Entries with tag ecumenism .

The Ecumenical Way

A few years ago, my parents threw a college graduation party for my brother. I had just finished the first year of my M.Div. program, so naturally everyone’s ice-breaker was the I-don’t-care-I-just-don’t-know-what-else-to-ask question “how was your first year of school?” But hey, it’s better than the I-don’t-care-I-just-feel-obligated question my brother was getting: “so what’s next?”

One of my neighbors was raised Catholic, and not marginally. His family is Polish and his grade-school teachers were nuns. At some point in college however, he met Jerry Garcia and became his disciple instead. Yet, my neighbor still knew enough church-talk to carry on a conversation better than most guests.

He asked me about some of the differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, so I began to explain that the breach in communion is not as clear-cut as it often seems. Suddenly, an older relative of mine, who has likely received more catechesis from memes than from any formal religious education program, suddenly interjected, “Yes, you split off from us!”

I sighed. There it was: ignorant Orthodox entitlement. She probably thinks Jesus was Greek too. Her conviction spoke louder than her comment and is a reflection of a common misconception and strong historical bias influencing the Church’s relationships This has a tendency to create an us vs. them mentality toward the rest of Christendom. Even through the Holy and Great Council does the Church seek to amend this understanding by fostering dialogue and taking a lead role in the Ecumenical Movement.

As I attempted to quell the inadvertent hostility her comment may have imposed, my neighbor interrupted to say, “It’s ok, we all believe the same thing anyways.” My relative, in her usual contradiction of thought, agreed.

The conversation ended and I was left baffling over how it swung from the rhetoric of ultra-conservatives to that of John Lennon.

I reflect on this occasion because it likens to the tension an Orthodox can feel when engaging in ecumenical relations. Some are hardened by akribeia and object to interaction, but where is the economia and compassion toward our Christian neighbors who may live truer to Christ’s teachings? Some find certain practices and beliefs of other traditions more appealing and begin to customize their faith, but are they not at risk of diluting the Orthodox way? It can be difficult to navigate, but the perspectives shouldn’t be polarizing.

Every mainstream church in the United States has men and women, ordained and lay, who are responsible for facilitating ecumenical relations on behalf of the greater body. They are the ambassadors constantly in communication about issues of faith, order, and philanthropy.

There are many opportunities for collaboration, but, once a year, the ecumenical officers gather in retreat. Rather than convening to produce a statement or develop a program, the purpose of the retreat is to allow for organic dialogue among communions, which increases personal relationships and promotes comprehension and appreciation.

His Eminence Archbishop Demetrios Geron of America with representatives from eleven different Churches and Communions

His Eminence Archbishop Demetrios Geron of America with representatives from eleven different Churches and Communions.

 

Last month, the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America had the honor of hosting this year’s retreat and welcomed eleven officers. If you ask them what the goal of the ecumenical movement is, each will tell you it is for the restoration of God’s Church. If that sounds prodigious, it’s because it is. Push them further on how such a lofty goal is to be realized, each will humbly admit they can’t provide the specifics. However, they will likely suggest the following:

First, like all ministries in the Church, a Christ-centered approach is required to meet one another with a clean heart and true intentions. As we seek to feed the hungry and clothe the naked, so too should we strive to fulfill Christ’s prayer “that they all may be one” (John 17:21). Regardless of who has maintained the genuine faith, we must acknowledge that Christendom is fractured and “if a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand” (Mark 3:25). It is our responsibility to put forth effort into uniting all Christians.

Second, it must be understood that the goal is abstract. No one knows how unity will be achieved and expressed, which makes the case for ecumenism difficult to articulate. This lack of a clear vision discourages some and keeps them in the trajectory of isolation. However, those laboring in the ecumenical vineyard agree that unity will be achieved according to God’s will, and that we must take initiative when God provides opportunities for contact and growth. The officers appreciate these instances for retreat as a manifestation of God’s will and a small, yet progressive, part of His plan.

Third, proper and unbiased knowledge of history is necessary to understand why certain divisions in Christianity were forged. In most cases, I would argue, the egos of influential individuals, or reactions to such, are the causes of longstanding divisions. Therefore, we cannot retain the grudge of past generations to further this destruction but instead move forward with reconciliation (see 4B).

Ecumenists know that communication is delicate and words must be precise. They speak with sensitivity so as to advance the movement, not hinder it. The first tangible step is to listen and learn from each other’s story. Such is the intention of their retreat; the ecumenical officers enjoy conversation to better understand the perspectives of each communion. They are open to a diversity of expressions toward God as well as to the Spirit’s presence and abilities. After all, no one can dictate limits on God’s infinite and unconditional love.

The ecumenical officers engage at a national level and will continue to retreat together. However, there are ways for all Orthodox faithful to interact with and learn about the Christians in their own neighborhoods, such as co-sponsoring an event, contributing toward a common social initiative, or participating in shared worship or a fellowship meal. We each can offer of ourselves to work toward the reunification of God’s Church. As we do so, remember that the task is noble and directed by God, to Whom we constantly ask, “surround us with your holy angels that, guarded and guided by them, we may arrive at the unity of the faith, and the understanding of your ineffable glory.”

____________________

Andrew Calivas is the Coordinator of Ecumenical Programs for the Department of Inter-Orthodox, Ecumenical & Interfaith Relations.

____________________

Our Personal Role in Healing the Divided Christian Witness

I admit it. I was totally fangirling the whole time Pope Francis was in the United States. I wanted to see what he would say, how he would challenge both government and Roman Catholic leaders. It’s exciting to see such an important Christian figure welcomed into the American public sphere. Plus, I actually like the man; he’s a likeable guy!

But once I got past the curiosity of what Pope Francis would say next, and how the media would fail to adequately report on religion, I was reminded of the pain that comes from a divided Christian community. The Pope of Rome just represents one fraction of the Christian world. For a non-Christian looking in from the outside, there’s a smorgasbord of Christian groups – people can choose whatever flavor they’d like. But is this “choose your own adventure” approach to American religion really the paradigm that Christ set for us when He established His Church?  

Jesus desires that all who follow Him be one, just as He and the Father are one (John 17:21). But today, Christians are divided into Orthodox, Roman Catholics, Protestants, Non-Denominations, etc. So where does that leave us as Christians? We could despair over living in a broken world, or we can consider ways we can do our part to heal the brokenness in our neck of the woods.  

An important point of clarity before we proceed, though. The Orthodox Church – a community of believers, the Body of Christ knit together through our common baptism – is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I say this, not to be triumphalist (as we discussed last week), but because this is our identity.  

As much as we long for unity with other Christians, the Church is not divided in itself. I do not receive only partial sacraments, nor is the Church substantially lacking. The Orthodox Church does not need the Roman Church to be whole, nor would it be more Orthodox if everyone converted. Instead, our divisions are sad simply because we hope for all people to share in the unity that is in Christ.

And, on a more practical level, Christians today cannot offer a unified witness to Jesus Christ when we are so deeply divided. That’s tragic, because the world so deeply yearns for Him.

With that said, here are some things each of us can begin to do today to bring healing to our divisions.

1. Know your own tradition

Before you can talk to someone about who they are, you need to know who you are.  So before you can talk with someone about their faith, you have to learn about your own. This is particularly true for us Orthodox in America since we are such a small percentage of the population. You may be the only Orthodox Christian your neighbor ever meets. That means we all have a responsibility to accurately represent our faith in Christ to those around us.

That can feel overwhelming, so where can you start?

First, participate in the Liturgy regularly and attend a new service you haven’t yet (matins, vespers, paraklesis, etc.) Ask your priest questions. Check out a Bible study at a local Orthodox parish. Pick up a book on Orthodox Christianity and read it. (I recommend “The Orthodox Church," which deals with history and teachings, and “The Way of the Pilgrim,” which is a sort of spiritual fiction on prayer.) Get a prayer book and use it. Open up your Bible and get to know it. Catch up on episodes of “Be the Bee,” “The Trench,” and “Coffee With Sister Vassa,” as well as the great podcasts on Ancient Faith Radio.

If you don’t know your own faith, it’s easy to paint broad strokes and assume that all churches are essentially the same. What we may dismiss as mere details actually matter. Allowing our ignorance to lead us into assuming that we know better disrespects the deeply held beliefs of all churches, not just our own.

Bottom line: when we are engaged and knowledgeable of our own tradition, we will be prepared to encounter others.

2. Make friends with people in other churches

I cannot have a relationship with an idea; I can only know and love another person.

If I am to see Christ in my neighbors, and share Christ with my neighbors, I must get to know them as persons. Trust and friendship will pave the way for honest dialogue and protect against unfruitful argument, judgment, and stereotypes.

Too often, people talk about other Christian churches without having actually made friends with people of that tradition. This leads to the creation of caricatures that exist only in our minds and uncharitable arguments that do not come from the love of Christ. So make friends with faithful Roman Catholics, faithful Evangelicals, faithful Protestants of any tradition. Share meals together, get to know one another’s families. Once you are invested in who they are, then you are on an appropriate footing to talk about Orthodoxy – naturally and in its proper context: a relationship. We’ve got to love one another to properly share the Lord’s love.

3. Be obedient and trust in the Holy Spirit

Our society distrusts rules and regulations. We hear a rule and want to challenge it. We are given a boundary and want to cross it. When it comes to faith, the temptation to question authority is just as common. Questioning can be good and healthy, but it must be accompanied by trust that the Holy Spirit is also at work. If the Holy Spirit is working in the Church, then the guidelines that we are given might actually be inspired by God and not simply created by men.  These boundaries may prove to be the evidence and consequences of real division rather than the causes of it.

In particular, I have in mind the issue of Holy Communion. The Orthodox Church teaches that only baptized and chrismated Orthodox Christians can receive the Eucharist (Holy Communion) in the Orthodox Church. That means that Roman Catholics and other Christians cannot receive unless they become Orthodox. Many people could see this as uninviting or inhospitable if we forget the first point: know your own faith first.

In the Orthodox Church, the Eucharist is the climax of a relationship that we have not only with Jesus Christ but with one another in the Church. We receive the Body of Christ because we already are His Body, the Church. Yet we also receive to better become His Body through living out our life in Christ as a community. We partake of the Eucharist after a common work of prayer and fasting, and also after something else we do together during the Liturgy: a confession of Faith when we recite the Creed. We cannot partake of the same meal if we are not sitting at the same table.

We cannot receive communion together, an expression of unity, if we are not actually and substantively united. There can be no communion without community. Receiving the Eucharist in a church to which we do not belong takes Holy Communion from being a life-giving demonstration of community and turns it into a public act of self-will and disobedience, no matter how good the intention may be.

 

It’s natural for Christians to mourn the divisions that exist between the churches, but we must not mourn as those who have no hope. As individuals we cannot force union between the churches, but we can build relationships with people in other faith communities. We can root ourselves more strongly in our own faith while not being afraid to make friendships with members of other churches.  And finally, we can practice obedience to God and reliance on His will, instead of insisting upon our own.

Each of us can follow this model of mutual respect and friendship, because ultimately we all yearn for relationship instead of division. And in these small ways we can make great strides at healing our divided Christian witness as we follow Jesus’ commandment: “love one another: just as I have loved you…all people will know you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:34-35).

Myth-Busting and Reality-Checking: Historical and Political Commentary on the Endangered Reality of Christians in the Middle East

The fact that the Christian presence—living, breathing people, and the churches, monasteries, cemeteries, schools, and libraries that were built and inhabited by those people—in the Greater Middle East is undergoing a steady process of erasure was a headline subject in several recent events along the East Coast corridor where academic, policy, and religious communities converge.  Having spilled a lot of ink, expended many hours in air travel, and returned to the safety of life as a Christian in America, I accepted invitations to speak at two events this past week that dealt with the emergency reality that Christians face each day in the Middle East. 

There’s a kind of spiritual, psychic, and emotional fatigue that creeps into the discussions about how to help the plight of an entire people facing daily threats to their survival as a community.  The exhaustion is a direct function of the failure to produce any concrete results, much less to discern any break in the general apathy regarding the horrible circumstances facing Middle East Christians.  Indeed, that was the underlying question— why are Christians being eradicated with nary a word nor much remedial support, from either the US or from fellow Christians in America—that shaped my remarks at both events that framed my lecture week.  

Given the organizers of the two events, I was especially mindful of trying to deconstruct the causes for the remarkable lack of knowledge, the general misinformation, and the shameful indifference, that surrounds the existence of Christians in countries that are usually referred to in the media, in policy circles, and in academic discussions, as “Muslim countries or Muslim societies or the Muslim world.”  The first gathering, a conference on Current Challenges Facing Christian Communities in the Middle East, was co-sponsored by the Center for American Progress (CAP), a leading think tank in Washington, DC, and Villanova University’s Center for Arab and Islamic Studies; the CAP organized this event, in an effort to catalyze progressive and liberal action on religious freedom matters and around the plight of Christians, issues on which this country’s progressives have been deafeningly silent.  The second event, a Consultation in Global Mission sponsored by the 10-university consortium known as the Boston Theological Institute, was hosted by the Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology in Brookline, Massachusetts; the discussion on “The Middle East: The Future of Ecumenism in an Age of Strife,” culminated in a keynote address, breathtaking for its simultaneous tragedy and hope, on “Christians in Syria at the Crossroads,” by Greek Orthodox Bishop Elias Toume from the Syrian city of Homs.

What follows is a synthesis of my remarks from both events.  My reference to myth-busting and reality-checking is straightforward: only by breaking open the myths that have shaped perceptions about Middle East Christians, only by doing a reality-check of the actual conditions on the ground, will it be possible to alter the discourse and the policy responses, and hopefully, to change the trendline for Christians in the region.  By creating the conditions that can help the region’s Christians, by stopping the eradication of Christians in their lands of origin, all peoples living in the Greater Middle East will see an improvement in the overall political, economic, social, cultural and security conditions that shape their lives.

Here are five myths that need breaking and checking against empirical reality:

1. The Myth of Ottoman Pluralism.  The myth of the Ottoman Empire as an experience and experiment of religious pluralism and multiculturalism pervades the scholarship and policy discussions about Christians in the Middle East.  The myth itself has been developed initially through the Orientalist scholarship of historians such as Bernard Lewis, and therefore, has a long tradition.  However, the cultivation of this myth has occurred with the influx of enormous funding from state and private sector sources in Turkey, for research and faculty appointments in the US and Europe.  The success of this myth can be measured by the frequency with which it is has been institutionalized and perpetuated in US foreign policymaking circles.  While multiculturalism and religious pluralism may be useful as descriptors for the Ottoman Empire, in no way are they helpful, either as analytical terms or as points of departure, for thinking about the current condition of Middle East Christians.  In fact, the Ottoman Empire was organized according to the sectarian millet system, which amounted to the institutionalization of a legal, political, and cultural structure of "separate and unequal" when it came to the issue of religious differences.  It was a model of the subject, not the citizen, so it is a blueprint that should be boxed permanently in the attic.  Whether a Muslim subject or a non-Muslim subject, the millet has little to do with how we might think about social pluralism and political citizenship today.  For Christians in the Ottoman Empire, the reality was permanent, fixed, irrevocable second-class status as property of the Ottoman state, with legal inequality summarized in the second-class status of dhimmitude.  This dhimmi model has left a strong political and cultural residue that has informed the self-styled secularist and Islamist regimes in the region, reflected in genocide and other forms of violence against Christians, as well as in economic disenfranchisement, political exclusion, and cultural discrimination.  Two practices are most compelling for laying bare the lie of this myth—the devshirme, forced conscription, accompanied by forced religious conversion, of young Christian boys into the Ottoman military; and the jizya, a poll tax levied disproportionately against Christians in Ottoman times, and now, revived in its essence in the Syrian implosion by the ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria), jihadists demanding protection money from Syrian Christians. 

2. The Myth of the Middle East as the Muslim World.  The pervasiveness of this language and imagery of the region speaks both to the acute lack of knowledge and to the deliberate narrative misrepresentation of the place of Christians in the Middle East, and is related to the myth of Ottoman pluralism.  Most discussions about religious pluralism in the region today, and certainly about the plight of Christians in Syria and elsewhere, frame these communities as minorities in a geographic space that has always been majority-Muslim in its demography, culture, and politics.  This myth depends, of course, on reinforcing the Ottoman Empire as the historical context for analyzing Christians in the region, or at the very least, works from the narrative that the region’s Arabs were all pagans until the twin events of Mohammed’s westward conquest from the Arabian Peninsula and the establishment of the Umayyad Caliphate in 7th-century Damascus and the Ottomans’ capture of Constantinople in the 15th century.  In fact, Christians have lived in the region for two millennia, since the time of Christ and the Apostles, and the kind of religious pluralism often assigned to the Ottoman Empire was actually the hallmark of the (Eastern Roman) Byzantine Empire.  The discursive formulation of Muslim Middle East or Muslim World reinforces the Orientalization of the region—thereby feeding into ugly civilizational claims that essentialize all Muslims as violent terrorists.  The same formulation has been manipulated and utilized by Muslim-majority governments to assign to Christians a place as minorities, not as citizens, but as minority groups who were supposedly latecomers, foreigners, and aliens to the region.  This myth has made it easier for local political authoritarians and religious extremists alike to take measures that discriminate against, persecute, and cleanse Christians, by disregarding and distorting Christians’ indigenous presence in the region.

3. The Myth of Christians as alien imperialists and agents of the West and Western Christian Crusaders.  This myth follows naturally from the previous myth, by building out the historical narrative of Christians that begins with the Ottoman Empire.  However, this myth and the previous one are built on the insidious narrative by which Orthodox Christians, Eastern Christians, have largely been written out of the history of Christianity—a history that has been presented as synonymous with European—read, Western European, centered in Rome—that excludes the Eastern Roman Empire and the inconvenience of the Asian (i.e. Middle Eastern) origins of Christianity.  This myth depends on an a historical narrative that skips over the Byzantine Empire and its Orthodox Christian identity (here, I will use the term as it’s come to be deployed currently by Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Orthodox and Oriental Christians); instead, this myth starts by interrogating Christians as a minority in Ottoman times and, in the nation-state era, by treating Christians as minorities in the breakup of the Ottoman Empire and the establishment of Turkey, and as minorities in the decolonization period and Arab revolts that led to the formation of Arab states and Israel.  This falsified and distorted historical periodization has allowed Western (primarily US, but with a similar logic, European Union) policymakers and academics the convenience of ignoring the long process, and the underlying causes, of Christian decline in the Middle East and, above all, to remain indifferent to Christians’ experience on the frontlines as objects of religious cleansing in the Middle East.  By perpetuating this myth of Christians as aliens or late arrivals, Transatlantic policymakers have shied away from speaking openly about the cleansing of Christians, fearful of angering non-Christian political leaders in the Middle East, who have deliberately presented Christians as Crusaders and agents of Western imperialism.  Furthermore, an historically accurate narration of the history of Christians in the region would, of course, have to acknowledge the dominant Orthodox Christian (again, read Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian) presence in the region, as well as address the divergent and quite different experiences of Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant Christians in the region.  This would, of course, require an examination of the deliberate Orientalization of Orthodox Christians by their Western co-religionists through scholarship that has equated Christianity with Europe and, therefore, that has deliberately reduced Christianity to Western Christianity.  In fact, Christianity originated in Asia—the Near and Middle East are geographic Asia—and Christianity is a Eurasian faith, but this reality does not conform neatly to current geopolitical and ideological narratives and dichotomies.  Correcting the distorted myth of Christians as alien interlopers and invaders in the Middle East would also require attention to the causes and circumstances leading to the pluralization of the Christian presence in the region; this historical analysis requires heavy lifting and uncomfortable facts for Christian ecumenism, since the arrival of Roman Catholic Crusaders, as well as Roman Catholic and Protestant missionaries, and their actions vis-à-vis Orthodox Christians, constitute some of the uglier features of intra-Christian relations.  Finally, remedies to this myth would also require that Orthodox Christians examine their own record of resignation and passivity in the face of the very real oppression and objectification as minorities in Muslim-majority states and societies; the psychological trauma of dhimmitude is necessarily part of the building of this myth, and psycho-cultural and political-psychological research is replete with cases of traumatized populations internalizing the hegemonic narratives of their oppressors as a means of (usually, counter-productive) longterm survival.

4. Myth of Ecumenical Solidarity amongst Christians in the Middle East.  This myth is related to the previous one, and is one of the most uncomfortable for Christians, since it requires the kind of honest and uncomfortable self-criticism and reflection that is usually inconvenient and that requires ample doses of humility, repentance, and forgiveness.  The reticence about robust self-criticism is also understandable.  The clear and present danger of extinction is one that Middle East Christians have faced for the entire 20th century (Turkey, which usually gets a free pass for its cleansing of Christians, is the end-stage of what is happening to Christians in the other states of the Middle East), and Christians are now facing an immediate, and potentially fatal, threat to their survival in this 21st-century Middle East.  Simply put, as the region’s Christians’ struggle to survive in the face of religious cleansing perpetrated by secularist and Islamist regimes alike, review of the challenges to Christian ecumenical solidarity has taken a back seat to the exigencies of survival.  Nonetheless, the cracks in the ecumenical edifice exist, and require acknowledgement and repair in order for Christians to try to save themselves—much less to raise a stronger voice in asking for others’ help.  Of particular importance to the ecumenical repair-work is a corrective to the Western Christians’ long record of indifference to the plight of Orthodox Christians in the Middle East, and acknowledgment of the politics of the Euro-Western-centricity of the narrative of Christian history—linked to the myth of Christians as late arrivals to the Middle East; Western Christian proselytism that has aimed more at Orthodox Christians than at Pauline evangelism is also a critical part of the repair agenda for ecumenical solidarity, particularly given more recent, aggressive proselytizing by Evangelical Protestants in the Middle East, whose knowledge about, and especially, respect for Orthodox Christians in the region has been largely null.  Also of importance in overcoming ecumenical dysfunction is Orthodox Christians’ willingness to resolve their defensiveness vis-à-vis their co-religionists’ intentions, and to reject a behavioral standard of submission to the kinds of Ottomanist second-class status that has manifested in “staying away from the red lines, not rocking the boat, hoping for the goodwill of individual state leaders.”  The approaching visit to Jerusalem by Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and Pope Francis can go a long way to building on the spirit and capacity of ecumenism, so that solidarity becomes a resource for survival of Middle East Christians.  Likewise, some signs of encouragement are visible in Evangelical Protestants’ critical examination of their support for the ideology of Christian Zionism—the “Christ at the Checkpoint Conferences” are instructive, insofar as they have begun to explore the theological problems of Christian Zionism; to explore the sharp negative consequences for Christians in the Holy Land, in Israel and the Palestinian Territories; and to consider the corrosive effects of such theology for Jewish-Christian-Muslim peaceful co-existence.

5. Myth of Israel as Protector State for Christians.  This myth resonates in media and policy language in the United States, and has been reinforced by two factors.  It bears mention that, in comparison to the pace of decline (because of the combined forces of emigration and subjection to violence), Christians in Israel do, indeed, fare better than their co-religionists in the surrounding countries of the region, whether in Arab states or Turkey.  Yet, even this empirical record depends on a comparative, relative framework that is deceptive and reductionist, because it ignores the realities of the Christians’ position of being caught between the pincers of two kinds of rising religious fundamentalism and extremism—Islamic and Jewish—both of which are endangering Christians, both of which leave no room for Christians as equal citizens before the law and accepted members of national collectivities.  Indeed, the myth of Israel as protector state for Middle East Christians depends on constructing all Palestinians as Muslims, which also reinforces a construction of Israel as a Jewish state.  Both of these formulations leave no room for Christians, and contribute to a pernicious identity politics in the region, holding the Israeli-Palestinian problem hostage to zero-sum nationalisms that negate solutions premised on citizenship and that, most certainly, reduce Christians to second-class status in any future vision for an Israeli-Palestinian peace.

Mythology has been critical to the precipitous decline and endangered status of Middle East Christians.  It’s time to break open and break away from the above myths, and to do some serious reality checking when it comes to the operative assumptions and, especially, urgent and effective actions, to stop the erasure of the Christian presence in the lands where Christianity was born.

Dr. Elizabeth H. Prodromou is Visiting Associate Professor of Conflict Resolution at The Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy at Tufts University, and Affiliate Scholar at Harvard University's Center for European Studies, where she Co-Chairs Study Groups on Southeastern Europe and on Muslims and Democratic Politics.

— 5 Items per Page
Showing 3 results.
Christian Gonzalez
Posts: 75
Stars: 8
Date: 9/20/17
Rev. Dr. Tony Vrame
Posts: 23
Stars: 1
Date: 9/20/17
Sam Williams
Posts: 64
Stars: 0
Date: 9/19/17
Nicholas Anton
Posts: 5
Stars: 0
Date: 9/1/17
Steven Christoforou
Posts: 26
Stars: 0
Date: 8/30/17
Andrew Calivas
Posts: 3
Stars: 0
Date: 8/22/17
Dr. Alexandros K. Kyrou
Posts: 24
Stars: 10
Date: 7/24/17
Anthony Constantine Balouris
Posts: 9
Stars: 0
Date: 6/28/17
Maria Pappas
Posts: 25
Stars: 0
Date: 5/12/17
Andrew Romanov
Posts: 8
Stars: 0
Date: 4/27/17