Comments Posted By Carl Kraeff

Displaying 901 To 930 Of 1,742 Comments

Pope Shenouda III: RIP

Herakleides–It is not right to call an Orthodox priest vulgar names. On the other hand, since you are not a priest, I suppose I could call you not only a pomopus arse, but also an utterly unredeemable jerk

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On March 26, 2012 @ 3:19 pm

You are right Jason. I certainly think that one of the reasons why the Russian Orthodox Church was so punished by the Bolsheviks is their insistence that all governmental officials (even Roman Catholics, Muslims and Jews) receive communion at least once a year at Pascha. Come to think of it, I think that the whole Orthodox Church has been punished by unlawfully and brazenly advocating infrequent communion. And, what to make of the Old Calendarists who are in violation of the decision to celebrate the Nativity of Our Lord on December 25th (the Winter Solstice). I am perplexed that you are posting with approval the writings of St John Maximovitch since he was obviously an Old Calendarist and one of those bishops who are guilty of compromise. /s

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On March 26, 2012 @ 3:11 pm

The theologians who crafted the agreed statement are clearly saying that the Oriental Orthodox are not monophysites and that the Eastern Orthodox are not Nestorians, and that both profess the same orthodox Chistology.

Now, we can all read and we all know the prior discussions on this subject. It is time to start using our heads and our hearts together and to acknowledge the truth stated in the agreed statement and just unite ourselves in the Body of Christ.

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On March 26, 2012 @ 3:02 pm

See number 11 above. Rules without exceptions are not good rules, thus a diocesan bishop has the right to apply any and all rules with discretion and discernment; that is one of the reasons why we have bishops and their deputies–priests. Also, have you considered the following:

- Sometimes the exceptions do prove and strengthen the rule. In this instance, the Trisagion Prayers were served for the leader of millions of Egyptian Copts, who are extremely distressed because they feel threatened by the resurgence of radical Islam in Egypt. Now, if you observe that the Trisagion Prayers are served for any heterodox Tom, Dick and Harriette, you would have an issue. Not in this case

- Pope Shenouda of blessed memory was a good Christian, albeit heterodox for now. He supported the talks with the Eastern Orthodox to resolve our separation, which seems to be solvable. Thus, he could be looked on, in a back from the future fashion, as one of the founders of our future unity. To rigidly hold onto the current separation, especially on the occasion of his passing, seems to be too rigid, to the point of heartlessness.

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On March 22, 2012 @ 10:18 am

It is not so cut and dry. The same source that you cited has the following provisions.

(3.) Non-Orthodox Christians (but not non-Christians) may be commemorated in the appropriate petitions of the Ektenia of Fervent Supplication at Vespers and of the Great Entrance at Divine Liturgy in the following manner.

(8.) On the prescribed Souls Saturdays, all of the Departed are commemorated by category rather than by individual names. On those days it is traditional for each family to offer a small bowl of kollyva (the size of a cereal or soup bowl) in remembrance of their own Departed.

(9.) On occasion, it is blessed to pray the Akathist for the Departed as a stand-alone service (most appropriately on a Friday evening or Saturday morning) in order to give your congregation opportunity to make general remembrance of all of the Departed — Orthodox Christians, non-Orthodox Christians, etc.

(10.) In the rare circumstance of no one being available or willing to perform the funeral for a non-Orthodox Christian, clergy may request of their Diocesan Bishop a blessing to bury the person using the special rite of burial for a non-Orthodox Christian as printed in the Euchologion.

(11.) For circumstances not addressed above, please make inquiry with your Diocesan Bishop.

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On March 21, 2012 @ 3:22 pm

I’ll Gladly Accept Apologies from the Stokovites

Jacob–Just a gentle reminder. It has been almost 31 hours since I complied with your request. You however have not rebutted my point. Hope you are having a great day.

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On April 4, 2012 @ 3:53 pm

Thank you Your Grace for your thoughtful reply. May I point out that all of the saints that were mentioned by the first article that I cited, all are saints of the universal and undivided church? Of course, the article also cited Saints Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, and John Chrysostom–probably the greatest of all Orthodox theologians.

The “Western” saints that you sort of dismissed included St Hilary, who is commemorated by all Orthodox Churches on January 13th. Here is his life from the offficial OCA site: “Saint Hilary, the great opponent of Arianism, was born around 320. He was raised as a pagan, but converted to Christianity as an adult. He became Bishop of Poitiers in 350. When the emperor Constantius II attempted to impose Arianism on the western Church, St Hilary led a vigorous opposition to his efforts. Because of his outspoken criticism, he was exiled to Phrygia in 356. There he became such a defender and champion of Orthodoxy that the emperor decided it would be less trouble to allow him to return to his diocese.” (my emphasis)

Saint Ambrose (December 7) was by all accounts a giant amongst all bishops and theologians whom the Church has glorified. Saint Jerome (June 15) and Saint Augustine (June 15) are also quite famous, although they are more esteemed in the Latin West than the Greek East. The point that I wish to make is that there is solid Biblical and patristic evidence that tithing would be an innovation only in the minds of folks who are not familiar with the facts of the case.

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On April 3, 2012 @ 1:15 pm

I thank His Grace for the information and call Pravoslavnie, the author of the quoted sentence, to take it to heart.

I hope you do not mind if I could gently chide you for dismissing my claim to be of a venerable, old age like you. I am old enough at 67 to be your son, a consideration that fills me with hope for my future and admiration for you.

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On April 3, 2012 @ 12:49 pm

Jacob–You were complaining that I had not given you a point to rebut. I did give you such as point but you may have missed it. Here is is again:

“At the conclusion of the 16th AAC, there was no $50 per head except in your imagination”

Rebut away..

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On April 3, 2012 @ 10:31 am

JR–I understand and sympathize. However, we need something more that “We are REQUIRED to give everything and we SHOULD give everything we possibly can, whatever that amount is.”

I think the Church has been consistent in saying exactly that. Yet, we still have quite a few Orthodox in good standing who give much less than (a) everything, (b) everything that they can possibly can, or (c) tithes, which was Saint John Chrysostom’s bottom line.

It is time that we as a church move off platitudes and get real. The parishes are no longer supported by the state or rich benefactors, nor should they be. Besides, each of us is called to give back to God (through His Church) of our time, talents and treasure. If we do not do so, are we serious disciples of the Lord? This may indeed be a case of “faith without works is dead.” Now, before folks get too riled up about this, I brought it up to make us think about the consequences of not buckling down and seriously considering the ramifications of our discipleship.

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On April 3, 2012 @ 9:58 am

You said it better than I ever could. Here is the full comment by Saint John Chrysostom that Father Dimitri cited above:

“For what did not they of old do? They gave tithes, and tithes again upon tithes for orphans, widows,and strangers; whereas some one was saying to me in astonishment of another person, `Why, such an one gives tithes?’ What a load of disgrace does this imply, since what was not a matter of wonder with the Jews has come to be so in the case of the Christians? If there was danger then in omitting tithes, think how great it must be now!” (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, volume XIII, First Series, page 69).

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On April 2, 2012 @ 8:07 pm

“HB was definitely inferring that society is moving in a direction where civil disobedience may well become a necessary action for individual American Christians in the very near future.”

That’s the bottom line of the Manhattan Declaration and I signed it because of it. I am also not a spring chicken but I think we can teach the younger generation a thing or two.

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On April 2, 2012 @ 5:27 pm

At the conclusion of the 16th AAC, there was no $50 per head except in your imagination.

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On April 2, 2012 @ 3:48 pm

Here is an article written by a clergyman who must be a Seventh Day Adventist masquerading as an Orthodox priest according to His Grace.

TITHES AND FIRSTFRUITS

by Fr. Dimitri Cozby

“Honor the Lord with your substance, and with the firstfruits of all your produce.” (Proverbs 3:9)

In ancient Israel, the Church of the Old Testament, the Law of Moses instituted the “tithe,” also called the offering of the “first-fruits.” “Tithe” is merely the Old English word for “tenth.” Israel’s tithe was an assessment of one-tenth of all produce. Usually this portion was rendered from the first harvested of the crop, hence the tithe of “firstfruits.” The proceeds were devoted to the maintenance of the Temple, and support of the priesthood, and the sustenance of the poor (Num. 18:24, Deut. 12:11, and 26:12).

These activities are still necessary parts of Church life. Parishes need suitable places for worship, education, and fellowship; we are still responsible for our priest’s livelihood; and the Lord continually reminds us of our obligation to the needy. Therefore, the practice of good stewardship, represented by the tithe, retains its importance.

The motive behind the Old Testament tithe, however, was not purely pragmatic. For the ancient Hebrews tithing was never merely an efficient way to raise money. Rather, they understood that their relationship with God required them to dedicate a substantial portion of the fruit of their labor to His purposes.

Our basic understanding as Orthodox Christians, derived from the Old Testament, is that everything comes from God. All that we have or hope to possess, beginning with life itself, is His gift. We acknowledge this fact in our spiritual life through prayer and fasting and through our struggle to follow His commandments. With regard to our material blessings, we confess that He is their true source by returning a portion to Him, to be used for His purposes in this world. These works include the maintenance of worship, the support of those called to His special service, and aid for the poor. By thus giving a portion of our wealth for His purposes, we sanctify the remainder. Through offering a part, we bring the whole of our lives into harmony with God’s will.

The Old Testament Law embodied this admission of God’s sovereignty in the tithe. Nothing in this is changed by the coming of Christ. Tithing is not a purely Old Testament observance revived by Protestants and, therefore, a thing we Orthodox Christians need not worry about. It is true that many Old Testament practices are now understood in a spiritual way fulfilled, transformed, or displaced by Christ’s coming, death, and Resurrection. It is also true that, in recent times, some Protestants have stressed tithing as the norm of giving. But in reality, neither of these objections applies to the tithe or denies its “validity.”

Our Lord criticized the way in which His opponents tithed, but in so doing, He confirmed the tithe itself: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe your mint, dill and cumin, but have omitted the weightier matters of the law judgment, mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without omitting the others.” (Matthew 23:23)

Likewise, one of the earliest witnesses to Holy Tradition, The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (sometimes called The Didache), applies the firstfruits to the Church. “Every firstfruit of the produce of the wine-vat and of the threshing-floor, of cattle and flocks, you will take and give as the firstfruit to your prophets; for they are your chief priests…If you prepare food, take and give the firstfruit according to the commandment. Likewise, when you open a jar of wine or oil, take and give the firstfruit to the prophets. Take also the firstfruit of money and clothing and every possession, as it may seem right to you, and give according to the commandment.”

Saint Irenaeus, writing toward the end of the second century, notes that Christ Himself “gave directions to His disciples to offer the firstfruits of His own created things not as if He stood in need of them, but that they might be themselves neither unfruitful nor ungrateful.”

Saint John Chrysostom contends that the tithe is more binding on us than on the Jews. In one of his sermons, he notes that under the Old Testament tithing was the norm. Among Christians, however, it has become a cause for amazement; we exclaim in wonder, “Why so-and-so tithes!” Saint John finds this a sad reflection on our piety and ends with the warning, “If it was a danger to neglect the tithe then, imagine how serious it must be now!”

As we said, the Old Testament saints did not see the tithe merely as a way for organizing fundraising for the Temple and clergy, but as part of their relationship with God. Similarly, we cannot regard our giving merely as providing for our parish’s material needs. We must appreciate the spiritual importance of tithing, as the return to the Lord of a portion of His blessings through which we sanctify the remainder for our own use. Thus we acknowledge the Lord’s claim upon the whole of our life and affirm that the focus of our existence is not this world but the Kingdom to come.

The tithe, one-tenth, is the ideal of stewardship set forth in Scripture in the Old Testament tithe, and in Tradition, represented by The Didache, Saint Irenaeus, and Saint John Chrysostom. At first, for those not used to the idea of tithing, this amount may seem staggering. The best way to begin is to adopt a lower percentage and then increase it over time. First, we should accept the underlying principle behind tithing: That we should not give an arbitrary amount, but that our contribution should represent a proportion, a percentage, of our income. Once we establish a certain percentage (for example 3-5%) as our starting point, we can then increase it by one percent a year until we reach the tithe.

From the beginning, however, we must adopt the idea that we give a percentage of our treasure; we cannot base it on impulse, giving “a little something” from what we “have left over.” Instead, our offering should represent “the firstfruits of our produce” offered because we feel the need to “honor the Lord with our substance,” because we want to show our gratitude to Him for His blessings, and because we acknowledge our part in His work of redeeming the world.

(Father Dimitri is Rector of St. Anthony Orthodox Church in San Antonio, Texas. Reprinted from The Dawn, Diocese of the South)

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On April 2, 2012 @ 3:20 pm

I guess we are not perfect in every way? Or, are you arguing that the historical absence of such a practice precludes it from ever being practiced?

Seriously, I guess your answer to my question is that you also have not found a percentage other than 10% (tithing) and 100% (perfection). I am so happy that we agree on something. Now, why not try to persuade the laity that tithing is the least that they should do? Obviously, all the rightly dividing the word has not produced 100% giving; on the contrary, you have folks satisfied with throwing in a ten or a twenty, that is when they show up, as if it is the worth of a ticket at a show or something. Instead of taxing them or using top-down fiats, try to find some lay folks to take the lead on this, to persuade fellow lay folks of the virtues of tithing (or more if they are so inclined). Aren’t you tired of some of our jurisdictions using country club dues systems, organizing rich folks to raise targeted money, or putting on food and dancing festivals to fund the operations of local parishes? Why not give tithing a chance?

Would you maintain that the Church never supported tithing if you knew that Church Fathers had supported such? According to the following analysis, “six Church Fathers between 366 and 400 advocated tithing with none arguing against it. Constantine (c.a. 325 A.D.) had a large impact on Christianity while he was emperor. It was under Constantine that the church and state were united. Constantine himself was a generous giver to churches. However, no mention has been found of him collecting or paying tithes. Basil of Caesarea (370 A.D.) exhorted Christians to pay tithes and Gregory of Nazianzus (c.a. 365) mentions first fruits, but no reference to tithes has been found in the writings of Gregory of Nyssa (c.a. 365). Hilary of Poitiers (366 A.D.), when commenting on Matthew 23:23, concluded that while Christians should place a greater emphasis upon justice and mercy, tithing was still required.

Jerome (pictured left)(385 A.D.) saw the clergy as being in the line of tribe of Levi and the Jewish priesthood and therefore due tithes. In comments made on Malachi 3, Jerome said that Jesus commanded Christians to sell everything and give the proceeds to the poor. Since Christians are unwilling to do that, at least they should “imitate the rudimentary teaching of the Jews” in giving tithes for the poor and the clergy. Otherwise, Christians are “defrauding and cheating God.” Ambrose (374 A.D.), the Bishop of Milan, was unequivocal that Christians are required to tithe. If Christians neglected to give God his tenth, then God will take what they have. He clearly supported the concept of tithing. John Chrysostom (375 A.D.) said that the Christians of his day should return to tithing or face dangerous consequences. He understood the Old Testament to be inculcating multiple tithes, not one (“tithes again upon tithes”). Commenting on Matthew 5:20, Chrysostom calculates that the Jews gave about half of their income. He concluded that if when giving half “achieves no great thing, he who doth not bestow as much as the tenth, of what shall he be worthy.” While Chrysostom thought that Christians fulfilled the Old Testament law by tithing, he also believed Christians should not need law.

Augustine (pictured left)(400 A.D.), Bishop of Hippo, is one the most often cited church fathers by both Catholics and Protestants. He said that while the paying of tithes occurred before him, presently Christians were not adequately paying their tithes. Augustine believed that Jesus’ command to sell one’s possessions and give the proceeds to the poor was binding upon Christians. He lived this out in his own life. However, since Christians were unwilling to give all, they should at least imitate the Jews and give a tenth. Therefore, Augustine supported tithing through concession.

In summary, the following Church Fathers all advocated tithing and none were found in this time period that argued against tithing: Hilary of Poitiers (366), Basil of Caesarea (370), Ambrose (374), John Chrysostom (375), Jerome (385), and Augustine (400).”

http://slaveoftheword.blogspot.com/2006/03/six-advocates-of-tithing-between-366.html

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On April 2, 2012 @ 2:45 pm

Please rebut away!

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On April 2, 2012 @ 2:44 pm

Speaking of a sense of humor, you must be in a playful mode to ask such a question. BTW, I get the reference to the “lands of the wood.” What I don’t get is the midddle initial “B.” that you just attributed to me. What gives?

Also, have you noticed that you change the subject each time that I say something that you cannot rebut. Effective tactic for propagandists but not for serious people, no?

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On April 2, 2012 @ 12:23 pm

Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) said “Ten percent is not a Mystical, Holy, or Sacred rate, even though it, like circumcision and other practices is mentioned in the Scriptures, but one would surely never say tithing is inspired by the Word of God; that’s Seventh Day Adventist, etc., talk.”

Nice spin, Your Grace, especially grouping those who believe in tithing with the Seventh Day Adventists. It will not work because you are simply wrong.

Tithing was a Scriptural practice even during the time of Jesus and the earliest Church. It was not an issue like circumcision simply because the earliest Christians gave more than 10%. They knew that the reason why they gave (in a cheerful fashion and because of love for the Lord and each other) was very important. In Matthew 23:23, echoed in Luke 11:42, the Lord specifically said not to overlook tithing (I am bolding the relevant part for you): “23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.” We know that in the Old Testament, Abraham is shown to have tithed and Jacob promised to tithe. So 10% is not something new. Granted that tithing originally referred to agricultural production, the principle is to give God at least a small portion of what He gives us.

There are passages in the Scriptures where Jesus advises folks to give up everything. So, we do have an indication from the Lord that we should give up some/all of our worldly possessions. The two Biblical extremes that we have are 10% at the lowest level and 100% at the highest level. If His Grace Tikhon knows of any other percentage that is found in the Holy Scriptures or in the writings of the Fathers, it would be good if he would share that knowledge.

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On April 2, 2012 @ 12:16 pm

I cannot understand how you can be both so right (as when you agree with me) and so wrong (most of the time).

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On March 31, 2012 @ 12:37 pm

The assessment does need to be reduced; there is no question about it. At issue is YOUR insistence that it should be reduced to $50 and YOUR assurances that the idea of it all is to cripple and/or get rid of CA. Neither one of your claims is true. I really do not know why you are not answering my objections, why you are not acknowledging the obvious: While the original resolution proposed to reduce the assessment to $50, the delegates from the sponsoring diocese (New York) offered a vague amendment that said that the assessment will be reduced after the first year. The AAC never set a target. For all we can tell, the MC can reduce it “proportionally” to $104.33/person and still be in compliance with the letter of the resolution.

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On March 31, 2012 @ 9:00 am

I just can’t square “the intention is to LOWER the assessment” and the statements of the proponents with the following statements of yours:

“The Assessment is $50″
“we don’t want to pay for Syosset any longer.”
“You are right, Spasi, the clear signal given and the directive sent by the AAC was, ‘You get $50 per head. Adjust accordingly.’ ”
“But, halving the Assessment is exactly what was decided in Seattle.”

Sorry, you strike out. Not once but four times (I gave you an extra shot since you are a VIP).

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On March 30, 2012 @ 6:03 pm

I understand your position. Unfortunately for you, your position is not the position of the AAC. I read the Official Minutes of the 16th AAC and they clearly show that the proponents of the resolution to reduce assessments did so to move the system toward proportional giving (tithing) and not to gut Syosset. If the Minutes are wrong, I am sure that you can obtain clarifyiong stateme4nts from the individuals that I am citing below;

“Proponent: Mary Buletza-Breton, Annunciation Church, Brick, New Jersey (Diocese of New York and New Jersey)
It was never the intention of the writers of the resolution to drastically reduce the funding for the Chancery staff. The intent was to shift from an assessment to tithing and proportional giving. Our intent is to keep the dioceses and parishes strong.

Proponent: Priest Victor Gorodenchuk, St. Stephen Cathedral, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
To put this in a more positive fashion, the amendment does not require reducing the budget but simply looking at alternative methods of funding beyond that collected with the $50 per capita assessment. The benefit is that each Diocese can discuss how they choose to fund its own Diocesan work, and can also discuss ways to offer some additional funding to the National Church above and beyond the assessment.

Motion to amend the resolution: Archpriest John Shimchick, Church of the Holy Cross, Cherry Hill, New Jersey (Diocese of New York and New Jersey) 16th All‐American Council. Plenary Session 6 Page 4
Fr. John offered an amendment to the resolution which set the assessment level for the next year at $105 per person and then proportionally lowers it over the next triennium. The amendment would replace the last two paragraphs with the following text:
“Be it resolved that the 16th All-American Council fix the CCA fair share assessment for each of the participating dioceses at an amount of $105.00 per capita of the census of the participating

Proponent: Archpriest John Shimchick, Church of the Holy Cross, Cherry Hill, New Jersey (Diocese of New York and New Jersey)
Fr. John stated that this amendment was a compromise which would both respect the call for a different approach toward funding within the OCA, yet allow the Central Administration to study the issues and initiate a concrete plan.

The Chair conducted the vote. Amendment passed.”

I do not see anything here that supports your spin.

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On March 30, 2012 @ 4:04 pm

I would refer you to my calculations that I had presented earlier (see 03/28/2012 at 5:44pm). The key portions were:

“In a tithing scenario:
Parishes collect $225,00 and tithe $22,500, keeping $202,500
Dioceses collect $1,125,000 and tithe $112.500, keeping $1,012,500
OCA collects $1,125,000 and tithe $112.500, keeping $1,012,500

Under this scenario, in order for the OCA to hold onto a $2.5 million budget, we either double the membership rolls or the percentage from diocese to OCA. The maximum Diocese assessment would be 22.22%.

Of course, in a non-tithing scenario, you will run into many problems, certainly starting at the parish level, where under my assumptions, parishes collect only $52,000, paying assessments to dioceses in the following amounts: $5,000 ($50/member), $10,000 ($100/member) and $15,000 ($150/member).. Interestingly, if the dioceses send up 50% of their take from their parishes, the OCA gets $1,250,000, $2,500,000 or $3,750,000 at the previously cited assessment levels.”

The main point is that tithing:

a. is the one and only minimum sacrificial giving that our faith requires of all of us.

b. is beneficial to the spiritual health of the tither, parish, diocese and local church.

c. minimizes the influence of benefactors.

d. maximizes the personal commitment of all to parish life.

e. optimizes the essential equality of all

f. acts as a tide; if it rises, all boats rise equally, and if it falls, all boats also fall equally. This is the key to keep the peace between individual, parishes, dioceses and CA.

g. has nothing to do with bolstering any function over another. To illustrate, budgeting would start with weights of effort: such a percentage to operational, another to missions, etc… You would of course have actual numbers to assign to these areas of emphasis and you would need to establish minimums, but once the policy and prioritizations are made, it would be easier to do inevitable adjustments that you would have to make.

If I may answer your last question, we must have a structure and funding in place for those church-wide functions that are required of any church. The key is to make that the structure reasonably sized and funded. Just fulminating against the CA is not helpful; neither is the oft-repeated claim that the central officers are getting paid way too much. I think that to ask a priest with a family to work for less than what they are being paid is cruelly neglectful of their very real needs to support their families. Now, if they were monastics, you could obviously pay them way less but I had thought that one of the better features of our Church is that we prefer our priests to be married. I am not asking here for the Chancellor to get paid more than the $95K salary he gets–that is a very modest sum for the location (or for DC for that matter). What I am saying is that to call this pay extravagant betrays either naivete about NY or a certain animus against the incumbent or the position.

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On March 30, 2012 @ 9:41 am

Couple of points.

1. You responded to my “deficit of $400K” post which was about ROCOR but I think you were addressing my subsequent post on the OCA budget. JUst wanted to make sure we are on the same page.

2. I understand what the ACC did and I agree that it is the job of the MC to carry out that decision. I do not think it was a good decision since it was not more than a declaration of principle, of an ultimate goal, in addition to being a rebellion against the CA. I hope that a good transition model is found. I do not think that it is good for some dioceses to be starved of cash just because its priests and parishioners do not want to do the right thing and tithe. Here is an idea that contains sacrifices by everybody:

a. Cut CA budget by about 20% to $2 Million. Do so by cutting the operational costs (travel in particular)

b. Get the tithing dioceses to give more to CA for a transitional period only.

c. Make tithing mandatory for all dioceses, to be implemented over that transitional period. In return, the currently non-tithing dioceses should keep a greater percentage of their funds at parish and diocese levels.

d. Launch a campaign to implement tithing at the parish level. Make sure that the message is consistent. This would also be done over a transitional period. You could use change theory and existing system change models to make this happen in stages. Work with early adopters and start to add more parishes from the large, middle section of the bell curve. Don’t even worry about the 5-10% who will not change unless compelled, something that we must avoid.

e. Let the early adopter pilot parishes figure out their own way on how to do tithing. Provide technical assistance and process coaches but do not impose one-size-fits-all solutions. The idea is for the congregation to own the process and the results. You may be surprised at how folks respond when they are empowered! Let them share their approaches (change projects) with the other pilot sites in learning collaboratives. Let the parish priests be change champions but not change leaders, while retaining their overall authority.

f. As more parishes start tithing, they will like the benefits and the parishioners can sell tithing to their friends and relatives in the parishes that are not yet in the systems change project. You can do that Diocesan meetings by turning them into learning collaboratives that include the phase two parishes.

Anyway, this is how many systems changes are implemented and it really works. I estimate that you would need about three to five years at the diocesan level. At the parish level, it could take as many as three years for the early adopters and a bit more for the second tier parishes–they will not be complete strangers to what’s happening and it would not surprise me if some of them want to get going before its their time.

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On March 29, 2012 @ 9:15 pm

Jacob–I agree with much of what you have written especially when you said that there must be movement from both top and bottom. I do think that the movement from the bottom is much more important but Syosset’s movement cannot be in halving the budget in half. That is a death sentence, not a reduction. Besides, if we cannot convince the priests and parishioners of the virtues of tithing, you might as well close shop and/or quit pretending you still are the Body of Christ. Indeed, I do think that one of the cardinal principles of an administratively united American church must be acceptance of tithing as a normative, not optional principle. Since I am on the subject, I also think that we have to establish a maximum parish size if we are serious about being a missionary church..

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On March 29, 2012 @ 3:20 pm

The problem with dioceses sending such a high percentage of their income to the OCA more than likely is because in certain dioceses folks are not tithing or, if they are, their median household income or the number of members have declined.

I ran some figures just to see what happens with the following assumptions:

- Median household income of $45,000, with each household having two members
- 50 households or 100 members per parish
- 50 parishes per diocese (2,500 households or 5,000 members)
- 10 dioceses total (25,000 households or 50,000 members)
- Non-tither members give an average of $20 per week (50% attendance rate)

In a tithing scenario:
Parishes collect $225,00 and tithe $22,500, keeping $202,500
Dioceses collect $1,125,000 and tithe $112.500, keeping $1,012,500
OCA collects $1,125,000 and tithe $112.500, keeping $1,012,500

Under this scenario, in order for the OCA to hold onto a $2.5 million budget, we either double the membership rolls or the percentage from diocese to OCA. The maximum Diocese assessment would be 22.22%.

Of course, in a non-tithing scenario, you will run into many problems, certainly starting at the parish level, where under my assumptions, parishes collect only $52,000, paying assessments to dioceses in the following amounts: $5,000 ($50/member), $10,000 ($100/member) and $15,000 ($150/member).. Interestingly, if the dioceses send up 50% of their take from their parishes, the OCA gets $1,250,000, $2,500,000 or $3,750,000 at the previously cited assessment levels.

Obviously, one cannot rush into a tithing paradigm shift, but we should also not rush into reducing the assessment in such a drastic fashion that we ruin all our national level institutions. There must be a transition plan, where folks will have to be convinced to start their proportional giving and increase it to tithing (just as Archbishop Dimitri of blessed memory had always counseled). We cannot afford not to insist on this because the spiritual health of the OCA, the individual dioceses, parishes and indeed individual parishioners depend on this. It is really not a matter of finances per se but of our individual responsibilities as Christians. I do not think that we will really have a serious and prospering Church unless tithing or sacrificial giving is ingrained in each one of us. Orthodox churches are relying way too much on benefactor or state support. We will continue to use this centuries old practice to our peril. So will any knee jerk reactions that will gut the national institutions.

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On March 28, 2012 @ 5:44 pm

Sigh! That was “tongue in cheek.” However, no such humor can be successful if it is not based on some reality. Thus the portrayal of Father Fester as an eminence grise, a Grima the Wormtongue.

That’s OK though; I pray that I will be as sharp as you when I reach your age a few decades from now.

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On March 28, 2012 @ 1:43 pm

Not if you adapt the only Christian and fiscally sound methodology: Tithing by everybody and every level.

Me: 10% to my parish
My parish: 10% to Diocese of the South
Diocese of the South: 10% to OCA
OCA: 10% to outside the OCA (could be foreign missions, sister churches, any kind of charity)

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On March 28, 2012 @ 11:26 am

Thank you.

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On March 28, 2012 @ 11:22 am

I know: Father Fester. He has lots of experience already in whispering sweet nothings to bishops. He believes in a strong Metropolinate, modeled somewhat after the church from whence he came. He is sly, cunning, organized, charismatic and very efficient. In other words, the perfect candidate for the regulars on this site.

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On March 28, 2012 @ 10:43 am