“Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them,

and they that are great exercise authority upon them.

But it shall not be so among you:

but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;

And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:

Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto,

but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.” (Matthew 20:25-28, KJV)

The word the Athenians used for their Assembly was Ekklesia, the same word used in the New Testament for Church
(and it is the greatest philological irony in all of Western history that this word,
which connoted equal participation in all deliberation by all members,
came to designate a kind of self-perpetuating, self-protective Spartan gerousia -
which would have seemed patent nonsense to Greek-speaking Christians of New Testament times,
who believed themselves to be equal members of their Assembly.)

- Thomas Cahill, Sailing the Wine-Dark Sea: Why the Greeks Matter


Friday, July 13, 2007

The Truth Shall Set You Free

The game of finger pointing has begun.

The Proistameno points his finger at the President and the Parish Council. During Wednesday's Parish Council meeting, the Proistameno feigns ignorance.
He says that president Nick Varanakis only read it [Metropolitan's letter dated May 31, 2007] during the Parish Council meeting; and the president is the only one who had a copy.
The Proistameno claims he did not get a copy; on a matter of such magnitude how is it possible for the Proistameno to claim that he did not have a copy of the Metropolitan's letter?
Is his statement credible?
Is it believable?
How is it that the "decider" ("you are here to assist me") does not have a copy of the letter which is addressed to him, the Parish Council, and the Community?
Does the Proistameno’s claim of deniability pass the "smell" test?

And the game keeps going on.

The lie gets bigger.
The Proistameno says that he appointed the Metropolitan's suggested committee, on a "first come, first served basis," as people asked to be appointed.
Of course that is not the truth, because the Proistameno did NOT tell the Community how the appointment to the committees would be made.
Members from the Holy Trinity committee have confirmed that Fr. Matthew appointed them.
I would like to think that if one were to ask, Father Matthew would tell the truth about how the appointments were made.
Fr. Matthew does not lie.

And the lies keep on coming!

It is sad that the Proistameno makes claims which cannot be backed up by factual accuracies.
It is sadder that the Proistameno does not remember what he said, when, and to whom?
If he had told the truth he would not have to remember what he said.

And the saga of the big lie continues.

The Proistameno’s spin on the Metropolitan's letter assumes that we do not know how to read the English language.
The Proistameno insists that, "This Committee is not a decision-making group only a group that will dialogue [sic], gather, and inform the Metropolitan on what the Community wants."
My reading of the Metropolitan's letter and its interpretation is that the Metropolitan wants the split.
With him it is NOT a matter of choice.
The Metropolitan does not want to "dialogue."
The Metropolitan wants to split OUR Parish in two.
He is NOT asking us; he is telling us.

And the saga of the big lie continues.

Conveniently the Proistameno has an alibi as to why he "spilled the beans" about the Metropolitan's letter on June 17, 2007, to the communicants at Prophet Elias.
He says that the story was out on the blog early; he then decided to preempt his agreement with the Parish Council, and to tell the PE parishioners who attended church on Sunday June 17, 2007.
Except for one thing: NOTHING APPEARS ON THE BLOG BETWEEN JUNE 4, 2007, AND JUNE 17, 2007 about the Metropolitan's letter.
No one knew anything about the Metropolitan's letter except the Clergy and the Parish Council.
And, neither one said anything to us parishioners. He again conveniently forgot to tell the truth. If he was not given a copy of the Metropolitan's letter, how was it possible for him to recite its contents [re: the establishment of the committees] with such accuracy; and, to hold a 45-minute question-and-answer period?

The saga of the big lie continues.

This Proistamenos is creating turmoil.
This Proistameno contributes to strife.
He contributes to duplicity.
The facts speak for themselves.
His invidious, surreptitious, conspiratorial practices are offensive, objectionable, and most of all un-Christian.

The saga of the big lie continues.

It appears that the June 27, 2007 letter to the community is contradicted by the Proistameno's undated letter to the Community.
Does the Proistameno talk to the Parish Council?
Do they discuss the affairs of the Community?
It would be best if both parties have expended the effort to unify the community!
The Proistameno can save himself and us all a lot of heartache.
The Proistameno should ask to be reassigned elsewhere.

Ο voώv voείτω, και o έχωv ώτα ακoυείv ακoυέτω.

- Nick J. Colessides

No comments: