Joyful Light

Pilgrimage to Mount Athos

2007-01-17T17:00:00.000-07:00

Those who love Elder Ephraim might take encouragement from the following comments, from an account of a seminarian's pilgrimage to Mount Athos last summer:

We went to Φιλοθέου, where the ἀρχοντάρης was very kind to us. This is the monastery of Elder Ephraim, and they have a special devotion to him and Elder Joseph the Hesychast. We saw a painting of Elder Joseph in the style of an icon—as K said, “just waiting for the halo.” Everywhere we went, people asked if we knew Elder Ephraim. He is much revered on Athos.

The account of the whole pilgrimage can be found here. Lots of interesting details and pictures!

Monasteries of Elder Ephraim

2007-01-08T11:25:00.000-07:00

Icon depicting the monasteries in North America founded by Elder Ephraim.

The Spiritual Legacy of St Joseph the Hesychast -- A retreat at St Anthony’s Monastery in Florence, Arizona

2006-10-23T12:40:00.000-07:00

Excerpt: In his book, Anchored in God, Constantine Cavarnos describes a visit he made to the New Skete on Mount Athos in 1958. Cavarnos, a renowned author and professor of Byzantine Studies met with the famous elder and teacher of mental prayer, Monk Joseph, who had been instrumental in rejuvenating the spiritual life of the monasteries on the Holy Mountain. Monk Joseph, a saint and holy elder in the tradition of the Church Fathers, left a very powerful spiritual legacy which continues today not only in Greece but also in Europe and America.

… Full article at http://www.pokrov-seattle.org/Ephraim.html.

Epistle of Archbishop Kyrill of San Francisco (ROCOR)

2006-10-23T12:38:00.000-07:00

Anyone who is following the reunion of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia with the Moscow Patriarchate might be interested in this recent epistle from Archbishop Kyrill of San Francisco.

In English: click here

In Russian: click here

Article on St John the Forerunner Monastery in Goldendale, Washington

2006-10-23T12:29:00.000-07:00

Orthodox nuns live for God
By ADRIANA JANOVICH
YAKIMA HERALD-REPUBLIC

SATUS PASS -- On a pine-covered patch off U.S. Highway 97, the Pacific Northwest meets the Byzantine Empire.

Evergreens shelter a collection of structures that look more like typical Northwest cabins than a Greek Orthodox monastery.

In the wee hours, the woods are dark. So still, so quiet, so peaceful. Elsewhere, bars are closing, truckers are making the long haul, children have been asleep for hours.

...

Full article at http://www.yakima-herald.com/page/dis/313783609642789

Article on Holy Archangels Monastery in Texas

2006-08-22T11:54:00.000-07:00

Home for the Greek Orthodox faithful
Web Posted: 08/22/2006 09:46 AM CDT
J. Michael ParkerExpress-News Religion Writer

KENDALIA, Texas — Off FM 473, 6 miles east of here near U.S. 281, a modest sign directs visitors down a meandering 3-mile road to an oasis of Greek Orthodox spirituality hidden in the middle of the Texas Hill Country.

Each Sunday, 80 to 100 visitors gather to attend a 9 a.m. Divine Liturgy at the Holy Archangels Greek Orthodox Monastery. Those who don't live in San Antonio, Austin or the Hill Country rent nearby motel rooms.

Full article at http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA082206.01B.ORTHDOXY0822.2f2723f.html

Responses to KVOA broadcast

2006-02-14T06:21:00.000-07:00

Recently, the Tucson television station KVOA broadcast a very one-sided "investigative report" on Saint Anthony's Monastery.

Even non-Orthodox friends and relatives of mine saw how "skewed" the report was.

The following Open Letter from George Chondropoulos expresses the feelings of many (posted with permission).

From: George Chondropoulos
To: kchoal@kvoa.com
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 21:58:24 -0700
Subject: AN OPEN LETTER TO THE KVOA NEWS DIRECTOR -- RE: THE “MONASTERY REPORT”

Madame:

My wife and I can not recall if you are one of the persons we met during our short visit to your TV station, before the “Monastery Mystery” report aired. I believe that we had a short meeting with you and Mr. Brad Stone. We introduced ourselves as the happy parents of a very happy monastic. We explained to you that we live in Arizona and we were shocked that a story about or from monastic parents would be aired. Knowing some info about the interviewees, we volunteered to be interviewed as well. We also informed you that your story represents only the negative side which also happens to be the absolute MINORITY! We also informed you that there are many other parents, just like us, that can be here in a moment’s notice, and would gladly provide you with all kinds of un-prepared, un-practiced feedback. You, of course, refused our offer and instead urged us to view your so-called fair and unbiased report.

We did view it, but fair and unbiased it was not. We can emphatically and categorically state that the story was greatly biased and extremely unfair. First and foremost, the simple response which you received BEFORE it aired should have caused you to raise your antennas. You did not stop to think and then repeated your error on two different nights. I am certain that the overwhelming response in support of the monasteries must have certainly caused you some concern; if it did not, then I kindly suggest that you are foregoing your fiduciary responsibility as journalists and reporters.

We, the happy parents of Greek Orthodox monastics, do not have a coalition group, yet. However we are parents and we are human, just like you; thus, when somebody attacks the very institution that our child is part of and presents misinformation and slander of the type that you anxiously accepted as de facto from David Smith, it causes great concern to say the least. It is for this reason that we are writing to you to inform you of your report’s deleterious impact upon us, our children, and our fellow Orthodox Christians. After all, when you attacked monasticism, you also attacked our 2000-year old religion in a manner that is unacceptable, prejudicial and highly unethical.

You see, Ms. Choal,, you and your peers have no right to make my wife cry with lies and innuendos; you have no right to accept the word of a character like Smith and disregard the truth which the monastics presented to you, along with Fr. Anthony. You did a masterful job of picking the worst possible few seconds of Fr. Anthony’s 2-1/2 hour interview so that you can introduce your pre-determined agenda. You thus also condemned a retired priest who dedicated his entire life to God. But then, you were worried about ratings… oh those ratings, how quickly they make you all compromise your integrity!

You also took the word of a troubled woman like Ms. Alec, whose own husband did not participate in this fiasco report. Additionally, you accepted input from a peculiar individual like Ashley Nivens who has made himself a prophet and declares false truths to anybody who will give him a small amount of time. As far as the Pantanizopoulos family, when you mentioned that their child was back home, you did it briefly and never questioned how in the world he “escaped” from this God-awful monastery prison, and why did he leave with the help of the monastics who supposedly guarded him and brainwashed for the last 9+ years. You did not even bring up that several other monks and nuns have left the monasteries upon their expression of such wish, even though you knew it and you knew it very well.

I can not help but ask: Do you consider yourselves ethical journalists (or even just journalists) with such type of reports? Do you have any concept how many parents shed tears because of your story? Do you know how many Jewish-heritage monks (yes, there are several monastics of Jewish descent) were not only perplexed but astonished and upset with your anti-Semitism garbage? Yes, I call it YOUR garbage and not Smith’s – anybody spending any amount of time with him should be able to surmise that this is an extremely unstable young man – and you knew MUCH more about him, yet you went with this garbage! Do you also know how many siblings or nephews or other relatives got confused because the place they go (i.e., St. Anthony’s) is NOT the place you described?

I will try in parent-talk to explain to you a couple of things about this monastic “call” that you obviously neither understand nor took the time to understand. I have three sons who, since their early youth, have been going in and out of this or that monastery, off and on, for several years (and much longer than Smith). Somehow, though, their brains were not washed away by the monks and they selected to remain in the world and pursue a family life. Their sister, on the other hand, who spent much less time than them talking with or being around the monastics, decided to become a nun. And even then, she was a novice for over five years! YES! Five years! Think about that! Why would a brainwashing institution need five years to do their KVOA-hypothesized brainwashing job? Could it be that KVOA has been misled by those who are known polemics to the monasteries into a false story?

You need to think about my words, you need to realize that all these people that contacted you, they truly love the monastery for what it is, a unique spiritual oasis that heals the soul and provides comfort and support to all faithful Orthodox Christians; and I ask that you also take the time to picture my wife crying, you need to consider that there were many tears shed by many monastic mothers and many Orthodox faithful over the falsehoods of your story, and when you get this picture clear in your mind, think for a second that this could be YOUR mother… or YOUR wife… or YOUR sister…

How does it feel?

George Chondropoulos
Queen Creek, Arizona

Response to David Smith's continued allegations of anti-Semitism

2006-02-12T20:38:00.001-07:00

I am finding it difficult to give an adequate answer to David (Nephon) Smith’s latest webpage, where he addresses my earlier blog on Elder Ephraim’s supposed anti-Semitism.

The difficulty does not lie in answering Smith’s specific complaints; in fact, he really makes only one specific accusation, namely, that Elder Ephraim teaches anti-Semitism (which I have already refuted). Rather, the difficulty lies in the long and winding path by which Smith arrives at that one accusation. This is a path strewn with misconceptions, misunderstandings, innuendo, and petty nonsense. It is very time-consuming to attempt to address each of these twists and turns – requiring more time than I have at my disposal. Therefore, I will provide a sampling, which I hope will be sufficient to indicate the strained character of Smith’s argumentation. Following this, I will address one or two concrete issues.

Smith begins his answer to my earlier posting with a perplexing statement – “I never said the monks were racists or anti-Semites. I said that Ephraim’s teachings are anti-Semitic.” What is the purpose of this hair-splitting? Is he trying to distinguish between the terms “anti-Semite” and “anti-Semitic”? What is the point here? Following the same online dictionary that Smith referenced (link, and especially link), one sees that these terms are essentially synonomous: an anti-Semite is one who promotes anti-Semitic teaching.

Is he then trying to distinguish between the teachings of the monks at Elder Ephraim’s monasteries, and the teachings of the Elder himself? This does not make sense either, as Smith repeatedly refers to “the Monastery's network of people”, teachings “propagated by the Monastery”, “taught by the monks”, or by “the Elder’s followers”. He generally equates all of these things.

Perhaps Smith intended to communicate some nuance that escapes my notice; were it not for this possibility, I would be inclined to regard Smith’s statement as petty equivocation.

Continuing through Smith’s argument, he makes the following assertions.

(1) The Protocols are absolutely proven forgery.

My response: There are many reasonable people who would not make such a firm and absolute assertion, either for or against the Protocols. I will address this later on in this post.

(2) Smith demonstrates that Elder Ephraim’s disciples have expressed various opinions on the issue, some opposing the authenticity of the Protocols, and some supporting it. He quotes from several of these people.

Smith looks upon this variety of opinion as vacillation – people scrambling to downplay the Elder’s references to the Protocols. Smith describes this circumstance as “interesting”, insinuating that there is some attempt at a “cover-up”.

A much simpler explanation is that, in fact, the Elder’s spiritual children are ordinary people with their own reasonably considered opinions, some of them accepting the Protocols as valid, some denouncing them, and others never having heard of them at all. However, Smith cannot take this position, because he asserts that the Elder is running a cult, that the Elder’s spiritual children “aren’t allowed” to have any opinions of their own, and that the Elder is “pushing” the Protocols on his “followers”. The more rational explanation is much simpler.

(3) Smith provides a quote from Saint Ambrose of Milan, presenting it in a light that makes the Saint appear to be an anti-Semite.

Smith does not even refer to this Holy Father as a Saint, but refers to him simply as “Bishop Ambrose of Milan”, despite the fact that Saint Ambrose is universally regarded as one of the greatest fathers of the Western Church. One immediately suspects that the Saint has been quoted out of context, and upon reading the source of the quote, one finds that this is indeed the case.

Saint Ambrose is writing a letter to the Emperor Theodosius, asking for clemency for a village bishop and some other Christians who were accused of burning down a synagogue. Apparently the Emperor had already decreed a sentence in the matter, and Saint Ambrose reminds him that the accused bishop had not even been allowed to give a defense of himself. The Saint further reminds the Emperor that many Jews and pagans had recently destroyed a large number of basilicas and churches, and had received no punishment for their deeds. How, then, could the Emperor rightly mete out a strict punishment against these Christians, whose guilt had not even been proven? This would not only be unjust, but would also be showing partiality to those who deny Christ; by doing so, the Emperor would be making himself an enemy of Christ.

In the course of this epistle, one can find the passage quoted by Smith. Smith condemns the “hateful practice” of burning synagogues, insinuating that Saint Ambrose actually condones this, where this is not at all what Saint Ambrose is advocating. Saint Ambrose was writing in defense of a particular group of Christians in the case of a particular event, not at all trying to persuade people in general to rise up against civil order and burn down synagogues as a general practice. Saint Ambrose certainly uses strong language in his admonition of the Emperor, referring to several Old Testament passages that condemn the false religion practiced at times by the ancient Jews, but this language is not even as strong as that used by the Apostles themselves (cf. Rev. 3:9).

In my opinion, Smith has shown himself to be an unreliable patristic interpreter, spinning the Saint’s writings to fit his own purposes. He skews the evidence to support his pre-determined conclusion. He even dares to misrepresent a great father of the Church in this way.

(4) Smith finally makes a concrete accusation – “There is NO place in Christianity for the kind of statements about Jews (or anyone else) that Ephraim is making and encouraging his followers to make.”

However, Smith has very little to stand on. He refers to one or two obscure references to the Protocols in Elder Ephraim’s books, and based on this he claims the Elder is teaching anti-Semitism. Based on the writings of “a disciple of Fr. Paisios”, who provides a general characterization of Judaic spirituality, Smith assumes he learned these things from St. Anthony’s Monastery, and declares there is “NO place in Christianity” for opinions of this kind.

Smith imagines there is a concerted secret effort going on amongst Elder Ephraim’s spiritual children to incite prejudice against the Jews and get people to believe in the Protocols. But Smith himself demonstrates that the Elder’s spiritual children have expressed many different opinions on the matter.

I think it is fair to ask, who is really being prejudiced here? Who is really taking an extreme position and making a ridiculous argument?

Now, to move on to Smith’s specific allegations. Smith continues to charge Elder Ephraim with teaching anti-Semitism, based solely on the Elder’s referring to the Protocols as though they were a genuine document. Smith cites many sources that purport to make the case that the Protocols are a forgery.

As I have already pointed out, it is quite possible for reasonable people to look at the evidence on both sides of the issue, and come to different conclusions. I personally believe that this happens because the issue is quite complex. People think differently and give different weight to the various points of evidence, thereby reaching different conclusions.

Smith, however, seems to think that the only way a person can assess the evidence and then conclude that the Protocols are genuine, is if the person is already predisposed by anti-Semitic prejudice. Of course, Smith’s approach precludes any rational discussion of the topic, since if a person takes the opposing point of view, Smith will denounce him as de facto anti-Semitic.

Smith therefore concludes that the Elder must teach (and therefore believe) anti-Semitism, because the Elder apparently teaches (and believes) that the Protocols are genuine.

I have already given substantial evidence to show that the Elder has absolutely no prejudice towards the Jews. But the only thing that seems to matter to David Smith is the Elder’s opinion of the Protocols; this is enough to convict the Elder of anti-Semitism. It doesn’t matter that many of the Elder’s spiritual children are Jews. It doesn’t matter that many of the monks and nuns in the Elder’s monasteries are Jews. It doesn’t matter that even the Elder’s personal physician is a Jew. It doesn’t matter to Smith that none of these people have ever complained of anti-Semitism from the Elder or from the monasteries, and that they have experienced no negative prejudice shown toward them. The only thing that seems to matter is this one allegation — that Smith believes the Protocols are a fraud — and anyone who disagrees with his opinion is anti-Semitic.

Which point of view is truly prejudiced?

Regarding names

2006-02-12T19:48:00.000-07:00

I personally find it disappointing that David Smith does not care to refer to Elder Ephraim with his customary title. He does not even acknowledge the Elder’s priesthood by calling him “Father” Ephraim. Does Smith not share in common civility? Or does he mean to insinuate that the Elder is not a real priest, or that he has not really been the Abbot of the ruling Monastery on Mount Athos (Philotheou), and the founder and spiritual father of countless other monasteries? In the Greek tradition every abbot is called “Geronda” (Greek for “Elder”). Perhaps this grates upon our American ears, and if that is the case, Smith could at least use the respectful title of “Father” and give deference to the sacrament of ordination.

Elizabeth Davis retracts statements supporting David Smith

2006-02-07T17:57:00.000-07:00

On David Smith’s website, he gives links to several messages that Elizabeth Davis posted on the Indiana Orthodox discussion list, which appear to support his position against Elder Ephraim.

However, Elizabeth Davis has publicly retracted all such statements. You can see her retractions here and here. With Elizabeth’s permission, I am copying the text of her most recent post below.

A while back when David Smith first posted here, I made the grave mistake of collaborating some of the things he said. I had no idea of his motives or to the extent he was willing to take this. Once that became apparent to me, I publicly distanced myself from my initial posts.

Now I have learned that he has included links to my initial posts on his website. I am very concerned because this is a grave distortion of what I said. It obviously does not include my later posts.

Is this right? Most e-mail lists consider posts made there as copyrighted property either of the authors or the e-mail list. Do I have any legal rights here?

It is not worth posting here if what I say can be taken out of context and then used to hurt the Church. This is very grievious and concerning for me.

I am so very sorry for ever saying anything regarding this issue. I am so very sorry that I have given the enemy of the Church more ammunition to hurt her.

I pray I may be able to find forgiveness with all this.

Most unworthily in Christ,
Elizabeth Davis

Elizabeth Davis has asked David Smith to remove all references to her prior posts, since she has retracted those statements. However, the links can still be found on Smith’s website – see the first and third links given on this page.

Sorry no updates lately...

2006-01-25T21:58:00.000-07:00

I haven't had time to post anything lately. But I did come across this testimony about Elder Ephraim by Juliana Chrisanthus, RN. Perhaps it will be helpful to someone.

Does Elder Ephraim teach anti-Semitism?

2005-12-11T17:35:00.000-07:00

As I mentioned earlier, I intend to address the issues raised by David Smith one-by-one.

The first issue he raises is anti-Semitism. He accuses Elder Ephraim and the Fathers at Saint Anthony's Monastery of being anti-Semites. Such a claim is absolutely unfounded.

It is worth mentioning that the Elder's own personal medical doctor in Phoenix is a Jew. A lawyer that the Monastery uses is also a Jew. In addition, there are a number of Monks who are from Jewish backgrounds, and at least one of the Orthodox Priests who regularly visits St. Anthony's Monastery is a Jewish convert to Christianity. I know two of these people quite well, and they have never complained of any anti-Semitic teaching coming from Elder Ephraim.

Smith provided some quotes from some of Elder Ephraim's writings to try to prove that the Elder is anti-Semitic. For example:

One Sunday, a preacher delivered a sermon on "love your enemies." On the Sunday after, he spoke against alcohol addiction - about the havoc it wrought among the Christian peoples. Incidentally, the infamous Zionists greatly boast about this in their notorious 'Protocols.'

It is important to note, in the quotes cited by Smith, Elder Ephraim speaks against the Zionists, not Judaism or the Jewish people.

Zionism is not equivalent to Judaism -- not at all. Zionism is "an international movement originally for the establishment of a Jewish national or religious community in Palestine, and later for the support of modern Israel" (Merriam-Webster). The ranks of the Zionists have included many who are not even Jewish -- for example, many American Evangelicals identify themselves with the Zionist movement.

Many people of greatly varied political and religious views are opposed to Zionism for many different reasons, and it would be ridiculous to claim that all of them are anti-Semites. There are even Jewish people and organizations that oppose Zionism. Are they also anti-Semites? This is plainly ridiculous.

Thus, there is no foundation at all to the accusation that Elder Ephraim and/or the fathers at Saint Anthony's Monastery are racists or anti-Semites. This accusation simply has no basis.

Introduction

2005-12-11T17:30:00.000-07:00

David (Nephon) Smith has been writing some things on the Internet about Elder Ephraim and Saint Anthony's Monastery that require a response.

My family and I have been visiting Saint Anthony's Monastery regularly since 1998 and are familiar with the teachings of the Elder, the way of life of the Fathers there, and some of the other Holy Monasteries founded by Elder Ephraim. We know many people who live nearby the monasteries, and countless others (clergy and laypeople) who regularly visit and obtain spiritual benefit.

The statements made by David Smith do not do justice to the real situation at the Monasteries and do not convey an accurate understanding of the Elder's teachings.

It is the intention of this blog to help clear up some of the misunderstandings and to attempt to give a more accurate portrayal of the teachings of the Elder and the way of life encouraged thereby.

Blog comments that follow the rules of common courtesy and civility are welcome. If you wish to comment anonymously, please at least email me privately so I know with whom I am conversing.