Comments Posted By Subdeacon David
Displaying 1 To 8 Of 8 Comments
“Conspiracy”…You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
» Posted By Subdeacon David On August 19, 2012 @ 4:45 pm
And so, Arnoldus, you demonstrate my point. As the facts bare out, +HB DID see the “wolf”, he just gave the man the benefit of the doubt at first. No doubt, if it was a priest the “powers that be” supported and he had NOT given the benefit of the doubt, that would have been an issue as well. No, no, we want the Protestants wanted at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, a “professional” clergy – it has been their downfall, and will be ours.
» Posted By Subdeacon David On August 6, 2012 @ 6:15 pm
Thank you for the clarity, Karen. I agree they are not mutually exclusive. However, if one must err, I would prefer a Primate who errs on the side of guilessness rather than cynicism. And having some experience with church politics (albeit not Orthodox), I know that cynicism is a fairly common trait among church aparatchik types. While one wishes that +HB Jonah had been more discerning and incredulous regarding the priest in question, it is difficult for me to fault him for more than being overly generous and not, perhaps (we don’t really know his side of the story, now do we) seeking advice from others. However, given the apparent viperous nature of the Syossett crowd and the Lesser Synod, one wonders to whom +HB could have turned for even handed advice.
» Posted By Subdeacon David On August 3, 2012 @ 6:38 pm
I confess to being too dense to quite get your point, Karen. If it is that +HB Jonah was not a charismatic elder, then I guess he would be the first to admit that. Can you point out one of our bishops who is such a man? It seems to me that +HB thought well of people and was not clairvoyant so as to see through them until such time as they actually demonstrated to him they were not good people – my, such a failing. It seems he treated the HS the same way – well, I guess that WAS a mistake. Based on the report I read, when +HB learned the seriousness of the problems with the priest in question, he took appropriate action. Perhaps it was not as soon as it could have been, but with the duties and responsibilities he had that is understandable, if regrettable. A little more support from the MC and a good administrative assistant would have done wonders to correct that.
» Posted By Subdeacon David On August 3, 2012 @ 1:17 pm
There is a simple solution to this: scan the documents and post them for the world to see. Otherwise, all that is being presented is heresay; what “bishops” (can you provide names?) tell you that they have seen.
» Posted By Subdeacon David On August 3, 2012 @ 10:21 am
P.S. Last Summer I met an OCA priest whom I asked what was the real problem within the OCA’s Holy Synod, and “the first among them,” their primate. He told me he supported the Metropolitan, that his problem was that he, Metropolitan Jonah, could not see guile in anyone, especially a priest.
Isn’t it sad that we had a man who wasn’t cynical enough to be Primate of the OCA? What does this say about a) the rest of our leadership; and b) the discernment process of clergy, in general, in the OCA?
When I set out to become a United Methodist Minister more than 30 years ago, I had to declare myself for the “candidacy” and be interviewed by both my local pastor and “Pastor/Parish Relations Committee” of my local church who had to recommend me to the District Superintendent (like a dean) who would then recommend me to the annual conference (think diocese) committee on Ministerial Candidates. I then had to go through a set process and have a psychological exam. At each stage of the process I was tracked and monitored and evaluated in at least annual meetings with the conference committee. When I became a “local pastor” (essentially an un-ordained full time lay minister) I was put under a supervising elder in the local area. Upon completion of seminary I could be ordained a “deacon” (not the same function as in the OC, more like a “junior” or “probationary” ordination) and went through two more years of supervision, meetings, etc., before finally being approved for full ordination as a presbyter (or elder). This whole process took five years. For Methodists. ‘Nuff said…
My point is not that we need to discern more cynical men, but that if the discernment process was better and more systematic, perhaps we would have clergy (including bishops) with whom it didn’t require being cynical to work.
» Posted By Subdeacon David On August 3, 2012 @ 9:22 am
Not sure why I cannot reply to the post above, but I reply here to express my thanks to you, your Grace, regarding the proper use of “subdeacon”. While I am sure I have seen it written with a hyphen by others than myself, I appreciate the lesson – seriously, no sarcasm to be inferred whatsoever.
» Posted By Subdeacon David On July 30, 2012 @ 6:17 pm
«« Back To Stats Page
In time, the dust will settle and the OCA will survive because it is part of Christ’s Holy Orthodox Church. God will protect His Church and the OCA.
Father, your blessing! Are you aware of any local Churches that have been “part of Christ’s Holy Orthodox Church” that have not survived? Certainly there have been many. While we can have faith that the Church itself shall prevail, that ought not be taken as a guarantee that any particular expression of the Church, including the OCA, will. By all account, the OCA is hemoraging members. Its bishops are at best incompetent or, at worst, dishonest and disingenuous. Here in America the OCA is not THE Church, but merely an expression of it in this uncanonical mess we have ourselves. While I wish your advice was sound, I fear that it is not much more than that of one whistling past a graveyard.
Additionally, just HOW would “God decide if [our] bishop is rightly dividing the word of His truth”? How is that decision manifested? Is it not in PEOPLE? Is it not in the “rational sheep” saying “anaxios”? I am reminded of the joke about the couple whose home was flooded and “put their trust in God”, climbed upon their roof and turned down all offers of help, as “God would deliver them”. When the flood waters finally overwhelmed them, they appeared before the Lord and ask Him why He hadn’t helped them. The Lord, of course, patiently pointed out all the people He had sent their way…
» Posted By Subdeacon David On August 11, 2012 @ 2:07 pm