“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


Thursday, November 11, 2010

What’s the “Big Deal”?

We thank Mr. Zervos for his thoughts. Yet there are still some interesting questions that come to mind.

We are informed that our hierarch, while he may be “harsh”, is a good man and this is just "an administrative action". Question: do good men, good leaders, especially good spiritual leaders, lead by imposing excommunication, or threatening it, when their flock has an honest difference of opinion? Do these leaders accuse without proof? Do good leaders go back on their word? Do good spiritual leaders condone slander? Do good spiritual leaders encourage actions on the part of the few to besmirch a faithful steward’s reputation in both church and business, and threaten his family’s livelihood? Do good spiritual leaders engage in, and condone conspiracy, lasting MONTHS, designed to deprive the vast majority of this community’s members of one of their church properties? This, on behalf of the very few who have an insular vision for Prophet Elias, against the expressed wishes of that same overwhelming majority?

Mr. Zervos speaks of “love”. Is it love to designate those who have serious doubts about a purported miracle (when eye witnesses gave out the actual course of events) as being in league with the evil one? When someone does not agree with us is he or she automatically in league with the adversary? As for the miracle, if those who doubt it are wrong, they will be held to account for their incredulity. If, however, those who have reported and embraced this “miracle” are wrong, then the hypocrisy and fraud of those who reported such an action is indeed grievous and best left to the judgment of a higher power. In either case, it is NOT a sign of the Lord’s favor for separation. (He may well be WEEPING over the abominable nature and deception involved in the attempted split of His Church and His Community!)

In a final stretch of the imagination, Mr. Zervos contends that the Audit Report and the sloppy accounting is directly resultant from having a unified community! Huh? It is a dictum in discourse that he who asserts must PROVE. Nowhere has Mr. Zervos explained how or why this is so; he just says it is. By this same logic, no business entity could have more than one headquarters, several branches, etc. This is nonsense. Many of the parish council members run multiple businesses. One has a hard time understanding how they seem to function outside of the church realm, yet have somehow checked their intelligence, and their moral and ethical compass, at the door when engaging in the governance of the community.

It is a big deal, Mr. Zervos! Imagine if you will the following scenario:

Nearly all who have signed the "Call to Action" have said that if the split, as it has been conceived and demanded of us, does indeed stand, they will all attend Holy Trinity. It will be a truly absurd day when Holy Trinity needs to build another church – oh wait, we have one! The one our forefathers gave to us. The one where if there is to be a split, there is a specific protocol to be followed. Why should the MAJORITY have to give up their church because of the real or perceived needs of a very few who cannot even muster any SIGNIFICANT minority? And especially when that TINY minority has engaged in deceitful behavior because they knew they would NEVER have a significant number of “true believers”.

We’ve said it before; we’ll say it again. Go with the blessings of our Lord and build your own church!

No comments: