Honesty and Ethics Poll

The 2008 Gallup Annual Honesty and Ethics Poll has been released and once again nurses are given the highest rating by Americans for honesty and ethics – 84% of Americans give nurses the highest ratings for honesty and ethics.   This is the seventh year in a row that nurses occupied that top spot.  In general the medical profession ranks high in American esteem with pharmacists and doctors rated 2^nd and 4^th respectively.  The only non-medical profession in the top four are high school teachers ranked at number three. 

My profession, clergy was ranked 6^th for honesty and integrity.  56% of Americans consider clergy to be of high integrity.  While such a percentage would be enough to win a presidential election, it has to be troubling for a profession whose purpose and message is based in faith, trust, trustworthiness, and integrity.  One-third of Americans see clergy as just of average honesty and integrity – sad for a profession that is supposed to lead by example in moral living.    More embarrassing is that the same percentage – 1/3 of Americans – also see telemarketers as being of average honesty and ethics.  

Interestingly clergy rank almost identically with the police.  So do Americans see clergy not as moral examples but rather as enforcers of the law?  We are not priests or pastors but police in the eyes of many?!?

The same percentage of Americans ranks clergy as very low in honesty and ethics (8-9%) as rank police, funeral directors, and accountants.  About one in every 10-11 Americans think of clergy as being dishonesty and untrustworthy.

Clergy perhaps will get some consolation from the fact that Americans have a higher opinion of clergy than congressmen by almost 5 to 1 (56% to 12%).  So clergy are seen as a better moral compass than politicians.

The study also gives us some idea as to why the scandal in the OCA was so devastating to so many people – a group of men whom 89% of Americans see as average or above average in terms of ethics failed them completely.  The broken trust of church leadership is not taken lightly because people expect them to be at least as honest as the average American.

All American Council

We have come to the day on which we will elect the new metropolitan for the OCA. 

So far the Council has consisted mostly of discussion of the known OCA issues.  There have not been any news items of any great note, except that Archbishop Seraphim of Canada wrote a letter declaring that he is not a candidate for the office of metropolitan.  His stated reason for taking his name out of consideration was that he didn’t think a Canadian could fulfill all of the roles of the metropolitan which include being the endorsing office for all Orthodox U.S. military chaplains. 

Like many explanations that the bishops have offered, his rationale was less than convincing – and he offered it as one reason among many, but doesn’t state what the other reasons are.  One has only to think of the bishops originally releasing a statement that Metropolitan Herman had chosen to retire but yesterday Bishop Benjamin affirmed what Archbishop Job had said at the Indianapolis Town Hall a few weeks ago that the rest of the bishops had in fact asked Metropolitan Herman to retire due to what the SIC discovered.   And though Bishop Benjamin denied that anyone had “read” the SIC report in advance, Metropolitan Herman apparently was already familiar enough with the SIC findings to acquiesce to the request by his brother bishops to “retire.”

Bishop Benjamin did review the findings and recommendations of the Special Investigating Committee.  In answering questions, he also revealed that in some ways the bishops are returning to a style of leadership that ruled during the days of the scandal in which getting either information or the truth from the bishops  was “like pulling teeth.”  Bishop Benjamin championed a return  to the Orthodox polity in which bishops answer only to other bishops.  Not to the Church of which they are part and whose members they are to serve.  Not to Christ who is their Lord.   They do not have to explain or justify their decisions to the membership of the church, an attitude which is shades of the former bishop of the West who handpicked him to be his vicar and successor, though admittedly their personalities are very different.   His vision is one in which bishops are despots (a term Bishop Benjamin used to describe himself) over the church in the imperial tradition of Orthodoxy.

When I think about the years of scandal in which there was no accountability by the OCA bishops to the membership of the Church, to Christ or to each other, years in which successive metropolitans failed in their moral, financial and fiduciary responsibilities (according to Bishop Benjamin and the SIC), I realize how the bishops enabled the scandal of the OCA by failing to care about what other bishops were doing to the OCA.  None were accountable to each other; and the bishops did not see it as their responsibility to confront the wrong doings of their fellow bishop.  And though the SIC recommended that the metropolitans “must be held accountable” for their moral and fiduciary failings, the bishops ultimately opted to deal with the disgraced metropolitans by pushing one into retirement and by curtailing the traveling of the other but allowing the disgraced  to keep their titles and honor associated with the office.   The choice which the rest of the bishops opted for was to curtail the abuse of office and power the metropolitans had but not to punish them personally.   In so doing the bishops also protected the names of the two metropolitans while acknowledging that the office of the metropolitan might be occupied by a miscreant.  It makes me wonder how much have their leadership styles really changed?   When given the facts about the moral and financial failures of their brother bishops  the rest of the bishops apparently considering the exposure of the scandal to be accountability enough but nothing really happened to the episcopal perpetrators of the scandal other than saying they can’t continue actively in the office.  The bishops stopped their fellow bishops from perpetrating any further wounds on the church, but then decided not to hold the office of the metropolitan up to a high standard by deciding that the men who abused the office and the church were not worthy of the title.  This is not unlike the days in which the scandalous were in power – the bishops were not accountable to each other and demanded no accountability from each other.  The office of bishop does not imply a high standard of morality; the office holder can abuse his stewardship and trust and still be considered worthy of keeping the title.  If the bishops are going to resort back to an idea that bishops answer only to other bishops, and that transparency in the episcopal office is not necessary for the church, then it is very troubling that the bishops will not defend the title of bishop or metropolitan by saying these honors mean something and should be held only by those worthy of the titles. 

Bishop Benjamin also derided the internet because though it can be used for good it ultimately does not make the bishops more open and transparent but rather causes them to be more closed mouthed and careful in what they say.  Again the message seems to be that in a hierarchical church bishops are not accountable to the membership of the church.  And in the internet age in which transparency and integrity are highly valued, Bishop Benjamin seem to be saying that the bishops will resist entering into the 21^st Century.   What opportunities lie before the Orthodox in America in dealing with the communication age will be resisted.

So if we are looking for vast changes in the climate and culture of the leadership, some comments coming forth from the bishops would tend to indicate that the bishops are going to retreat and rely on what they consider to be the tried and true thinking of the past rather than to embrace truthfulness and trustworthiness which openness offers to the modern world.

The Credibility of OCA Bishops

“The credibility of leaders makes or breaks companies.”  (Tony Simons)

The book THE INTEGRITY DIVIDEND: LEADING BY THE POWER OF YOUR WORD by Tony Simons is written for businesses and corporate success in a capitalistic world.  However, the book points out a truth about modern Americans – Americans want their leaders to tell the truth and Americans despise hypocrisy.  These attitudes toward business carry over to the attitudes we have towards religious institutions and religious leaders. 

OCA bishops, please take note!   Your credibility matters, and in a meritocracy such as the American culture is, you have no entitlement because you hold the office of bishop – you must earn your credibility and our trust. 

The modern attitude toward leadership of any kind – corporate, political or religious – is about the same.  Honesty and integrity matter.  Just look at the recent US presidential election and how the candidates are held accountable for every careless word they uttered – ever in their lives!   People, the press, society put everything leaders say and do under the microscope.  And, they expose every misleading statement, lie, or hypocrisy a leader says or commits.

What follows is an Amazon.com review of Simons’ book – just replace “corporate,” “government” and “business” images and goals with the goals and mission of the  ”church.” The book speaks directly to the key problem that our bishops face as they try to lead the church without having first established their credibility, integrity and trustworthiness:

Corporate and government scandals continue to deepen our mistrust of leaders. While credibility is the foundation of effective leadership, most leaders struggle, and sometimes fail, to align their words and their actions. …  In The Integrity Dividend, Tony Simons shows how leaders personal integrity drives the profitability and overall success of their organization. This groundbreaking book is based in on solid research and reveals that businesses led by managers of higher integrity enjoy deeper employee commitment, lower turnover, superior customer service, and substantially higher profitability. This improved performance is the integrity dividend.

Many Orthodox clergy hate the use of any lessons learned from the business world, and it is a shame that we have to learn about the power of integrity, credibility and honesty from corporate America.  But if we are going to be committed to Christian witness – martyrdom – in 21st Century America we have to understand what it takes to be a credible witness in the current climate and culture of the modern world.  Putting on a miter, being called “master,” or making everyone kiss your hand will not do the job in 21^st Century America. 

As the 3 November 2008 TIME review of this book mentions leaders “living up to the values you espouse”  is what makes people trust their.  Interesting choice of words and imagery for indeed our bishops have supposedly espoused Christ.  Are they willing to to live up to observing what He commanded?

A Penitential Statement for our Bishops

The Yahoo group “OCA’s 2008 AAC Planning”recently posted an idea for what a public confession by our current bishops for their role in the OCA scandal might look like.  This would be exactly what I would hope the bishops might do instead of offering their pastoral letters that everyone is to blame and therefore everyone needs to apologize to everyone.  That massive generic forgiveness lacks the one essential ingredient – repentance on the part of those who actually participated in the scandal or were in positions to resist if not stop the scandal from continuing.   Here is the Yahool document which I hope our hierarchs will take to heart. 

Hierarchical Public Confession: 

I admit before Holy God and His Holy Church that I actively covered up truth. 

I admit that I had some knowledge of what was happening on and yet said nothing because I was unwilling to pay the price for telling the truth. 

I admit that this was cowardly and selfish on my part. 

I admit that I dishonored Christ and his church by my cowardice. 

I admit that my actions and my failures to act have contributed to the tremendous spiritual and financial damage done to the OCA in the past several years. 

I admit that I have been a stumbling block to many in their spiritual journeys. 

I have defended evil. 

I have hurt those who were seeking truth. 

I have allowed a culture to take root in the Church that is foreign to holiness. 

I have allowed criminals to go unpunished in my selfish desire for self-preservation. 

For this I am heartily sorry. 

I pledge to God Almighty, all the faithful of the OCA, and all those whom God intends for membership in His Holy Church in the future that I will make restitution to the OCA for my sins of commission and omission. 

Going forward, I rededicate myself to living and acting with integrity before God and before the faithful of the OCA. 

I will defend the truth and tear down the culture of passivity before evil that has taken root in the Church. 

I will hold myself publicly accountable for my actions and inactions tear down the structure of non-accountability and passivity before evil that has lead to criminality in the Holy Body of Christ. 

God have mercy on me, a sinner! (3)

Indianapolis Town Hall Meeting October 29

There was a Town Hall meeting with Archbishop Job at St. John the Forerunner Church in Indianapolis on Wednesday evening.   I estimate about 60 people present and 7 priests.   I don’t think there was anything earth shattering, what follows are  a few notes (not minutes).  Basically the format was the Archbishop answering questions from the crowd  -

Regarding the upcoming ANAC, +Job does not feel any candidate will get the 2/3 vote vote on the first ballot at the ANAC.   So he believes the choice will fall upon the Synod of bishops.  He says canonically speaking it is the bishops who elect the metropolitan not the ANAC in any case.   He does not believe he will be chosen by the Synod as he feels the other bishops are not pleased with him.   +Job is totally opposed to +Hilarion of Vienna  being elected as he does not think a Russian bishop can help our bishops to work together.   It will introduce a new problem into the Synod not a solution.

+Job says the proposed statute change to elect a metropolitan by drawing names from a chalice rather than by voting even if adopted at this ANAC would not take effect this year.   +Job opposes this statute change.

+Job said that Metropolitan Herman did not resign for health reasons even though that has been suggested as the reason.  He said the scenario was the other bishops agreed he had to resign – +Dmitri as the senior bishop was given the task of conveying this message to Metropolitan  Herman and +Dmitri asked Herman to accept the decision of the other bishops.  Metropolitan Herman acquiesced. 

Job was asked if he thought stealing millions of dollars was grounds for deposing a bishop.  He said yes.  He was asked why then has Metropolitan Theodosius not been deposed.   +Job said he is already retired and no longer doing damage to the OCA, and he felt it was wrong to totally disgrace him over the money issue after 25 years of primacy in service to the church.    

+Job was adamant that he will retire in 2 years.   He does not want our Diocese to become obsessed with a vetting process for picking a new bishop.  He believes ultimately God will decide who the new bishop will be.

Though several dioceses have adopted resolutions calling for assessment and budget reductions for the OCA, the synod as a body has not discussed these looming issues.   

Regarding the reported loan to Metropolitan Herman at St. Tikhon’s, His Eminence said it is being investigated.  Though St. Tikhon’s Monastery is supposed to have a 5 member board of trustees made up of monks, apparently Metropolitan Herman some years ago reformed it as a Limited Liability Company with himself as president and his deacon as treasurer.   The Metropolitan then seemingly appointed himself the executor of the monastery and engaged in financial dealings in this capacity.  The investigation into these actions continues.

One  comment the Archbishop  made that seemed incredibly ironic to me.  When one lady asked him about the U.S. presidential election and if he had any words of wisdom about how to think about the election, he replied that he himself had not voted for many years – that years ago he became totally disillusioned with American politics and politicians and so he simply stopped voting or paying attention to the elections.   That comment raised my eyebrows because we have become totally disillusioned with our bishops, should we follow his example and quit giving them money, and not even pay any attention to them?  I wondered whether he realized what his comments sounded like to people who are totally disillusioned with and discouraged as a result of the failure of our church leaders.

Interestingly +Job feels that the bishops have changed so much and are now much more cognizant of the concerns of the membership.   And yet their most recent Pastoral Letter which has received a very  disdainful reception among many with I am familiar and which was rightfully picked apart on OCAnews.org  was approved by all the bishops who were very pleased with their efforts,  but who remain out of touch with the rank and file clergy and membership. 

From my eyes, part of the failure of our bishops has been their own passivity in the face of sin and evil.  They responded with timidity at the thought of having to disagree with their fellow bishops even when it came to speaking the truth or defending righteousness.    Their commitment seems  to have been to preserve and protect their bishoprics and nothing more.   Christ said the gates of hell shall not prevail against  His Church (Matthew 16:18), and our bishops seem to have taken this to mean that as long as they can’t see those gates, or talk about them, then the gates don’t exist and the bishops don’t have to worry about their presence.   Jesus of course didn’t say that the gates of hell won’t assault us, just that they will not prevail.   Our bishops chose to ignore the assault and even to cooperate with it.  Now they say they have learned their lesson, but then so have we learned ours.

Afraid to Scandalize but Not to be Scandalous

Most of us are tired of hearing about scandal in the OCA, but apparently there is more to be said long after some have stopped listening.  Today, OCAnews.org reports, that former Metropolitan Herman had taken out a $152,000 mortgage on St. Tikhon’s Monastery.  He did this 6 weeks after the Metropolitan Council requested an audit for the St. Tikhon’s church  enterprises.   And he did it without the knowledge of the Metropolitan Council and even without the knowledge of central church administration.  Another investigation is certainly warranted.  For years there have been rumors of financial secrets and scandal around St. Tikhon’s and during the ongoing OCA crisis the rumors about St. Tikhon’s persisted. This has been fed by what many claimed was the secrecy by which financial decisions were made at the Seminary/Monastery/Bookstore.  Now someone has blown a whistle.  This will be a first case test of the “new” Synod of the Bishops under the temporary administrator Archbishop Seraphim.  We will see what the synod has learned and whether truth and transparency are now a part of their normal way of dealing with things, or if they keep truth and transparency apart from the way they handle things.  The temptation to hide things so as not to scandalize the faithful will be great.  In the past the bishops have only been afraid to scandalize the faithful (read donors), they have not been so afraid to engage in scandalous behavior or to cover scandal up.  If the story turns out to represent further scandal or secret, the Synod may be forced to truly look at disciplining the former metropolitan.  In the central church scandal, they gave him a pass, letting him retire and thanking him for his service, but not offering any further discipline.  As all who follow the OCA should know by now, there is always more to the story than meets the eye.

In watching the OCA to see what lessons have been learned, it will also be interesting to see whether the Synod or Archbishop Seraphim as the temporary administrator is going to see that a full audit is done of the New York/New Jersey Diocese which had its own financial scandal during the former chancellor Kondratick and former metropolitan Herman’s term in office.  Some in the diocese may in fact argue that the audit is a waste of money at this point since the money is gone, unlikely to be recovered, and since we probably know who oversaw its disappearance.  And yet it is precisely that kind of the thinking which allowed former metropolitan Theodosius and Kondratick to lay aside the audits and financial controls so that they could divert OCA monies at their own will and whim.   The entire OCA should demand that an audit take place in the NY/NJ Diocese.  One needs only think about Archbishop Job’s own penitential admission that when the OCA’s financial scandal was revealed to him in 1999-2000 that he took the attitude, “that is the OCA’s problem, what has that to do with our diocese?”   If the OCA is truly to break free of its scandal driven past, it has got to strive for and pay for transparency and truth.  

Will someone be the temporary administrator or administraitor? 

In what I see as another bizarre story, the OCA announced that Archbishop Seraphim and the chancery staff would be celebrating the 50th anniversary of the acquisition of the Griswold estate in Oyster Bay Cove.  The “Syosset” headquarters which has become synonymous with scandal in the OCA is going to be the focus of an anniversary celebration.   It is one of the most surreal announcements the OCA has ever put out.  In the midst of the ongoing scandals and saga, the temporary administrator and staff want to celebrate the 50^th Anniversary of what they must see as some kind of victory or triumph.   It is every bit as surreal as their turning the OCA’s current effort belatedly to donate to proper charities the money given by the faithful for the 9/11 disaster (but which was wrongfully redirected by the former chancellor to other purposes) into photo shoots.  The lack of sense of propriety by the chancery staff continues to amaze.  One wonders why if the goal was to do an outdoor liturgy or to invite the public, they didn’t focus on a liturgy connected to a saint or a feast day or even to the anniversary of autocephaly rather than to the bequeathing of a property to the OCA which has for years been associated with scandal, excessive and wasteful spending, and burdensome indebtedness, and of which many in the OCA would love to be out from under its weighty expense by simply selling it.

The Example Set by our Bishops

“I have fought the good fight,  I have finished the race, I have kept the faith” (2 Timothy 4:7).

The recent SIC report of the OCA gave a rather blunt and critical assessment of the behavior of several of the OCA’s bishops and leaders during the past two decades. That there was serious moral and administrative failure is very clear.  The SIC recommended that the Synod of Bishops, some of whose members are faulted in the report for moral and leadership failure, mete out discipline to some of the perpetrators for their glaring moral failures and negligence of duty.  Both the Metropolitan Council and the Synod of Bishops agreed unanimously with the SIC that the Synod of Bishops must hold the wrongdoers accountable.

There has been much discussion within the OCA as to how to handle these moral, spiritual, financial and administrative failings of the individuals involved.  Some argue for criminal investigation with legal consequences (ask the state to mete out proper punishments); some feel the church itself needs to deal with the issues without involving the state.  Some feel strict ecclesial discipline is needed; some say only an apology from the culprits should be sought.  Some say forgiveness should be offered no matter what and that the church simply moves on.  Any and all positions have their defenders who base their reasoning in scripture and tradition.

Though I think ultimately there needs to be forgiveness, this kind of forgiveness can only be offered if there is repentance or contrition from the guilty.  Certainly the Church has to take seriously its own teachings on confession and repentance as a basis for offering reconciliation.   As has been written there is a difference between forgiveness and reconciliation.

“Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup” (1 Corinthians 11:27-28).

In our particular case, since some of those cited in the SIC report for their moral and leadership failures still sit on the Synod of Bishops, I think it is good for us to give serious consideration to the need for real discipline being meted out rather than blanket forgiveness being offered to all the culprits whether or not they repent, apologize, express contrition or ask forgiveness.  Far too often the OCA functions like a “ma and pa” store which allows family members to keep positions of trust and leadership without regard for whether the individuals have shown any merit or possess any qualifications for the positions they hold.  Of course the SIC report pointed to this failing as one of the reasons the scandal was able to go on as long as it did.

“Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God”  (Hebrews 12:1-2).

In the usual tropar for a saint bishop we sing that the bishop was “a rule of faith.”  The idea is that the bishop is an image, a model, an example of what it is to be a Christian. 

Can a bishop then be unworthy of the title? 

Our scandal has revealed that indeed bishops may not be good examples, and in fact may completely disgrace the office.   So what shall we do with such bishops?

My suggestion: take the title away from them.  If they don’t live up to the title, take the title away from them.  This thought is based in the American idea of a meritocracy and rejects the notion of entitlement (that the holder of an office must be honored because of the office no matter what his personal behavior is).  

But if we want people to honor their bishops, in America it is important to ensure that the title means something.    If someone does not live up to the ideals of the office, it should be no shame to remove that title from him.   It may be that our ideals are very high, but certainly we can distinguish between those who at least are striving for the ideal even if falling short from those whose very decisions, lifestyle and behavior is blatantly contrary to the ideals of the office.

When the Synod of Bishops does not remove the title from unworthy men, they are really saying, “there will be men who have the title of metropolitan, archbishop, or bishop, but be not deceived, they may not be worthy of that title, and they may not be living up to its ideal, or even trying to live up to its ideal, and if they aren’t we won’t do anything about it, but you as church members have been warned!” It is a real “buyer beware” attitude. 

The willingness of the bishops to police themselves (for they alone have the power and responsibility to discipline a fellow bishop) and to remove the wayward bishop from office or to strip him of his title shows us that the bishops themselves believe the title of bishop means something.  If they are not willing to discipline their fellow bishops by removing undeserving title holders, then the bishops themselves empty the title of bishop of all meaning.

“Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. So I do not run aimlessly; I do not box as one beating the air. But I discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified”   (1 Corinthians 9:24-27).

And if we feel uncomfortable with the idea of determining a man is unworthy for the office of bishop, remember that in the consecration of a bishop, the service has a tri-fold pronouncement of the candidate’s worthiness. (Axios, axios, axios!)  Determining worthiness is part of the process.  So too should determining when a man is not worthy of the title or of the office which he holds or when he is not capable of fulfilling the moral duties of a bishop.  Taking a title away from a bishop says to the world: a man who is a bishop can be expected to live up to a standard or rule of behavior.  It is proper for us to have the expectation that bishops will strive to be not only Christian, but to be Christian leaders.

“Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by the same sort of disobedience. For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart” (Hebrews 4:11-12).

Jesus is Lord, Just Not a Gentile One

When I think about how bishops behave through scandal which touches their own ranks, I think about this:

“In BIRTH OF THE CHAORDIC AGE, Dee Hock, the founder of the VISA credit card company, illustrates how hierarchical command-and-control institutions alienate and dishearten people within them.  He writes, ‘The organization of the future will be the embodiment of community based on shared purpose calling to the higher aspirations of people.’“   (R. Ascough & C. Cotton, PASSIONATE VISIONARY: LEADERSHIP LESSONS FROM THE APOSTLE PAUL)

And I recall our Lord Jesus Christ’s own words:

“But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them.  It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”  (Matthew 20:25-28)

What Dee Hock thought was the leadership of the future, Christ taught long ago.  What Hock describes as a command-and-control institution is what the Church uncritically adapted from the Constantinian Roman Empire.

The Church is the organization of the future, for it has no other purpose but the Kingdom of Heaven.  But the Church needs to re-embrace the values of the Kingdom of God, rather than following the ways of the world.  Perhaps this is the lesson God is teaching us through the OCA’s scandal, and perhaps He is pointing to the OCA and telling us through this scandal I am giving you opportunity to embrace Gospel leadership rather than imperial leadership.

See also my  Bishops are in the Church not Over It

The Synod: It’s Your Fault if You Accept What We Say as True

I will apologize up front for the sarcasm expressed in this blog.  The recent “pastoral” letter of the OCA bishops has left me sardonic.  The sad reality is those who profess to be shepherds acknowledge that they are both misled and misleading, and that they have misled and yet want to be honored as pastors.   

“Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture!” says the LORD.  Therefore thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, concerning the shepherds who care for my people: “You have scattered my flock, and have driven them away, and you have not attended to them. Behold, I will attend to you for your evil doings, says the LORD.  Then I will gather the remnant of my flock out of all the countries where I have driven them, and I will bring them back to their fold, and they shall be fruitful and multiply.  I will set shepherds over them who will care for them, and they shall fear no more, nor be dismayed, neither shall any be missing, says the LORD” (Jeremiah 23:1-4)

A little walk through history (dates listed are of postings on oca.org) might help the bishops of the synod to understand why their flocks do not feel they are following good shepherds:

20 January 2006    “At the Lesser Synod meeting today, His Beatitude, Metropolitan HERMAN, and the Members of the Lesser Synod, have reaffirmed the decisions made by the Holy Synod of Bishops, at the time these concerns were first raised, in 1999, and 2000. ….Metropolitan HERMAN has provided for a yet higher level of accountability…. “The Lesser Synod regrets certain information, and statements concerning the financial administration of the church, that may have been accepted as indisputably the truth.”

Yes, they reaffirmed in 2006 the decisions they made in 1999 and 2000 regarding the finances of the OCA, and that they had thoroughly reviewed the allegations.  They reassured us there were no problems.   They were either wrong or they were lying, either way, we have been warned about what they tell us – don’t accept what they say as truth.   And the metropolitan himself is pushing for a higher level of accountability – hopefully he will continue this when the SIC report is released to the church.   They also had regrets that certain information and statements they made and gave us may have been accepted as the truth – translation:  WARNING, when the Synod speaks, do not accept it as the truth because that is not necessarily how they intended it to be received.

17 November 2005   “His Beatitude, Metropolitan Herman, addressed numerous concerns that arose in response to information and statements circulated in recent weeks, primarily on the internet. Emphasizing that all financial matters are his responsibility, Metropolitan Herman informed council members that he plans to order independent audits by an outside CPA firm licensed within the State of New York. He further reported that the results of the independent audits will be made available to the Church at large.          “Our love and concern must be for the Church,” Metropolitan Herman stated, adding that recent allegations, especially those circulated on the internet, are ‘not for the good of the Church.”       In response to questions about earmarked donations, Father Strikis noted that such contributions are used as specified by the donors. “

All financial matters are his responsibility the metropolitan said.  Let us hope he feels this way when the SIC report is released.   And the metropolitan assured us that the allegations circulating on the Internet are not for the good of the church – but apparently corruption, lying , theft, embezzlement, cover up, complicity, darkness and sin are for the good of the church – especially if committed by the leadership.   We also should take comfort that as honorable a man as Fr. Strikis told us that all earmarked donations are used as specified by the donors.

20 April 2000    “Metropolitan THEODOSIUS also discussed the implications demographic change has had on the Church’s finances and administrative structures. In the area of finances, the Metropolitan reported that he and His Eminence, Archbishop HERMAN of Philadelphia, Acting Treasurer of the Orthodox Church in America, together with a number of trusted professionals, met with the accounting firm of Lambrides, Lamos, Moulthrop and Co., which subsequently completed and signed the audits for 1997 and 1998.“

            Good news, our current metropolitan with a number of “trusted” professionals was over looking the OCA finances.  We are in good hands and so have nothing to worry about – let the professionals take care of things, but let us not have Christians handle it for they would reveal the whole truth.

20 November 1999  ” Financial questions reviewed, year 2000 budget passed. Questions involving the OCA’s financial situation were also reviewed in detail by Metropolitan Council members. His Eminence, Archbishop Herman, Acting Treasurer, reported on the status of the financial audit, noting that some questions had arisen with regard to the Metropolitan’s Discretionary Fund. In response to this report, Council members issued a statement concerning the fund. [The complete text of this statement is available on the OCA web site.]“

Unfortunately that statement and some other financial reports and statements are no longer available on OCA.org.  But not to worry, for the bishop surely would tell us the whole truth, and even if something was wrong, the metropolitan would accept complete responsibility for it – he didn’t say he would correct the problems, nor reveal them, but apparently for him accepting responsibility for them meant he would try to insure that no one ever found out about them.