In Response To Slander Of Elder Ephraim

[Kollyvas]

http://www.yalchicago.org/Monastery_Development.html

The Development of Monasteries in North American by Elder Ephraim

The Holy Mount Athos in Greece has been the home of monasteries for over one thousand years. This peninsula located in northern Greece is considered the bulwark and pinnacle of Orthodox monasticism. Within this spiritual escarpment, Elder Ephraim, a priest-monk for the past 50 years, has served as an elder for almost forty years and became the abbot of the Holy Monastery of Philotheou in 1973. In 1979, he made a brief visit to Canada and the United States for health reasons. During this visit, he met many pious Orthodox Christians who were thirsting for his spiritual guidance and paternal counsels. All who met him were sad to see him go back to the Holy Mountain and flooded him with letters urging him to return. Because of their zeal and need for spiritual help, Elder Ephraim realized that it was God's will for him to return to the United States the next year, and since then he has made annual trips to the United States and Canada.

The Summitt of Mt. Athos

Most of his time was spent traveling to Greek Orthodox Churches in various cities across the two countries, where people waited their turn to spend a few minutes with him, to confess and seek guidance in difficult situations they were facing.

As the years passed, the amount of time Elder Ephraim was spending in the United States and Canada increased out of necessity, due to the steady growth in the number of his spiritual children. Nevertheless, he continued to be the abbot of the Sacred Monastery of Philotheou. He is also the spiritual Elder of three other monasteries on Mount Athos and eight women's monasteries throughout Greece.

His reputation as a grace-filled confessor compels people worldwide to visit him, and his spiritual children number in the tens of thousands, both lay people, monastics, and priests.

With the blessing of the Archbishop of America and the local Metropolitans, as well as by the appeal of the Orthodox faithful in the United States and Canada, the Elder was allowed to begin the work of establishing monastic communities in North America. These communities serve to provide spiritual guidance and help preserve the Holy Traditions of the Church through an exemplary Christian life and devotion to God. Also, by hand-picking with special care worthy successors (Abbots and Abbesses), the Elder has ensured the continuity and success of this apostolic work to serve the Church and her needs.

Elder Ephraim since 1989, founded fourteen monasteries in the United States and Canada under the auspices of the Greek Orthodox Archdioceses of America and Canada. His work is recognized by the entire Church, including the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, who recently visited two of these monasteries. Also, the Archbishop of Greece and thirty hierarchs recently visited the Elder's women's monastery in Serres, Greece, and they all enthusiastically praised the Elder's work in Greece and America. All monasteries continue to flourish and are listed in the order of their chronological development on the next page.

Monastery Information

St. Anthony's Monastery in Arizona Driving Directions to St. Anthony's Monastery
Monasteries Of America Mount Athos
About Monks & Monasteries Pilgrims Guide to Mount Athos

Other Orthodox sites:

Orthodox Information Ionian Village
Orthodox organizations Hellenic College/Holy Cross School of Theology
Office of Youth & Young Adult Ministries Divine Liturgy (LIVE)
Department of Religious Education Ministry resources
Lives of the Saints Calendar Writings of the Church Fathers
National Orthodox campus ministry Liturgical text in Greek
Orthodox Ministry ACCESS Byzantine Studies
Orthodox Studies Byzantine & Medieval Links Index

[Kollyvas]

http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Elder_Ephrem

Elder Ephrem
From OrthodoxWiki

Elder Ephrem of PhilotheouArchimandrite Ephrem of Philotheou (commonly known as Elder Ephrem, sometimes spelled Ephraim) is an archimandrite and former abbot of Philotheou Monastery on Mount Athos, spiritual guide of several monasteries on Mount Athos and Greece, and the founder of several monasteries in the United States. He resides in Arizona at St. Anthony's Greek Orthodox Monastery.

Elder Ephraim has been a priest-monk for the past 50 years and has served as an elder for almost 40 years. He was a disciple of Elder Joseph the Hesychast of Mount Athos and lived in monastic obedience to him for 12 years until his Elder's repose in 1959.

Contents [hide]
1 Early Life
2 Monastic Life
3 Present Day
4 Writings
5 External Links

[edit]Early Life
Elder Ephraim was born in 1927 in Volos, Greece, with a baptismal name of John. He grew up in poverty and helped his father at work, but always tried to emulate the pious life of his mother (who became a nun with the name of Theophano). He began to desire the monastic life around 14 years of age, but he did not get a blessing from his spiritual father to leave and become a monk until he was 19.

[edit]Monastic Life
When he arrived at Mount Athos, he became a disciple of Elder Joseph the Hesychast who tonsured him in 1948 and gave him the name Ephraim. Elder Ephraim was subsequently ordained a deacon, and then a priest. The life in the brotherhood under Elder Joseph was very austere and ascetical, and Elder Ephraim made great spiritual progress under his holy Elder. After Elder Joseph's repose in 1959, Elder Ephraim continued to live in asceticism for many years until he became the abbot of the Holy Monastery of Philotheou in 1973, where he was able to revive the spiritual life there in a short time. Due to the reputation of Elder Ephraim, the monastery's brotherhood grew rapidly. Elder Ephraim was asked by the council of Mount Athos to revive and expand several other monasteries on Mount Athos which had a dwindling number of monks. These monasteries were Xeropotamou, Konstamonitou, and Karakallou. He was also asked to repopulate the Great Lavra but declined. These monasteries are still under his spiritual guidance today. Along with the monasteries on Mount Athos, there are several other monasteries in Greece under Elder Ephraim's spiritual guidance.

[edit]Present Day
Elder Ephraim has a reputation of being a grace-filled confessor and true Athonite elder and has thousands of spiritual children around the world: monastics, clergy, and lay-people. He is considered by many to be the first to establish an authentic Athonite monastery on American soil. As of 2005, Elder Ephraim has founded seventeen monasteries in the United States and Canada under the Greek Orthodox Archdioceses of America and Canada; this includes monasteries for women and for men.

[edit]Writings
Counsels from the Holy Mountain: Selected from the Letters and Homilies of Elder Ephraim by Elder Ephraim. Florence, Arizona: St. Anthony's Greek Orthodox Monastery, 1999. (ISBN 0966700031)
[edit]External Links
On the World and Family by Elder Ephraim
Monasteries founded by Father Ephraim in the United States
History of the Holy Transfiguration Greek Orthodox Monastery in Harvard, Illinois, with a brief biography of Fr. Ephraim
Retrieved from "http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Elder_Ephrem"
Categories: Modern Writers | Monastics

[Kollyvas]

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/mona ... ltism.aspx

Cultism Revisited
A Corrective to Mr. Mosss Rejoinder
Related Articles
Pride Masks as Humility
Chapter 3 from Orthodox Liturgical Issues
Cults and Cultism in American Religion
Cults Within & Without
Cultism Revisited: A Corrective to Mr. Moss' Rejoinder

by Archimandrite Akakios
An article—a reprint, if I am not mistaken—by Archpriest Alexey Young, a gifted and intelligent writer and an Orthodox clergyman, recently appeared in the popular Church periodical Orthodox America (Cults: Within & Without, March-April 1996). The author makes some needed, if perhaps imprecise, observations about non-Orthodox cults. He then applies the criteria by which he distinguishes cults, criteria drawn from non-Orthodox social observers, to Orthodoxy itself, making specific reference to monasticism (an estate which, in general, cannot be adequately studied from outside its confines, and especially by non-monastics). In so doing, despite his obviously good intentions, Father Alexey sets the stage for misunderstanding. I would like to make some cautionary comments, therefore, about his references to Orthodox cultism—what he calls cultism within—and about his observations on the monastic life.

Orthodoxy has seen cults before [emphasis mine], as Father Alexey asserts. This is true. But it is wrong to include among these cults, as he does, Russian Old Believers or the Khlysty or Skoptsy sects. On the one hand, not all Old Believers were cultists; only a small minority of them practiced such outrages as self-immolation; and the vast majority of moderate Old Believers have been reconciled to the Church in modern times, bringing with them a rich spiritual tradition. The Khlysty and Skoptsy sects existed outside Orthodoxy and are no more part of Her domain than Rasputin, a married man with children, was a monk. Rather than address these extraordinary circumstances, we must confine our study of Orthodox cultism to instances where those within the Church have strayed from Her standards. In so doing, since the Orthodox Church is not just another religion, but the very Church of Christ, we must proceed with caution.

If non-Orthodox cults are dangerous because their leaders are wrongly motivated and bring their followers to ruin by exploiting certain disciplines and spiritual practices, in Orthodoxy a downfall usually occurs, not because Church leaders have employed improper techniques for the transformation of the Faithful, but because the Evil One has inspired in them spiritual delusion, leading to the abuse of these very techniques. One must be very careful, then, not to attribute to the abuse of our spiritual disciplines, and especially those found in monasticism, the cult-like motivations that prompt non-Orthodox sectarians to use these methods in a manipulative or cult-like way. The same techniques and disciplines—often adopted from Orthodox monasticism, since they are tested and effective—that the cults abusively use to destroy souls are, within Orthodoxy and when properly applied, means to the very end of salvation. While Father Alexeys warnings about cultism within Orthodox are certainly correct, they can be misunderstood, if this principle is ignored. The motivations and goals behind certain spiritual practices are at issue here, not the consequences of their abuse. This peculiar attribute of Orthodoxy led St. Justin (Popovich) to remark, with astonishing boldness, that Orthodox culture is a cult of the God Christ, service to the God Christ. Even cultism, then, is transformed by Orthodoxy and must be understood, when applied to Her, in a special way.

Father Alexey begins his comments on Orthodox cults by asserting that ...in this country, at least, there are NO true elders today whose voice can be the voice of heaven for a disciple or spiritual child [ emphasis his]. This opinion was held in his time by no less a spiritual giant than Bishop Ignaty (Brianchaninov). But it is an opinion. The idea that the Holy Spirit no longer transforms and enlightens our spiritual Fathers is incorrect. Nor is Eldership bound by geography or nationality. If it is wrong to state, as Father Alexey later does, that all of the bishops have gone bad, then it is equally wrong to say that Elders do not exist wherever monasticism survives. St. Gregory Palamas and St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite, among other monastic writers, tell us that Eldership is no less a foundation of the spiritual life than the Episcopacy. Both are present in Scripture, Jesus Christ Himself is an image of the Perfect Bishop (Shepherd) and the Perfect Elder, and the Episcopacy and Eldership, like Him, are unending.

At the time that Bishop Ignaty was writing, he felt that true Elders were difficult to find. He did not, however, discount the possibility of true Eldership; nor did he offer his opinion as a final word on the matter. Indeed, there were true Elders even in his time, many of them later Glorified by the Church, along with St. Ignaty, who was himself a true Elder! In this century, many Holy Elders in Russia, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Mt. Athos, Mt. Sinai, and elsewhere have led countless souls to salvation. There have also been and no doubt are Elders in contemporary America, even if they hide and conceal their holiness. And while I am not an Elder, and have never claimed to be, I have known genuine Elders who are adorned with all of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit.

We must also understand what true Eldership is. True Elders do not, of course, ask us to do what is immoral or wrong. Nor do they claim to speak with the authority of Heaven or to possess infallibility. We Orthodox are not Papists. To the extent that we entrust our souls to our Elders, make them images of Christ, and let God work through them, their human errors become inconsequential. In short, our obedience within monasticism, covered as we are by the Grace of the sacred tonsure, produces Eldership. Eldership is not personal. Wherever there is sincere monastic obedience, there is Eldership. Where this charismatic and Apostolic office goes astray, it is often as much the fault of the disciple, who may fail to see Christ, rather than a mere man, in his Elder, as that of the Elder. And this fall occurs, not because of cultism, but because of the jealousy and hatred of the Evil One. Many monasteries which have failed, and which have later been dubbed cults, have in fact been the victims of demonic activity. One cannot condemn Eldership simply because it sometimes comes to naught. To equate cultism with monastic Eldership is, in any event, ill-advised.

Father Alexey rightly condemns any atmosphere in which an us versus them mentality holds forth. However, True Orthodox today are the victims of real persecution, slander, and misinformation. We must not mistake their struggles and trials for something cult-like. Not all instances of slander can be covered by epithets like paranoid talk. Moreover, there are also good monasteries and convents and monasteries and convents which fall short of the standard. And though charity and humility must mark our motivations in such statements, we are bound, as responsible Christians, and especially in the monastic estate, to evaluate various communities and to advise our spiritual children to avoid places that we know to be dangerous. This is not, as Father Alexey suggests, necessarily a sign of cultism. Certainly, too, we must not, for fear of being called cultists, hesitate to advise our monastic wards to remain within their communities, to avoid contact with the world, and to follow their superiors. Instances in which such things deteriorate into name-calling and immoral acts in the name of obedience are rare, indeed, and the warnings contained in the article at hand should, in this sense, be carefully and circumspectly considered.

Let me also note that harsh language is not necessarily a sign of cultism. Father Alexey warns against the use, by spiritual leaders, of words like stupid, vulgar, peasants, worldly. I would agree that, in most instances, these words are inappropriate. But it was the late Hieromonk Seraphim of Platina, a man known for his immense gentility and kindness, who referred to a number of his spiritual wards as baboons. No one familiar with the Church Fathers, moreover, can escape the fact that their writings are filled with what a superficial observer might call demeaning language (the oft-used appellation Copronymos, or Dung-Named, comes immediately to mind). Their condemnation of any number of spiritual infractions as worldly, moreover, is ubiquitous, indeed. Nor were the recently Glorified St. Nicholas (Planas) or St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco, whom Father Alexey specifically mentions, always quiet and peaceful in their witnesses. St. Nicholas, who is unfortunately known to the English-speaking world primarily through a single book about his life, was humble and self-effacing. But his admonitions, as the Blessed Photios Kontoglou tells us, were often marked by a severity of language that shocked his listeners. Likewise, in the life of St. John, we read that ...people envied and condemned the Saint when he dealt harshly with them in accordance with the sacred canons of the Church. If we may criticize non-Orthodox cultists for meaninglessly degrading others with harsh or abusive language, we must be careful to admit that our Orthodox spiritual leaders have often used strong expressions and uncompromising language to awaken and to chastise their spiritual wards. Here again, motivation, not externals, is the issue.

There has always been a natural complement between the Church Hierarchy and monasteries. Certainly monastics must not justify schism and arrogance in the name of spiritual integrity. But they have been the natural critics of Church authority, and it is wrong to associate such criticism, as Father Alexey does in another of the traits which he attaches to Orthodox cultism, with improper monasticism. The reticence, on the part of monastics, to embrace immediately the administrative structure of the Church has often proved positive, since it has traditionally led them to guard the charismatic integrity of the Church. In this regard, one need only cite the rule of the Studite monks, in particular, in combatting the heresy of the Iconoclasts. The Episcopacy, too, monastics understand as a charismatic office, a Eucharistic witness, as St. Ignatios of Antioch tells us. A sense of fear with regard to an institutional, rather than spiritual, understanding of Episcopal authority is thus not unknown to the monastic state and, if not exaggerated, is not necessarily an unhealthy phenomenon. Indeed, the injunction to flee women and Bishops is Patristric in origin. It is not directed against women or the Episcopacy (after all, in healthier times, Bishops came out of monasteries), but against the temptations of the world and any departure

from spiritual priorities. This is important to remember in an Orthodox world where neo-Papist Patriarchs and Bishops, calling themselves official and the spiritual leaders of Orthodoxy, openly preach the heresy of ecumenism, denigrate and ridicule monasticism, and march towards a union with the heterodox at the cost of communion with their True Orthodox brethren. If you don't become a monk I can guarantee that you will go to hell....If you leave, you will be lost.... Such statements Father Alexey associates with cultism. Here, too, we must be careful in evaluating what, in most circumstances, may be simple manipulation, but what in some instances is spiritual insight. As a matter of fact, we know that St. Savvas the Younger once cured a demoniac by exacting from her a promise that she would become a monastic, telling her that: If you wish perfect freedom from the evil and filthy spirit that torments you, take on the yoke of Christ in the monastic and angelic schema. Similarly, the Calabrian cave-dweller, Elder Elias, once told a young boy that he could not be cured unless he became a monk. The boy accepted this advice, became a monk, and was cured of his disease. Many of the Desert Fathers also warned monastic aspirants that, were they not to pursue a monastic course, they would return to a life of immorality in the world. While such statements should not be used off-handedly or in a contrived way, within the monastic life one often develops an intuitive sense about individuals. And that sense, well or poorly developed in accordance with ones level of spiritual insight, is not to be ridiculed or set aside. Nor should it be dismissed as a sign of cultism.

In the same vein, to address another issue that Father Alexey raises in his article, those who are asked to leave monasteries—and often because they are immoral, mentally unstable, or disobedient—very rarely admit that they were asked to leave, but invariably state that they left on their own, after being falsely accused of this or that problem. Their reports to the contrary are not inevitably valid evidence of cultism, as Father Alexey contends, or the desire of monastic leaders to misrepresent facts or to denigrate those who fail in the monastic life. Very few spiritual Fathers are, in fact, motivated by such pettiness, even if others perceive this to be the case. Rather, the reputations of many good monasteries have been damaged by the understandable hostility of those who have been asked to leave them and who, in order to justify their failure, make every sort of unsavory and outrageous accusation against their former spiritual guides. Those outside monasticism must understand that moral and mental problems, if they cannot be treated in a monastic setting, open the door for demonic manifestations, leading failed monastics to lives often characterized by revenge, hostility, and a bitterness that helps no one involved. It is sad that these manifestations must be addressed, but to do so for the protection of a monastery or for the well-being of a failed aspirant is not, again, necessarily characteristic of cruelty, deception, or cultism, but of spiritual sobriety.

The higher calling of monasticism, financial needs, and the sense of mission that is appropriate to the Angelic life can be exploited, as Father Alexey observes, and can be the cause of abuse within monasticism. I have no argument with this. But as with the foregoing instances that I have considered in detail, we are not, in the case of such exploitation, dealing with cultism, but with a fall to demonic delusion. Orthodox monasticism, at least that which exists within jurisdictions that enjoy the Grace bestowed by genuine Apostolic Succession (we are not accountable for those who claim to be Orthodox but who lack this essential qualification), I would repeat emphatically, is not subject to the religious standards of the non-Orthodox world. Its struggle is for souls, a battle waged in an arena where the criteria of the world, however much such may seem to be the case, do not apply. If I can congratulate Father Alexey on his insight into cults, I must remind him and those who have read his article not to apply this insight indiscriminately to Orthodox monasticism. It is a peculiar and Divine institution. And even where it fails, by worldly standards, it still inspires and enriches the Church. Cultism is deadly, whether it is successful in its efforts or not. Successful monasticism produces Saints; but even failed monasticism is instructive and Grace-filled.

From Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XIII, Nos. 3 & 4 (1996), pp. 47-50.

[Kollyvas]

http://www.orthodoxnews.netfirms.com/48/Letter.htm

Submitted November 2003

Letter to the Editor

In response to “The Ephraim Question”: Defending an Attack on Traditional Orthodoxy

I was recently e-mailed a copy of Mr. Paul Cromidas’ article, entitled, “The Ephraim Question”, and apart from overwhelming sadness I was filled with a strong resolve, as one who has been visiting Elder Ephraim’s monasteries for the past ten years, to respond to the article and address some of its misinformation. Mr. Cromidas’ article was another example of an attack on traditional Orthodoxy. Many Orthodox Christians visit monasteries, and people like Mr. Cromidas constantly criticize those of us who choose to visit monasteries, particularly monasteries of Elder Ephraim. We should have the opportunity to defend our actions against those who continue to call us “cult-followers”.

I was blessed to visit, as Mr. Cromidas would say, an “Ephraimite” monastery for the first time over a decade ago. I was just 17 at the time, and at that point in my life, I was a typical teenager who thought I knew everything. I had major attitude and a chip on my shoulder. I was overly concerned with my appearance, and materialism in general. After all, it was the nineties; I was just doing what was commonplace “in the world.” I wasn’t at all interested in the church, and felt services were long and boring. To me, Orthodoxy was something I might think of getting around to, much later in my life. Thank God that by His providence I met Abbess Taxiarhia (who reposed in 1994). She was an embodiment of humility, purity, and true Christ-like love. Before meeting her, I didn’t think there was such a thing as Christ-like love. Yes, I had read the Bible, and heard of “love your enemies,” but I didn’t believe it; after all, the world had become much more “an eye for an eye”, than “bless those who curse you”. I felt it unrealistic that love like Christ had could really exist, especially in this day and age. But as I said, by God’s providence, I saw it, and continue to see it abundantly in many monastic communities that I have visited here and in Greece. Monasteries that are filled with young men and women who were so overcome by their love for Christ, they abandoned the material world to seek the spiritual. They have chosen to live their faith entirely. They have chosen to dedicate their lives to Christ, who gave His life for them and for us.

Abandon the world for Christ? They must be crazy. Yes, in this world, so overcome by materialism that most teenagers carry cell phones and spend hundreds of dollars for a pair of shoes, such an idea is considered crazy. After all, who WOULDN’T want to make a lot of money, enjoy the “finer things” in life, and travel to exciting and exotic places? Who DOESN’T want to “live life to the fullest?” Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die, RIGHT? Yes, this is what the world tells us. But in truth, the Holy Orthodox Church has been telling us for the past 2000 + years that such hedonistic thinking is incorrect. Since the time of Christ, hedonism has been viewed as a horribly sinful way of life that leads to eternal damnation. From the teachings of the Apostles, to such modern day saints as St. Nektarios of Aegina and St. John Maximovitch, our faith has taught us to live a life of temperance, moderation, obedience to Christ’s teachings, and purity…such things are not only the foundations of the monastic life, but for Orthodox Christian life as well. You see, the Gospel of Christ, and the teachings of the Holy Fathers, from the time of the Apostles, were not written just for the monastics, but for all of us.

I mention obedience as being paramount to both monastic and Orthodox life. Mr. Cromidas refers to obedience to a spiritual father as being the equivalent of a “cult”. First of all, the concept of obedience to a spiritual father is not as radical and fanatical as some would say. In 19th century literature Dostoyevsky illustrates the concept in such literary works as “The Brothers Karamazov”, with Fr. Zosima, a character based on St. Seraphim of Sarov. St. Seraphim of Sarov had thousands come from great distances to confess to him, seek his counsel, and “receive blessings” before doing things in their daily lives. Were his spiritual children behaving in a cult-like manner? Were there not hierarchs and others who spoke out emphatically against St. Seraphim? Yet our Holy Church thought enough of him to canonize him. I understand, though, that in this day and age, the 21st century, and the “age of empowering oneself”, the concept of obedience to a spiritual father seems ridiculous. We are taught, “I don’t have to answer to anyone, and I can do as I please. No one should dare tell ME what to do.” Yes, this is what the world teaches us, but again, completely opposite what the church teaches us. The church teaches us to follow Christ, Who was obedient “to death, death on a Cross.” To quote Elder Joseph the Hesychast: “Let us take as an example our sweet Jesus Who was obedient to His beginningless Father to death on a cross. He gave His body to scourges, His cheeks to slaps, and He did not turn His face from the spitting. Do you see how much love the Compassionate Lord showed us? So let us give up our will as well…” (Monastic Wisdom). Do these sound like the rantings of a fanatical zealot? Christ himself tells us to “deny ourselves” if we wish to follow Him. As Orthodox Christians if we heed this call, and choose a Spiritual Father to aid in this plight, we are considered irrational and radical by the world’s standards? Yes, in this day and age, if we choose to “deny ourselves” we are considered to be naïve, “following blindly”. Sadly, the world’s “teachings” are now considered to be “normal” and the truth of the Gospel “abnormal.”

I feel compelled to address certain specific points of Mr. Cromidas’ letter that are particularly offensive, and very much untrue. First of all, he states that Elder Ephraim came to America “under nefarious circumstances” in the nineties. This is untrue. Elder Ephraim had been visiting America and Canada since the early 1980’s. During that time he met many faithful who yearned to have the examples of traditional Orthodoxy provided by monastics. Elder Ephraim came to North America to answer the call of such people. His presence in this country has ALWAYS been with the permission of the Archdiocese. Any monastery he has started has been started with the permission of the Archdiocese and respective Bishop/Metropolitan. Elder Ephraim has never disobeyed any hierarch in this country. To imply his presence in this country came about under “nefarious” circumstances is simply untrue.

Mr. Cromidas also made the implication that some “Ephraimite confessors” (I assume he is referring to priests who are spiritual children of Elder Ephraim, aside from people who attack Elder Ephraim, I have never heard the term “Ephraimite”) seem to have “a form of sexual misconduct” by seeming to “focus on sexual matters” in confession. Mr. Cromidas seems astonished that penance be imposed for sexual impropriety. Does this world really even believe that there is such a thing as sexual impropriety? Obviously not, as abortion and homosexuality run rampant, ten-year olds have babies, and elementary school children experiment with oral sex. This is what is normal in this world. We are taught to embrace our sexuality, that our “desires” are normal and “only human”. To deny them is abnormal. Sadly, even some who call themselves Orthodox Christians write books telling us that sexuality is holy! Such lack of temperance is what gives people the green light to act as they please. Shows like “Sex and the City” and “Coupling” seek to present the act of sex as something that we should be able to practice with whomever and whenever or wherever we can. Is it any wonder young children are sexually active? Is it any wonder that abortion and homosexuality are considered “normal”? Such atrocities are the CONSEQUENCES of this world’s view on sexuality! What THIS WORLD teaches us about sex is immoral and not Orthodox, I would even say demonic, yes, DEMONIC. If we embrace the world’s view, we are no better than the animals, which lack the rational ability to control their passions. And for Mr. Cromidas to imply that a priest imposing a penance and teaching moderation and temperance in such matters somehow shows sexual misconduct is so grossly un-Orthodox. He need only read St. Chrysostom or St. Basil among others, who counsel temperance in the sexual life, and impose extreme penances for sins such as abortion. Would Mr. Cromidas consider St. Chrysostom to have performed “sexual misconduct”? But Mr. Cromidas, sadly, is not alone in his opinions; his is just another example of how the world views the church as “antiquated” and not applicable in today’s society. The simple truth, albeit very unpopular, is that God created the sex act for the purpose of procreation to be used ONLY within the context of marriage. Yes, I know that most everyone who just read that line probably thinks that such a concept is unrealistic. I have even heard Orthodox Priests counsel people that it is unrealistic, but it doesn’t change the fact that it is true. (For the record, I am not a monastic, but an educated, married woman, 27 years old, and a mother as well). This world (once again) goes against what the Holy Church has been teaching us for 2000+ years; should we follow tradition, or the world?

Mr. Cromidas also asserted, “Ephraim monasteries do not appear to have money problems.” I can personally attest that his statement is FALSE! Many of the monasteries struggle to pay their monthly bills. They do not receive any money from the Archdiocese, do not have “Stewardship Programs” and do not pass trays at services. They rely solely on donations from visitors as well as the sale of the handiwork of the brotherhood/sisterhood. Many wealthy benefactors of the Archdiocese refuse to donate, as the monastery will not make them “a plaque” or name a building after them. Moreover, I have personally seen people who frequently attend parishes visit the monasteries and refuse to buy things because “it is too much to pay for an icon.” Of such people I wonder, do they refuse to buy $100 shoes and $1000 suits? For to adorn the body at all costs is acceptable according to the world’s standards. But to pay for spiritual edification? Nonsense, it’s not worth it! My heart weeps for the world we live in, our priorities are so perverted.

As for Mr. Cromidas’ frequent use of the word “Ephraimite”, I have to wonder, has he ever met Elder Ephraim? In fact, I wonder how many of those who throw around words like “cult”, “guru” and “Ephraimite” have actually met with him to speak with him directly about their concerns. It seems that such people are fueled by misinformation from a few people. Lies are spread around so often in some circles, they are eventually regarded as true. People are quick to take things out of context and present it in a way that suits their own agenda. I would urge Mr. Cromidas to seek to find the truth for himself, rather than relying on the Greek Herald or other sources, even hierarchs or clergy who have not met or don’t really know Elder Ephraim. But I also urge Mr. Cromidas to look to history. St. Nektarios of Aegina was repeatedly mocked and accused of the most horrendous and unspeakable things -- LIES of a few people, set out to slander a holy man who sought to teach traditional Orthodoxy to the people. And today he is highly regarded as one of the greatest Saints of these times. People flock to his tomb in Aegina and countless miracles have been performed through his prayers. But do NOT misquote me; I am not implying Elder Ephraim is a “living saint”. He is a monastic, going about his work of teaching traditional Orthodoxy to the people.

The sad truth is that the state of the world today is so opposite to what the Church teaches, and most people feel that the Church should adapt to the times, rather than the people resisting the changes of the world, and holding fast to their faith. One need only read the Holy Fathers to see that, while the world has indeed gotten worse, the same passions and filth that plague society today have existed for thousands of years. Think Sodom and Gomorrah. Nineveh. Corinth. Could they not all be considered ancient versions of some “sin cities” like Las Vegas? Yet God sent his angels to Sodom and Gomorrah. Jonah was sent to convey His message of repentance to the Ninevites. The Apostle Paul tirelessly sought to teach His truth to the Corinthians. God sought to teach those people that living according to the world’s standards was not His plan for them, that they should repent and follow Him. There are hundreds of thousands of examples throughout history. Read St. Chrysostom. Are his 4th century teachings not relevant to the things we face today? Yes, relevant and applicable to those seeking to follow the Church, not the world. God provides beacons for those who wish to follow Him; He has throughout history. In this day and age, those beacons are the monastics, as they are living examples of traditional Orthodoxy. Yes the world wants the Church to change, many Orthodox want to change the Church to suit their own purposes! They want a “church” in which their sins would be justified since, after all, “we are only human.” But the Church will never change, for it was given by Christ and preserved from the time of the Holy Apostles through the Orthodox Church. Other religions will “change”. Their homosexual bishops and women preachers will not influence traditional Holy Orthodoxy, because GOD will provide us with people who will help us cling to our faith, and will teach that faith. In the words of St. Gregory the Theologian, “The faith which I was taught by the Holy Fathers, which I taught at all times without adjusting according to the times, this Faith I will never stop teaching; I was born with it, and I live by it.” The world will change, and continue to change, and to prevent that change would be impossible. Our one constant though, is our faith. As the Apostle said, Christ is the same, “yesterday today and always.”

Would many in this world consider me a lunatic, fundamentalist, zealot or cultist for my views? Am I naïve for “blindly following” teachings which are not realistic in today’s society? To think that way is not a new concept. Were not those who followed Christ shunned? And throughout the history of the church we are provided with thousands of examples of people so committed to following Christ, that they willingly shed their blood rather than deny Him. They denied themselves, they denied the world. They chose to follow Him instead of the world. As they sacrificed their bodies to the most horrible tortures, I am quite sure that many onlookers considered them to be “following blindly”, and acting crazy. But in the end, what the nay-sayers thought didn’t matter, for God rewarded such “blind obedience” with the precious crown of martyrdom, numbering such “zealots” among the righteous in His Kingdom.

Why am I writing this? Because my heart weeps that when someone seeks to hold on to the traditions of our Holy Church, they are slandered. Because since I choose to go to monasteries, I am considered to be “in a cult”. If I attend a parish and cover my head with a scarf I get disapproving glares from people, but women who wear miniskirts, which leave nothing to the imagination, go about unnoticed in the Lord’s House. Many Orthodox are complacent with attending occasional Sunday services, or even just Christmas and Easter. How many people show up for the token red egg or palm cross? This is what is considered normal in this world. The bottom line is this: who is providing us with the examples of traditional Orthodoxy? How many priests use the Fathers of the Church in their sermons? I have heard priests in parishes quote “Ziggy” comic strips, as well as western philosophers and writers in their sermons. How many priests today seem more like “businessmen” then simple shepherds of their flock of faithful? How many do not teach their parishioners to fast, much less fast themselves? How many speak out openly for liberal political causes such as abortion? Greek festivals and Greek School programs are successful in the parishes and most Sunday School programs are failing, because many parents don’t bring their kids on a regular basis to learn about their faith. Moreover, people who have no concept of Orthodox Theology are teaching Sunday School! People leave church before the Great Entrance for “coffee hour”. People show no reverence or respect when in Church; they talk, laugh and gossip during divine services. I have seen parishes with 50 per cent of the people not even showing up before the Gospel! Orthros services may as well not even be held in the parishes, for no one attends them anyway. In fact, most people probably don’t even know what Orthros is! How many children in the parishes could chant the hymn of their own parish? How many of them could chant one hymn from the Divine Liturgy? Many faithful, though, have been fortunate to find examples of traditional Orthodoxy through the monasteries. Through the monastic presence in this country, traditional Orthodoxy will survive, and provide the faithful with the means to cling to their faith in its entirety.

This world has sought to wipe out Holy Orthodoxy with its ways. But it will never succeed. It will never succeed for Holy Orthodoxy is the ONLY truth. It has been preserved since it has been handed down from the Holy Apostles. It will be preserved for it is Christ’s and He will not allow it to perish. Through the years, as other “denominations” have had problems with Holy Tradition, they have left the faith to form their own “religions” with their own “rules” which are more applicable to “the times”. But this tradition that we as Orthodox have will NEVER die, it will be preserved until Christ comes again, when His Bride (the holy Orthodox Church) will be presented to Him, spotless and unchanged in its truth. How does all this relate to the “Ephraim Question” which I set out to respond to? Simply that what is being attacked every time Elder Ephraim is attacked is traditional Orthodoxy, because through his monasteries, people are being taught to cling to their faith, not the world. Mr. Cromidas uses the phrase “in but not of the world” as relevant to monastics. That statement is for all of us. ANYONE who follows Christ should be “in but not of the world.” Our church teaches us this. This world is not our home, it will pass. Our goal while we are here should be to live that we obtain paradise, our true homeland. How do we achieve that? We MUST be in but not of this world. For we truly are NOT of this world, we are of Christ. Monasticism has provided this country with many bright examples of how to live as Orthodox Christians. The monastics are an example to all of us.

Before I met the Abbess Taxiarhia so many years ago, I was content to be of the world. I didn’t understand my faith. I’m not sure I even wanted to. Thank God, for through one of Elder Ephraim’s monasteries, I was able to see how my life as I was living it was meaningless. I had no clue as to what was really important. Am I a “cult-follower”? If seeking to live a traditionally Orthodox life (which I’ll admit I am not good at because of my sinfulness) makes me a “cult-follower” according to the world’s standards, then I am okay with that. Being judged according to the world’s standards is meaningless…this world will pass.

Juliana Chrisanthus RN

[Kollyvas]

http://sgpm.goarch.org/Monastery/index.php?p=10

"The first divine fruit of silence is mourning -- grief according to God -- joy-grief. Afterward come luminous thoughts, which bring the holy flow of tears streaming with life, from which also comes the second baptism and the soul is purified and shines and becomes like the angels.”

• Elder Ephraim of Philotheou

[Kollyvas]

http://www.orthodoxnews.netfirms.com/49 ... %20Men.htm

Submitted November 20, 2003

Of Monks and Men: A Response to an Attack on Monasticism in America

I am unworthy to enter into a discussion of Orthodoxy by people so educated on the subject. As a lay person, born and baptized into Orthodoxy as an infant, I hope you will consider my perspective on the debate about monasteries in America, and more specifically, about the person who brought them here, Elder Ephraim.

It seems to me a good thing that we are talking about the direction of Orthodoxy in America, because the debate is hitting a raw nerve in some, and therefore, is revealing an area that needs discussion. What surprises me is how much anger exists in followers of Christ - anger only because they differ on how to express their love of Christ.

If, indeed, Christ is in our hearts in this debate, then why not pray to Christ for a revelation of the truth? Why such anger because a wise and deeply spiritual monk from Mount Athos is bringing options here in America? With time, the Lord will reveal the truth.

In the meantime, may I offer that far from being a guru, Father Ephraim offers me an alternative to my imperfect in-the-world church that has many demands placed on it. The minds of the monks are in prayer and devotion to Christ. As crowds looked to the Apostles for wise words after Christ's crucifixion, so Father Ephraim offers an odor of Orthodoxy untainted by wordly concerns. I know this from my soul, which feels the peace of the Hold Spirit near Elder Ephraim and in the monasteries he started. He offers spiritual refreshment in the expanding sands of the desert. He asks nothing of us, only that we love one another.

I would offer a mirror to those who complain loudly about Elder Ephraim and the success of his monasteries in America. The fact that so many people are finding solace and peace by visiting these monasteries speaks for itself. It seems the only one who is remaining quiet, offering no defense of himself, is Father Ephraim.

Dr. S. Coronis
Alexandria, VA

[Kollyvas]

“Behold the Slave of the Lord”
By Juliana Chrisanthus

Published on OrthodoxNews.com
May 29, 2005

A very long time ago, a young girl was sent by her parents to be raised in a temple. The parents, making good on a promise they had made to God, delivered their four year old child up to be raised by what they only could imagine to be angels, since she was to be the only one in that temple. The little girl’s parents died while she was in the temple, and she did not learn of this until she left the temple some years later. So here the young woman, having been sheltered from the world during such formative years, is basically on her own. One day, she is asked to do something incomprehensible. With not another human being to help her, she makes a decision that defies all human logic and reasoning. She puts her trust in something of which she has no tangible proof; she is asked to have complete trust in the unknown. She decides to give herself, entirely, to this daunting task because she has an enormous faith and a great zeal in her heart for her God. She submitted to her task with her whole-heart, even referring to herself as a “slave”. She completely gave herself over to something she did not understand; mind, body and spirit, she conceded to what was asked of her.

If you didn’t guess yet, the young girl in the above situation was our Holy Mother, the Panagia. If we read that story as is, and apply it to the world today, what would be the response in the faithless and God-hating society in which we live today? Would people be crying out that Panagia’s parents abused her by leaving her in the temple with no (human) person to care for her? Would they claim she was “indoctrinated” since her most formative years were spent in isolation where she could not have learned to “think for herself?” Would they claim she was violated because a child was placed in her uterus without her first consenting to it? Would they call her crazy, and a “cult follower” because she gave herself so completely to something without knowing what it would really mean or involve? If the events of Panagia’s life happened in this age, one has to wonder what people would really be saying.

Recently, articles have been circulating on the Internet quoting a certain Greek Orthodox Metropolitan stating, “God doesn’t want slaves in His Kingdom…” Certain people who have an obvious disdain for Orthodox monasticism highlight this phrase. They use it as their Gospel to promote their anti-monastic agenda. This statement has become their argument that anyone who enters a monastery should be considered weak, indoctrinated, mislead, and a cult follower. I’ll admit that phrase is taken out of context, and the specific meaning and implications can only be said by the Metropolitan who made the statement, however; certain “activists” out there are defining it in their own way, taking the inference that anyone who enters a monastery (especially a monastery of Fr. Ephraim) is not wanted in the Kingdom of Heaven. Was this what the Metropolitan intended people to make of this statement? I don’t know, he has never elaborated on that statement to my knowledge. But the miso-monastics in this country have certainly taken that phrase and run with it.

I have to feel a great sadness at their use of this phrase for the purposes which they use it. The implication is that those young men and women who choose to enter a monastery and give their lives 100% to Christ are doing so in vain because, by their logic, that is not what God wants from us. However, if the people who use this statement to promote their agendas were to look to the scripture, they would see how flimsy their argument really is. In the Gospel of St. Luke we see why this is exactly what God wants, even requires from each of us, monastics and lay people. When Panagia -- who by apocryphal accounts was around the age of 14 when the Archangel appeared to her – was chosen to be His mother, the words with which she replied in accepting this awesome and unfathomable task were idou h doulh Kuriou or “Behold, the slave of the Lord.” The Greek word “doulos” means “slave,” plain and simple. Could she have said no? Of course. Our most beneficent Creator instilled a free will in all of us. But He saw in young Mariam a zeal to submit to Him entirely; He knew she was ready to become His slave, and this is why He chose her. Only someone who could completely give her will to Him could have taken her own Master inside her womb, realizing that she would be subject in all things to the One Who sprang forth from her and nursed at her breast. He needed someone who was able to have complete trust in Him: someone who would have the strength to endure the most heart-wrenching pains for Him; someone who would not question His actions and His words, even when they did not understand them; someone who would completely submit her whole self to Him and defer to Him as her Master in all things, just as a true slave would.

What an awesome thing. Panagia, in essence, believed in something for which she had no tangible proof. She gave herself, at a young age, to a task beyond comprehension. She was obedient to something that seems, by earthly standards, to be impossible, indeed, against all laws of nature. She did not waver in her resolve, trusting in her God even though she did not know what the long-term consequences would be. And this is what she needed to do. For if she had only submitted partially, or waveringly, how could she have followed through? She wouldn’t have been able to let the child she held in her womb, in her tender embrace, ascend the Cross for the sake of the very people who nailed Him to it. Had she not submitted entirely, she couldn’t have stood by as He was spat upon, tortured and murdered before her very eyes. But because she had decided, thirty-three years before, to be a “slave” to her Lord, she was able to watch these horrible things and trust that it was what needed to happen. Can we earthly parents even begin to imagine the unbearable pain her heart experienced as she stood by Him and watched her only Son endure such things? I know I would not be able to bear it. But she did. Although her grief was enormous, she did not try to stop what was happening; because as His slave, she knew that the Master knows better than His slaves. The moment she uttered the words: “Behold, the slave of the Lord,” they were inscribed indelibly in her heart forever, and she always held true to that promise.

Throughout her Son’s life, the Mother of God saw many amazing things happen. And though she was His mother, at no time did she act in such a manner that would convey that He should be subject to her (since this is what natural law would dictate anyway). At 12 years old, when He stayed behind in the temple, He did not make apologies when He was found after three days; He told his mother it was necessary for Him to be attending to the things of His Father. She did not question Him or punish Him, for to do this would indicate that she was not true to her original promise, “Behold, the slave of the Lord.” Several years later, at Cana of Galilee, she tells her Son, “They have no wine” (Jn 2:3). His response to her is, “Woman, what is that to you and Me? Do you not know My hour has not yet come?” She did not question Him at this point, nor chasten Him; she did not feel He was showing her any disrespect as some western scholars ignorantly assert. She knew He was capable of this miracle, but did not press the issue, telling the servants to subject themselves to His word, remembering that as His slave, she was also subject to Him. She did not protest or question Him, staying true to her original promise, “Behold, the slave of the Lord.” Dutifully, He did perform the miracle. But she did not have to argue with Him or try to convince Him. He saw her submission, and honored it by performing that miracle, even though His time had not yet come. Some time later, she watched as He was condemned by His own creatures. She did not stand at the foot of the Cross wailing, pleading with Him that she could not endure the pain of watching Him suffer, asking Him to show her pity for the grief in her heart at what was unfolding before her eyes. She did not rise up against those who persecuted Him. She watched silently as He was spat upon, beaten, humiliated, and murdered before her very eyes. She could not have known He needed to endure all those things so He could save all mankind, yes, even the very people who nailed Him to the Cross. But she kept her promise, made all those years before, “Behold, the slave of the Lord.” She trusted that He knew better than she; she believed that He, as the Master of her, knew what was the best. As a true slave, she put aside her own will and subjected herself to Him in all things. This much we see in the Scriptures. We see her obedience to Him, her patient endurance, and her steadfast resolve to remain true to what she promised Him: “Behold, the slave of the Lord.”

But something else we see, beyond Holy Scriptures, is that how such loyalty to the promise she made Him, how He rewarded her utter submission, making her the boast of all generations of faithful men. He took that promise, inscribed in her heart, and glorified her in a manner unfathomable to man. Indeed, our Holy Orthodox faith bestows upon her an esteem unlike any other, “More honorable than the Cherubim and beyond compare more glorious than the Seraphim.” She is the “sweetness of the Angels,” the “Life giving Spring,” “Tender Mercy,” “Holy Protection,” “Joy of all that Sorrow,” “Searcher for the Lost,” thousands upon thousands of other accolades, and, yes, she is the Queen of all. How many Saints wrote hymns to her, their love for her pouring out in their words of praise? How many people, inspired by God, have painted her image in icons for the faithful to venerate? Mankind honors her and her faithfulness to her promise: “Behold the slave of the Lord.” How many Christians have been inspired to take her as their protectress in all things, asking that she intercede for them before her Son. Indeed faithful Christians cry out to her, “Most Holy Theotokos save us!” Not because we believe she saves us of herself, but rather that her Son takes a special pity on those whom she brings before Him. He honors her wishes for mercy on a faithless and godless people. He listens to her, because she fulfilled her promise to Him: “Behold the slave of the Lord.” He has fully honored and rewarded her complete enslavement to Him.

Through true slavery, she obtained the highest honor that will ever be bestowed upon a human being. She gave everything to Him, and it was not in vain. Though the sacrifice was great, the reward was much greater. She chose slavery to Christ, and through that slavery found true freedom with Him.

So if the Lord required this of His Mother, how then, does he not require it of His children? How can we expect to come to Him if we cannot at least TRY to do what she did? Christ provided her as both a model and an example: a model of what he expected from His Creation, and an example of the grace and blessings which are rewarded to those who say with conviction: “Behold the slave of the Lord.” We see that throughout history, as many people have followed her in their complete submission to Him. His own Apostles left their nets at only His call. Sts. Paul, Peter, James and John refer to themselves as His slaves in their epistles. They took His mother as their example, seeing her steadfast promise to her Son: “Behold the slave of the Lord.” People left homes and families to follow Him. Did they know what they were doing at the time? They became His slaves; they devoted themselves out of love for Him. They followed His word in all things. Men and women were even willing to shed their blood rather than deny Him. These people did not question Him. They knew when they said with steadfast resolve “Behold the slave of the Lord” that they could trust that He would protect them in all things, and that He would provide the best way, the only way for them to be saved and find true freedom. Did they have a choice? Of course they did. He never forced them to do anything. They did it out of complete servitude to Him; they freely enslaved themselves out of their great love and devotion to Him. They also had the knowledge that once they allowed Him to truly be their Master, He would free them from the bonds of death and sin, and that anyone who submitted so entirely to Him would receive their due reward in His Kingdom.

The problem in today’s society is the world’s teaching that complete submission to anything is a sign of weakness. We are taught that we should have complete and utter confidence in our own abilities to make the best decisions for our own lives. If we do not, if we rely on something higher, we are seen as lacking the ability to think for ourselves. We are taught to question authority in all matters, and to reject anyone having any power over us at all. Indeed this is seen in the state of the Church today. The anti-monastic movement is so busy spewing vitriol; never ones to keep silent their disdain of the monasteries, they publish libelous articles that accuse people who enter monasteries of being unable to think for themselves. They assert that the grounds where young men and women (of legal age) go to give their lives completely over to Christ are nothing more than cults who prey on the weaknesses of their members. They use their agenda on a faithless and godless nation of people, easily seduced by the world’s wiles, and susceptible to the indoctrination of uprising against the Church and it’s traditions. We also see in the Church a movement of Orthodox activists who wish to wipe out the hierarchy, which has been handed down from the Apostles. These people want to be the ones to run Christ’s Church! They want the freedom to change 2000-year-old traditions in order to better suit their own agendas. They feel they should have the right to remove priests from parishes because they are bringing in too many converts, or preaching “too traditionally,” or dressing in a manner not consistent with the “western” world we live in. Again, these teachings of the activists are very tempting to people living in today’s societies. The simple fact is that these activist groups are taking advantage of a world deceived easily by human logic. They can promote their agenda by incensing people to feel anger at the thought of having to answer to another person. They have taken their platform, even joining forces for their common goal, and sought to take those who would be seduced by the world’s wiles to join with them in their assault upon Holy Tradition, which was handed down by Christ and carried out by His true slaves for the last 2000 years.

This attack on tradition is nothing new. It started even before Christ walked this Earth. It continued as His own people rose up against His teachings and delivered Him up to death. It continued as His Apostles endured imprisonment and persecution for His sake, having enslaved themselves to Him forever. It continued as countless men and women shed their blood rather than deny Him or even compromise one iota of His truth. It continued as saints like the great Mark of Ephesus refused to budge, being the only Orthodox bishop willing to uphold the true Faith, completely in its pure, unaltered original form. The examples throughout history are too many to list. But in the end, if we look at Holy Orthodoxy, we see it has remained in its pure form, as Christ intended. If you look at Western religions you can see, beyond the original schism, how many times it has split since then. Beginning with Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation, the western mentality has always nurtured the type of knowledge and free thinking which invariably leads to a faction of people deciding they aren’t happy with the status quo, so they go and start a religion that suits their own needs. It is not surprising, then, that we see this small uprising of people here in the West seeking to do the same thing to our Holy Orthodox Church. They do not realize, however, how many people have tried this and failed at it over the last 2000 years. Holy Orthodoxy is Christ’s bride, and -- as Orthodox Christians-- our role is to preserve His bride, unblemished, unaltered, unaffected by the world’s teachings. His Providence will ensure that His true slaves will always be true to that role, that they would even give their lives rather than allow it to be changed in any way.

I realize how unpopular these last few paragraphs are to the “activist Orthodox.” They will say that I am unrealistic, living in a fantasy world, ignorant, uneducated, and indoctrinated. That is okay by me. These people have their agenda, and are actively trying to rally masses of people to revolt and reject true slavery to Christ. The truly sad thing is that by acting in that manner, they are enslaving themselves to the world and its ways. If we look beyond the garment of their activist teachings we see that their true agenda is neither anti-monastic, nor is it anti-hierarchy. Rather, it is anti-tradition. It is for the advancement of their political causes, which are contrary to the Church’s teachings. It is their way of interjecting the ways of the world into a 2000-year-old tradition that does not need it. It is the promotion of congregationalism, to incite numbers to revolt and “buck the system.” Christ did not incite His Apostles to revolt against the Jews. He even chastened the Apostle Peter for smiting the slave of the High Priest who sought to kill Him. Christ called on His slaves in the world to be like sheep following contently after their Shepherd. He reiterated this in the parable of the Last Judgment, “separating the sheep from the goats.” No matter what argument these “activist Orthodox” give, no matter what they may say to the contrary, their activism is a front for their efforts to change the Church, and it is entirely inconsistent with any approach which Christ has provided for us.

In the western society in which we live, we always want an answer. We want an equation, an algorithm, a postulate or a theory. We want an explanation. We want to know why bad things happen to good people. We want to know why God allows things like war. We want to understand the senseless violent acts that happen to children and innocent people. But if we only were to take as an example our Sweet Holy Mother, we would see that in order to be true slaves, we cannot even concern ourselves with such questions. We can recognize that such an approach can only be detrimental to being a slave, because it is indicative of an inability to submit oneself entirely. She did not ask Him “why” as they beat Her Son and spat upon His innocent face. How could she have prepared herself to see the face that she caressed with her tender touch for so many years be slapped and scourged? He did not offer her any explanation of the injustice she beheld as each nail was pounded into His flesh, and in effect, her heart. She didn’t understand what was happening, but she stayed true to her word: “Behold the slave of the Lord.”

This is why we must turn to her! This is why we must take her as our example in a world so filled with hatred and disgust. This is why, if we wish to find freedom and salvation, we must follow her example! And what an example! Would that we could all follow her example! Would that we could all use her as the perfect example for us that Christ intended for her to be! Would that we could utter those words with conviction: “Behold the slave of the Lord,” and inscribe them indelibly in our own hearts for all eternity! As I cradle my baby sons in my arms tonight, I will think of the great sacrifice she made. She held and cradled her own Son, never trying to assert her will or wishes over Him. He, as a helpless infant was completely entrusted to her care, but she did not allow that to later dissuade her from her original promise to be His slave in all things: in spite of the pain her heart felt watching those things; in spite of trusting in something she didn’t understand; in spite of a world that was completely contrary to the embodiment of obedience and purity that she has always represented. And in the end, the ways of the world, its ungodly teachings, none of it matters. Because we have as an example our sweet and Holy Mother, who was unwavering in her promise to Him: “Behold the slave of the Lord.” I only pray that she may help me have a firm resolve and dedication to be her Son’s slave. Since I cannot provide a good example for my children, I also pray that she can direct my children that the ONLY way for them to find freedom and salvation is to say firmly and waveringly: “Behold the slave of the Lord.” May this be granted by her most merciful prayers for each of us.

Juliana Chrisanthus, a resident of Pennsylvania, is a pediatric nurse by profession and currently a stay-at-home mom.