To expedite the process of healing, one has to understand firmly identify the dysfunction. In order to do that, we must examine the past, not so much the actions which took place but why they took place. Being fairly new to the OCA myself (and having never been to Syosset), I don’t know how to answer this question. My knowledge of the history and interpersonal relationships which is at the root of the problem is likewise sorely lacking. Fortunately, others have taken up my request and offered their own thoughts on the matter. What follows is one such perspective.
This thoughtful piece was sent to me unsolicited by a layman in the OCA who has a degree in psychology. It’s certainly thought-provoking and it does explain some of the dysfunctionality in what I term the Syosset/Synod Apparat. He offers much to consider some of which I felt intuitively but was unable to elucidate. I doubt it will be the last word but it does go a long way in furthering the discussion. And as I’ve said in the past, I welcome any reasonable ideas, even those I may not necessarily agree with.
How did the letter published by the OCA Holy Synod get approved for public consumption? This is a question that only a few have noticed. Who persuaded the Holy Synod that it would be edifying for the faithful or helpful for their own long-range goals to publish such hasty and defamatory remarks?
A simple and direct answer to this question would accomplish little more than add fuel to the fire of passions that is engulfing our current discussions; yet a broader and more penetrating investigation into the relationship between our bishops and those laity and clergy who advise them is an essential element in illumining and elevating our present discourse. Only by such passionless exchange of views can we hope to understand more fully the OCA’s systemic failure to thrive.
This infamous letter, poorly written and downright slanderous, would never have been posted, one hopes, if sober legal advise had first been sought. Yet this is not the only synodal action in recent years whose genesis deserves greater scrutiny. It comes on the heels of the coerced resignation of yet a third primate of the OCA, itself the culmination of months and months of embarrassingly handled interpersonal issues. Last year, the Synod expressed public disagreement with a major newspaper article written in praise of its own primate; it repeatedly resurrected the mistakes of its primate to publicly denigrate his name; it even leaked reams of its own confidential documents to bloggers on the internet for petty political gain. Yet in all this, the Synod has obstinately ignored matters of staggering consequence in several dioceses other than those of the Metropolitan, and then, when challenged, has responded with peremptory admonitions to trust and obedience. Such pastoral carelessness comes at the cost of gross scandal to the faithful, leaving monastic, parish, and cathedral communities torn apart, and pious believers heartbroken and ever more hardened in their lack of trust in the shepherds of Christ’s rational sheep.
The behavior of the Synod appears erratic and irresponsible, reactionary and resentful – but also highly unlikely. Does it not seem odd that a dozen middle-aged and older men could have enough emotional momentum to cause the events which have landed us in our current situation? It is improbable in the extreme. It could only happen because they have been given help along the way: our bishops’ decisions are not made in a vacuum, but as part of a network of clergy and laity who take keen and energetic interest in the affairs of the Church and who buoy the bishops up with any number of stated or tacit motivations.
So to the question, why do our bishops continue to make erratic and highly damaging decisions, I offer this answer, simple but sad: bishops are very lonely people – incredibly lonely. This may seem obvious to some, yet many fail to recognize the significant role this loneliness has played in our bishops’ lives and decision-making process.
There is a three-stage pattern within the OCA characteristic of the typical relationship of a bishop to his flock. This pattern has significant parallels with the psychoanalytic concept of codependency. Essentially, someone who wishes to have a close and influential relationship with his bishop relates to him at first as his supportive friend, then, as his betrayed and hurt enemy, and, finally, as his condescending savior and healer.
In the first stage, a newly appointed bishop is flooded with public support. The clergy and faithful of his diocese are overjoyed at the election of their new archpastor, their father in Christ. During this ‘honeymoon,’ while the bishop is still being introduced to his new parishes and faithful, certain laity and clergy step forward to make themselves known to the bishop, offering public support and personal friendship – meals at the home, relationships with the kids, travel, and dining. The bishop comes to see in them his true supporters, the friends, co-visionaries, and confidants who will be integral to his ministry. This is a fruitful and exciting time in the bishop’s tenure.
But the second stage begins as the bishop makes steps towards changing the way his diocese is administered. Drawing from his conscience and prayer, from his formation in the past and his vision for the future, he promotes new emphases in Church life, laying out new policies and practices. Inevitably, he makes mistakes and steps on some toes, but he receives forgiveness and understanding. Over time, however, resentments begin to form, and those who have invested heavily as ‘friends’ and ‘guides’ are among those hurt the most, disappointed that their efforts and attention have not led to greater influence. Their sense of betrayal may lead to a public outcry against and berating of the bishop. Truly pained to hear of the perceived discomfort his own loving actions have caused, the bishop becomes depressed and disillusioned and may begin to question his own teachings. This second phase may never end; the bishop may remain in a constant broken state, torn between what he hears from the Holy Spirit and the expressed, often stubborn, desires of the faithful. In the fallout, he may be left with but one or two ‘friends.’
In the third stage, the bishop begins to express doubt or remorse for his actions, publicly or privately. His faltering certainty is quickly affirmed by members of the faithful or clergy, specifically those who, in the first stage, were considered his ‘friends’ and ‘guides.’ These individuals look upon the bishop’s deflated state as ‘repentance’ and ‘enlightenment’ and are quick to offer comfort and services to the bishop whose idealism has been crushed and must be nursed back to health with ‘tough love’ and a ‘heavy dose of reality.’ Those precious few friends, those enlightened and altruistic guides with no small ideas about how the diocese and the church ought to be run, assume the position of healer and condescend in pity toward the bishop for his ‘own wellbeing’. By the end of the third stage, the bishop is nursed back to health and raised up again in the desired image of the ‘healer,’ his memory clouded as to how he came to find himself in his current state. The bishop can barely recognize that the one who initiated the public beatings and the revolt against his teachings is now the one who makes territorial claims on his own physical and mental health.
The three stages are not always clearly demarcated, but steady observation will show this phenomenon played out time and time again in the lives of our poor bishops.
These stages have been examined at the diocesan level, but the same pattern can be seen among those clergy and laity who, due to involvement with the Central Administration or Metropolitan Council, have the opportunity to interface with the Synod as a whole, not just with their own bishop. Invested with such influence, they have the capacity to greatly influence the vision the bishops set for the Church, or, perhaps more accurately, to prevent the bishops from setting any vision, because of competing influences and constituencies resulting in gridlock.
Indeed, there are many competing visions for the autocephalous church of America, each with its own emphases and values. The pioneering spirit of reform and a more discerning reception of past tradition, passed down from Schmemann to Meyendorff to such contemporaries as Hopko and Kishkovsky, have been adopted and reframed to fit many different agendas and personal convictions, including:
- the place of the OCA at the Assembly of Bishops and in the greater dialogue with the other Orthodox Churches;
- the OCA’s participation in the WCC and NCC;
- the church’s response to increasingly heated issues of sexual morality like abortion and homosexuality, which in turn open out onto wider and more abstract postmodern ideas about anthropology and self-identification;
- the reaction of our own faithful to the grievous failings in the Roman Catholic Church to report and correct terrible abuses;
- related to this, a possibly prudent or possibly obsessive fear of litigation that may have little to do with the Church’s spiritual tradition;
- the administrative structure of the church vis-a-vis the “best practices” of modern business and bureaucratic norms;
- how the church is to relate to the state in the unique but exhilarating governmental structure of the United States;
- and – what for many has long been the hallmark of the OCA – concerns about the received liturgical and sacramental tradition and related pastoral practice.
This partial list suffices to show many of the causes and goals which any of us can attach ourselves to and make into a lens through which we come to view all of Church life. Such a lens inevitably becomes the only real content of our relationship with the bishop, our father in Christ.
These and similar issues are often the source of the conflict that gets resolved by the ‘salvific condescension’ of the few enlightened laity and clergy. Like-minded individuals often band together to exert particular influence over one or several bishops because of a perceived weakness, or an established proclivity towards a chosen topic. Highly invested in the bishop’s response to these issues, they attempt to hold him accountable while making claims on his ‘recovery.’ It is all too easy for the bishop to be swayed against his better judgment.
What is remarkable about this, though, is that the bishops are being manipulated by the same individuals who make claims on their health and wellbeing. On a human, even emotional level, the bishops become dependent on their care and so become vulnerable to their subtle or quite plain forms of control.
For instance – to return to our opening question – it would not be at all surprising if the SMPAC members were the major lobbyers for the publication of this letter. This group has shown itself comfortable making serious and sweeping allegations without weighty evidence. Their motivation may be good will in hoping to protect the Church from litigation, or may be a desire to be in control. As such, they can easily become bedfellows with those who wish the Synod to respond to inter-church or moral issues in a certain manner. A bishop who is seen as unresponsive to such guidance may come to be viewed as undesirable from several vantage points. Supporters of a number of causes might combine and gain strength in a group effort aimed at relieving this bishop of his authority and responsibilities. Further, such a group might champion as their leader a new bishop not well-known for taking firm stands on topics – at least while that bishop remains pliable. As long as the bishop can be manipulated to stay in the depression of the second stage, the group’s third-stage ideals and desires can be achieved with ease.
Now, does acknowledging this pattern of control demean the bishops and mitigate their responsibility for the current chaos? Perhaps. Yet this is probably the most realistic, and also most humane, way to understand our situation. More importantly, unless we clearly recognize and repent of this behavior, the OCA is doomed to repeat the events of the last decade until its inevitable demise.
The bishops, as fathers, are indeed responsible for their actions. But, dear Lord! we have not helped them! We faithful need to defend them from being manipulated and help them to stand firmly on their own two feet.
Hence the laity share a heavy load of responsibility. For if we know this manipulation is taking place, then we need to speak against it and stop doing it ourselves. If the bishop is indeed our father, we must learn how we are to act as his children.
To be a father is to have a child. And there is nothing more that most bishops want than to become a real father to their flock – to take responsibility for them, to encourage them, to raise them up into strong men and women who joyously bear Christ in the world and fulfill their own vocation as children of God. Like any father, a bishop will make many mistakes. But to respond with a temper tantrum is only a viable option for a two-year-old. We have reacted as toddlers far too often. To be sure, we could make the excuse that we are simply mimicking how our bishops on the Holy Synod treat each other and treated their primate, but we are solely responsible for our own actions.
The appropriate response for children is continually to seek out the heart of their father’s teaching, inclined towards a formation which they must trust will lead them closer to God. When even one child in a family reacts with angry, wild outbursts, it takes away from the attention the father can give to the rest of his flock. We the faithful need to respond as older, more mature siblings and bring the outbursts of a few – those who by long and painstaking practice have made themselves the relentless and influential manipulators of our bishops – to the attention of the many, so that these toddlers might receive the appropriate attention they need without stealing the parent away from the rest of us. By becoming real sons and daughters, we enable and facilitate the ministry of our fathers. This is a sure path to healing in the church.
It is nothing new to say that the heart of the OCA’s problems reside in a breakdown of trust between the faithful and their bishops. Over the past years, various solutions have been suggested: on the one hand more accountability and transparency, with greater lay involvement in Church governance; on the other hand, a revamped OCA polity that would give almost all authority to the bishops so they could not be manipulated and controlled by their flocks. But perhaps neither solution addresses the heart of the problem: the web of abusive, codependent relationships through which so many in the Church vie for influence and control without undergoing the spiritual work on themselves that alone make them content to let Christ Jesus have all the power.
It is perhaps inevitable, though, that this essay will be seen as inflammatory against the bishops, thus causing the tighter crystallization of the system at hand. I pray this will not occur, but instead that all of us – bishops and clergy, monastics and laity, and even retired metropolitans – will come to acknowledge and repent of the roles we have played in the dysfunction of the OCA family.
Sounds good. I don’t understand how to apply the theory. Can you please give a hypothetical and explain how one such situation might unfold? Maybe it could be a follow up piece?
I think the inferences in this article try to unsuccessfully put a square peg in a round hole. It doesn’t fit. Can’t quite say why I think that, but I do.
BTW… I speed read towards the end. One can huff and puff over the hills of supposition only so much. After trekking through 2,403 words of “What if” in this apothecary of hypotheses, I think it is better suited for the make-believe.
Our synod might be accused of bad-acting, but not with this script.
Our children are our future. Here are some recent programs.
ROCOR children’s pprogram:
http://youtu.be/H38y16FcKY4
OCA children’s program:
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.540821849313269.1073741826.134925193236272&type=1
So to summarize.
Question: How did the letter published by the OCA Holy Synod get approved for public consumption?
Answer: Bishops are very lonely people – incredibly lonely who can be manipulated. The poor dears!
Why do we nominate and elect such fragile/unstable men? This piece is armchair psychology gone boring.
SAM
Mr. Michalopulos: Thank you for publishing this writing. More importantly, congratulations to the writer for his creative wit and insight that he puts forward in this thought piece. The writer may not have hit the exact answer, but the proposition the author argues seems very logical, the events support the argument, and the author offers insights on how to correct some of the problem.
Holy Cow! Freud-to-Checkov-to-Dr.-Phil, “he ain’t heavy, he’s my brother,” AND the soul-saving accountability & transparency of the weak and weary bishops in one fell s-h-o-o-p. Right on time, nit picker begins the nit picking by stating the obvious: “Ah, insight! But what to do? What to do?” Some say stand by the fire and watch for the end. Others fan themselves with the rhetoric. Still others, expecting the flourish of trumpets, instead hear the calm voice of our Father John, the Chrysostom, gently instructing his friend Basil:
Summary: Haters gonna’ hate; you do what you can (“with great forbearance and meekness, pardoning their unreasonable fault-finding, rather than being indignant and angry about it”); and brotha’ you endure and move on. “So there is nothing new under the sun.” (Ecc. 1:9)
No where in this essay are the words set by centuries of our Orthodox Tradition: “The Grace Divine which always heals that which is infirm and completes that which is wanting through the laying-on of hands… wherefore let us pray for him, that the Grace of the All-Holy Spirit may come upon him.” Perhaps the Bishops have forgotten? Checkov’s bishop undoubtedly did so.
I conclude by stating that for as much as some were “firestormed” and outright castigated for speculating as to matching-symptoms-to-diagnoses, this is no different with the notable exception of its syrupy triteness and Rodney King-esque conclusions. Without examining the individuals involved, the author can no more demonstrate the validity of these assertions than support a round of personality disorders for the whole room. This is creative writing and not psychology. It is dangerous & dumb.
Dr. Stankovich,
I’m honored sir by your tongue-in-cheek reference. Thank you. I actually gave you a thumbs up. What you write is entirely correct. Who can argue with St. John Chrysostom, and haters gonna be haters? Right on bro! Bottom line is, a bishop, a priest, and even a lowly Christian lay person has to “be a man about it.”
As SAM pointed out we “nominate and elect such fragile/unstable men” not only to the bishop’s position but also to the priest hood. The dynamic mentioned in the article is played out in parishes all over the United States across jurisdictions. Elder Sophrony Sakharov (of Essex) makes reference to this same type of toxic dynamic. I am traveling at the moment and don’t have access to my library to provide a precise quote and reference.
Yes, Dr. Stankovich, from a clinical, scientific point of view, it is dangerous. It is not the way that a responsible therapist would normally address issues. It does provide one perspective of a clearly observable, measurable dysfunctional dynamic in operation in our parishes which has a direct effect on our spiritual and emotional lives. When we allow individuals to bully our clergy or allow our clergy to bully individuals or allow our bishops to bully our clergy or allow our bishops to be bullied and don’t allow them to do what they are supposed to be doing then we contribute to the problem. We need to contribute to the solution rather than being an impediment.
You mentioned in another comment of yours how the concept of “accountability” has changed over time. It has gone from being “what is going on with the money I am tithing” to “what is the bishop doing.” Isn’t this idea also along the same line? The idea that our clergy and hierarchy are being bullied and manipulated and they in turn don’t have the back bone to stand up and not fold under the pressure? Our clergy and bishops are treated as hirlings because they are “paid” by the tithes of the faithful, and the synod responds in a panic. It works…check out the rest of the comments just in this particular thread.
So, uh…you didn’t answer me…strawberry? Tuesday? 7-ish?
I think it may be a mistake to put a pious man in the office of bishop. Better to hire a “consultant” whose sole interest is in keeping everyone happy. If he fails, they can always get another one and say, “The guy just didn’t work out.” No need to publish inflammatory articles. No expectation of benefits, pensions or permanency. The guy could save money by writing off a percentage of his mileage, as he goes from parish to parish, as well the cost of his vestments for work related functions. You’d have to get him to sign something like a BAA under HIPAA, but instead of protecting personal health information, it would cover scandalous behavior on the part of the Synod.
I know, I know. . . This is a little too tongue-in-cheek even for me.
“Why should any one speak of the injuries that result from grief, the insults, the abuse, the censure from superiors, from inferiors, from the wise, and from fools; ”
Yes, why should they?
NOW JUST YOU HOLD ON A TICK THERE MATE!! I thought you said that you didn’t actually make a diagnosis, or did you? Did you or didn’t you? Can you make up your mind please and let us know? While your busy being a self-righteous toady hard nose towards the bishops and dismissing this discussion as dangerous, maybe you can try growing a thicker skin and not taking it so “personally” for being “firestormed” and “outright castigated”, after all,
or does that only go for bishops and not for you? Cause “brotha” considerin’ ya’ like ta preach, ya shure don’t seem ta know how to take it on da chin. Word! Peace!
dizzy double take,
I’ve noted here before, a man actually leaned into my face and said, “the voices are saying if you don’t shut up, I should bite your nose off.” Can you imagine? My skin is thick. cousin. And it seems to me that any fragonard feeling the urge to chastize would first be respectful enough to examine the context of comments before forging headlong into a corner. BANG!
Had you afforded me the minimal respect, you would have seen that I was not referring to myself as “firestormed” and “outright castigated” because I, in fact, am not ignorant enough enough to offer diagnosis. Got that? Neither do I engage in speculation, conjecture, or gossip in regard to such matters. Are we clear? Cry-STAL. Oorah.
Still dizzy? My objection is that this “tale” is a fairy contrivance. unfounded and unsupported, neither Freudian nor Jungian, neither Eriksonian nor Ericksonian. This is not a matter of taking observations and applying a validated theoretical framework, but rather contriving a make-believe “framework” – need to have a child? Seriously? – to tell a manipulative story of weak-willed, discouraged. lonely men awaiting the opening chords of the Rolling Stones’ “Start Me Up.”
Seriously, couldn’t I just pick up Fr. Han’s point that the problem is a fundamental lack of moral authority, too much reading of these bs websites, and Rod Dreher’s suggestion that it’s just time to “man up?” Wouldn’t I – pursuant to Occam’s Razor – be in the ball park without all this “self-righteous toady hard nose” psychobabble baloney? Preachin’? No brotha’, I’m just beggin’ the question. You’re out of your league, son.
Could you put this in plain English? It would be nice to have the archaic English from Chrysostom’s(?), On the Priesthood, translated into more modern English, too. Part of the problem with all these letters (from the Bishops in the case of the famous or infamous “Stinkbomb”) and the dramatic online perorations we see on some of these blogs is that they go on to such lengths and with such twists and turns that it is difficult for some of us slower witted folk to follow them.
Usually you are very clear when you write, Dr. Stankovich. I don’t know what got into you! Did you actually go out to dinner with nitpicker and and have a night out drinking Red Bulls?
xD
I wanted to, but every time I ring the door bell he turns off all the lights and pretends he’s not home. I even hear him telling his wife not to answer the door. Next time I’m setting up a tent in front of his house.
Mr. Vasiliev,
I had a major head trauma rescuing an intern from a psychotic patient, and am myself a fan of Topiramate. Sleep tends to be elusive, I avoid stimulants, and work several “overnights” in emergency & crisis settings. Too many nights lead to lack of clarity on occasion…
My objection to this posturing “fairy tale” is that the author developed the framework after having already predetermining the conclusion. This is dishonest and manipulative. It cloaks what is, in fact, the same old unsupportable, unsustainable conjecture in the narcotizing, nuanced authority of psychology. And it certainly sounds authoritative, does it not? Factually, however, there is only one way to validate this flavorless “marinara”: interview each member of the Synod of Bishops as to, for example, their perceived sense of vulnerability, their perceived sense of “locus of control” (i.e. the predictability and reliability of the environment & individuals around them; safety, trust, integrity, etc.); their perceived sense of isolation, and so on. Quite obviously, there exist standardized measurements for all of these factors if you are really interested. So I ask you, Mr. Vasiliev, would you wager your money that this author was that interested? What? I don’t see you reaching for your wallet.
There is enough real dysfunction here to distribute on gift cards to each and every member of the Moose Lodges in Kings County, NY. Why create yet another layer of cheap, speculative psychodynamic foolishness? Heaven only knows what will happen when Metropolitan Tikhon’s dog is spotted in a 3-piece suit and a fine Hamburg hat…
Is this plain English, Mr. Vasiliev?
Dr. Stankovich,
I’m interested. Could elaborate please on what the standardized measurements are and how they are carried out?
BTW, everybody knows that Max the dog would never be caught dead wearing a fine Homburg hat with a 3-piece-suit. Poor Max must be mortified that you even thought him capable of such an atrocity.
For heaven’s sake, no, Dr. Stankovich!
I think I understand that you disagree with the writer’s thesis. And I do not necessarily disagree with you (I think.). I don’t know about the Holy Synod members’ (you keep forcing me to use this distasteful term, sir! My Soviet preferences are well known!) collective and individual sense(s) of vulnerability. Some may feel very vulnerable, some may feel invincible. So what?
And, in truth, I am far more interested in Max the Dog, if he indeed wears three piece suits and fine homburgs. That would make him an infinitely more interesting character than all of the above and worth an article–perhaps and entire blog here and elsewhere.
But I remain somewhat confused about what you are trying to say.
So, it would seem that there is none righteous, no, not one. That in fact and in reality we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Got it.
Still waiting to see evidence that the Synod gets it.
In the meantime, no tithes to the OCA.
(Hadn’t said it in a while. Didn’t want anyone to forget.)
Theodore is absolutely right. It is working too. The fact that the OCA is only down to 20,000 paying members is a joke. There are many people in church they are just not paying. Nothing those sinister forces at Syossett understand more than money. Somebody on this site or somewhere said to the OCA do not listen keep on moving forward. I said to myself thats right keep moving right toward that iceberg. Hit it square. They need a reality check. Its comming slowly. Maybe….
Theodore,
The drop in OCA revenue is a very black and red reminder of the bottom line in Syosset.
Your reminder is felt right where it needs to be.
If they can’t avoid childish games and act more sanctified than the average layman, ignore them. Christ is the Shepherd of our souls and no disciple will be dysfunctional who follows Him, despite what a cabal of bishops might do.
Mark 6:34 And Jesus, when He came out, saw a great multitude and was moved with compassion for them, because they were like sheep not having a shepherd.
Acts 20:29 “For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock.
Acts 20:30 “Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves.
I read into the second paragraph and came pretty close to throwing up and couldn’t go further. Excusing this behavior on loneliness is pure bull. How about greed, pride, envy, and etc.? I am new to Orthodoxy but have been through the ropes so to speak in the Episcopal Church.
What I think needs to be thought out is what is the role of the bishop. I have a cousin who is Lutheran and in her branch bishops are elected for a six year term and then go back to being regular clergy. They are not in there for life. When I heard about it years ago I thought, “That sounds like a good solution” When given a job for life too much corruption can set in. I have seen it.
My other thought, long held, is that when you dress a man up like an emperor what do you expect. Pretty soon he will start acting like one.
What we need to learn about is what is the original role of a bishop. What did he do? and etc. And reform the process.
We have some examples.
“Eighty-six years I have served him, and he never did me any wrong. How can I blaspheme my King who saved me?”
And so the bishop went to the fire, when all he had to do was revile Christ, only once, to escape the flames……
Mr. Mortiss-Where does this example come from? It would be interesting to read more. Please inform us.
Thank you.
Martyrdom of Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. You’ll find it in the Apostolic Fathers.
The “eighty-six years” quotation is from St. Polycarp on the threshold of his martyrdom when he was presented to the governor and invited to renounce Christ and save his life. It is found in the writings of the Apostolic fathers “The Martyrdom of St. Polycarp.”
the following is from another blog I often read:
bob
June 8, 2013
I’m an Orthodox layman so I can reply to the idea of caesaro-papism. Around 15 years ago I think, the Metropolitan archbishop Theodosius was heading up the Orthodox Church in America. He was also the official head of Orthodox military chaplains. He was to appear in that capacity at some Washington DC function. When he arrived he was provided a uniform, which he’d never worn before. The Army decided his position warranted Lt. General rank, so he was provided a 3-star uniform for the event. Big surprise to him! The normal (very strange) vestments of an Orthodox bishop include vesting in the outfit and crown of the Roman Emperor. Hence, the Metropolitan’s part time uniform was a military general, regular uniform that of an emperor. This is not caesaro-papism, it is caesaro-caesarism to be more precise.
So when did bishops start dressing as emperors? and why? Certainly not in imitation of Jesus.
Lina,
With sincere humility and love I would suggest to you that detach yourself from this discussion. You are aligning yourself with a negative element that most certainly does not reflect the faith, the hope, the positivity, and the sheer joy that is the Orthodox Faith. We are at the Mid-Pentecost, where the voice of the archangel should continue to resound in our ears – “He is not here. He is risen!” – and where 365 days a year the Canon of the Pascha Matins was on the lips of our Father Seraphim of Sarov. We continue, week after week, to conclude Vespers with the glorious announcement, “Let God arise and let His enemies be scattered!” and begin the healing in the most humble formulation of which humanity could ever conceive: “let us call brothers even those that hate us, and forgive all by the Resurrection.” Imagine!
Do we need more bitter psychodynamic babbling crap by speculators and contortionists who barely grasp the concepts? Get a refund on that “degree in psychology!” Do we need more priests falling over themselves to be the first to acknowledge their lengthy catalog of sins to be forgiven – and are prepared to discuss as much by email – yet dumb enough to add their voice to issues they can no more substantiate with proof, fact, and literal corroboration? Do we need more naysayers, complainers, critics, anointed “scholars” who simply have nothing – read it again: nothing – to offer by way of direction, insight, “strategic planning,” challenge, or direction; but are in fact masters of personal insult & attack, discouragement, bitching, “traveling over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are,” (Matt 23:15). And the worst aspect, too cowardly to leave! Someone wrote to me the other day, “You are not in the OCA. Who are you to preach to us?” If you are the OCA, I say let it burn to the ground, because, apparently, from top to bottom, there is no one left to stand up to your bitter ugliness, trust God, and put you out:
You would be far better off, Lina, investing your time pursuing the rich and inspiring history and Tradition of the Orthodox Church, found in the writings of the Holy Fathers, in the edifying history of the Holy Martyrs and the founding of the Holy Monasteries, the transcriptions of the Ecumenical Councils that determined the exact nature of the Dogmatic Theology of the Church. Even go to Youtube and look for the sermons and lectures of Metropolitan Anthony (Bloom), of blessed memory, to hear the soothing, sane voice of the archangel. Trust me, you will find no cause for “nausea” in the treasure of Orthodoxy, and what you read here will seem a million unrealistic miles away. Sincerely, you are in my prayers.
We present, authentic Christianinty, all things honest before the Lord and all men.The reasonable laity would deeply rejoice if this became the quintesssence of the agenda of the OCA bishops. Trustworthy men are priceless as trust is required for authentic Christian brotherhood, equally with trustworthyness. It is a question of honesty, which is the major discouragement of the laity. Nobody likes being lied too, or about., or by omission.
There’s a Parish Ministries Conference coming up in Arlington, VA next to Washington, DC in July. One was held here under Metropolitan Herman in 2007, same location, and featured as a keynote speaker Archbishop Seraphim. A fair unber of people from other jurisdictions also participated. Since then, Merman has been forbidden from wearing the white klobok, whatever that mean besides donning another Metropolitan headgear, and Seraphim seems under semi-permanent indictment, but still not defrocked.
Couple people came from out of town and locally to check out the accommodations again, and there have been various suggestions about a schedule. Daily music workshops! But no Vladimir Gorbik. David Drillock and others will provide the classes. Continuing education units for priests! Sitting in for the likes of Archbishop Seraphim will be Father Thomas Hopko. Maybe someone will get around, in a public forum to having him explain why he felt it appropriate to defame his Meteropolitan by calling him “gravely troubled” without explanation. Taking the place of Metropolitan Herman will be our present Metropolitan, Metropolitan Tikhon.
Off the speakers list is a local ecclesiastical celebrity and world famous speaker on inner silence and anger management, Metropolitan Jonah of the OCA. Why isn’t the Parish Ministries Conference taking advantage of this well-known speaker? I imagine the attendance figures would go up were he invited.
Lastly, there is no word so far in other jurisdiction participation in this conference.
How do you let a wound heal? Quit picking on the scab
How do you let a wound heal? Proper medication=a letter of retraction and repentance . . .
Picking at one’s scabs is a surer way to cause infection than healing.
Metropolitan Jonah’s present and future is brighter than any of you seem to know (I write this as you don’t seem aware of his plans for the future which the Synod has approved) because he chose to address his situation with prayer and faithfulness instead of outrage and schism.
We faithful should follow his example rather than advance the muddle of our own under-formed minds.
Dear CQ and greggo,
Your analogy of a scab is an interesting one. The issue far surpasses Metropolitan Jonah. I would like to expand on your analogy.
There is indeed a wound. It’s gone through some treatment, but let’s consider several things. Is it a scab like a mosquito bite that’s been scratched too much? It appears more like a “I fell off my motorcycle while riding it naked in the pouring rain then slid 100 yards face first across sharp gravel and was dipped into a vat of high concentrate lemon juice by the malicious gypsies that found me before I was left for dead with the words “for sale” scrawled across my forehead” kind of wound.
The type of gaping wound that I am referring to requires debridement in most cases. Anyone that has ever been through that knows that it is not pleasant. Anyone who has a loved one with, let’s say, advanced diabetes (someone who tends to suffer from open wounds) understands what I mean.
CQ, I hope that your information is correct. I certainly do hope that Metropolitan Jonah has something in the works and that he will be incredibly happy, healthy, safe and productive. This doesn’t help close the gaping dysfunctional, festering wound of the OCA. People still remember the wounds from Ben Lomond over 15 years ago and that was just one parish. What is going on with Metropolitan Jonah is only symptomatic of other problems. There has been an utter breakdown in trust and relationships. Time is not likely to heal any of this any time soon if we just keep ignoring it. It’s been tried, and I don’t see it working.
nitpicker,
I generally don’t do things this way, but please allow me to respond bit-by-bit.
This doesn’t help close the gaping dysfunctional, festering wound of the OCA. People still remember the wounds from Ben Lomond over 15 years ago and that was just one parish.
Ben Lomond had nothing to do with the OCA, and what’s been going on in the OCA is as different from what happened at Ben Lomond as a plane crash is from a political scandal. Ben Lomond was a plane crash, the OCA has been beset by political scandals of varying sizes and importance.
What is going on with Metropolitan Jonah is only symptomatic of other problems.
Metropolitan Jonah is a good and holy man, and I have benefitted directly from his kindness. When he was elected it was known that his leadership skills had never been tested. He was well-liked and gave one rousing speech, and on that basis the Synod bowed to the will of the AAC and elected him Metropolitan. Everyone hoped he’d “grow into the job.” But he never did…and when the going got tough he sought to avoid conflict rather than endure it, and resigned rather than seize the initiative. It is quite possible (and I do not claim first-hand knowledge for this) that he resigned because he knew in his heart that the Synod’s judgement was correct.
There has been an utter breakdown in trust and relationships.
I think that’s a broad overstatement, unless you don’t trust any of the clergy of the OCA.
I, for one, retain my trust in Jesus Christ, in the Church and in my confessor. I know what to expect of various and sundry priests and bishops, and have found they behave in entirely predictable manners. Sometimes they are predictably good, sometimes predictably disappointing, but I have not yet seen a single OCA Bishop or priest promulgate any teaching that is not entirely in keeping with Orthodox Tradition. That, to me, is what counts.
Time is not likely to heal any of this any time soon if we just keep ignoring it. It’s been tried, and I don’t see it working.
Refusing to pick at a scab is hardly “ignoring it.” Indeed, scratching what itches is often reflexive and unthinking, while refusing that urge takes awareness and discipline.
Instead of fulminating against the Synod, Metropolitan Jonah remained faithful to the Church and his prayer, an example that we should all follow. It is telling that he, the alleged victim of these events, is far more at peace with his situation and that of the OCA than those who do not have his confidence (or they would know of his plans) yet continue to agitate on his behalf.
If we wish to see healing we first have to be conscious of and willing to do the things that allow for healing rather than the reflexive things that prolong illness. Following Metropolitan Jonah’s example of faithfulness and prayer seems the correct path to me.
May the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, keep our hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.
Christ is Risen!
Nice try, CQ. No, Metropolitan Jonah did not resign because he felt the Synod’s criticisms were accurate. This is not to say he wanted the job to begin with, but he knew very well that he was not mentally troubled, he knew that he was not incapable of the work, and he certainly did not plan to resign.
He resigned because the situation he was placed in was designed to force it.
We are not ignorant of Metropolitan Jonah’s future plans. In fact, I’ve been asking for the intercessions of St. Demetrius for this for several months now, but thought it better not to comment on those plans publicly until an announcement could be made.
Dear Helga,
You say you are “not ignorant” of the Metropolitan’s future plans to the point that you are in a position to pray that they become true. How fortunate you are to be in the Metropolitan’s confidence
For the rest of us, we can pray that God’s will be done sooner rather than later. Until then, let’s enjoy his latest lecture and a couple of sermons:
06.07.13.. Talk #4 by Metropolitan Jonah (Paffhausen)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMlmU-KCffo
06.09.13. Sunday of the Blind Man – Sermon by Metropolitan Jonah (Paffhausen)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlCJ_Krdxbo
Sermon by Archpriest Victor Potapov
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4yy1uxEgJ0
Dear oh, I am not in the Metropolitan’s confidence Everyone knows about his plans for a monastery because he has been telling everyone within earshot since last November what he wants to do.
The new part of the news is that the OCA Synod is finally down with it.
It has indeed been his public desire expressed since the first day of his Metropolitanate. And I personally have been praying for a nearby monastery from before I even heard of the existence of the Metropolitan. May it happen! And may it have a capacious guesthouse so that people can get away from the world a short while and just pray.
I am so sorry to hear that Metropolitan Jonah wants to open a monastery in the OCA. While the synod may say they are down with it now. They will find a way at a latter date to take it away from him on some pretext. Just listen to guys Like Stan they do not want monastics in their version of a orthodox church in amercia. As long as Rev. Leonid KIshkovsky is at the helm monastics will not be wanted. It would be far better for him go somewhere else and get a new start. As for Stans number of ROCOR members that number alone go to church in San Francisco on any given Sunday. Not including the bay area.
Dear CQ,
Truly He is Risen!
Amen! Amen! Amen!
I understand that Ben Lomond is an entirely different situation. It is an example of how wounds stay open, festering and in the consciousness of the laity. Since the laity travel from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, their wounds, passions and sins as well as their talents and love come with them. It would be naive to imagine that this is not going to have any far reaching effects.
Dogmatically yes…I recall reading somewhere, I believe it was in St. John Chrysostom (On the Priesthood?) that someone was complaining to St. John Chrysostom about some clergy and as they were walking they came to a stream and they drank the person who was complaining commented on how wonderful the water was. St. John sent the person to find the source of the stream and as the person traveled up stream they came across the carcass of a dead dog. The head of the dog was right in the middle of the stream. The water poured through the back of the head and came out the mouth. It didn’t effect the taste or potability of the water in the least. The point is that God’s grace does not lose it’s effectiveness because it passes through a mouth that is unworthy.
I trust most of the priests, I don’t trust many of the bishops, because of their behavior and their lack of repentance. I suppose this is my own personal hardness of heart and something I need to work on. I suspect that the breakdown of trust in the bishops exists not only from me. It is evidenced in the finances.
I do not agitate on his behalf. I fight against a behavior, an attitude which is contrary to the Gospel of Christ. The issue of Metropolitan Jonah has become largely symbolic. It is not the person of Metropolitan Jonah I am fighting for. It is an attitude I am railing against. The lies, the manipulations, the machinations. Our bishops worked though smear campaigns, through lies, by coordinated efforts to destroy peoples lives, this is not how OUR BISHOPS should work. THIS is why I can not trust them.
They have not asked for forgiveness. They did not admit their sin even though Metropolitan Jonah humbled himself to the ground and agreed to very low payment.
Forgive them? Already have. I don’t have the right not to forgive them.
Now, please, give me a reason to trust them so that the healing really can begin.
Now, please, give me a reason to trust them so that the healing really can begin.
Healing can really begin if you’re willing to acknowledge that the Bishops of the OCA have not deviated from teaching the Orthodox Faith.
It begins there because what lies at the root of understanding the Bishops’ actions as “… lies … manipulations … machinations …” is the conviction that they have been acting in bad faith in order to change the teaching of Orthodoxy to something like the teaching of the heretics in the ECUSA.
Truth: No homosexual union has been blessed in the OCA or any Orthodox jurisdiction. No Orthodox jurisdiction has broken communion with the OCA. Metropolitan Jonah, far from being destroyed, has been granted the Synod’s blessing for a great undertaking.
If we keep our eyes on Christ and our hearts open to the Holy Spirit healing cannot help but follow. If, on the other hand, we fill our minds with rumors, gossip, innuendo and predictions that never come true, we cannot help but find our trust repeatedly violated.
Only in God can our soul be at rest.
The bishops have left in place those priests who have written articles, taught or led many to believe that same-sex marriage is not a sin. They continue to mislead. Where are the clear teachings on this by our bishops, the statements by the OCA clarifying what it is we actually believe and how to act on what we believe? No it has been left murky and unclear. It is not so in other jurisdiction and other Jurisdictions are still not “fine” with the OCA.
So no CQ, the bishops have not convinced me that they do not want to deviate from the Tradition of the Church. +Jonah has, Fr. Chad has, individual priests have, but not the bishops of the OCA . . . .
CQ,
I agree with colette. In addition, I am also waiting for a letter of repentance from the bishops of the OCA that slandered Metropolitan Jonah. Only then can I trust them.
How is it that you require more than Metropolitan Jonah does?
I ask this seriously. You have clearly taken more offense than the man who was allegedly offended, or you are less forgiving than the man who was allegedly offended.
How does that work, exactly?
CQ,
I ask you seriously. How do you have the right to ask me this?
Metropolitan Jonah was not the only one slighted by the actions of the synod.
The entire Orthodox Church, not just the OCA, ALL OF THE BODY OF CHRIST, was assaulted, lied to, manipulated, abused, and betrayed by the OCA synod’s behavior towards Metropolitan Jonah.
The most appropriate thing that should happen to them is that they all be broken down to the status of lay men, receive no salaries or pension and go to prison, never mind tying a mill stone around their collective necks.
All I and others are asking for is their public repentance.
What is YOUR problem CQ? What do you not comprehend? Why are you so offended that I can not trust a group of people that have made it their life’s habit and work to lie, manipulate and not repent? How is their behavior consistent with the teaching of the dogma of the Orthodox Church?
They bore false witness REPEATEDLY against Metropolitan Jonah. They scandalized the faithful. That is not consistent with the teaching of the faith. Truthfully, the more that you insist that I don’t pursue their repentance the more suspicious I become that you are, in fact, one of them. There is only one who is not interested in the repentance of a sinner, that one is satan. Angels rejoice for the repentance of a sinner. Why are you trying to derail their repentance CQ?
The fact is there are retired members of the clergy, that maintain their rank as clergy that live with their significant others. These members of the clergy have not been defrocked. They are awarded the full dignity of their rank and office. This is the same as APPROVING AND VALIDATING THE RELATIONSHIP. Especially since everybody, their mother and their mother’s dog knows that the relationship exists. Yet these retired clergy STILL keep their rank. They haven’t been returned to the laity.
CQ, would you like to explain to me why these known homosexual retired clergy haven’t been returned to the laity and why this is supposed to engender trust on my part that our bishops “rightly teach the truth”? Cause let me tell you CQ, apparently you are oblivious to the patently and painfully obvious.
Missed this earlier, pardon my delay in responding.
I’m sorry that you’ve taken offense at my question here. It was not my intent to upset you, but to understand you.
To me your post demonstrates the problem with picking at scabs; what we do to ourselves.
Your righteous indignation doesn’t effect the Bishops of the OCA, nor does it effect me. But it does effect you, and clearly it’s driving you to anger. That is your choice, of course, but it’s not a healthy choice.
I find myself repeating this: The example of Metropolitan Jonah is a good one for Orthodox Christians to follow. Trying to out manipulate people you say are manipulators, or out-accuse people you say are false accusers, is a fool’s errand. Finding God in prayer and faithfulness, however, is how the Three Young Men survived the fire. The more convinced we are that the Bishops of the OCA are stoking the furnace, the more we should be following the example of those three young men.
CQ,
Thank you for your kind and thoughtful response.
Anger and rage, no. Assertiveness, yes.
It is foolishness to turn a blind eye to the fact that the synod plotted against Metropolitan Jonah.
It is foolishness to turn a blind eye that the synod turns a blind eye to a certain retired bishop living an openly homosexual life style with his known gay lover.
It is foolishness to pretend that no one died in the basement of Archbishop Benjamin under suspicious circumstances and that Bishop Benjamin is not a recovering alchoholic.
It is foolishness to pretend that Met. Jonah was removed for much less than all of these.
The fool’s errand would be trying to pretend that everything is just swell in the OCA when it’s not.
Apology accepted. I’ve wrote before, I don’t consider any person my enemy, but if I think someone is full of it, I will say so, and I expect them to say the same about me.
BTW CQ,
I notice that you didn’t actually respond to any of the really important questions I asked that you initially brought up (which is, in reality, the crux of your argument):
How do these bishops rightfully teach and keep the faith? I have provided concrete examples on how they don’t.
Your turn.
Collette,
Here is a link to the OCA Synodal Encyclical on Marriage and Sexuality (and Sanctity of Life). I don’t believe that they have rescinded it. ( Occasionally the Politburo does something worthwhile so we might as well acknowledge it).
http://oca.org/holy-synod/statements/holy-synod/synodal-affirmations-on-marriage-family-sexuality-and-the-sanctity-of-life
Ivan, you’re right, of course, but that outstanding, comprehensive statement dates from 1992, when no one seriously envisioned the political juggernaut for homosexual “marriage” that has steamrolled America of late. The OCA Synod of Bishops has not collectively issued any statement on that particular twist of the moral and public policy issue that now confronts us at every turn.
However, on May 16, 2012, the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of North and Central America reaffirmed emphatically their previous statement on “the ancient and unchanging teaching of the Church” concerning the impossibility of homosexual “marriage” (August 13, 2003), when the Assembly was still known as SCOBA. The bishops also “pray fervently that the traditional form of marriage, as an enduring and committed union only between a man and a woman, will be honored.” (See http://www.assemblyofbishops.org/news/2012/marriage-and-moral-crisis.)
That prophetic voice on the contentious homosexual “marriage” issue has been echoed in “On Same-Sex Unions,” a 2004 epistle of Archbishop Kyrill of San Francisco and Western America (Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, or ROCOR) and the rest of his diocesan clergy (see http://orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/samesexunions.aspx); strong but compassionate statements in 2011 by individual bishops of the Orthodox Church in America (OCA)—namely Metropolitan Jonah, the primate at that time in his capacity as Archbishop of Washington, Bishop Michael of New York and New Jersey, and former Bishop Matthias of Chicago and the Midwest (see http://oca.org/news/headline-news/in-archpastoral-letters-to-their-respective-dioceses-metropolitan-jonah-and); and a similarly strong but compassionate statement on March 29, 2013, by ROCOR’s Diocese of Chicago and Mid-America under Archbishop Alypy and Bishop Peter, only two days after the U.S. Supreme Court heard the second of two cases concerning the issue (see http://www.synod.com/synod/eng2013/20130409_enchicagoresolution.html).
Let us not forget that the Boy Scouts of America have now decided to allow openly homosexual boys to be scouts. What a stratagem! They lost resoundingly on the gay scoutmaster issue but were able to regroup and ram this down the throats of the BSA. Unbelievable.
The “prophetic voice” on the contentiousness of same-sex marriage is the living & dynamic Tradition of the Church, expressed, as Fr. Alexander Schmemann noted, in the Liturgical ordo: “If we do not believe it, we do not sing it.” At each and every Orthodox wedding we proclaim, “He who by His presence at the wedding at Cana in Galilee declared marriage to be an honourable thing, Christ our true God…” This, it would seem to me, is as demonstrative, emphatic, and direct a message as I’ve ever seen. But the appointed Epistle dramatically speaks to the very creation “as it was in the beginning,” where “a man shall leave his father and mother and shall bejoined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh,”(Gen. 2:24), and conludes with the astonishing analogy of the “mystery of Christ and the Church.” This is breathtaking, no?
Now,I would ask, how many Orthodox priests take the opportunity at any given wedding to make this statement of moral authority: He who by His presence declared marriage honorable, clearly and indisputably defined marrige as the transcendent mystery analogous to Christ and the Church? Yes, certainly it is about love and people who love one another – and at least that aspect is common to same-sex relationships – but it cannot be “marital” because it cannot reflect the “beginning,” the Creation. WHAT? And risk offending family? The invited guests? The heterodox? The non-believers? It seems more than vaguely similar to the parable of Lazarus and the rich man: “But he [Abraham] said to him,’If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded by a statement from the Synod of Bishops.”(Lk. 16:31)
Individuals who scorn the Bishops for their own ignorance of the unchanging richness, depth, beauty, and salvation which is the dogmatic teachings and Holy Tradition of the Church are, at best, disingenuous. My thought: PRESENTING PROBLEM: Someone says to me,”The Church’s teaching on same-sex marriage is “murky” to me, unclear & undefined.” ACTION PLAN: “Come and see.” (Jn. 1:46) Quiet room, comfortable chair, hot tea, service book with the Orthodox Marriage. “Read – better yet, can you sing? – and contemplate this service and we will discuss it.” And as I’ve mentioned previously, Bernard Shaw once wrote, “In the presence of fine art, the wise man knows when to shut up, remove his hat, and let the art speak for itself.” The fact that links to obscure websites have to be posted to even read the statements of our Hierarchs speakof their value. And this is why the SCOTUS will again determine public morality. Unless, of course, they run across those links…
M. Stankovich, I have one minor disagreement. The SCOTUS will not determine public morality–he is merely reflecting public morality.
There is a lot of cultural and religious history that led up to it but there are books and books on it and frankly, I’ve come to believe that most folks don’t have the interest to investigate it since it takes a bit more than watching TV. Of course, even that can be summed up by reading about the church of Laodicea in the Apocalypse of John Chapter 3
The marriage service is a perfect response: Simple, clear, prophetic, sacramental, beautiful.
Of course there is abundant supporting material
I’ve never understood the impetus not to offend, maybe because I’m so good at being offensive, but good grief this isn’t about people’s feelings. Its about people’s soul, their very being and their salvation. Guess what, people in rebellion are offended by the truth and there is nothing that can be done to prevent the offense. Personally, I have found no teaching of the Church murky, quirky or even that difficult when I listen with an open and humble heart. It is only when I, in my obstinate rebellion, would rather have things my own way that I profess confusion as to meaning.
Yes, Michael, but what about same sex couples “married” in some sort of service presenting themselves as communing Orthodox Christians? What about your close friend Mark who lives a life contrary to the Gospel? I am talking about real situations. Retired Orthodox “clergy” who lives with their partners? If the bishops of the OCA or any other jurisdiction do nothing about these real situations why should be believe that they are holding and teaching the Orthodox faith and tradition about marriage?
Even you can see the obvious inconsistency. Or maybe not.
Dear Dr. Stankovich,
I rejoice in your clarity here! And I am glad that your head injury is better. You have put it all together beautifully. If we want to know what the Church teaches we can go to the Scriptures and go to our own service books and read, or better “sing” as you so aptly put it. I think this is one of your finest reflections and I mean this most sincerely. Sometimes it really is just as simple as reading–joyfully singing–what’s been right in front of our faces all along.
(Even Max the Dog could get it, with or without three piece suits and homburgs)
If married same -sex couples are receiving regular communion, leading in Church offices, teaching Sunday school and talking plainly about their relationship I’d say we are not being clear in our teachings and the secular agenda is still being pushed in the Church, although I would like to believe all this commotion did something, perhaps it was not enough.
Three leaders spoke up in the OCA on this issue. Two were forced into retirement.
I was happy with the Assembly of Bishops, Russia’s and ROCOR’s response, but I have not seen a united effort on the part of OCA to make such statements and a united push to address it in the churches. I have seen individual priests do this, but not the ones where the problem exists in the first place. I also feel they need to think of all the holes people will find to not follow their statements. Such as, one certain priest making the statement that since the 2 people were married by the state the Church doesn’t recognise them as married and so he will commune them until he is told not to.
If there have been changes, they are not well known.
Michael B and S-Of course I am not saying what the Church teaches is not clear-I am saying what individual clergy are teaching or not teaching is unclear to the faithful and the lack of action by the OCA Bishops have not made it clear.
Surely, Dr. S, you’re not disparaging the specific public moral witness of the AOB and individual Orthodox bishops and dioceses on the issue of homosexual “marriage,” when you identify the “prophetic voice” with “the Liturgical ordo”! It’s not a matter of either / or, but rather the integral value of both modes of prophetic witness to the fullness of truth. Please reassure me and perhaps others on this message board concerning your intention.
The “prophetic voice” extends beyond the liturgical ordo. To restrict the “prophetic voice” to the ordo alone misunderstands the prophetic nature of a word spoken in truth. It’s both church and culture — worship and street corner (or editorial page) in our day.
If it were not so, St. John Chrysostom would not have criticized the Royal House. He would have invited them to Liturgy instead.
Fr. Schmemann understood this, BTW. He used to broadcast on Voice of America.
Reverend Fathers,
Most assuredly I did not intend to disparage the collected voice and witness of the Hierarchs, but rather speaking to its insufficiency and the risk of a false sense that action has been taken. It is a continuation of my contention that, while, for example, the yearly March for Life is a marvelous and noble undertaking to declare the Church’s position on the sanctity of life, it is simply insufficient in and of itself.
My point was to say that the Orthodox Service of Marriage is unequivocal and demonstrative; many parishes distribute the text of the service for visitors; priests often make remarks on the rite or offer a homily; and the audience is, in effect, “captive.” A loving, courageous, descriptive, dogmatic statement of the nature of Christian Marriage as between one man and one woman as the definitive living icon of the mystery of Jesus Christ and His Bride, the Church can be accomplished – as the text of the service indicates, “with the parents, the godparents, the bridesmaids & the groomsmen and all gathered together in this joy” – with little effort. The moral voice of the Church, theoretically, is openly expressed times every wedding conducted until the teaching it is abundantly clear to the generation of our children.
And finally, this answers the excellent point made by Mr. Bauman: the SCOTUS is, in fact, only reflecting the public morality, which I believe is more likely reflecting the public indifference – and I would cite the fact that the CA case argued before the SCOTUS (Prop 8, Defense of Marriage Act), was the largest voter turnout in CA history (2008), and won by a margin of 52%-48%. Hardly a “mandate.”
Fr. Ioannes pointed out to me nearly two years ago that the problem is a lack of moral authority among our Bishops and I am his leading supporter in this contention. Statements and encyclicals defining, articulating, and re-articulating the Church’s teachings and Traditions by the Hierarchs are essential, but they are insufficient, and in my opinion constitute the most minimal form of leadership.
I am well aware of this-this was used in restating this position in the AAC in which my husband led the team in drafting the resolution. How about some follow-up? How about putting action to your words? If you mouth the right words but do the opposite what have you accomplished?
“Healing can really begin if you’re willing to acknowledge that the Bishops of the OCA have not deviated from teaching the Orthodox Faith.”
I’m not aware of Bishops in the OCA publicly teaching anything outside the Orthodox faith, though it is apparent a few might be dodgy with what they endorse in a more private setting. The infamous transgender counseling/comforting episode by one of our present Bishops comes immediately to mind…and then of course there is our retired bishop and his significant other in South FL.
“It begins there because what lies at the root of understanding the Bishops’ actions as “… lies … manipulations … machinations …” is the conviction that they have been acting in bad faith in order to change the teaching of Orthodoxy to something like the teaching of the heretics in the ECUSA.”
This is a two parter. First, It is not necessary that machinations be motivated by wanting to follow the path of the ECUSA or any other heterodox communion. People can engage in manipulations and machinations for any number of reasons.
As to the question of lies and machinations, for whatever reason, the so called “Stinkbomb Letter” and all the defamatory press generated from it stand as irrefutable evidence that something deeply unchristian in spirit has been permitted to stand as an official communication of the OCA without a peep from any of our bishops to the contrary. Since they are doubtless not all scoundrels, the “why” of it all echoes loudly. What precludes the more godly and sober minded among them from at least acknowledging the harm these slanders have done? It is not necessary for the Bishops to teach another faith by their words to have indeed acted in bad faith by their silences.
“Truth: No homosexual union has been blessed in the OCA or any Orthodox jurisdiction. No Orthodox jurisdiction has broken communion with the OCA. Metropolitan Jonah, far from being destroyed, has been granted the Synod’s blessing for a great undertaking.”
No, but that doesn’t mean there are in places of high power within the OCA who do feel this way privately and would not welcome such an opportunity to do so publicly should it arise without serious professional risk to themselves.
“If we keep our eyes on Christ and our hearts open to the Holy Spirit healing cannot help but follow. If, on the other hand, we fill our minds with rumors, gossip, innuendo and predictions that never come true, we cannot help but find our trust repeatedly violated.”
I will agree in principle for the agitation caused by these things are not good for anyone’s soul. That said, we must also remain vigilant. Should the people have just been polite and quiet about so many bishops compromising the faith in the time of St. Mark of Ephesus? As another poster has said, this issue is now about much more than the single man, Metropolitan Jonah. There is more at stake than whether he ever gets to be a functioning bishop again…or hold any other position of authority in the OCA or any other jurisdiction. This is about our bishops being bishops in more than name, and about our bishops paying more than lip service to the faith where it conflicts with their private tastes, and likely about more than that besides. Trust between the laity and the Holy Synod has gravely violated and wounded, and the wound was not from the hand of the laity.
For healing to begin, someone on the Holy Synod must find the courage to pull out the knife, so that the wound may close.
Very well said Seraphim. For what it’s worth, the acceptance of homosexuality is now a fait accompli in many Northeastern parishes of the OCA and even one in Kentucky (if memory serves). As for SVS, only Fr Chad Hatfield stands in the way of it becoming 100% liberal/ecumenist. But for the fact that he’s in the Antiochian jurisdiction, he’d of been toast long ago.
Think of it: how would STS, Holy Cross, etc. stand up to SVS once the flagship seminary in America goes pink? They won’t, mainly because they’ve never had much academic prestige to begin with. That’s one reason that the recent SVS/Acton conference was such a huge thing. The mere planting of the conservative/classically liberal economic flag within its precincts set back the liberal-ecumenists on their heels.
You’ve hit the nail on the head: once an opportunity arises and/or a significant cultural shift occurs, then the OCA will become “Finlandized.” The machinery is in place now that Jonah has been removed.
If what you say is actually true, George, then notwithstanding all I’ve read here in the last couple of months, I am truly shocked. And I mean shocked. How is this possible?
“If what you say is actually true, George, then notwithstanding all I’ve read here in the last couple of months, I am truly shocked. And I mean shocked. How is this possible?”
How is this possible? Well, lets look at some excerpts about the start of the Metropolia which would eventually become the OCA. Then allow for nearly a century for the problem to compound upon itself:
Abba Gerasim: And His Letters to His Brotherhood, pp. Abba Gerasim: And His Letters to His Brotherhood, 126-127:
I doubt if any of the Platonite priests really venerate the saints. This what was written in an article by George Grebenshchikov, “A Path of a Hierarch,” where he exclaims about his priests: “O Lord, forgive me. I am sinning by being with them… Some of them are veritably Godless. O true God! They come to me and begin to contradict, saying: ‘What kind of God is there?’ O Lord! This is terrible, when a priest is an unbeliever. That means that he is not afraid of God and is fooling people.”
Yes, this is frightful, when a priest does not believe in God. He is not afraid of God and is deceiving the people. And even more frightful is that this priest tells this to his bishop, and the bishop keeps him in his diocese!!! The bishop thereby helps the atheist priest to continue deceiving the believing people who support such a parasite. O Lord, forgive us!
Abba Gerasim: And His Letters to His Brotherhood, Letter 18, October 18, 1966, p. 191:
I remember what I wrote to you about the prophecy of St. Seraphim, Wonderworker of Sarov: “In the last times, many Orthodox bishops will fall into heresy. I, lowly Seraphim, have prayed for them, but the Lord did not hear my prayers….” I, sinful Monk Gerasim, heard some terrible things from the lips of a bishop. I do not know if he ever repented; he was sent a great trial. After all, the Lord pardoned both robbers and fornicators.
Father Gerasim of New Valaam (SHB, 1989), pp. 22, 24:
They arrived in New York City on May 4th, 1915. At first assisting the Bishop, he was soon tonsured and given the name Gerasim in honor of the two great luminaries of Kaluga. In time he was destined to become the third righteous Gerasim from St. Tikhon’s Monastery.
That same year, being only 27 years old, he was ordained deacon and then priest, and served in Chicago. His first trial as a priest occurred soon after his ordination; and his reaction to it was very indicative of his character. It was the Sunday during Great Lent when the Church commemorates the Last Judgement. A certain Bishop, having ordained Fr. Gerasim just months before, told him to go to the ambo and give a sermon. “Go out there and scare them up a bit,” the Bishop said. “There won’t be a Last Judgment anyway, but the people need a little shaking up.” Fr. Gerasim stood there dumbounded, hardly able to believe his ears. It was as if, he said later, someone had just dumped a bucket of ice water over him. There before him was the Bishop who had given him apostolic succession, had made him a priest by the laying on of hands; and that Bishop was just treating the Church like a form, with no content. Seeing Fr. Gerasim’s speechlessness and incredulous expression, he slapped him on the back. “What’s the matter?” he asked. “Don’t be a wet hen. Go out there and give it to them!”
And Fr. Gerasim did just that. Stepping out of the altar, he saw before him the guileless faces of loving people who did believe, just like himself. He knew what he had to say. As the Bishop listened on, Fr. Gerasim spoke out boldly and with conviction against the sin of unbelief, against mere formalism and ritualism in church life. “If we go to church and do all the outward things to be seen by others, without truly believing in our hearts, this is HYPOCRISY!” he exclaimed. “Nothing is hidden from God. At the LAST JUDGMENT, He will judge what is in our hearts and convict us of our unbelief.” By the end of his sermon, many of the believers were moved to tears at the power of his words.
To his disappointment, Fr. Gerasim found that other clergy with whom he came into contact were also spiritually bankrupt, viewing their missionary work as part of an existing cultural establishment.
“What precludes the more godly and sober minded among them from at least acknowledging the harm these slanders have done?”
Perhaps the synod is in worse shape than you realize.
Seraphim,
Like you I recognize that people can engage in “… lies … manipulations … machinations …” for all manner of reasons. I focused on the sole reason given here, that the OCA’s Bishops were intent on abandoning Orthodoxy in favor of the theology of the ECUSA heretics. That has been repeated here multiple times, and you yourself walked a fine line that suggested (but did not claim) that you had actual knowledge of such a thing.
Otherwise it seems that you’ve agreed with the content of my post, but did that in a manner that sought to make it look as if I were entirely wrong.
To me, a sinner, what struck me most disheartening was the justification of trading in gossip, rumors, innuendo and complete fictions by invoking the memory of St. Mark of Ephesus. St. Mark could point to the Union of Florence as the fact of an abandonment of Orthodoxy, to what actual thing do you point to prove that the OCA has similarly abandoned Orthodox teaching?
Truth: You don’t, because you can’t, because it doesn’t exist.
My view is simple: We should follow the example of the man whom this site once championed but now deems irrelevant: Metropolitan Jonah. His example of prayer and faithfulness, which was also the example of St. Mark of Ephesus, is consistent with Orthodox teaching and tradition down through the ages. He who saved the Three Young Men in the fire will not abandon those who cling to Him.
CQ,
Metropolitan Jonah is not, nor was never deemed “irrelevant”. However, he was not the epicenter either. I’ve always maintained that what happened with and to Metropolitan Jonah was symptomatic of the dysfunction in the OCA. It was just more glaringly obvious in his situation. The individuals involved in this particular episode were not very adept at covering their tracks. I am grateful for that. Your contempt is without merit.
“lies, manipulations, machinations, oh my! lies, manipulations, machinations, oh my! lies, manipulations, machinations, oh my!!”
CQ declared:
CQ, when the OCA Synod will not act on a case so obvious as one of their bishops living with his gay partner, nor that same Synod defrocking his lover Archdeacon who married another man in California, it gives pause as to how correct this same Synod is in upholding the Truth and Tradition of the Church. I will submit that some cases may fall into a gray area, but this one does not. It is cut and dry. Yet, they do nothing. When +Jonah wished to pursue this case, which was throughly investigated by then Chancellor Garklavs, they did nothing.
I believe that even you must concede that in this case the Synod turn a blind eye and if they do to such an obvious case of misconduct how are we to believe that they will defend the faith and rightly define the word of truth?
It is precisely their inaction that is causing harm to their jurisdiction, why people have left the OCA are are now in other parishes and jursidictions. No good can come from such an example. These are self-inflicted wounds because they refuse to protect the flock they have been sworn to protect.
Again, when +Jonah tried to move on this matter he was stopped by the Synod. He tried to do the right thing but in the end it was used against him.
Amen
As bad as Ben Lomond was, it was confined to one parish in one diocese in one jurisdiction. The recent unpleasantness in the OCA is widespread and has caused everybody else to wonder what we’re made of.
The Ben Lomond event has never been fully healed and it was Antiochian, not OCA.
ery well said Seraphim. For what it’s worth, the acceptance of homosexuality is now a fait accompli in many Northeastern parishes of the OCA and even one in Kentucky (if memory serves). As for SVS, only Fr Chad Hatfield stands in the way of it becoming 100% liberal/ecumenist. But for the fact that he’s in the Antiochian jurisdiction, he’d of been toast long ago.
Think of it: how would STS, Holy Cross, etc. stand up to SVS once the flagship seminary in America goes pink? They won’t, mainly because they’ve never had much academic prestige to begin with. That’s one reason that the recent SVS/Acton conference was such a huge thing. The mere planting of the conservative/classically liberal economic flag within its precincts set back the liberal-ecumenists on their heels.
You’ve hit the nail on the head: once an opportunity arises and/or a significant cultural shift occurs, then the OCA will become “Finlandized.” The machinery is in place now that Jonah has been removed.
Rating: +3 (from 11 votes
The problem with the Orthodox is outside of a Russian or Roman Empire which that supports traditional morality, Orthodox have difficulties On the other hand, conservative catholic or some of the conservative mainliners like Missouri Synod along with evangelicals turns people off from dealing with the issue. It would be nice if orthodox had a different approach from conservative Catholics or Protestants on this.
The approach to homosexuality should not be just about homosexuality. That displaying their game.
Preach and practice the comprehensive truth about men and women and sex:
Men and women have a complimentary synergy with God that simply cannot exist between to people of the same sex. There is only man and woman, not a range of “genders”. Sex is for procreation AND bonding between husband and wife. Celibacy and chastity before marriage, monogamy and chastity after marriage. No abortion! Then hold everybody to it following the Tradition of the Church including appropriate penance when people stray.
It is not complicated just requires the will and the compassion. We don’t need to come up with anything new or change based on ideologic, materialistic, so-called science.
Nor do we need to follow Russia by sticking our heads in the sand in a woeful display of ignorance, cowardice and sanctimonios arrogance.
In any case if we continue to hold to the Tradition, we will be persecuted.
Dear George and Cynthia,
I wonder if you could clarify why you think that homosexuality is accepted at the OCA parish (there is only one!) in Kentucky? I am pretty sure that this is false.
James, even you can see that unless one is grounded and faithful to Holy Tradition it is impossibleto make proper descions.
The marriage you mention is not a marriage. The couple would have to decide if they wanted to live a life of repentance or licentiousness as with the other situations you mention. Simple principle: chastity and celibacy before marriage, monogamy and chastity after marriage, appropriate pastoral guidance in repentance.
But you know all that. The only reason you raise the question is either you don’t want to abide by the teaching and Tradition or you don’t think the priests and bishops have the willingness to be the guides the are supposed to be.
There will be instances when that is true but they need not be the norm or even frequent.
Collete says upstream :
That is right. They are not doing their jobs of rightly dividing the word of truth. They appear to be collapsing under the weight of the aggressive worldly mind that surrounds us and attacks us. That’s the problem in a nut shell.
As to communing a same sex couple simply because they don’t have a valid marriage! That’s why it has to be an umbrella approach–fornication is fornication is fornication. Until a fornicating couple retires to separate households, stops the fornication and enters into a confessional/healing counsel with their confessor–no communion. That’s been standard for a long, long time.
It is our wimpyness in the face of the hedonistic licentious culture in the first place that allowed other perversions to get a foot hold.
Economia is not license.
All the more reason to return to simple, beautiful statements of the truth. I’ve never been more in agreement with Michael S before. Praise God.
I agree with the simple statements of Truth, but also feel in certain instances that action needs to happen in order to convey and uphold and teach what the Truth is.
I mis-spoke or rather mis-wrote above, but there was no reply button so where I wrote:
“If married same -sex couples are receiving regular communion, leading in Church offices, teaching Sunday school–”
I don’t know where anyone is teaching Sunday School who is in this situation-but I do know of persons who actively support and believe in same-sex marriage teaching it.
Those folks should not be teaching in official Church. They should not receive communion until they repent. I base that last statement on what my priest said when asked about abortion in a parish Q&A session. He plainly said that if any Orthodox even believed in “a woman’s right to choose” they should not approach the cup.
Yes I know of another priest who has a similar point of view as yours and applied it to the subject of same-sex marriage. It’s such a hard call, but many times that act can really make someone wake up and learn more about what they really believe and why and later bring back into the Church more fully. This I’ve seen more than once.
colette, I, too have seen the healing effect of the penance of time away from the cup. It is not a punishment.
If a person is adamant about whatever it was that led to the penance, they need to rethink their participation in the life of the Orthodox Church.
Just going by what I have been taught by my priest and my bishop. I see no difference in the support of homosexual fornication and support of abortions. That is why I referenced what my priest said in public. when asked.
I did not make that call. If it were up to me, I would have probably been less strict. I’m just thankful I don’t have to make the call. That’s the bishop’s job: “rightly dividing the word of truth”
When they fail to do that, confusion sets in.
I also suspect that there are several people in our parish who are are troubled by same-sex attraction. At times I see them receiving. I leave that to the bishop too because I know his love of Christ and his love of us. I trust him implicitly.
Opposite-sex attraction is very common, as a long life in the world has shown me. Indeed, it is an everyday phenomenon! Nobody argues with the fact that the married person cannot act physically on his or her other opposite-sex attractions under the doctrines of the Church.
This is not controversial. Adultery occurs often enough, but it is not condoned. Many engage in it, but not ask to bring their lovers into the sanctuary to be blessed by the pastor and congregation. They do not form lobbies, they do not have respected advocates.
Why is homosexuality being treated differently, to the extent that it makes inroads even into Orthodoxy and Catholicism? This puzzles me. This only answer I can think of is that in our contemporary world, personal sexual expression is the highest good. But how can a Christian pastor, ortho- or heterodox, believe such a thing? Yet many do. This is the real mystery.
W
Because they love the created thing more than their Creator. It is part of the on going apostasy.
BTW Tim, do you have a brother with the same middle initial named Rig?
Timor mortis conturbat me. But in the nature of things, rigor mortis cannot!