The AAC of the OCA

18thAACFrom my perspective, the 18th All American Council of the Orthodox Church in America is remarkable.  This is not because any new or groundbreaking ideas have been presented, adopted or accomplished.  On the contrary, the Assembly is doing little more than what it is expected to do administratively for the OCA.

What stands out in my mind is the irenic spirit exhibited in the plenary sessions in which the OCA Statute revisions were almost unanimously adopted (97% voted in favor) and the proposed budget and funding plan were so overwhelmingly adopted (92% voting in favor).  The spirit of the council is exhibited in the gentle spirit of Metropolitan Tikhon, whose opening address captured the tone of the Council, and I hope, the future direction of the OCA.

Met Tikhon AACThe Council, under the shepherding of Metropolitan Tikhon, shows every sign that the OCA is ready to move beyond the years of turmoil that marked the past decade.  Council delegates showed a willingness to trust and follow leadership that was in fact working with the Holy Spirit.  Metropolitan Tikhon gave a long opening address in which he skillfully wove in the story of the religious sojourn of his own ancestors into the history and current situation of religion in America today.  His talk was a vision of hope that Orthodoxy in America, which contributed richly to the melting pot which is America, now living in a country of even greater social diversity and heterogeneity, can in fact thrive.   The Orthodox ethnic experience was one in which the ethnic groups tried to maintain their cultural and linguistic distinctiveness in the midst of the melting pot.  The OCA is realizing a new experience – that we as Americans can also be Orthodox, and we as Orthodox can be Americans.  While there are some who feel this is purely accommodation – allowing American values to replace Orthodox values – others see that Orthodoxy has functioned as the salt of the earth in every culture into which Orthodoxy has moved.  Orthodoxy has functioned in many different cultures, even those completely hostile to its existence.  I’m reminded at least of the anonymous early 3rd Century Christian document, “The Letter to Diognetus” which among other things says:

For Christians cannot be distinguished from the rest of the human race by country or language or customs. They do not live in cities of their own; they do not use a peculiar form of speech; they do not follow an eccentric manner of life. This doctrine of theirs has not been discovered by the ingenuity or deep thought of inquisitive men, nor do they put forward a merely human teaching, as some people do. Yet, although they live in Greek and barbarian cities alike, as each man’s lot has been cast, and follow the customs of the country in clothing and food and other matters of daily living, at the same time they give proof of the remarkable and admittedly extraordinary constitution of their own commonwealth. They live in their own countries, but only as aliens. They have a share in everything as citizens, and endure everything as foreigners. Every foreign land is their peopleagapefatherland, and yet for them every fatherland is a foreign land. They marry, like everyone else, and they beget children, but they do not cast out their offspring. They share their board with each other, but not their marriage bed. It is true that they are “in the flesh,” but they do not live “according to the flesh.” They busy themselves on earth, but their citizenship is in heaven. They obey the established laws, but in their own lives they go far beyond what the laws require. They love all men, and by all men are persecuted. They are unknown, and still they are condemned; they are put to death, and yet they are brought to life. They are poor, and yet they make many rich; they are completely destitute, and yet they enjoy complete abundance. They are dishonored, and in their very dishonor are glorified; they are defamed, and are vindicated. They are reviled, and yet they bless; when they are affronted, they still pay due respect. When they do good, they are punished as evildoers; undergoing punishment, they rejoice because they are brought to life. To put it simply: What the soul is in the body, that Christians are in the world.

This seems much closer to Metropolitan Tikhon’s vision than any sectarian withdrawal from the world.  He is a monk, and though having withdrawn from worldly pursuits, he understands the words of Christ:

“Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are. … But now I come to You, and these things I speak in the world, that they may have My joy fulfilled in themselves. I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth. As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.” (John 17:11-21)

Our goal as Church in America is to be a witness to the love, compassion and Good News of Jesus Christ.  We are to give opportunity to others that they might themselves come to repentance (we can’t compel or legislate repentance – it must come from the person’s heart).  We can’t force others to repent, but can invite them to repentance, to offer them good reason to choose a godly way of life.  Our message though is challenging – we invite people to know the love of God, not through self love but through loving others.  On the one hand our underlying assumption of free will resonates to independently  minded Americans.  On the other hand the call to love others is at odds with the self-centered and selfish ideals of total individualism.

My own sense of things is this vision is again being offered and proclaimed in the OCA in a time of uncertainty and in a constantly changing religious and moral landscape.  Our message doesn’t change, but the people to whom we speak are constantly changing.  We have to be steadfast in our love toward them.



4 thoughts on “The AAC of the OCA

  1. Ryan Close

    Hey, can you help me figure something out. The statutes say that the Holy Synod is the “supreme canonical authority in the Church.” Then they say that the AAC is the “highest legislative and administrative authority within the Church.” Isn’t supreme authority and highest authority the same thing? I’m having a hard time trying to determine what the theological and canonical purpose of the ACC is. I know it goes back to the 1917 All-Russian local council where the Patriarchy was reestablished.

    Another related question. The 1917 council established the Patriarchy, the Holy Synod, and something called the “Supreme Church Board” that “served along side the Synod.” The Orthodoxwiki article says that the Supreme Board “was accountable to the national (i.e., local) Church Council.”

    So if I get this right, there is
    1) the National Local Council (i.e. Sober, or All-Russian local Council
    2) the Holy Synod
    3) the Supreme Church Board

    In the case of the Russian Church, the Holy Synod did not consist of all the bishops of the whole Church, so the National Council had the purpose of being a “plenary council” of a local church, that is a council where every bishop was invited to participate.

    In the OCA, the Holy Synod is small enough that it almost always meets as a “plenary council” even when it is not convoked at an AAC. So in the OCA, what’s the point of the AAC.

    Last question, is the “Supreme Church Board” equivalent to the Metropolitan Council of OCA Statute, Article 5, “The Metropolitan Council is the permanent executive body of the Church administration which exists for the purpose of *implementing the decisions of the All-American Council* and continues the work of the Council between its sessions”

    1. Fr. Ted

      The Synod of Bishops is given its authority by the canons of the Church, and in the structure of Orthodoxy is the ultimate interpreter and enforcer of the canons and policies of the Church. The AAC works on a much more limited basis dealing with financial and administrative questions and issues. The AAC adopts the Statutes which guide the OCA administratively, but questions which are of a theological nature are decided by the synod. The Synod has veto/approval power over the AAC. The AAC makes administrative decisions but still needs the Synod’s approval for those decisions to be implemented.

      Because the OCA is incorporated under the laws of the State of NY, it needs to have certain administrative bodies which fulfill legal requirements.

      I cannot answer your last question as I don’t know what the Supreme Church Board is. Perhaps a church historian or canonical expert can answer that.

      1. Ryan Close

        Thanks for the reply. You explain the difference between the Holy Synod and the AAC vey well, but why are the statutes so confusing? That is why do their descriptions seem so similar? Or is there some mental key to interpreting their language that Is simply escaping me?

        If we have a Holy Synod why have our fathers in the church, both in America and in Russia, felt the need to establish such a thing as an ARC or an AAC? They must have had a clear vision of what a local plenary council of both clergy and laity meant both theologically and practically.

        Also, can you explain what the metropolitan’s council is?

        Also, can you explain what kind of administrative bodies the state of New York requires? Are they simply fiduciary in nature?

        My hunch is that the structure is like a CEO – executive committee – board of directors model mapping on to the Metropolitan – Metropolitan’s Council – Holy Synod. But that still leaves the question of the local provincial plenary council. What is it really?


      2. Ryan Close

        Father Ted, let me put it this way, when I look at the OCA website and ask why do we have an AAC nothing on the website explains what an AAC means or what it’s for. Even the statutes don’t clear it up because they use extremely similar language to describe the AAC and the Holy Synod. So my basic question is why do we have an AAC and what is it?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s