48th Midwest Diocesan Assembly (OCA)

This past week the 48th Midwest Diocesan Assembly was held October 5-7  in Overland Park, Kansas, hosted by the Holy Trinity Church there.  Reports of the Assembly will eventually appear on the Diocese of the Midwest Homepage.    Metropolitan Jonah addressed the assembly in its opening session and also gave the sermon at the Divine Liturgy on Wednesday morning.  I am assuming that Archbishop Job’s address will eventually be posted on the Diocese Homepage, perhaps the Metropolitan’s comments as well.  The Assembly was not marked by any raucously controversial issues as has been the case in the past few years when the Assembly’s attention was placed on the scandalous events that were occurring in the national church’s central administration.   The Assembly did some basic work on the diocesan strategic plan, adopted a very conservative budget (no increase in the assessment) considering the economic condition of many of the states and parishes within the Diocese, decided to continue funding the office of the Parish Health Facilitator, got the Diocesan Council to agree to study conciliar processes by which other OCA dioceses have chosen their new bishops recently, listened to reports about the work of the Metropolitan Council and the ongoing legal and investigative issues still in process in the Church, and elected Diocesan Council members as well as other offices as required by the Diocesan By-laws.    The Assembly was told by Metropolitan Jonah to consider the tithing method of funding the Diocese -  the Diocese of the South adopted this years ago and now though numerically considerably smaller than the Diocese of the Midwest, they do have a larger budget.  As already stated, hopefully all the reports will soon appear on the Diocesan Homepage.

Impressions of the September 2009 Metropolitan Council Meeting

There already are on the OCA’s Web Page Several Posts about the Metropolitan Council –Synod of Bishops Meetings which took place this past week in New York.  You can read the official OCA news releases:   http://www.oca.org/news/1934, http://www.oca.org/news/1936, http://www.oca.org/news/1938, and http://www.oca.org/news/1939.  I do not intend here to repeat “the news.”   I am  offering only my personal impressions of the Council Meetings.

The official Minutes of the Meetings will be released when they are approved by the Synod of Bishops, but it is possible that some form of the unapproved minutes might be made public in the near future.  One of the challenges of the Internet Age is that people are ready to read the reports from these meetings far faster than the staff can prepare them.   This is a special challenge in a Church which requires approval of the Synod of Bishops before any decision is considered official.

I came home from the meetings feeling very encouraged about the Orthodox Church in America. I was very impressed with the other members of the Metropolitan Council – their dedication and willingness to sacrifice for the church is most note worthy.  They bring to the Metropolitan Council an array of talents and wisdom, integrity, love for the Church, concern for the church membership, a willingness to serve, a desire to bring about unity in the Church.   We dealt with very difficult and potentially divisive issues, and yet there was a willingness to speak the truth in love, not to avoid difficulties but rather to confront them, and to treat others with respect despite disagreements in positions taken.   The openness and honesty in being willing to address the most difficult issues was very impressive – it showed the Christian Church in action.  Bishops listened and participated, and the chancery staff was fully engaged in the process.

Because of the nature of the issues which the MC deals with – legal, pastoral, personal – there are some parts of the discussion which will not be made public.  The issue of transparency was discussed as well.  In America, transparency is seen as the sign of integrity.  It is a very difficult balancing act in weighing the right to know versus the right to privacy, especially in a litigious society.   Some MC members feel more free to speak their minds when they know sessions will not be recorded or made public.   Some decisions have implications which cannot be made public for legal reasons or because individual statements might be later falsely construed as official policy or absolute decisions of the OCA.    So a balancing act is always ongoing in the deliberations.

I can say that every major issue which I heard someone raise before the meeting was addressed in one form or another during the week.  I will not say all issues were resolved, but the OCA showed an inner strength by allowing all topics to be discussed.  I think that just about everybody – bishops, attorneys, members, chancery staff  – were uncomfortable with one discussion or another.   The good news is that we were openly  and straightforwardly discussing. 

Sadly the SIC’s request for an audit of the NY/NJ Diocese turned up a similar scenario to the OCA’s – the financial records from 2001-2005 for the Diocese are missing so many documents that no audit can be conducted thus apparently no record can be established about where the Diocesan money went.  They had $60,000+ in the bank at the beginning of 2001 with decent financial records; then from 2001-2005, no records to speak of and the bank accounts are empty.  No one apparently is going to be held accountable for the debacle. 

Positively, the central church administration has shown it can live within its budget.   Accounting procedures are in place which gives me some confidence that the OCA is being fiscally conservative and responsible.  It appears at this point that the OCA will both live within its budget and will have a small financial surplus at the year’s end, despite the world’s economic downturn.   Monies raised by FOS are being used solely for ministries in the various departments.  The MC gave a firm “NO” to proposals for new and additional fund raising attempts despite the fiscally tight scenario the OCA faces.   As a result of this new fiscal conservatism, responsibility and accountability, I for the first time in more than a decade can tell people that I think it is good and wise to donate to FOS to support the work, mission and ministries of our church.   If you feel called to support church ministry on the OCA level, I would encourage you to consider making a donation to FOS now or when it issues its next appeal.

I thought a true sign of maturity was the ability of the bishops, church administration and the MC to sit together in one room and discuss painful and difficult issues.   There was a willingness to face up to issues, to point out disagreements rather than avoid them, to listen to the concerns of others, to hear the concerns and priorities of the various groups which had come together for the week:  hierarchs, central administration staff and members of the MC.   There was an expressed need for the MC to sit down with the Metropolitan and have (as someone called it) “a come to Jesus meeting.”       Despite frustration and fears, I thought people remained composed and respectful while making their voice heard.   Rather than talking about the Metropolitan or bishops (and behind their backs or anonymously on the Internet) the consensus of the MC was to speak directly with the Metropolitan and the bishops. 

I believe we have moved to the point where we are becoming much more concerned about the present – about the issues facing us today and about the problems of our own creating (by our current actions) than by problems of the past (which are largely confined to legal).  The determination to look ahead – such as in strategic planning – shows that we are maturing and moving beyond the scandalous behaviors of past leaders.   The grievous and egregious problems caused by the former leadership now are the past.  We are still paying for this past but the reality of the recent MC meeting is that we are dealing with the problems that we created and we are looking at our future.   The future we are looking at through the strategic planning process.  The present we are dealing with in issues of our own creation – including the vision and style of the new Metropolitan.    The work of the current Metropolitan belongs to the current age, and really is our present, our problem, our blessing.   In having a session in which we talked to the Metropolitan about the Metropolitan we stopped dealing with past problems and focused on current concerns.  The past failed leadership is irrelevant to these current concerns.   In this sense, we have moved ahead and we are looking to the future.

Metropolitan Council September 2009

The Metropolitan Council has its annual Fall meeting this week in New York.   The agenda is daunting with an intense schedule which includes joint sessions with the Synod of Bishops.   There are important discussions about  1)  finances (which though the normal business of the Metropolitan Council also are usually related to the problems of the OCA),  2) legal matters (which I now interpret as the “cost of doing business” in America – some of  it is like the tribute that has to be paid to the pestilent invaders to keep them at bay and some of it is the result of decisions and actions which “the church” has taken and now must pay the price for its choices),   3)  the policies and procedures of the central administration and pushing everyone at work in the OCA to adhere to them rather than treating them as discretionary suggestions  which are to be capriciously or serendipitously inforced or ignored,    and 4)  the future direction of the OCA through vision and strategic planning.    

 Truly all of the discussions deal with the important question of “what is the church?”   We profess the Church to be “one, holy, catholic and apostolic.”   What does that look like incarnationally – legally, financially, administratively, ethically, and in terms of policies, procedures, planning and vision?

Certainly our ancestral church leaders answered some of these questions in relationship to the Roman Empire, Byzantium, the Turkocratia, Holy Russian and communist regimes.   But what are they to be in a country which has a constitutionally defined separation of church and state – in which the state is forbidden from interfering in the internal affairs of the Church?    Are the structures and policies and canons capable of addressing our situation in which officially the state is neutral or indifferent toward the internal workings of the church and its processes for selecting its leadership?   The state is forbidden from controlling the church in America.  We cannot look tot the state to resolve our problems in leadership or in corruption.   We are given the “freedom” to solve these problems and so must have the Mind of Christ – not just the decisions of past generations – to deal with our issues today.  

Our bishops for example are wearing all of the signs of Byzantine imperial power and yet they cannot in the United States have the power of state.   What do we need to change within the Church to best reflect the Mind of Christ in the 21st Century?   What insignias and signs need to be changed and what internal church structures, policies, procedures do we need to allow us to be the Church of God in 21st Century America and into the future?   Hopefully our vision and strategic planning efforts will look at these questions as we structure a church to carry out its mission to North America as we move through this 21st Century. 

“Brethren, I do not consider that I have made it my own; but one thing I do, forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.  Let those of us who are mature be thus minded; and if in anything you are otherwise minded, God will reveal that also to you. Only let us hold true to what we have attained”   (Philippians 3:13-16   RSV).

Metropolitan Jonah on Missions & Evangelism

At the Orthodox Mission and Evangelism Conference in Ligonier, Pennsylvania, at Antiochian Village, a few thoughts to contemplate:

Metropolitan Jonah commenting on Luke 3:3 about “a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins” connected repentance to St. Isaac the Syrian’s definition that repentance means to be transformed in the renewal of the mind.   Repentance is not merely admitting to breaking the law, it is a transfiguration of the heart and mind in becoming one with Christ.  Repentance is thus not something that happens once or occasionally but something we do for the rest of our lives (“that we may spend the remaining time of our life in peace and repentance” is what we pray in the Liturgy).   We are to live the life of repentance which ultimately is the way we are examples to others about our life in Christ.  Metropolitan Jonah said in the Christian life, “We are not to become Orthodox, but to become Christ.”

Being a Christian doesn’t mean that we no longer see the sins of others, but rather that we come to see clearly who we ourselves are and what others are – we see the reality that we are sinners, and that sin is ugly, but we love others anyway.  This is what it means to be filled and guided by the love of Christ.

The purpose of the parish is to bring Christ to every member, and then together as the Body of Christ to bring Christ to the world.   We have nothing else to offer the world except Jesus Christ. 

Metropolitan Jonah did advocate for diversity in methods for doing evangelism and reaching out to new people , but reminds us there is to be a oneness in message.   He did say there is a place for a Western Rite Church in the OCA.  He admitted that for Orthodox to succeed in America there will have to be some experimenting with parish life to see what enables us to faithfully bring the ancient faith to the modern culture.

The fact of the matter is that Orthodox ecclesiology is based in the idea of the local church.  The OCA is the legitimate local church in North America.  If we think there must be one universal leader of the Church, that idea is found in the Pope of Rome.  Orthodoxy has disagreed with that notion of leadership.  The OCA is the only legitimate Orthodox Church whose leadership is purely local and not determined by any overseas Church or overseas national power.   

You can listen to both of Metropolitan Jonah’s presentations on evangelism on Ancient Faith Radio.

Sts. Herman and Tikhon of America

This past Sunday was in the OCA  the Sunday of All Saints of North America – the Sunday on which each local Orthodox Church honors the saints of its history and people.    Below are excerpts from the book PORTRAIT OF AMERICAN SAINTS by George Gray and Jan Bear on two of the Saints of North America. 

A STORY ABOUT ST. HERMAN THE WONDERWORKER OF ALSKA

“During the course of the evening’s conversation, the elder [Herman], who despite his limited schooling possessed a natural intellect and common sense, asked the members of the crew what it was that would bring them the most happiness. Some wanted wealth, others wanted a top ranking position in the Imperial Nave, others wanted a beautiful wife, etc. “What could be better, higher, more worthy of love and more splendid than Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, Who created the world, adorns, gives life, sustains, nourishes and loves everything—Who is Himself love.  Should you not love God above all things, and wish for and seek Him?”   The reply came, “Why that’s obvious, how can we not love God?”  He responded, “I, a poor sinner, have been trying to learn how to love God for more than 40 years, and I cannot say that I yet love him properly. If we love someone, we always remember them, we try to please them continually. Day or night we are concerned about them. Our mind and our heart is concerned with the object of our love.  How do you love God?  Do you turn to Him often?  Do you always remember Him? Do you always pray to Him and keep His commandments?”   The crew admitted that they did not.  “Then, for our good and for our happiness, let us all make a vow: at least from this day, this hour, this very minute, we should try to love God above all else and carry out His teachings.”

 

ST. TIKHON, ENLIGHTENER OF NORTH AMERICA

“The term ‘enlightener’ refers to his role in evangelizing the American people.  St. Tikhon once said, ‘the Light of Orthodoxy is not lit for a small circle of people…  It is our obligation to share our spiritual treasures, our truth, our light, and our joy with those who do not have these gifts. This duty lies not only pastors and missionaries, but also on lay people,  for the Church of Christ, in the wise comparison of St. Paul, is a body, and in the life of the body, every member takes part’  (farewell homily before leaving America for Russia in 1907).”

Sts. Herman and Tikhon, and All the Saints of North America, pray to God for us!

On Hierarchy and Conciliarity in the OCA

In this blog I want to offer a few of my own observations on Metropolitan Jonah’s   The Conciliar Structures of the Orthodox Church in America, which he published before Pascha.   I am not intending to comment on everything he wrote, but want to focus on a few points as well as his choice of words.  This may in turn not fairly or fully reflect his overall points, but it is my entry point into the discussion which he has thankfully put on the OCA family table.    I will comment on things I think we as church need to discuss.

I do believe that Orthodoxy in America is in a unique position in world Orthodoxy to review our understanding of the Church.  Through history Orthodoxy has placed emphasis on certain teachings of Christ while de-emphasizing others.  While this has happened due to historical events which demanded a pastoral response under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we are given opportunity now to think again about all of the teachings of Christ and to perhaps re-emphasize certain Gospel teachings that have not held prominence in Orthodox thinking for a number of reasons and centuries.  We need to think in Gospel terms in order to carry out the mission and ministries which Christ has put before us in the new world.

At several points in the document Metropolitan Jonah speaks about the members having “responsibility for the Body” or a bishop having “complete responsibility for every aspect of the life of the community under his care.”   In this sense every Christian is to be a care giver in the Church.   Christianity is not a spectator sport; we must come to our Christian assemblies prepared to give of ourselves to others and for the up building (edification) of all others.    While I think this is good and right imagery, I would want to raise the issue that members and bishops are not only responsible FOR the Body, they are also responsible TO the Body.  That small preposition packs a lot of meaning because it clearly implies that we are accountable to one another.   That interdependency fully reflects Christ’s own teaching about the unity of all Christians.   There has been, in my eyes, way too much emphasis on hierarchy in the church and not enough on unity.  In St. Paul’s notion of the Body of Christ it is Christ alone who is the head of the Church, not the bishops – the bishops remain part of the body like all Christians and in fact grow out of Christ the sole head (Ephesians 4:16).   Bishops also shoulder a responsibility to model, maintain and be a symbol of the unity of all believers not just to ensure hierarchical power over the rest of the believers. 

“And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called masters, for you have one master, the Christ.  He who is greatest among you shall be your servant;  whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted”  (Matthew 23:9-12, RSV).

Veselin Kesich points out in FORMATION AND STRUGGLES: THE BIRTH OF THE CHURCH AD 33-200 that only in Jude 4 is the word “despotes” used to identify Christ.  I do not know when “despot” was first applied to a bishop.”   The New Testament refers to “episcopos” but along the way in Orthodox development secular/Gentile ideas of leadership completely dominated the Church.   Kesich points out that “hierus” is never used in the New Testament for church leadership.  Elsewhere in the New Testament only Christ is the “archierea” (Hebrew 3:1) and the entire people of God in 1 Peter 2:9 are called the “royal priesthood” but not any one leader.   Historians say the word “hierus” was applied to a church leader only at the end of the Second Century.   St. Paul never even calls his followers ”disciples” signaling he understood Jesus to be the only master.

MJ:   “In a diocese, the priests are in a relationship of obedience to the bishop, similar to the monks to the abbot in a monastery.  The bishops are in a relationship of obedience, through slightly different to the Metropolitan.  This relationship is the primacy of leadership.”  

The emphasis on order, hierarchy and obedience remains striking to me.   In Acts 2:42 the Christians devote themselves to koinonia, fellowship with one another, not to obedience to a hierarchy.  It is a commitment to unity where the community has primacy and the Eucharist is the sign of this koinonia.  It is in the Eucharist  and Eucharistic Assembly that the Church embodies Christ and makes Christ visible.   Through history the Church loses this sense of the primacy of the community replacing it with the primacy of the hierarch over the Eucharistic community.   It is important to remember the Fathers of the church saw as the great image of the Church the Old Testament’s Song of Songs – a love story, not a story about master and slaves.   It also has to be said that the Church itself existed before there was any hierarchy.   The New Testament in fact emphasizes gifts and ministries but makes no mention of hierarchy in the Christian community.   There is leadership to be sure in the early church and St. Paul does set for the bishop the condition that he be an exemplary head of household and a good manager (1 Timothy 3).  Did the prohibition by the Lord Jesus of leaders lording over others ever have effect in the early church communities?    Certainly in  history bishops clamored to be Peter the head apostle rather than John the beloved disciple as they embraced the Byzantine ideas of hierarchy!   To me it seems that Orthodoxy has opportunity in America to embody again the imagery of the early church which was changed through centuries of hierarchical accretions which may have served a pastoral purpose in certain cultures and times but may not be the means of leadership which God needs for His church to continue on in history.   Remember the Church existed before hierarchy – the development was first Christ the high priest from whom (second) all believers receive their priesthood, and then thirdly and much later did hierarchy emerge.   Hierarchy was not the source of priesthood in the church – it flowed from the universal priesthood of all believers.  As Sergius Bulgakov notes in THE BRIDE OF THE LAMB  priesthood in the New Testament is given to the church by Christ and it is a holiness bestowed on all the people of God.  It is from the fullness of holiness which Christ has given to the church that hierarch emanates, it is not hierarchy which gives holiness or fullness to the church.  Bulgakov says the essential character of the church is koinonic and eucharistic not hierarchic wherein lives the sobornost/conciliarity of the church.  He says that hierarchy over time has obscured the koinonic nature of the church.    Has an opportunity presented itself for the Church in America to recover our koinonic nature?

“The Metropolitan is the one leader of the Church, elected both as president of the Synod by the Synod, but also by the whole Church in Council. While not above other bishops, he is elected to be accountable to the rest of the Church for the other bishops as Synod and the life of the whole.”

This is one of the places where Metropolitan Jonah does address the issue of those in the church and those in leadership in the church being accountable TO the Church.  It is only when this relationship within the Church is emphasized that Koinonia can result – where the primacy of the community is exhibited as properly primordial to the Body of Christ as seen in the Acts of the Apostles.   Yet it is hard to see how this has been actualized in the life of the church.   It should not be mere ideal – the church must find the way to incarnate this.

“Primacy means leadership, but also the responsibility of accountability. … If a bishop loses the ability to lead through age or illness, or abuses his authority, or is credibly accused or falls into a state of immorality demanding canonical action, or is derelict in his duties, it is the Metropolitan’s responsibility to investigate the situation on behalf of the Synod, and to call that bishop to accountability. If the bishop in question is the metropolitan himself, then the next senior bishop of the Synod bears that responsibility. The canons are clear: bishops alone judge bishops.”

This is an area of church life that needs to be carefully considered.  In a very hierarchically structured society such as Roman Byzantium, social caste was carefully observed and to cross such social boundaries certainly represented a threat to the social order.   However, in a more egalitarian society which has mostly abolished social class distinctions and in which meritocracy not entitlement is the norm, we can ask whether the strict social caste structure being enforced by the canons in fact can allow the Church to be Church – to be koinonia, to attain unity.  Does the Church reflect only the caste culture of the Byzantine Empire, or does it reflect the values taught by Christ in the Gospel? 

“But Jesus called them to him and said, ‘You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men 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, RSV, paralleled in Mark 10:42-45)

While Orthodoxy advocates the apostolic succession, it often appears to ignore the apostolic lesson regarding greatness and primacy – leadership is there to serve not rule over as it is among the Gentiles.  Jesus rebuked the disciples for arguing about who was greatest and when two wanted to be his right and left hand men so they could lord it over their fellow believers (see also my blog Kingdom People).  In the Canon for Matins of Holy Monday in fact Christians attempting to lead by lording over others is called “self appointed tyranny” (see my blog Hierarchical Power: “Self Appointed Tyranny”?)

“We have to embrace diversity of ministries and needs, and move beyond the idea of homogeneity of practice and form.”

This is essential and I have written about this recently in my blog Multiplying Ministries Enables Church Growth.   Orthodoxy must bring back into our vocabulary speaking about gifts of the Spirit, the diversity of the gifts, the Body as made up of many diverse members, and of seeing all members as co-ministers of the Gospel, not just the clergy.  We need to help discern the spiritual gifts given to each parish member.  We need to figure out how to train and equip people for ministry and to stop making our people passive recipients of what the clergy do.   Notice in Acts 6 when there is complaint about the apostolic ministry, the Apostles envision a new form of ministry but do not themselves pick the new leadership in the church. Rather,  they tell the people to select the servant-minsters.  All the apostles do is bless the selection of the people – the church is not being controlled from the top, but rather ministry is expanded from the base and by the base.  

“Hierarchy is primarily about a distribution of responsibility, and is a structure of accountability. The Orthodox Church is a hierarchical church par excellence! It has nothing to do withdominance and subjection; but rather, with shared responsibility in a structure of accountability. The bishop is within the Church, not over it. Hierarchy is about the facilitation of conciliarity.”

I have no problem with what His Beatitude has stated here, but it seems to me we are unnaturally forcing everything in the church to be seen through the lens of hierarchy.   In the Nicene Creed, we profess a belief in “one, holy, catholic and apostolic church.”   We do not profess a belief in or hope in a hierarchical church or in hierarchy.  Certainly if in the great Christological debates of the 4th Century they had seen hierarchy as essential to protecting the Church they would have put such a statement in the Creed.  Perhaps the Creed reflects the “pre-Constantinian” thinking in which the unity of the church was understood as essential while hierarchy still was seen as belonging to the secular world of the empire.  We do profess a belief in the apostolic nature of the church and some might say that indicates hierarchy, but I think it refers much more to authenticity/historicity.  And Christ did command the apostles not to embrace the leadership methods of the secular Gentiles.

“Historically, the presbyters constituted a council around the bishop, a parish or diocesan council. Contemporary Diocesan Councils, with Diocesan Assemblies, are the means whereby the presbyters and lay leaders make the needs within the community known, and where the bishop works to build consensus and empower lay leaders to serve those needs. While the means is partly financial administration, the diocesan councils are the real organ of conciliarity within each local church. The bishop leads and proposes, the Council discusses and comes to consensus, and then cooperates to fulfill the needs of the church. When it works, there is wonderful synergy, and the Church’s needs are fulfilled; when it doesn’t, the whole diocese grinds to a halt. It takes as much work from the bishop as from everyone else to come together, discern God’s will, and implement it through consensus and cooperation.”

What really stood out in my mind in this section is the imaging of the bishop as the initiator of all action while the rest of the church is the passive recipient of the bishop’s action.   The bishop works, empowers, leads, and proposes.  The diocesan council and assembly’s duty is to discuss, come to consensus and co-operate.   It does appear to me that the bottom line is their job is to obey.   It is not a dynamic image of the Church in which all are empowered by the Holy Spirit.  Rather the bishop is the head and leads and the rest are to obey.  This is not a good image for the multiplication of ministries, and it does completely curtail the Holy Spirit.  The membership is not empowered and gifted by God but rather passively waits for the bishop to tell them what to think and do.   This in fact may be the way Orthodoxy has been operating for some time, but then it is no wonder that the Church lacks dynamism for a benevolent bishop might enable a passive people to be happy, but if the bishop is himself the gatekeeper of the Holy Spirit then he becomes the bottleneck which inhibits the people of God from fulfilling Christ’s command to go into all the world and make disciples and to use the gifts which God’s Spirit has given to the Church not just to clergy.

American Orthodox Embrace the Apostolic Debate – Who is the Greatest?

This blog is a follow up to my blog THE ORTHODOX CHURCHES IN AMERICA – E PLURIBUS UNUM.

We Orthodox are approaching Pascha, the Feast of the Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Feast of Feast which unites all Orthodox Christians in a common faith.   As we have approached Pascha, there has been an exchange of ideas which has heated up a bit in the past couple of weeks which has exposed the raw nerve of different ideas which Orthodox in America hold regarding exactly what the shape of Orthodox unity in America might look like.  It is a much needed discussion, specifically because of the hope that conciliarity is both part of the method and the goal of establishing Orthodoxy on this continent.

Some think the debate is inappropriate during Holy Week, but it actually is a very apostolic debate.  Just consider the Gospel reading from Holy Thursday Matins, Luke 22:1-39, which contains this apostolic exchange:

A dispute also arose among them, as to which of them was to be regarded as the greatest.  And he said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those in authority over them are called benefactors.   But not so with you. Rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves. For who is the greater, one who reclines at table or one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at table? But I am among you as the one who serves. (22:24-28)

A couple of weeks ago on the 5^th Sunday of Great Lent we heard the Gospel lesson in which James and John asked Christ that they be granted to sit at His right and left sides in the Kingdom, a request that stirred resentment among the rest of the disciples, and drew a rebuke from Jesus that power and lordship are not part of the Kingdom of God (Mark 10:32-45).   So the disagreements among Orthodox leaders in America concerning power and authority are very much “apostolic” discussions, even though our Lord Jesus Himself rebuked His disciples for having such misunderstanding of the Kingdom of Heaven.

If you want to follow a bit about the current debate among Orthodox leaders regarding power and position, here are a few links:

First (though he was responding to comments made by Metropolitans Philip and Jonah last summer) are the comments of Archimandrite Elpidophoros Lambriniadis representing the Ecumenical Patriarchate, “Challenges of Orthodoxy in America and the Role of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.”   (Scroll down past the Greek comments and you will get to the English version of his comments).

Second is the  homily given by Metropolitan Jonah at Pan-Orthodox Vespers at St. Seraphim Cathedral in Dallas during this Lent.   There is a video of him delivering the comments   or you can read the text of his comments.

Third is the Statement of the Order of St. Andrew, Archons of the Ecumenical Patriarch in America which criticizes the Sunday of Orthodoxy comments of Metropolitan Jonah. 

Finally, not directly related to the above controversy debate, but part of the ongoing issues facing all Orthodox Christians in “America is the Open Letter to Orthodox Christians Throughout North America”  which brings into the debate some other issues which we Orthodox will have to consider as we work out our salvation on the North American continent.

As Orthodox in America – if we are to be ORTHODOX in America – we each will have to confront our ethnocentric way of seeing one another and of viewing the issues of the Church in America.  So we have to discuss and disagree and debate.  We have to go through these very disagreements in order to become the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church in America.   Of course each jurisdiction can rightfully say it already is the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.  What we need to have though is the ability to speak as one Church in America; something  we cannot yet do.   The disagreements facing us and the problems facing each jurisdiction are not bad in themselves; they do not mean we are moving backwards or away from unity.  They mean we are putting our issues on the table, out in the open, and just beginning the discussion.  These are the very issues we must resolve in order for the oneness of the Orthodox Church in America to emerge, so that we can move with a unity of heart and mind in dealing with all of the pastoral, evangelical, ministry and mission issues confronting us.

We are finally coming to deal with the issues we have to deal with and have avoided and not wanted to confront.

In the OCA through the years of confronting our own scandal we looked at certain forms of leadership and ways of doing things and we have recognized they were wrong for the OCA and wrong for Orthodoxy in America.   We had to rid the OCA of those leaders and that vision in order to take on a new vision and direction for the OCA.  In doing so we are also beginning to realize how our problems are related to all of the issues facing all Orthodox in America no matter what jurisdiction they are in.   This doesn’t mean that the solutions we come to are necessarily right for solving the division between jurisdictions, but we can bring our thinking, our methods, and our solutions to the table when dialoguing with the other jurisdictions as they deal with the issues most pressing to them.

Our current situation as Orthodox in America is not unlike the thirteen American colonies in the 18^th Century trying to organize themselves against overseas rulers.  There were many issues which separated the 13 states -  what would a federal government uniting them look like?  What powers would be reserved to the states?  How could large and small states work together?  Should America be more pro-British or pro-French?  What about slavery?  Could industrial and agricultural states co-operate with each other?  Could regional differences be overcome? 

And we know from history, that America cobbled together the Union by avoiding any real decision on slavery which led to a civil war some 70 years after the founding of the United States.

We have many issues separating us.  There are many concerns unique to each jurisdiction and concerns of power sharing and relationships to overseas rulers and national loyalties that cannot be ignored and are part of what separate us into jurisdictions.  It is trying to capture the big picture vision of what it means to be Orthodox in America which can unite us.  All of these issues in as much as they are issues Orthodox face in America, need a solution which incorporates the breadth and depth of Orthodox wisdom.  That is what concilarity will demand frustratingly from us to take into consideration.  

Conciliarity is not identical with compromise, though it might involve compromise.  Conciliarity also is not identical with finding the most efficient solutions or even the “best” solutions.  Conciliarity involves catholicity – wholeness, the fullness of the truth.  It is discovering the depth and breadth of the Church, for it involves revealing the mind of Christ.

The Orthodox Churches in America – E Pluribus Unum

Whatever happens within any Orthodox jurisdiction in America, whatever happens between any jurisdiction and their Mother Church, any and all of the decisions which are made ultimately do and will affect all Orthodox Christians in America.   This is true because both what decisions are made and the method used to arrive at the decision become part of the precedent which shapes how Orthodox in America will deal with each other and with the Mother Churches overseas.  All of it will become part of the legacy which future Orthodox will have to deal with and this is why we should care about what happens in every Orthodox jurisdiction in America.

If we are going to embrace conciliar ideas, and decision making based in love and consensus not just in hierarchical principles which old world Orthodoxy accepts as normative but which are highly questionable based on the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ in Matthew  20:24-28, then we have to take into account all of what has become part of Orthodoxy in our diverse jurisdictional expressions.  This is the only way to conciliarity among all Orthodox Christians in America.  It is a long and slow process.  It doesn’t mean that we have to incorporate all of the decisions and accept all of the assumptions of each jurisdiction, but we will have to deal with them, even if that means nothing more than showing in what manner the decision or the method was not consistent with Orthodox practice or cannot be consistent with the evangelical task laid before us on the American continents.

The scandalous crises of the Orthodox Church in America, the struggles regarding the meaning of self rule in the Antiochian Archdiocese, the notions of traditionalism in ROCOR, the notion of omogenia and Hellenism in the Greek Archdiocese, the arguments of the old world Patriarchates about Pentarchy, phyletism or geographic jurisdiction are all part of what we Orthodox must not only cope with but successfully navigate if we are to from an Orthodox Church in America.  

E pluribus unum - out of many, one.  It has shaped the American experience and must of necessity be part of the creation of the one, holy, catholic church in America.   For though Orthodoxy has a theological unity, we can look at the Old World Patriarchates and realize that this unity does not extend to administration.  In some sense, the very way the theological unity has been maintained is by the clear administrative separation of the various Orthodox patriarchal, autocephalous and autonomous groupings.  In the old world Orthodoxy exists administratively as “out of one, many.”   In America we Orthodox need to embrace the American experience of “out of many, one.”

All of the issues still confronting all of the jurisdictions in America are part of the unresolved issues facing all Orthodox Christians in America.  Even if within each jurisdiction the problems are thought of as resolved, even if the problems of another jurisdiction in no way affect “my” jurisdiction, in as much as these issues and problems reside in the Orthodox parishes and jurisdictions in America, they remain the unresolved issues of us all.

As all Orthodox Christians in America assemble at Pascha at the tomb of Christ to proclaim the universal resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, we realize we share a unity on this continent.  We all have the same head – Jesus Christ.  We all are guided by the same Spirit of God.  We all  have one Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth.  We all belong to the one Church.   So each of our jurisdictional  problems and issues are mutual problems and issues of all Orthodox Christians in America.  May God grant us the willingness to embrace the inner unity of the Church, and to offer to the ancient Mother Churches the fruit of our labor of unity, love, humility, and conciliarity.   It is not the Mother Churches which we must wait upon to impose unity on us.  Unity is the work of our own love for God and for one another and can be the offering we make to God and them.

Thinking About Metropolitan Jonah’s Revision of the OCA

As  I listened to His Beatitude, Jonah, address the Metropolitan Council last week in New York, I jotted down some immediate thoughts and reactions to his address.   I was impressed by the fact that he had thought this out, and has a vision for the OCA.   I also had questions about how this vision would look in reality.    I appreciated the Metropolitan’s effort to begin a discussion, and understand his words to the Council to be an invitation to begin the work of restructuring the OCA.    Below are some of my comments and concerns (His words are in italics):

• 1) The Metropolitan thinks much of the OCA’s scandal originated from the lack of “structures of accountability and delineation of responsibilities” within the central church administration. To some extent the central church structure was governed not by structures and policies but by the personalities involved – where a personality went bad, so went the central church administration.  A fair analysis.
• 2) He worries that our reaction to the serious scandals in the OCA are “self-righteous indignation.” That seems to say the reaction to the scandal was worse than the scandal. I don’t buy that. How about Christ’s words that the one who causes a little one to fall should put a millstone around his neck and drown himself (Matthew 18:6)? It was not over reaction to scandal that has caused a problem for the OCA. We tolerated sinful behavior that was scandalous to many. Maybe a few need to heed Christ and take up their millstones. There should have been indignation over what some leaders did to our church and to its membership, Christ showed such indignation in overturning the money-changer’s tables.
• 3) “We are called to bear one another’s burdens” – many in leadership positions see this only in relationship to those who scandalized the church – the offenders – and always it is a call to forgive. But what about the victims and those who have been scandalized and traumatized by what their leadership has done? The role of the church leader is to protect the flock, not fleece it. Are we really to reconcile ourselves to the wolves, while the lambs’ wounds go unhealed?
• 4) “the principle of authority”: “Primacy is constituted by accountability and authority, in a relationship of obedience. This is Christian leadership. … Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive… (Heb 13:17)” Christ however used the word love a whole lot more than obey, and even when he commanded, he often commanded love. Is the primary command to each Christian to obey leadership or to love God, neighbor, and even enemy? “I believe that the starting place to understand all this is to understand authority and obedience as responsibility, rather than as ‘power.’ Any reduction to ‘power’ is by definition, corruption. … The question is, how are they invested with responsibility and for what, and to whom are they accountable?” In quoting Apostolic Canon 34, Metropolitan Jonah, noted that the canon is not about the bishop’s power, but about their accountability to their primate, and that the primate must not do anything without the consensus of all. This is a corrective to the emphasis on obedience and attempts to recast obedience in terms of responsibility rather than submission. But what does this look like? How is this not what Christ condemned – that his followers not “lord it over” one another, but rather serve one another as Christ served us?
• 5) “The Synod of bishops of a nation is the ‘Local Church.’ … They have the responsibility to elect and install new bishops where there is a vacancy or need.” The Diocese is apparently not responsible for electing its own bishop. Bishops elect other bishops, power flows from power. Where is the church in this? The Synod is the local church? Not the Eucharistic communities? The bishops alone are in the picture; the membership is not apparently needed. How does this enable the bishops to be Christ-like servants rather than elitist lords?
• 6) The bishops relationship to the metropolitan is one of “obedience, accountability in mutual love and respect.” Is the metropolitan obedient to anyone? Does he have any obedience to the other bishops? He bases this in Canon 9 of the Regional Council of Antioch. But with the empire gone, can we uncritically apply the ideas of Christians in the Roman Empire to our situation? For really in America we have another civil structure – the state which holds all the power not specifically given to the federal government. So in our situation, do we need to look at a metropolitan for each state rather than one for the nation?
• 7) “The Metropolitan’s ministry is to hold the bishops to accountability in a structure of obedience that is by its very nature love and respect, unanimity and synergy. The Metropolitan’s leadership arises through building consensus, rather than authority over the other bishops.” But how is this to be done considering that the metropolitan may have a weak personality, and any of the rest of the bishop’s quite strong ones? What is the consequence to any bishop for not being accountable? Does the Metropolitan alone have authority to correct, reprimand or remove a recalcitrant bishop? Can the Metropolitan interfere with the decisions of a diocesan bishop? If not the ideal breaks down. “The Metropolitan’s responsibilities, as primate, are in maintaining unity among the bishops of his Synod, and resolving whatever decisions need to be made on a Synodal level, and whatever issues directly affect the whole church.” But again, how is this unity to be accomplished or enforced? What exactly can he do if one or more bishops won’t obey him or disagree with him? If his role is to maintain the unity, then he will be paralyzed into doing nothing lest the unity be broken.
• 8) “The Metropolitan’s Office has the responsibility to take care of the administrative tasks that affect the whole church.” But what exactly affects the whole church? Can bishops decide what they believe affects the whole church and what is in their purview? Are ecumenical relationships within the diocese the sole responsibility of the bishop? If each diocese is responsible for missions, charity, youth ministry, in what sense can the Metropolitan’s office “coordinate” these diocesan programs without interfering in them? The lines of demarcation are totally vague and surely will be a source of conflict.
• 9) The Metropolitan Council is proposed to be mostly a fundraising agency for the work of the whole church. But since most ministry is to occur on the level of the diocese, it would seem such a fund raising organization has no true purpose, and in fact ends up being an awfully lot like what the central church administration was during the years of scandal – their main function was fund raising not ministry. This revisioned church would do far better to get out of the fund raising business altogether. The plan does not spell out clearly what the financial needs or limits of the territorial church are. They are to raise money, but why? What are they going to be doing that requires so much money to be raised? The Metropolitan Council is envisioned as a fund raising agency, but who decides what the MC must fund or how the funds will be allocated? It becomes purely an agency which takes from others rather than gives. Far better if the church is going to raise money at all that it shows what the need is. What are funds being raised to do? This plan puts fundraising ahead of purpose or function. Besides which the true ministry is supposed to occur in the diocese for what ministry belongs solely to the territorial church? The Metropolitan is more or less dealing with other bishops – both those on his synod and those on synods outside the OCA. Such an office would have very limited needs. A fund raising agency for the territorial church seems in many ways to go against other things for which the vision argues.

Metropolitan Jonah’s “Re-vision” of the Church

For those wanting to read more about the February 18-20 Metropolitan Council meeting, I would recommend reading Mark Stokoe’s comments on OCAnews.org.   I also hope the membership of the OCA will look into the Metropolitan’s new vision for the OCA, and also Mark’s opening questions about Metropolitan Jonah’s vision.   We in the OCA are entering a period of time in which we are to discuss the Statutes of the OCA, and the structure and future of our church.  The bishops will be meeting soon in Colorado for several days to hammer out their reaction to Metropolitan’s Jonah’s idea.

I want to comment only on one idea that the Metropolitan presents.  Basically he advocates replacing the current ideas of central church administration with an Office of the Metropolitan.  This will bring about staff reductions in the central church as more work is pushed into the dioceses where he believes the canon actually envision the work being done.  Stokoe in his comments raises some excellent questions about how exactly accountability would work as he points out some of the serious failures the OCA has experienced recently in accountability; some of the abuses in power might actually be exacerbated by having virtually autonomous diocesan structures. 

I was really encouraged by the open and frank discussions of the recent Metropolitan Council meetings.  There was true give and take as people expressed their concerns and ideas.  But it was also clear to me that despite differences in opinion on some issues, there was a tremendous sense of a common mind by all those present.   And if I would characterize the meeting I would say it was the bishop (in this case the Metropolitan) surrounded by his presbyters with some members of the Synod present as well.  I thought it a very healthy coming together of the Church in council.  If I look at the canons of the church (for example Canons 24 and 25 of the Council of Antioch, or Apostolic Canon 34 which Metropolitan Jonah references in his own paper)  I see reference to both the bishop doing nothing without consulting with his presbyters and a bishop being answerable to the synod of which he is part.   Numerous people have commented that in the early church, the presbyters were not the equivalent of priests, but more like the parish council.  They represented the leadership of the local church which met with their bishop in conciliar fashion to consider the issues and work of the church – in the church at some point the presbyters/elders sat in a semi-circle around the bishop as each “parish” had its own bishop and own council of presbyters.  This was a local configuration and we should beware that the current diocesan structure with a council of priests is not exactly the equivalent.   In the canons the presbyters are always mentioned together with the deacons as the body of church leaders. 

If the Metropolitan has a role of primacy in the church (a supra-episcopal role), it would seem to me that it would also be normal for him to have a council of presbyters that reflects this – a Metropolitan Council.  Especially if he has to consider issues that affect more than his diocese, as certainly was the case with the issues we were deliberating at the recent MC sessions.  If his vision entails the elimination of the MC, because he would only be meeting with the Synod of Bishops, it cuts the metropolitan off from the church which he serves as metropolitan.  If of course his role is nothing but a first among equals, and there is no sense of primacy, then his only point of contact with the rest of church probably would be through the Synod. 

The revision and restructuring of the OCA which is currently under discussion needs to consider how is the advisory role of the presbyters and deacons (apart from whom the bishop was not to make decisions and he was forbidden to keep secrets from them regarding the management of the church) is to be made real and present.  No restructuring which eliminates the role of the ancient council of presbyters (and I am not equating presbyters to priests) can be faithful to the canons themselves.  What is required in the church is greater openness, transparency and accountability – despite the fact that some consider these modern issues, the canons themselves seem to be clear that these are desirable features of the Church.  The bishops were to work in close harmony with all church leaders – this is even more important when the bishop has been moved from being the head of a parish to being head of a diocese (many parishes).  The greater the territory that the bishop’s office covers, the more chance for abuse as the bishops and others can hide behind anonymity, secrecy, distance, lack of oversight and ignorance.