allowed to . . .?” 🙂 George, I think both are valid questions to ask, but we can agree to disagree here if necessary. I share a lot of your concerns. I’m not suggesting in this OCA fracas that either side is pristine (that is obviously untrue)–I’m not exculpating Mark Stokoe and would take his removal from the MC as a move toward better spiritual health in the OCA, but all this impassioned accusation, self-justification, and speculation in Orthodox blogdom really just stinks to high heaven . . . a turd would smell good by comparison. This stinks like a rotting corpse!
The “icon” that George presents at the beginning of this Post says it all to me.
“God has given them over to a debased mind …” (in Romans 1:28 NKJV)
George: George 1 to George 2. Nice email. You write well.
P.S. Someone leaked the email from George 1 to George 2. But, I refused to read it.
doesn’t jive with
Well, at least that makes you a better man than your buddy Stokoe. (Talk about damning with faint praise.)
Sound the alarm?
How long have any of you known of the homosexual leadership issue in the OCA?
How long has the Greek laity known of the same in the GOA?
Where is the Matthew 18 application to the Bishops by the laity Priesthood of the Believer authority in the church??? Is the laity powerless to take authority over these issues before they become a serious organizational pathology?
Pokrov has been sounding the alarm over EOC sexual corruption for how many years? If you really want to know what is going on below the surface for years talk to them. You will find out that the OCA laity is without excuse. This alarm has been sounding long before George rang his bell outloud and on purpose. Pokrov warned all of you and you did not listen to the alarm. Give credit where credit is really due. Women lead this fight and not men. That is TELLING of the character and maturity of the men in the EOC. Telling, telling, telling.
It is good that George sounds an alarm. It would have been better had all you heard the alarm already sounding by Pokrov. You know, listen to the women who tell the men what is really going on, and then the men do not do anything about what is going on. Oh, but, by the way this all sounds George is the first alarm being sounded that most of you only hear. I sooo glad one man finally catches on after how many years of EO men not catching on?
This is an issue of sexual addiction ruling in the church. Homosexuality is just one aspect of that. You can believe this is a gay only issue and then the evil will rip you a new one for not going to cause that is sexual addiction in the church not treated as sexual addiction by the church. You heard it here first. This is going to be a giant I TOLD YOU SO MOMENT?
This is how the laity holds the bishops transparent and accountable:
Bishop, have you been involved in any inappropiate sexual activity that will destroy your ministry and bring harm to the church? After the bishop answers ‘NO’ you then ask, Bishop did you just lie to me?
I am not a person that minces words with those who are to serve in humility by transparency and accountability and whose character and maturity is not transparent or accountable. Unless you got zero tolerance for corruption you will tolerate corruption. You will become situational ethics and morality and that will kill your church dead by its hypocrisy. You will choose situation ethics and situational morality sides and DIE.
Humility shown to one another is how you deal with the sexualization of a church. Men start holding men transparent and accountable for it in the wide open. You ask each other hard transparency and accountability questions. The bishops are not held accountable by the laity or among themselves and the church operates at least one paradigm shift behind other churches that openly deal with sex addiction in the church. What’s next, a bishop has an affair with a married woman and now its not a homosexuality issue, but an adultery issue? It is sexual addiction in the church and it encompasses far more than homosexuality.
Yes, I know, many disagree with me. I am just too uncompromisingly frank and real about this to be heard. I am not playing Orthodox beautiful church nice. I am not living in Orthodox denial of sexual addiction in the church and so how dare I say it exists there. They are Orthodox right and I am not Orthodox and so I am wrong. That is the solution to sexual addiction in the church. You deny it. Now the denial reaps the whirl wind of destruction and you all wonder why this is going on and you deny why it is going on. It goes on because you deny that it goes on. Now, after how many years of this you all of a sudden have an awakening to what is going on and it is homosexuality only going on and not sexual addiction that encompasses far more going on. I don’t wonder what is going on. I can see for myself by thinking for myself what is going on. You don’t get it about what is really going on.
Those questions asked of the bishop are not an end all solution. There is more to it than a few questions. Men hold men transparent and accountable. Where are the OCA laity men holding their bishops transparent and accountable for their sexualized lifestyles? Where is the ministry in the church that helps men with issues like sexual addiction? Does the OCA have a healing ministry to victims of sexual abuse? Is this the church of sexually abusing them by using them and then disgarding them? Are the victims really safe to come forward? Can men come foward to get help over their unresolved sexual issues by ministry that really meets them at their point of need?
A Christ set free church is free to have both of those ministries in the church. A church in denial by being in bondage to sexual corruptions cannot. Which church represents relevancy to the wounded and broken by healing of affliction ministry? What, just becoming an Orthodox is the cure all for such afflictions? Jonah, obviously, is a man with many afflictions. For one thing he has an obvious food addiction. I see how the church is treating his afflictions. It is by SHAME. The shame based church is both shamed and shaming. That is how it treats the wounded and afflicted. It shoots its wounded and afflicted. It spiritually abandons and/or spiritually abuses them. I have great empathy for Jonah, and I do not feel sorry for him one bit. Feeling sorry is codependency. Empathy brings healing.
Has the OCA laity forgotten who Jonah protected at Pt. Reyes? And, you think Mark a hypocrite for his lifestyle? Hypocrisy is not the solution to a hypocrisy problem and both sides have a big dose of hypocrisy they are using to take sides to solve the problem. This issue is not just about Jonah. It is about all the men in the OCA being men of God and holding each other transparent and accountable for their sexual behaviors. So, internet porn is not an issue among the laity men of the EOC? Does being Orthodox make them immune to sexual addiction?
Put me on that sexual policy committee and I would rock the OCA world. I would make it reek for how it really reeks. Now, let’s see how the MC deals with the homosexual marriage accusation. Let’s see how the character and maturity of the men of God in the church handle that issue. Seems to me that Mark has a double conflict of interest being on the MC. He has moral conflict (homosexuality) and an ethical conflict (OCA News). This is who leads the expose’ of church corruptions and he in the end operates just like the corruptions do. Have any of you ever heard me discuss circular without solution and what causes that? I just found more proof. It is Mark. How much more proof do you all of you need?
I am an equal opportunity exposer of this corruption. OCA Truth that stands for Orthodox Church of America Truth, and that means it speaks OCA truth of God to all of you, has the truth about Jonah wrong and just like it got the truth about Mark wrong before they came into disagreement. All of you got them both wrong. You got them wrong like you got the Synod of bishop corruptions wrong. That is circular without solution.
The spiritual maturity of the OCA is the men of the OCA conducting due diligence and vetting on their bishop selections and that is competent in approach and process. The OCA put Jonah in place because he was not of the Synod of corruption. He told the crowd during his appointment speech that he had profound respect for the bishops on stage with him. I wonder if he feels the same now? He inspected them with due diligence and vetting to come to his conclusion that they were worthy of profound respect by him. I would have moved to have him fired the moment I heard that if I was an OCA laity man. He exposed his character on stage the first day and no one noticed. Christian maturity and character matter in church leadership or they create problems by leaders having profound respect for the corrupt. That only makes sense.
I would encourage the MEN reading this to conduct a Google search on, Sex Addiction in the Church or Christian sex addiction recovery or Christian recovery ministry in church. The men reading this will get a wake up call as to the relevancy of other churches dealing with issue among their men in the wide open. An open system church is open to face and deal with this issue. The closed system church hides and/or covers up this issue.
Closed system church = sick pathology church by closing out the transparency and accountability of God.
Open system church = healthy transparency and accountability church by being open to God’s transparency and accountability.
The more closed the church the more that church closes out solution to its issues and the more unsafe and unhealthy it becomes. The more open system the church the more that church is open to solution and the more safe and healthy it becomes.. It only makes sense.
Is sense that is common not found common among the EO men of God? Who or what controls their sense? Is it God or something or someone else? No sense means no discernment and without discernment the church fails. No discernment means failed leadership vetting and due diligence of leaders. I promise, and all of my promises to the EO come true. All of them.
Unless the good Orthodox on this good forum can translate their talk, talk, talk about the church sexual problem into ministry, ministry, ministry that addresses that problem nothing is going to change. Addressing the problem is far more than removing the sexually corrupt who refuse to repent. Yes, I know I am talking of things that are more than one paradigm shift ahead of you and so it may be beyond your ability to comprehend what it is I am really bringing forward here.
Yes, I know that irritates some of you when I tell you things like that. The Orthodox love to tell and hate to listen. I can tell that they do by the thinking outcome of their church thinking. It is a we refuse to listen outcome of church.
I have found the Orthodox to only really think in terms of their current paradigm and they don’t really have a vision paradigm for their future. The Orthodox back think and don’t forward think. Your thinking will determine the future foward or backwards in this world. Jonah may represent future vision to your church, but he is not competent to take it forward. I don’t believe any EO bishop in America can truly move the EO into relevancy in our generation.
What is not designed to change by theology and its resulting structure and system of church will either find a way to refuse to change or find a way to undermine change. That is a closed system. It is circular without solution by being closed to solution. The only real solution is a change of structure and system that is open and therefore open to change to relevancy. That is a straight line to solution that opens the church to solution. Yes, change Met’s and don’t change the structure and system and see what you end up with in a generation as a church here. The body drives the hat and the hat does not drive the body. So keep changing hats to solution?
You can be a healthy church or a sick church. The Orthodox laity men make the choice for their church. If you leave it up to your bishops it is obvious what the outcome of church will be. Taking personal responsibility for your church at the laity man to man level and then on a laity to bishop level is the men in the church holding each other transparent and accountable for their thought and behavior life.
You verify and then trust. You respect what you can inspect. That is the attitude of the church that is safe, healthy, relational, relevant, dynamic and ALIVE. The Lordship of Christ is the transparency and accountability of all in the church and because God is the center of church authority and not man. When man and not God is the center of church authority the church looses transparency and accountability and it then goes corrupt. No one is above Holy Spirit authority. The men in the humility of repentance and with transparent honesty confess their sin to one another and the bishops are the primary ones held transparent and accountable by the men of God in the church to do just that.
Men hold men transparent and accountable. That is Christian spiritual maturity and the Christian mature church has this character at its center of authority by being an open system that can openly deals with the issues that can potentially destroy people and the church itself. If any of you believe the EOC has the humility, the repentance and the open system to reach out to the men in the church that struggle with sexual addiction I don’t see it. What I see is sexual immorality and/or sexual sin apathy and indifference leading the church. I see a closed system attitude towards issues like this in the EOC.
Where were the laity men of God when this was first known to them? How many men reading this knew of this issue in the church and waited for someone else to do something about it? Have the Orthodox laity men become morally base or have their moral consciences become seared? Are the laity men so intimidated and made afraid of church authority that they cannot hold it transparent and accountable with preventative transparency and accountability that addresses the issue head on and in the wide open with ministry that brings solution to this issue in the church? Is this nothing more than an exersize in being shocked over what the laity men allowed to go on or is it the realization by the laity men that they need to address sexual issues in the church with more than a sexual behavior policy that is not enforced?
The EO need to spiritually GROW UP to the reality of the real church world where churches on the cutting edge of mission and evangelism relevancy provide ministry to people who suffer with afflictions. They meet people where they are with ministry that meets them at the point of their wounded felt needs. Those are churches that the EO by their claim of being Gods only alone right and one true church of relevancy call heresy to the EOC. They are churches that the EOC claim uses to compare them to it to decide their God correctness as a church before God. That is hypocrisy. Any church that takes on the EOC as its role model and example of Gods only alone right and one true church will end up as failed, corrupt, irrelevant and dying as is the EOC.
Modernity relevancy ministry church or archaic irrelevancy ministry church? It is the EO laity men’s choice. Which choice have the EO laity men of God made? Who decides your church relevancy or its irrelevancy? Who decides the future of the EO in America?
Are the EO laity men feminized powerless codependent wimps or are they real men of God with spine that can move the church forward with the integrity and crediability of God? Who is your God Orthodox laity men, sick sexual corruption sin or the holy God of healthy sexuality? Is carnality or maturity your Lord? Is fear of evil or respectful fear of God your center of thinking? Does God rule in your lives or does evil rule OVER your lives?
Real men lead men and that determines your church future. If you leaders are not real men your outcome is self determined by the men you choose to lead the men of your church. The laity MEN determine what kind of MEN that lead them. They are the product of your structure and system of leadership development and the development of laity men in the church. You got a serious men being men of God issue in your church and it all goes to how the structure and system disciple men. Either it disciples them to Christian maturity and character or it turns them into what?
Mens holding men transparent and accountable to the morality and ethics of the Holy Spirit decide the church future one way or another. The EO men are without excuse before a Holy God. The failure of the EOC in America is the failure of its men. Men lead men and that leads the church. Real men of God know how to lead other men into church relevancy. They are the cutting edge of Gods war on Satan in the reality of the real world where the EOC is loosing the war. They lead the church into cutting edge relevancy ministry that attacks the strongholds of the evil one in our society by bringing healing ministry to our society. They understand by spiritual maturity that the church is both a battle force and a hospital for the wounded in the war against the evil one who uses sexual corruption to destroy men of God and the church of God.
The church is offense and because if it is defense it cannot score points to win. Closed system church is defense church. Open system church is offense church. Closed defends and takes no risks. Open attacks and takes risk. Which church is relevancy and which church is irrelevancy? The EO men determine this and no one else. Period.
Have the EO men forgotten that God is at war with the evil one in our generation? Where is the God of war you bring to the strategy of war the evil one has that is destroying your church? Does not Ephesians warn us to know the strategies of evil to destroy us? Where are the laity men who truly wear Christ the armour of God found in Ephesians to bring ministry relevancy to our generation and into the church to fight the modernity fight in our generation? Who and/or what are all of you waiting for? Are you waiting for your bishops or your Gods only right and true structure and system of church to do it for all of you? What about your bishops and their structure and system of rule is holding the church back from cutting edge relevancy ministry development that moves the church forward? Can the tradition based church paradigm shift to cutting edge church relevancy in our generation or does tradition kill relevancy in the church and then that kills the EOC dead?
The church is only as sick as its secrets. A sick church is a irrelevant church. A healthy church is a relevant church. Secrets kept are lies kept and the NT tells us that lies are sin and that sin leads to death. It is tells who the father of those lies is and how to defeat his lies. A church is only as sick as it is closed by system that keeps secrets. The secret is out in other churches not EO. Sex addiction is a problem in the church and it must be addressed openly if the church is the relevancy church to our modernity generation.
I love asking the Orthodox thinking for yourself questions. It exposes the bondage of the church that keeps it from thinking for itself to Holy Spirit relevancy in our generation. What you think determines your outcome. That is why the NT tells us to take our thoughts captive to Christ and not give them over to the thinking of what is the corruption to Christ. If something or someone else thinks you for that determines your outcome. Are the Orthodox experiencing a thinking for themselves outcome of church or are they experiencing a something else thinking for them outcome of church?
That is something to think for yourselves about and without your church thinking for you How your church thinks determines its outcome. All of you might consider thinking for youreselves about that.
The Orthodox Mind is the thinking outcome of the EOC. I see its outcome. I see right through it. I can think for myself. What I see for myself by thinking for myself is the OCA men have determined the outcome of the OCA by who and/or what controls their thinking. It is their SENSE.
Ashley Nevins
Ashley, this is an important clarion call to OCA men, filled with truth and solid, circumspect reflection on the realities, spoken in genuine charity. But it needs an editor! It would be my pleasure to serve you in that capacity; I do it for a living.
After it’s pruned, sharpened and polished, I’d recommend that you post it again, wherever all the action is. Now, that’s the “Turd [sic] Blossom …” thread, alas.
Mike,
Please hear me the right way…write a post on church leadership and church leadership development from it if you like. Use it as a starting point, so-to-speak. Take personal responsibility for the mens ministry leadership development in the church. The more the real men of God of the EOC talk leadership development over gossiping about how bad the church is administrated by its leadership the more your church will stop the self destruction by the leadership of the church.
My only suggestion is to remember that when you write about leadership development don’t forget that the theology and its resulting structure and system of church designs the leadership development of the church by that theology and its resulting structure and system. In other words, theology, structure and system determine leadership outcome. The Orthodox Mind from what I see is not the mind of Christ’s leadership in the Gospels. How the theology and its structure and system think is how the mind of the leadership thinks. How the theology, structure and system of leadership thinks determines the outcome of the church.
Talking like that about is not going to win me any Orthodox popularity contests. Real men of God are not involved in caranlity like that. They don’t play corrupt religious political games that are circular without solution. They tell it like it is and just like Christ told it like it is. They don’t mince words on how the leadership development of a church by its theology, structure and system determines the spiritual character and spiritual maturity of the church. They are zero tolerance on what undermines the development of safe, competent, dynamic and relevant church. Men of God lead like men of God. Thye don’t follow the incompetetent and the corrupt nor do they enable their corruption and incompetency by apathy and indifference to the reality of the church self destruction by it leadership. They do more than just remove the incompetent and the corrupt. They change what leads the church by its leadership into this state of church. Period.
Will the Orthodox laity men of God learn their church leadership development lesson or will they continue to change hats and not the body under the hat that drives the hat? You can change bishops until Jesus comes and it will not solve the problem I am exposing here. That can ONLY be solved by a change of structure and system that produces the leadership. Those same bishops after the church being here for 200 years just last year decided you are to be mission here. When did the church need their permission when Jesus in the Gospels is the authority that is our persmission by the Great Commission? What, you see them as the Great Commission of God that is Jesus in the Gospels to all of you? Looks like it to me. When was Christ not 24/7/365 mission and evangelism? Did He need the Sanhedrin permission to be mission and evangelism by its leadership over Him? That is pure IDOLATRY of leadership that puts the leadership over the authority of Christ in the Gospels. That lying Pied Piper of idolatry has led the EOC in America to the brink of the point of no return by leading you into a irrelevant insignificant state of church.
I might one day compare the Orthodox Mind of leadership to the mind of Christ’s leadership in the Gospels. That would be fun for me, but not fun for the laymen of God’s only alone right and one true church of Gods only right and true leadership structure and system.
I will not re-write the post, but if any man of God wants to write on leadership development in the EOC I will offer up comments on it. I promise my critique will not be easy on anyone who does. Real men of God trying to find solution want tough critique. They want objectivity. They want the bottom line. They can hear the tough love approach and want it for how it demands transparency and accountability of leadership and its development. They live in transparency and accountability because they get it about creditability and integrity of real men of God. They confront and can take a confrontation. Real leaders for God lead real men of God. That is real church with a real church leadership.
Men of God are WARRIORS for God. How you war for God is determined by how your leaders lead you into war for God. Do I strike you as a warrior or a wimp? I would not make for a good Orthodox layman. I don’t submit to corruption as the authority of God over my life. It is my spiritual DNA. I am a pro-test-ant of incompetent and corrupt church leadership that destroys the salvation of Christ through the mission and evangelism of the church. Is my DNA showing? Is it radically upside down to how Orthodox hierarchy thinks about leadership and its development? I see what your church leadership DNA is showing. Do you?
They war for power and control over all of you and they do not war for God by mission and evangelism against the evil one. I see the end result of their DNA thinking. So does the evil one. Oh, you don’t think he is paying attention? He is a diobolical leader who pays attention to how his mission that is his evangelism is destroying your EOC. He is war for hell. What is Orthodox leadership? Which side in this war is it really fighting on? That question is sure to upset many of you, but look at the outcome of your leadership development and you see why the question is asked. Satan pays much closer attention to his war against your church than your church pays attention on its supposed war against him. Guess who wins that war in the end? You see who won by the state of your church leadership.
The debate going on here is the wrong debate. It is fighting the wrong war. It is talking about the leadership incompetency and not talking about how to change the leadership outcome produced by the theology, structure and system of leadership development. I suppose that is because all is centered upon the hierarchy and the hierarchy thinks for all of you and so you do not have to think for yourselves about how leadership is really produced your structure and system of leadership development. They alone are the focus, center and object of laymen idolatry that determines the leadership development and its outcome.
The outcome of the EOC church failure is the outcome of laity idolatry of the EOC leadership. Yes, I know the Orthodox don’t like me telling them anything like that. They have a delusional we alone are Gods only true and right viewpoint of their leadership and its development. I don’t. I know what idolatry of leadership leads too. It leads to a church that is corrupt, failed, irrelevant and dying.
The warrior of God is the MAN OF GOD who wars against imcompetent and corrupt leadership development in the church. He wars against the gossip caused around incompetent and corrupt leadership by taking the war to the cause of the incompetent and corrupt leadership. That would be the leadership development producing incompetent and corrupt leadership.
Yes, identify the leadership problems and the leadership development problems and at the same time talk about how to solve those problems by leadership development or they will not be solved and the men of the church will continue to stand on their heads as this all goes on all around them in plain view and they will remain powerless to do anything about it.
Gossip about bad leadership is easy.
Developing good leadership is work.
Gossip about church self destruction is easy.
Developing good leadership that stops the self destruction is work.
Leaving leadership development up to the incompetent and corrupt is easy.
Taking personal responsibility for excellence in leadership development is work.
I find it interesting that the Orthodox after centuries of existence cannot produce real men of God as their leadership that can lead their church into safety, health, relevancy and alive church that takes the Gospels forward by the men of God leadership of mission and evangelism.
Here is end result of the Orthodox leadership development in America:
OCA incompetent and corrupt leadership.
GOA incompetent and corrupt leadership.
That is the leadership development end result of EO America’s two largest jurisdictions after being in America for approximately 200 years. Yes, I know the OCA has been here far less than that, but it has the same DNA that the rest of the jurisdictions do and you know that by its DNA outcome. The fact is that whether foreign rule GOA or independent rule OCA the DNA outcome is an irrelevant insignificant church that is corrupt and incompetent.
It all goes to the theology and the structure and system of church that is the leadership development of the church. Yes, I know, it can’t be that. It has to be a symptom that is the problem and not the cause that is the problem. It’s just bad bishops that are the problem. The scared cow structure and system could never ever be the cause and because it comes to you from God. It is Gods only alone right and one true structure and system of church that produces leaders of that character and maturity.
The Orthodox have run out of time. You will erase yourselves right off the map of American Christianity in far less time than the next 200 years if you do not radically change the leadership produced by your theology and its resulting structure and system of church that is the leadership development of the church leadership. All of you instead believe that if you keep changing bishops and Met’s that those changes will lead you to a relevancy state of church in America. It is not going to happen by the leadership development structure and system you have and that the theology produces.
Is the end result of Orthodox leadership development the idolatry of its leadership? Look at the state of the EOC for your answer. It is an idolaltry of leadership outcome of church. Idolatry renders the lay MEN of the church powerless to the idol they follow as their leader. Idolatry does not rely upon the humility power of God to develop the character and maturity of real men who are real Godly men of God that can lead like God wants Godly leadership to lead. The idol produces its character and maturity into the laymen of the church. I see it by outcome of church and by tracing the outcome back to its true cause. I do that because I am a rational reasoning Christian that understands the logical outcomes of a theology and its resulting structure and system of leadership development.
In other words, I think for myself and do not think by allowing idolatry of leadership to think for me.
If I let the leadership of EO America think for me I would end up in a corrupt, failed, irrelevant and dying state of Christian life and living. You know, just like all the OCA laity is experiencing right now by following the idols leading their church right over the cliff into the abiss of no return.
Anaxios the next OCA Met!!! He is your solution to the abiss of no return.
Ashley Nevins
Fr. Gregory Jensen has written recently on the phenomenon that the Jonah witch hunt is but one example:
http://www.aoiusa.org/2010/04/barbarians-among-us/
The real men of God Priesthood of the Laity Believer transparency and accountability questions to their bishops is this:
1. Do your view pornography?
2. Are you involved in any inappropiate sexual behavior with children?
3. Do you masturbate?
4. Are you involved in any inappropiate sexual behavior with an adult?
5. Do you live a double life in any way?
6. Are you visiting sexually inappropiate places of business?
7. Does sexualized thinking preoccupy your mind?
8. Are you involved in any illegal sexual activity?
9. Are you having an emotional affair with anyone?
10. Does holding you transparent and accountable like this trouble you in any way?
After each question is asked the following question is asked:
DID YOU JUST LIE TO ME?
I would suggest that the laity Priesthood of the Believer authority in the church post the questions and each bishops answers on their dioceses websites for the entire church to see. I would also change the last question too…
DID YOU JUST LIE TO THE CHURCH?
Real men of God hold real men of God transparent and accountable for their leadership over real men of God. That is a church with real men of God leading it. That is real church. That true church. If they don’t hold each other transparent and accountable the church goes incompetent, corrupt, failed, irrelvant and dying. The church goes untransparent and unaccountable and the church then turns itself into a TOXIC CHURCH that spiritually abuses, spiritually abandons and SHAMES. It destroys itself by a slow, ugly and painful death. It goes circular without solution and its character is shown by how spiritually mature it is in who and what is its thinking or thinking for it.
What is the Orthodox Mind of the Orthodox church leadership? Is it the mind of Christ’s leadership clearly seen in the Gospels? I see your church leadership mind by the outcome of your church. That is exactly what Jeus told the Sanhedrin in His sarcastic confrontation of them in expose’ that held them transparent and accountable to God and all others who were not under their mind control by mind state of their theology and its resulting structure and system of authority. He saw right into their minds and through their minds by seeing their outcome of thinking and exposing it to all of us as a warning not to become who or what He confronted.
He told them that their corruption of God led them into religious works, religious performance, false salvation and idolatry that destroys us spiritually. Like all who are made delusional and cultic by such things they were the last ones to figure out they were delusional and cultic. That only makes sense or they would not have been found in that deceived state. They were so self deceived that they could even hear God when He personally came to them and spoke into them. That is not a state of mind any church wants to find itself in. Would any Orthodox disagree with me on that?
Here is the shocker. Christ confronted a cult of tradition. Oh, yes, He did too.
I am radical in thinking in comparison to the Orthodox Mind. I think bottom up by structure and open by system. I do not think top down by structure or closed by system. Do you see my thinking in the post? Is it different than how your bishops think about transparency and accountability of leadership?
Christ told us and them they were self destruction if followed. In affect, He pointed right at them and told us, THAT IS SELF DESTRUCTION. We all have been fairly warned. All of us who say we are Christians have been given the poster child Sanhedrin example that is our clear warning not to become this or we go corrupt by idolatry of leadership that does not have Christ as its authority. He told us if we follow them we become like them. He told us if we follow Him we become like Him. That is the comparison and it is our clear warning.
Has the EO become like Christ who leads them or has it become like those men who lead them? Well? (Wow, a thinking for yourself without your church thinking for you question – what will it lead too if you keep thinking for yourselves?)
His confrontation pointed three obvious truths about those He confronted. They would not listen for their being so right about themselves, they saw no need to change for being Gods only truth and they are the role model and example of self destruction by idolatry of them. They looked all pretty and shinny on the outside, but on the inside they were really just dirty cups. They were very image self conscious, dressed the part and loved to be glorified. They were IDOLS that demanded right worship and right belief in them and the structure and system that proped them up. They were the only mechanism of Gods true salvation. They murdered their only solution and were found circular without solution for it.
I am very difficult for an Orthodox to LISTEN too. I ask very difficult questions that demand you think for yourself in the answer. I am heresy to the Orthodox. I am not Orthodox. Did I speak heresy here in this post or did I point out heresy? If you apply what I speak too does it make me against you or for you?
Ashley Nevins
PS: How would Mark, Jonah and the other bishops answer the sexual thinking and behavior accountability questions? (Oh, yes, Mark has become the defacto bishop)
I have a question for ANYONE who knows anything about the relationship between Bp Mark and Mark Stokoe.
Okay so we get it, Stokoe is gay. What does he have on the Bishop’s of the Holy Synod and members of the Metropolitan Council to allow a gay man to have ANYTHING to do with the Orthodox Church?!?!
I understand that the Parish Council at St Seraphim’s sent a private letter to Bp Mark prior to the beginning of the HS meeting asking for his answers to 4 questions. On Sunday, parts and pieces of that letter somehow found their way onto Stokoe’s website. I was told that letter was sent only to Bp Mark and no one else. If that be the case, how did Stokoe know so much about the contents of that letter? And apparently he knew the contents down to the exact wording.
I think your leak is Bp Mark! Worse yet and I hope I am wrong, but is Bp Mark “sympathetic” to Stokoe? Is it because they are two peas of the same pod?
Dizzi-n-Dallas (My friends just call me Dizzi)