Weekly Creative Writing #16

Merton DeWitt Strom stumbled his way down the cliffs behind his house.  His eight-year old hands grasped the ancient rocks and moist moss of the rocky path and his blond, bleached hair was lightly bathed by the misty air.  The eyebrows of the elfin German boy were rigidly angled and sharply placed - to the point that if it weren’t for his German homestead and contemporary clothes, the boy could easily have been mistaken for the imperturbable student of a Hellenistic Stoic philosopher.   Yet, beneath those stolid eyebrows shone the bright and curious eyes of his youth - sparkling sea blue, with specks of grey - like the tranquil, speckled sky above him.   His high cheek bones were lightly freckled and he held up his sturdy little chin high as he walked, imitating his father.

It was Friday - a fast-day for his family.  For the whole village, really, since the only church for hundreds of miles was a small Roman Catholic parish.  And, Friday meant the traditional fish fry when the community of fishermen brought together their choice catches; the women cooked and chopped for hours; and the children entertained themselves with fantastical games and dangerous escapades.  Merton had become tired of aimlessly walking around the house, waiting for relatives to arrive, and smelling food which made his empty stomach rumble.  That old trail of his grandfathers’ and uncles’ stories seemed enchanting enough, despite his past fear of the place.  He wondered what he would find at the end of this difficult, rocky collection of rocks leading to the long-deserted lake. 

As he neared the water, his once clean shoes were christened in mud and the trees arched lower than usual to kiss the ground.  After parting the dew-heavy greenery, he stopped suddenly, realizing that he had reached the very edge of the shore, before it sank into the crystal lake water.  Just beyond was a stressed hut of some sort.  Small, old, with its pathway sunken beneath the water.  From where Merton stood, he could see a window casting light on the crude shadows of what seemed to be buoys and cages.  His stoic eyebrows raised in fascination and his eyes gleamed with that dangerous curiosity of childhood. It was still March, and the water was freezing, but he still waded his way to the make-shift door of the fishing hut - fully drenching his trachten socks.  

The interior was hardly a mansion - containing all that was familiar to him - that is, the tools of a fisherman. He found a bucket to stand on and hoisted himself up to the window with his scrawny arms.  He leaned out to see the view like so many before him had done as they waited for their fish. He shivered. It was cold.  His thin trousers, linen shirt, and suspenders were hardly enough to keep his petite body warm during this frigid spring season.  But he stayed, nonetheless, and played with the white puffs his every breath created in the frosty air.  

In his play, he never saw what happened behind him.  The ghosts of his ancestors came from the moss covered walls - all at once and struggling to be free.  Their eerie shapes walked, sat, and shuffled about the hut behind Merton - broad shouldered men just as blonde, just as freckled, and just as curiously stoic as him.  One phantom mended a net.  Another cast one.  A few others laughed in a corner, enjoying some equally wraith-like beer.  The genesis and history of his family walked behind him.  Each man passing on the trade of the net-and-hook to the next.  

Then, deep voices rang in the distance and the smell of frying fish finally invaded the little hut.  The families had come.  Merton didn’t want to go and he didn’t know why.  The view and hut felt like home.  But, still, he put his tyrolean alpine hat back on and turned towards the door.  The phantoms faded quickly into the past and into his heart.  He walked home, but now - now, he was connected to that place.  He would go back again and again, until his blond hair was silvery grey, and his hands were weathered by the lake and sea.  Like the threads of the delicate nets, he was now mended into that legacy of fishermen from his past.  And, later his son would join that webbed net of heritage, and so would all the young men after him - haunted by the phantoms of their fathers. 

For those of you who enjoy name origins, here are the meanings behind the German/European names of the main character:  Merton (one who settles by a lake) Dewitt  (blond) Strom (brook, stream). 

For the marvelous counterpart of this weekly themed creative writing project, visit:  http://thebeatlesandblackcoffee.blogspot.com  =) 

Quotes From the Ancient Desert Fathers =)

       Two of my favorite quotes from what I have read thus far in, “The Ancient Fathers of the Desert” - compiled and translated by Archimandrite Chrysostomos.  =)  The first one is especially relevant to me, since I love languages so dearly.   In it, he is simply saying he does not understand the “alphabet” of the man.  Many might take this as just meaning the Egyptian language; however, could this also mean the spiritual “language” of the man himself?  His mind? His fears? His circumstances?  We may know Greek, Latin, or have the wealth of this world's knowledge, but must we not also humble ourselves to learn the “alphabet,” the “language,” the “life” of another in order to communion with them?  To love them? To truly understand them? 

******

Once Abba Arsenios revealed his thoughts to an Egyptian elder and asked him about them. But a certain other Abba saw him and said to him: “Abba Arsenios, you have had so much education in Greek and Latin, yet you ask this man, so unlettered in worldly knowledge, about your thoughts?”

Abba Arsenios said to him: “Indeed, I know Roman and Greek letters well; but I have not yet learned even the alphabet of this simple man.”

******

“If our prayer is not in harmony with our deeds, we labor in vain,” Abba Moses often told the young monks. 

“How are we to accomplish such harmony?” they asked him one day. 

“When we make that which we seek fitting to our prayer,” explained the Saint. “Only then can the soul be reconciled with its Creator and its prayers be acceptable, when it sets aside all of its own evil intentions.” 

******

~ e.e.cummings and the church ~

A wonderful reminder of what a church should be - forever changing to remain the same. =) 

(Photo credits to Stamatia Hagen)

i am a little church(no great cathedral)
far from the splendor and squalor of hurrying cities
-i do not worry if briefer days grow briefest,
i am not sorry when sun and rain make april

my life is the life of the reaper and the sower;
my prayers are prayers of earth's own clumsily striving
(finding and losing and laughing and crying)children
whose any sadness or joy is my grief or my gladness

around me surges a miracle of unceasing
birth and glory and death and resurrection:
over my sleeping self float flaming symbols
of hope,and i wake to a perfect patience of mountains

i am a little church(far from the frantic
world with its rapture and anguish)at peace with nature
-i do not worry if longer nights grow longest;
i am not sorry when silence becomes singing

winter by spring,i lift my diminutive spire to
merciful Him Whose only now is forever:
standing erect in the deathless truth of His presence
(welcoming humbly His light and proudly His darkness)

~ e.e.cummings ~

A Study in Manuscripts: A Mystery St. Mark Left for Linguists, Scholars, and Theologians

Hello all!  Here is a paper I recently had to write for school, and thought I'd share it!  Constructive criticism is welcome, hope you all enjoy it! =)

A Study in Manuscripts: 

A Mystery St. Mark Left for Linguists, Scholars, and Theologians

       What is a manuscript by definition?  According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, it is “a written or typewritten composition or document as distinguished from a printed copy” or “writing as opposed to print.”  The word itself is rooted in the Latin manu scriptus - “written by hand.”  Overtime, copies, editions, and versions can develop stark differences.  A good example of these changes is within the Bible.  The Bible itself has undergone transcription, translation and reprinting since it was officially canonized in 397 A.D.  Certain branches of the Church have left out some books originally canonized; developed their own canon; or chosen to use different manuscripts of the Bible in the place of others.  For example, during the Reformation, books, now considered Apocryphal to the Western Church, were taken out of the original Majority texts of the Bible (i.e. Judith, Tobit, the Maccabees, etc.).  Many believe the removal was based on either lack of scriptural inspiration or monetary practicality in publication.  The Bible underwent even more changes in the 19th century when the traditional Majority Text manuscripts were moved aside for seemingly older manuscripts of the Bible, commonly identified as the Minority Text.  Most modern English translations of the Bible (such as the NIV or NASB) follow the Minority Text manuscripts, whereas older English translations (primarily the KJV) follow the Majority Text manuscripts.   

Differences in Transcription and Translation

       Outside of simple Apocryphal and Canonical differences in Church Traditions, other difficulties have arisen about the consistency of Scripture.  For example, certain Hebrew or Greek terms found in the Bible have meanings “untranslatable” into other languages.  This has resulted in similar rather than exact translations made to communicate ideas.  However, this can lead to exegetical confusion if the reader does not understand the original language of the document.  Paraphrasing is also an active difference in versions of the Bible.  The Message Bible, for instance, is a modern translation of the Bible which has paraphrased/rephrased the Greek to fit cultural idioms.  

       Yet, beyond all of these, the unmistakable differences in Minority and Majority texts of the Bible and how people have chosen to address those differences must be discussed.  From stark omission of a passage to a single word, the Minority and Majority Texts of the Bible contradict each other 3,000 times just in the Gospels!  One of the more serious contradictions is the inclusion or exclusion of Mark 16:9-20.  

Mark’s Rhetorical Style

       To give context, Mark has been characterized by some theologians as a “comic book” style writer - everything took place quickly and concisely, continuing on to the next event.  Using ευθυς - the Greek word for “immediately” - fifty-one times in his Gospel, his vocabulary choices are evidence of his speedy and practical rhetorical style.  He spends most of his time on the last week of Jesus’ life - compactly and chronologically summarizing His last few days.  Lastly, he uses the historical present tense over 150 times to demonstrate urgency.  His purpose was to highlight Christ’s non-stop work; how He truly came to “to seek and to save that which was lost;” and how He “seeked” diligently and with necessary urgency.  He portrayed the substantial requirements of the Christian life – then, effectively ending his Gospel with a specific highlight of Christ’s death and resurrection in Chapters 14-15. 

Discrepancy and Causes of Controversy

       The end of these chapters is where the controversy starts - Chapter 16.  Mark’s “τελος” (ending) has been analyzed with academic scrutiny and yet multiple elements of it still cause contention among leading scholars, linguists and theologians.  The first problem which arises is the two known endings to Mark - the Long Ending and the Short Ending.  The Short Ending (shown below) is a less familiar replacement of Mark 16:9-20.  It is found in only six Greek manuscripts and one Latin manuscript (Codex Bohiensis) from around 400 A.D.  Although it can be found in italics or in the footnotes of some Bibles (i.e. NASB), it is not a popular ending and is, in majority, rejected by all Traditions of the church.

“All that had been told to them, they told to Peter and his companions.  And after that Jesus Himself [appeared to them and] sent out through them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.  Amen.”

(Short Ending) 

       The Long Ending, however, is much more prominent in the church and has been accepted as canonical until recent speculation.  The Long Ending is commonly known as Mark 16:9-20 in almost every modern Bible available.  

“9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.  10 And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.  11 And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.  12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.  13 And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.  14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.  15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.  16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.  17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;  18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.  19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.  20 And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.”

(Mark 16:9-20, KJV)

       The recent speculation on the endings results from some inconsistencies between certain manuscripts of the Bible - some including the Long Ending and some removing it completely.  Those ancient manuscripts which do not contain the Long Ending - the Alexandrian texts, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus - are the bases for what is now known as the Minority Text.  The Majority Text has its foundation in mainly Byzantine manuscripts (along with Western and Caesarean manuscripts) most of which are considered “late” manuscripts - produced after 600 A.D.  Out of the 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the Bible, the Majority Text inhabits a vast 95% of them - all of them containing the Long Ending.  This is where the controversy started - which one is right?  The older one, with no ending?  Or, the countless “later” manuscripts with an ending? 

Five Major Views and Implications

In this case, scholars, pastors, linguists, and laymen take one of five major views concerning Mark 16:9-20:  

           1.  Those who include the verses, because they believe Mark wrote them.

2. Those who wish to include the verses, regardless of Mark’s authorship. 
3. Those who exclude the verses, even if Mark did write them. 
4. Those who exclude the verses because they believe Mark did not write them.
5. Those who include or exclude the verses based solely on historical evidence and not personal belief. 

       These five opinions can be found throughout the Church; however, the stance a person takes on Mark 16:9-20 will greatly “affect and reflect” his view on what defines Biblical canon.  Thus, the implications of inclusion or exclusion are huge.  First, most mainstream Protestants, Roman Catholics, and the Western Church as a whole are concerned with the placement and historical standing of Mark 16:9-20 because it directly affects the infallible inspiration of scripture.  Historical inaccuracy or unknown authorship is not acceptable or trustworthy.  The Eastern Church (Oriental and Eastern Orthodox) is concerned with the content of Mark 16:9-20 - is it heretical or edifying to the Christian faith?  Does it follow the criteria for canonization? 

       When it comes to determining a side to a controversy, a scholar must look toward the most natural proof in existence: evidence.  Some interpret evidence differently, depending on their worldview – absolute objectivity, in this situation, is impossible.  However, a brief summary and explanation of the current evidence for/against the Long Ending is very possible.  

External Evidence For and Against Including the Long Ending: 

External in Support: 

       The external evidence for the Long Ending is most convincing.  The words of the Early Church Fathers, textual resources, and dates have been supplied to support the Long Ending.  

To begin, the claim that Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus are the oldest (and thus considered the “most reliable”) manuscripts containing Mark is an erroneous statement.  Older and contemporary manuscripts to those two Codices exist as well.  Those include the Curetonian Syriac, the Coptic Sahidic, Bohairicn and Fayyumic versions, the Vulgate, Codex Ephraimi Rescriptus, Codex Washingtonensis, and most importantly, Codex Alexandrinus.  Codex Alexandrinus is regarded as equal, if not more consistent than Sinaiticus and Vaticanus - both holding their own noticeable discrepancies with other manuscripts.  All of these Codices, not including the two Alexandrian ones, contain the Long Ending and stand as external evidences for its inclusion.   

       Secondly, the Long Ending has received much reference from Patristic writings and other writings from and on the Early Church.  Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Tatian, Tertullian, Cyprian, the Gospel of Nicodemus, De Rebaptismate, Aphraates, Ambrose, Didymus, the Apostolic Constitutions, Jerome, Chrysostom, Leo, Severian, and Augustine all mention or contain some direct or indirect reference to Mark 16:9-20 (Long Ending).  These ancient witnesses were also spread across a large geographical area ranging from Gaul to Egypt to Syria.  Irenaeus, a Church Father who lived in the 2nd century - before Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were completed - explicitly quoted verse 19 from the Long Ending:

 "Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: 'So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God." 

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, (roughly A.D. 185), Book III, 10:5-6

       Lastly, the question should be raised as to why the early Alexandrian texts, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, do not contain any ending, in comparison to the rest.  How did this happen?  And, how does the Long Ending’s exclusion in these documents possibly support its inclusion?  Since Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are both Alexandrian texts, they were copied and scribed in similar locations and cultures.  If an inclusion or exclusion is found in one text - to be legitimately considered - that same variant must be found consistently throughout other texts from different regions or cultures.  However, this is not the case with Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.  They are the only Alexandrian texts of their kind which contain this exclusion of the Long Ending, whereas all other “branches” of texts and codices do not exclude it.  

External Against: 

       External evidence against the inclusion of the Long Ending is sparse.  Besides the weight which the Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus carry in modern translation, most external evidence supports the inclusion of the Long Ending in the canon.  Some Early Christian writers, such as the Church Historian Eusebius claim to have no knowledge of the Long Ending and are only familiar with the short ending or no ending at all.  However, these ancient witnesses are few.

Internal Evidence For and Against Including the Long Ending:

Before delving into the internal evidences, it must be noted that those who support the inclusion or exclusion of the Long Ending based on the internal evidence simultaneously take a stance on Mark’s authentic authorship of the passage.

Internal Against Inclusion: 

       Scholars and linguists say that the juncture between verses 8 and 9 is sudden and awkward, both in concept and language.  Conceptually, the immediate reference to Mary Magdalene in verse 9 is unusual to Mark’s typical style in regards to names and repetition of characters.  In addition, the women mentioned in verses 1-8 do not appear in the remainder of the chapter, whereas Mary does.  With regard to language, the Greek word “γαρ” (gar), a conjunction which simply means “for,” appears oddly placed at the very end of verse 8.  Grammatically, “γαρ” is not supposed to appear at the beginning of a Greek sentence.  There is no rule, however, that it is incorrect to be placed at the end.  Mark uses “γαρ” roughly four times in his Gospel, but never at the end of the sentence.  This inconsistency and abrupt ending causes some linguists or scholars to believe that the Long Ending is not original and was added on later to make up for a possible missing ending to Mark. 

In addition, scholars have examined the vocabulary used in the Long Ending in comparison with the rest of Mark and have found some inconsistencies.  Sixteen different vocabulary words, three of which are repeated more than once, are used in the passage, but nowhere else.  For example,“μορφή” (morphe) appears nowhere else in the Gospels, except for the Long Ending.  And, “απιστεω” (apisteo) does not appear anywhere in Mark but the Long Ending.  Also, Mark’s “favorite” word “ευθυς”(immediately) appears nowhere in the passage.  

        The different phraseology of the Long Ending is the last major argument for the internal evidence against it.  Eight different phrases are used in that particular passage, but nowhere else in Mark.  “μεν ουν”  (men oun "on the one hand therefore," v. 19) is one example of a phrase appearing only in Mark.  “Oi met' autou genomenoi ("those having been with him" vs. 10) is another obscure phrase - used only in this passage, when referencing the disciples.  
 

Internal For Inclusion: 

       Little internal evidence exists for the inclusion of Mark 16:9-20 and any evidence which does exist is in refutation to the internal evidence against the Long Ending’s inclusion.  In this case, the refuting arguments for the three internal reasons for exclusion are below:  

       1) In regards to the conceptual and language differences within the Long Ending, it was not uncommon for Mark to refer to people in the brief, repetitive way he referred to Mary Magdalene.  Three other instances in Mark (Mark 3:16, Mark 3:17 and Mark 7:26) reveal that Mark had sparingly used this instant flashback of character identification.

       2)  The vocabulary differences and inconsistencies in the Long Ending are not as inconsistent as they appear.  Although sixteen new words appear in the passage, eight of the sixteen are just constructions based off of root words which are found continuously throughout the rest of Mark and the New Testament.  Others appear elsewhere in the Bible to describe the same events portrayed in the Long Ending. 

       3) Lastly, the phraseology is truly different from any other found in Mark.  However, it can be argued that other Gospels and books of the Bible contain similar inconsistent phraseologies throughout them.  And, it must also be noted that another portion of Mark (chap. 15) includes phraseologies found nowhere else in the book. 

      Based off of the evidences for inclusion, the general purposes for including the Long Ending in Mark 16 are either because 1) a person is convinced by the external evidence that Mark 16:9-20 is authentic (in authorship and/or canonical accuracy) or 2) a person requires these evidences to prove the historical infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture.  

     The purposes for excluding the passage encompass a broad plain.  In summary, it can be said that either 1) a person is convinced by the internal evidence against the passage or 2) a person is uncomfortable with the possibility of error or apocryphal inclusion. 

Plausible Conclusion of Internal and External Evidence: 

     It is possible that Mark’s authorship of the Long Ending is authentic for several reasons.  First, Mark’s rhetorical style is erratic, fast paced and resembling an ancient “comic book” nature.  So, with regard to the internal evidence, it is very possible that the abrupt junctions, new vocabulary, and different phraseology were purposeful.  Did Mark actually write the Long Ending?  We will likely never know.  Scholars, linguists and theologians have become almost evenly divided on the issue after surveying the evidence.  God tells Job in Job 38:4, “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding.”  In the same way, we were not present for the writing, compiling, or transcription of the manuscripts of Mark and because of this we lack the most convincing and effective evidence: physical presence.  In the same way, C.S. Lewis says, 

“When I lay these questions before God I get no answer. But a rather special sort of 'No answer.' It is not the locked door. It is more like a silent, certainly not uncompassionate, gaze. As though He shook His head not in refusal but waiving the question.

Like, 'Peace, child; you don't understand.”

     However, the more significant question is whether the Long Ending should be included in the Bible as canonical.  The answer, given the evidence, is “yes.”  For centuries, the Long Ending has been regarded as not only canonical, but edifying to the church and used within it.  Regardless of the manuscript differences or vocabulary skirmishes, the passage itself contains the very “heart and soul” of countless mission statements, when it begins to say, “Go ye into all the world.”  And so, the question for inclusion or exclusion of the passage does not rest in historical accuracy or full assurance of Mark’s authorship, but on the edifying nature of the passage.  Is it used universally throughout the church?  How has the church used it throughout the centuries?   

Conclusion:

     The small inconsistencies in Mark and the troublesome history of the manuscripts emerged after the Minority Text began to take more precedence.  Consequently, the authenticity of the two separate endings (Long and Short) began to be (and still are being) hotly debated.  However, the primary debate is the inclusion or exclusion of Mark 16:9-20.  From the external evidence of manuscript statistics and Patristic writings to the internal evidence of nuances in the Long Ending’s language, the passage of Mark has made scholars, linguists, and theologians almost equally embattled.  These “sides” are taken based on the expert’s or layman’s priorities on the issue - be that accuracy, authorship, consistency, or edification.  However, the church has used the Long Ending of Mark for centuries - experiencing little controversy about it until recently.  Voltaire once said, “Judge a man by his questions rather than by his answers.” In addressing Mark, it is necessary to ask the right questions - questions about the true purpose and reason for the Long Ending. 

A valuable lesson from this controversy is that understanding the universals of purpose will set up a strong foundation for analyzing the particulars.

Sources/Bibliography: 

Jim , Snapps II. "The Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20." La Vista Church of Christ. (Copyright © 2003,2013): http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVarticles 

David, B Loughran. "Bible Versions ." (June 1999): http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/sbs777/vital/kjv/part1-4.html .

Reese, Currie. "Textual Choices and Bible Versions." Compass Distributors (Copyright ©1999): http://www.compassdistributors.ca/topics/textchoi.htm.

Bruce , Terry. "The Style Of The Long Ending Of Mark." ( Copyright © 1976, 1996): http://matthew.ovc.edu/terry/articles/mkendsty.htm.

Michael D. , Marlowe. "The Ending of Mark: Mark 16:9-20." Bible Research Internet Resources for Students of Scripture. ( Contents copyright © 2001-2012 ) http://www.bible-researcher.com/endmark.html.

Dave , Miller Ph.D. "Is Mark 16:9-20 Inspired?." Apologetics Press . (Copyright © 2005): https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=704 .

"Mark 16:9-20 - An Orthodox View ." John Mark Minitries . N.p., n. d. Web. 2 May. 2013. <http://www.jmm.org.au/articles/2365.htm>.

"Mark 16." Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16 

The Holy Bible. New King James. Reference Edition. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989.

The Holy Bible - American Standard Version. The Concise Bible Dictionary w/ Illustrations. Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1901.

The Holy Bible - 1599 Geneva Bible,. White Hall, West Virginia: Tolle Lege Press, 2006.

The Holy Bible - The Orthodox Study Bible,. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2008. 

The Holy Bible - ESV. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway bibles, 2007. 

The Holy Bible - NISB/NASB. Harvest House Publishers, 2000. 

To The District Speakers of St. John Chrysostom Oratorical Festival 2013!

The human brain starts working the moment you are born and never stops, 

until you stand up to speak in public."

--George Jessel 

We laugh, but it’s true!  

My first public speaking experience was terrifying.  My hands shook and I felt the whole world was shaking with them.  The audience was a blur.  I couldn’t visualize them in their underwear to save my life.  The fear of the mic coming alive suddenly and attacking my face was very real.  George Jessel was right - public speaking can leave you in the dust sometimes.  But, he has only told us half of the story. 

Emily Dickinson also once said, “A word is dead when it is said. Some say. I say it just begins to live that day.”  Nerves or not; failing or not; tech problems or not - words have the power to seep into us, wrap around our hearts and influence us, and move us to take action in our life.  Each word we say cannot be recalled.  It is out there, making its way through the world - floating around, landing on various ears, and hopefully landing on hearts.  The written word is a bounteous tool for us, but the spoken word is invaluable to us.  

And so, I would like to recognize the district speakers of St. John Chrysostom’s Oratorical Festival of 2013.   Today, I had the honor to volunteer as a co-facilitator and general assistant in the SJCOF district competitions and to hear the wonderful compositions and deliveries of my peers.   We had five junior speakers (7th-9th grade) and five senior speakers (10th-12th) with us today as we hosted the Festival at my home parish Sts. Rapheal, Nicholas and Irene.  You should’ve been there, guys. =)  It was really special what they did today.   

From delving deep into the Lenten prayer of St. Ephraim, to discussing Christian persecution, to fervently communicating the unity between service and leadership, these speakers left an immense impact on those who heard them and are a blessing to the parish which can call them their own.   Today, these speakers used their speech to better their own faith, and to better the faith of others.  They did not run with intellectual fervor away into the distance and leave their audience in the dust.  They did not stammer in the background and fiddle with some pretty words - leaving us wishing they had more to say.  No, they walked beside us as an audience and as Orthodox people and, through speaking, took our hands in the great pilgrimage we call our Christian walk.  Words are an incarnation of thought.  Thoughts lodge in the head and become ideas.  And neither can ideas nor words be removed from time - once out there, they have inhabited their place in space and time.  

These speakers certainly left a mark in space and time today - to further their Orthodox faith and stand strongly for it.   Congratulations to all of them!   Regardless of who won, they all have left a positive impression and Sts. Rapheal, Nicholas and Irene will never forget them. =)  For those moving on and for those who are finished - don’t stop!  Keep speaking, even when you aren’t competing.  Don’t let your words gather dust and don’t think your influence ends at an oratory event.  You have a message, and I promise you, the world has never been wont of hungry ears, needing to hear the good news. =) 

May God bless all of you!  You were certainly a blessing to us! 

My church thanks you, and I thank you. 

May we all meet again soon!