In biology, there’s a concept known as extinction. It’s what happens when a species cannot adapt to new conditions. This is to be expected since flora and fauna have no moral agency and are governed entirely by their physiology and anatomy. In other words, they’re not autonomous or sentient. To the extent to which they’re self-aware, it resides only in their immediate consciousness of reproduction and death. Everything revolves around sex and death in other words.
Human beings of course are different. We are very self-aware and we can think beyond our immediate needs. Unfortunately, when we aggregate into groups, a certain amount of this sentience is lost. Sociologists talk of the “madness of mobs” for example. All institutions are capable of falling into this pattern. When nations do it, they collapse. Think of the Ancien Regime of France before the Revolution or Byzantium before its fall.
No institution is immune from this. The inability of the Catholic Church to reform itself inevitably led to the Reformation and all the tumult that Martin Luther unleashed upon Europe when he nailed his 95 Theses to the cathedral door at Wittemburg. Before this event, wars in Europe were strictly small-scale affairs for the most part, fought according to established rules; after this event (which caused the cleavage of Europe into different camps — Protestant and Catholic), the wars became much more massive and destructive. Think of the Thirty Years War, the Napoleonic Wars, and the First World War. (I personally think that if all Western Europe had been Catholic, Pope Benedict XV could have stopped that one from ever happening.)
The OCA Sex Czar posing as Louis XV
(Click to enlarge)
The first two officers have hopefully been dealt a death-blow by Monomakhos. At the very least, we’ve held them up for the ridicule that they deserve. The most recent lapse in good judgment is the imposition of continuing education credits for priests.
Mind you, there’s nothing wrong with continuing education per se. The problem arises from the timing of this as it seems to be a direct slap in the face of the legitimate Primate. I believe it’s being done to continue the insinuation campaign against His Beatitude. “See! Jonah violated the SMPAC Report!” (Even though we weren’t allowed to see it.)
The fact that this concept hasn’t been thought through was my initial reaction. Some correspondents said “well, the GOA has programs like this, so what’s the big deal?” True enough but then I got to thinking: well, the GOA has better compensation standards for their priests. Why don’t we start there? Would it be too much to ask that our bishops also submit to these bright ideas or are they above the law?
Anyway, several priests in the OCA have contacted your humble servant off-line and contributed their own perspectives on this matter. See what you think. (And yes, they choose to remain anonymous. That should tell you something right there.)
[Editor’s Note: Fr W asked that his comments be removed. For an explanation, please see “Mea Minima Culpa.” Now Fr V asked that his comments be removed as well. Frs X, Y, and Z on the other hand are unembarrassed and are still standing by their comments to the best of my knowledge. However, rather than take the chance of exposing them (via the process of elimination) to those in Syosset who might do them harm, Monomakhos is making the editorial decision to remove their comments as well. In the future, if any priests in the OCA are upset with the way things are going, I would suggest going directly to your bishops and voicing your concerns.]
I suspect that, if one were to be a fly on the wall of Main OCA, one would hear expressions of exasperation and disbelief at the reaction to the CE program. I am almost positive that the administrators spent many hours coming up with this program and drafting the press release. Just like the they did with the press release about the bishop of the Midwest last year. But the end result is the same: a shambles.
The underlying reason, in my opinion, is that the administrators at Main OCA are intellectual light-weights. They may be fine, moral men, but the public track record time and again tends to show a lack of awareness, understanding, and good judgement. I suppose as failings go, these are not the worst possible examples. But, really, it is getting tremendously tedious.
SAM
Fr Z! If you don’t go to all the classes they will take your nebby thing away! That should make you feel real sad!
Oh and the purple skufia thingy too!
Some flunky from Noo Yawk will come in the night and snatch them from your sacristy…
snark alert seems to be working properly here on the left coast.
Metropolitan Jonah still not released.
Holy Synod still unrepentant.
Lost count of the weeks since the July ambush.
Same Stuff, Different Day.
No tithes to the OCA.
That’s a pretty crappy haiku.
It may not be great literature as a haiku, but it gets the point across.
The joke, I make it.
The joke, I make it?
Who are you, Yoda???
😉
When my youngest son says “I m going poo-poo” he is also getting the point across. Does that mean that I should announce that to the world?
Carl says
Nope. That’s when you thank God for great blessings and start banking what you save on diapers for son’s education.
Limerick, “A”?
Though I truly did not really try to,
Accidentally I wrote crappy haiku.
Perhaps I’d write better
If known by one letter.
Perhaps not.
🙂
Theodore, for what it’s worth, I never understood the concept of haikus in the first place.
Thanks, George. I’ll submit Japanese poetry when you declare Poetry Day on Monomakhos. BTW, that’s Louis XIV in the portrait, you know. IJS
For your information, neither Moscow nor ROCOR wants Metr. Jonah in their churches. Fact.
Then why is he teaching at St.John the Baptist Cathedral {ROCOR} in DC?
Pere LaChaise is correct, and time will prove him. I would suggest that you not confuse the hospitality extended by individuals to individuals as tacit corroboration of anything. You know, the whole “sometimes a cigar is just a cigar” thing.
Boy, does that sound like sour grapes and the words of a Stankovich exiting, stage left. A momentary victory cigar makes not the war won, Mickey!
“Mickey,” you say. And that would be этап право, my friend. направо.
It truly saddens me to see you ascribe any sense of war, let alone “victory” in a situation that undoubtedly has caused weeping among the angels. If that is how you see it, you truly need to reconsider what it is you are thinking. The former Metropolitan is a talented man, leadership not being one of them. While no one of consequence has solicited my opinion – and why should they – I say let them ask nothing more of him than what is edifying to ChristineFevronia: preaching, teaching, inspiring, and being a spiritual/pastoral/monastic leader. My point was simply to say he will be cared for, and time will prove this as correct.
We have paid $8.1 million in previous three years in Central Church Administration Assessments (CCA) ($2.7 million a year according to Strategic Plan for OCA, p. 19) from our parishes and dioceses. Last three years rate of Assessments for OCA is $105.00 per capita (person) per year + 3.2 million last year, for the total of $11.3 million ($95.00 per capita this year)
Over 90 percent “is spent on administrative expenses, LESS THAN 10 PERCENT IS SPENT ON THE OUTREACH MINISTRIES OF THE CHURCH.” (Strategic Plan for OCA, p. 19-20)
For those moneys we have received Absolutely Nothing of Christian Value (or Any value) to our parishes and dioceses, but continual administrative turmoil, scandals, blog wars, divisions into camps (between administrative bodies – HS, MC, Central Staff, and even within those bodies – pro +Jonah, anti +Jonah, pro Stokoe, anti Stokoe, ‘appalled Four’, etc.) -resulting in direct loss of revenues, parishioners, and potential converts in our parishes and dioceses.
Their inability to work out their differences, respect each other as colleagues, come to common ground, and work for the greater good of the church, is shamelessly put on display for the OCA laity year after year. We pay a national circus tax, a tithe on our hard-earned incomes during a severe economic depression, so these guys can stab each other in the back and whine about it to their audiences.
Creating another national department and mandate (unfunded) will waste more of our faithful’s money and clearly reorient proper Orthodox ecclisiology – Diocesan soverngnity – fullness (Catholicity) of the Church is manifested in Diocesan Bishop gathered together with his presbyters and laity, to a more papal (Syosett) central administration ecclisiology!
We have gotten nothing for our Assesments, but scandals and fights, originating with Central Church Administration, as well as losing three Primates, and over empowering the Metropolitan Council, SMPAC, and Legal Commitee of MC, and Syosett Administrators!
It is time to take our church back from amatures!
I believe that reducing National (OCA) Assessments WILL reorient our priorities and resources to diocesan and parish growth, from National Church waste.
Fr. Alexey
Not a pretty picture, is it, Fr?
Pure baloney! The OCA has reduced it’s operating costs to reduce the burden on the Church. The OCA operates on a shoe-string as most people wanted. Big coffers are what created the RSK Scandal. It’s the same as what the GOP is calling for the central govt to do. The lack of extra funds reduces what the OCA can do so, each diocese must step up and control their own monies (states vs central govt). So, don’t complain. If the you want the OCA central admin to do more, GIVE MORE. Typical, complain, complain, complain, but YOU do nothing.
I am not sure what your point is, Mr Johnston. You say that giving the Main OCA more money created the RSK scandal. But then you suggest that we give more, so Main OCA can do more. Do more what? Scandal creation?
I would interested to know what action you would have Fr Karlgut take? His are good points, well made. Yours are incomprehensible. Are you a wordsmith for OCA Main?
And, lest you think that I am insulting you, I am not. I am being descriptive about what you wrote above. There is a big difference.
There’s no way I want the central admin to do more; they have done more than enough already, as the sorry state of the OCA shows (same is true of the central govt, too, BTW). But to say they have reduced the burden on the Church is not true; the burden hasn’t been reduced, merely shifted. The CAA has been reduced, but the DA’s have been raised by an equivalent amount, so the cost of the assessments has remained the same. Now the cost of continuing education for clergy has been added, so the burden has gone up, not down. Plus we now have an additional bureaucracy lapping up dollars and stifling the work the Church really needs to do. Central government at its finest…
The shame is, I do believe there has to be some form of continuing education for OCA clergy. If the priests who have passed through my parish over the last two decades are any indication, graduation from seminary does not guarantee a good priest. The biggest deficiency I’ve seen is in preaching; most OCA clergy appear to be severely lacking in this area, let alone in such things as personal relations. But, as has been pointed out, the current CE program that has been imposed on the OCA does not seem designed to address the needs of parishes for better-qualified clergy. Rather, it seems designed to provide incomes to bureaucrats, while tightening the control of the central administration over the Church as a whole. This is the exact opposite of returning control to the dioceses, which is what the faithful have been led to expect over the last two or so years.
“The OCA has reduced it’s operating costs to reduce the burden on the Church.”
Really?!
CCA Assessments per capita
(Ancient History)
1950– $1.00
1967– $5.00
1973– $7.00
(Current History)
1992– $40.00
1993– $45.00
1994– $46.30
1995– $48.00
1996– $50.00
1997– $52.00
1998– $53.50
1999– $54.00
2000– $60.00
2002– $85.00
2008– $105.00
JJ–So you admit the central administration is a burden on the Church? Right you are! Many of us would be very happy for the central administration to both take less and do less since what they take and do doesn’t translate into commensurate benefit to our ministry at the parish level–and actually, their actions have made our ministry more difficult. Fr. Alexey speaks the truth.
The Church has spoken many times that they want Syosset to do less, much less, not more. The reduction of the head tax by only $10 was motivated not by the faithful but by the Syosset aparachiks who were afraid that their big salary packages would be impacted by a reduction of the head tax that was more in line with what the Church wanted. Lest you forgot, a reduction to $50 per head is what was first proposed, that would have shifted the fiscal burden away from Syosset and to more local control.
No, Jonathan, we don’t want Syosset to do more. We want them to do a lot less. We want them to do only what the OCA Statute outlines. We don’t approve of adding more stuff at the top, Sex Czars and a central education system. Not until we stop looking to Big Brother to think for us will the OCA get it. So it is not baloney. It is just another example of Syosset not really listening.
DEPARTURE FROM ORTHODOX ECCLESIOLOGY
I believe that many of the problems we are seeing today could be directly attributed to the Strategic Plan for OCA, being implemented by Central Church Administration, and it’s overall departure from established Church Tradition, Holy Canons, theology, and ecclesiology. Please forgive the length of the post.
WHAT THE SP DOES:
1) Fails to recognize autocephaly
The present draft of the SP completely ignores the autocephalous status of the OCA. There is not one mention of autocephaly in the entire document. Given the current tone of inter-Orthodox relations in North America, this could be interpreted as an attempt to “cater” to other Orthodox churches present on this continent. Maybe it is simply an oversight. Maybe it is an overt attempt to redefine who we are as the Orthodox Church in America. In any case, this failure to recognize or otherwise discuss the autocephalous status of the OCA must be addressed in any future discussion of a strategic plan.
2) The SP indicates a change in the understanding of the hierarchical order of the Church
The current document, while using language that speaks of the church’s hierarchy, does so in a manner that clearly diminishes the role of the bishops joined together as Synod as the ultimate authority within the church—although this is not a new phenomenon, as the OCA statute itself already provides misleading wording that implies that the AAC and its delegated body, the MC, are somehow the ultimate authority in matters relating to administration of finances, legal matters, etc. The present process can more clearly acknowledge that the authority of the AAC and the MC are delegated by the Synod- which means that this authority rests primarily within the Synod itself and is merely delegated by the Synod at the present time, for any number of reasons. Hopefully, it is understood by all that this delegation is given by the Synod in order to utilize the expertise of other clergy and laity within the church who may have expertise in areas in which the hierarchs do not.
3) The SP changes and understates the Orthodox understanding of the role and relationship of the Diocesan Bishop to the Diocese and the role and relationship of Priest to Parish
The present form of the SP speaks of the diocesan bishop simply as the “person responsible for all aspects of the life of the Diocese” and although other definitions of his role are found within the document, it fails to adequately articulate his role, as a sharer in the apostolic succession, as a guarantor of unity in the Orthodox Faith handed to us from the Apostles, and as high priest who presides on behalf of the worshiping community. It also states that “The unity of the community comes from the Bishop’s active ministry and involvement in the lives of his people, and their consensus in following the Bishop’s leadership.”
This statement is clearly a departure from Orthodox sacramental theology and ecclesiology. The present draft also significantly diminishes the priestly ministry by defining the priest as “The priest assembles the faithful and leads all to mutually identify, nurture, and exercise their particular gifts and to recognize the charisms of others who would function as leaders of the parish.” As observed in the comments below, this reduces the priestly role to a mere facilitator in the way that any group leader is a facilitator. There is no mention within the document of the role of the sacramental nature of ordained ministry of the priest sharing in the ministry of the bishop. Is this so as not to offend the sensitivities of those who aren’t ordained – but who nonetheless share in the work of the church?
4) The SP changes the role and relationship of MC to AAC and to the Holy Synod
The ordering of the section on the “Structure and Governance of the Church” begins with the parish. As life in church is experienced by most of the faithful at the level of the local parish community, this is an understandable way to begin. To begin with the parish also seems logical, especially in order to avoid the usual and most customary level of “starting from the top.” However, the order followed after this does not always seem logical. This is particularly evident when the last body discussed in the section on church structure and governance is the metropolitan council.
Is this meant to imply that the MC, since it is listed last, is the most important of all the groups discussed? Does it imply a hierarchy of importance or is the order mixed in order to avoid showing the Holy Synod as the church’s highest authority?
Also, the section on the Holy Synod notes that “In the spirit of conciliarity, and more fully to hear the voice of the people, the Holy Synod, through The Statute of the Orthodox Church in America, has delegated the authority for legislative and administrative matters to the All-American Council and to the Metropolitan Council.” Unless the common understanding is that this delegation by the Holy Synod to the AAC is not an abdication of its authority, this document radically changes the role of the Synod and its relationship to the AAC and the MC.
WHAT THE SP DOES NOT DO:
1) The SP does not address stewardship/assessments for funding Central Church Administration (CCA)
This has been discussed and re-discussed for years. However, at the time at which the church is capturing the “vision, goals, culture and structure of the church for the foreseeable future” then now is the time to address this important and unsettled aspect of church life. Administratively, there are areas of great concern that are draining resources provided to the OCA by assessments from dioceses, deaneries, parishes, and ultimately our faithful. It is observed that according to the newly revised (by the Metropolitan Council) budget of the OCA, the Executive Officers are: 2 part-time employees (Treasurer and Director of Communications) and 2 full time employees (Chancellor and Corporate Secretary). These officers receive a combined compensation equaling $416,000.00 per year. Accordingly, that equals the cumulative assessments of 4,425 “dues paying” members of our parishes. In other words, the total annual assessment of the entire Diocese of New York and New Jersey nearly equals the amount paid to four people!
The OCA is in a serious need to review and evaluate its current staffing requirements and compensations. Another area of concern was legal fees paid by the OCA. This year alone it will equal or exceed $750,000 spent on the former Chancellor’s two lawsuits. It was observed that the Metropolitan Council is exceeding its authority and not acting in best financial interest of the OCA by tripling the amount of allocated funds for legal defense as approved and budgeted by the most recent All American Council of the Orthodox Church in America. It is noted that the Metropolitan Council is spending the equivalent of the assessments of 10,000 ‘dues paying’ parish members (nearly half of the OCA’s financially supporting membership) on the salaries of 3 officers and legal fees!
Many priests express the feeling that expenditures not authorized by the All American Council by the Central Administration and the Metropolitan Council on executive salaries and legal fees are incongruent with the reality they face in parishes, deaneries, and dioceses of the OCA (i.e. declining membership, limited/declining donations, the recession, the extraordinarily meager salaries of clergy who often survive on the wages earned by spouses, the rising cost of maintaining parish facilities, and trying to fund the critical work of evangelization, church growth, and charitable outreach.) Any SP reorganization that does not address those crucial issues is critically flawed!
2) The SP does not address the composition of AAC
For some time, the composition of the AAC has been discussed and possible alternatives have been introduced into this discussion that would make the AAC more truly reflective of the canonical relationship between dioceses. As it is currently comprised, the AAC is a representative body of individual parishes and some church institutions. It must be stated again that, given the scope of the work at hand, now is the time to address not only the composition of the AAC, but also its role in the life of the church. As well as what other territorial meetings, conferences, or conventions might be sponsored to further support and encourage ministry at all levels of the church. This need to review the composition and role of the AAC can also be said of its sub-group, the metropolitan council.
3) The SP does not address the need to restructure the Central Church Administration, sell the Syosset property, cut Assessments by 50%, and move CCA to Washington DC
There has been significant and substantial discussion of the need to restructure the central administration of the church (CCA) and to decrease assessments. This has included discussion of selling the property in Syosset, “downsizing” the CCA, and moving to the Primate’s See city or at least the Diocese of Washington. Part of this discussion is based upon the financial realities faced by the church and the financial hardship which a still significantly top-heavy administration places upon the church- as noted above. Failure to address this within the SP process is yet another failed opportunity to plot a positive course and better enable the church to face the future.
ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS AND OBSERVATIONS:
1) Re: Autocephaly
While it would be perilous to ignore the fact that our Orthodox Church in America has been through several years characterized by failures in leadership, financial stewardship, with suspicions, accusations, and violations of trust, it is even more perilous to confuse the ontological essence of the church and to overreact to an administrative shortcomings, problems, and crisis’s by remaking our church into less then what it is – Autocephalous Orthodox Church. And watering down or compromising our church’s Autocephaly violates and betrays the vision of St. Innocent, St. Tikhon, and numerous fathers of our church as Schmemann, Meyendorff, and others.
2) Re: SP process
Two primary concerns are that this process (SP) demeans the very essence of what the Orthodox Church is, and the role of the bishops in the Church (and on the parish level that of the clergy).
3) Re: Conciliarity
which is a term that’s thrown around way too much, speaks primarily of the interaction of the bishops in their shepherding of the Church— but it’s become a term that is used by many to be a “churchly” way of saying democracy within the Church, which itself is another way of saying congregationalism
4) Re: Church governance, conciliarity and catholicity, and authority
There is confusion between ‘conciliarity’ and ‘catholicity’ throughout the entire document. Conciliarity does not mean democracy. Conciliarity is not about majority or plurality or “the voice of the people”; it is not about voting and referendums. Neither is conciliarity opposed to utilizing democratic principles, voting, etc. when deemed appropriate. It is about wholeness and mutuality. Its root concept is found in the Russian word, Sobornost. This refers to conciliar structure of the Church (council of Bishops), while catholicity refers to its wholeness or integrity. The Church can only function as the Church when each part of the conciliar structure has complete integrity in its own personal life and its communal life within the Church; when each is working in the proper order to build up the whole. Each “responsibility” has to be functioning in “accountability” for it to participate in the whole.
Thus, the bishops must take full responsibility and be accountable to one another and to the Metropolitan, as well as to the entire Body of laity and clergy, for the stewardship of their diocese or area of responsibility. The Metropolitan has to accept full responsibility to maintain the unity of the whole, the Holy Synod of Bishops locally, and in relationship with Synods of other Orthodox Churches world-wide. The Metropolitan must be accountable to the Holy Synod of Bishops for his stewardship of the office entrusted to his care. Every order or function of the Church — Diocesan Councils, Metropolitan Council, Diocesan Assemblies, and the All American Councils — must be accountable to the structures above them, beside them, and supporting them.
5) Re: Authority in the church, Accountability, and Responsibility
What this document does, is consistently confuse ‘accountability’ and ‘responsibility’ and ‘authority’ in regards to Metropolitan Council, All American Council, and the Holy Synod of Bishops and the interactive relationship of these bodies. It should be noted that “accountability,” a concept that has always been part of the church’s life (though not always evident or exercised) is used here only in reference to hierarchs. Are not all members of the church, clergy and laity alike, accountable to one another? Certainly, if the hierarchs and those who assist them in the administration of the church are to be held accountable for their stewardship, the same must be said of everyone in the church for all aspects of their lives within the church. The document allows one exception to this otherwise restricted use, i.e. the section on the diocesan bishop states that the faithful are “accountable to the bishop in love,” a concept that is not further developed or explained and which comes across as a mere platitude.
Another significant term that is poorly utilized is that of “responsibility.” Responsibility is used primarily in relating the role and duty of hierarchs within the church. It is sparingly used to refer to the diocesan assembly and the MC and, in one instance, is used in reference to parishes and parishioners. The lack of responsibility given to other clergy and faithful seems to deny that everyone within the church is responsible for its life and mission. Granted, this responsibility is exercised in different ways at different levels within the church, but is true responsibility nonetheless. If this document truly wants to lift up the role of everyone within the church, each in its proper place and perspective, it might better highlight the accountability and responsibility that pertains to all. Emasculating the Holy Synod of Bishops of the Orthodox Church in America and over-empowering the Metropolitan Council (itself a historical aberration) violates true Orthodox conciliarity and catholicity, and the wholeness and integrity of our church.
Fr. Alexey
Alexey Karlgut:
“This statement is clearly a departure from Orthodox sacramental theology and ecclesiology. The present draft also significantly diminishes the priestly ministry by defining the priest as ‘The priest assembles the faithful and leads all to mutually identify, nurture, and exercise their particular gifts and to recognize the charisms of others who would function as leaders of the parish.’ As observed in the comments below, this reduces the priestly role to a mere facilitator in the way that any group leader is a facilitator. There is no mention within the document of the role of the sacramental nature of ordained ministry of the priest sharing in the ministry of the bishop.”
“…..”
“And watering down or compromising our church’s Autocephaly violates and betrays the vision of St. Innocent, St. Tikhon, and numerous fathers of our church as Schmemann, Meyendorff, and others”.
I imagine Saints would have wanted us to have continued as part of ROCOR after the Revolution, nor do I see them approving of how we acquired Autocephaly from Moscow at the time or of us continuing as we are now. As far as Schmemann, Meyendorff, etc, isn’t it the problem that their vision is the very Eastern Rite Protestantism we see in the first paragraph of yours?
Ladder of Divine Ascent asks “As far as Schmemann, Meyendorff, etc, isn’t it the problem that their vision is the very Eastern Rite Protestantism we see in the first paragraph of yours?”
Absolutely not. Father Schmemann is clear: ” All this finally means something very simple and very practical for the solution of our spiritual problem here, in America. It means that as long as we ourselves constantly “reduce” this problem to its “impersonal” dimensions and speak about the American Man, the American Culture, etc., not only do we find ourselves in a vicious circle, but we posit the whole question on an utterly non-Orthodox framework. For in a very real sense no general “man”—be he American or any other—no “society”, no “culture” has at any time truly accepted Christianity and from this point of view there is nothing radically new in our American situation.” (my emphasis. Source: http://www.jacwell.org/Fall_Winter99/Fr_Schmemann_The%20_spiritual_problem.htm)
I think the real problem here is Ladder’s disagreement with Father Alexander’s conclusion that all Orthodox, every where (perhaps even in Holy Russia?) have failed. This point is made clear earlier in the above cited essay: “At all times many Christians, if not a majority, were luke-warm in their faith, minimalistic in fulfilling their religious obligations, lazy, selfish, etc. Christian writings from St. Paul to Father John of Kronstadt are full of exhortations addressed to such people and aimed at reforming their deficient Christian life. .”
A fantastic posting Fr. Thanks for being one of the few priests in the OCA to have the courage to speak forthrightly and openly. It’s refreshing.
Fr. Alexey,
браво. Так да светит свет ваш пред людьми, чтобы они видели ваши добрые дела и прославляли Отца вашего Небесного
Ladder of Divine Ascent,
I asked you previously to delineate your objection to Frs. Schmemann & Meyendorff and their “Eastern Rite Protestantism.” I suspect this is empty pamphleteering. Why not start with Fr. Alexander’s Problems of Orthodoxy in America.
This is a great article by Schmemenn-funny thing-I don’t think you believe it. You seem to buy into secularism and deny the very changing grace of Christ, because you buy into what you believe “Science” has determined. Just replace a few words here with your implications and the bottom line-you have replaced the faith with secular knowledge . . . .
” Yet it is precisely these good, active generous and church-minded people, it is indeed the Church and not the “lost sheep”, that find and declare it “impossible” to accept much of the canonical, doctrinal, liturgical and primal tradition of Orthodoxy. At the same time, however, they ,claim that they are perfectly Orthodox and are indeed acknowledged as such by their pastors and hierarchy. This is the radically new fact of our existence. For again there have always been “compromises” in the Church, there have always been minimalistic attitudes among clergy and laity. But they were always recognized as such, never accepted as the norm. A Christian could think it impossible for him to live by Christian standards, but it never entered his mind to minimize the demands of the Church. But when well-intentioned and responsible people in all sincerity declare that these demands are impossible because they do not fit into the “American way of life”, when a substantial majority of Bishops, priests and laymen agree with them, when, furthermore, what is declared impossible is not something secondary and historically conditioned—as, for example, the long hair and specific clerical garb of the priests—but belongs to the very essence of Orthodoxy (e.g., the place of the Priest in the parish), then the time has come to ask: what is the mysterious obstacle which makes it impossible for Orthodoxy to be Orthodox?
I completely agree with you colette. I also agree that it is something we all need to be aware of. The same problem can had has morphed into a juridical legalism here in the U.S and those who are more othodox than the Orthodox.
Fundamentally it is a mindset that stems from the Enlightenment and Protestant influences in our culture that we can’t avoid which make each individual our own pope.
When even the notion of hierarchical authority, tradition and obedience are so anathama it becomes quite difficult for a grounded Orthodox life in community to take root and florish.
It can be done, but it takes a lot of work. The Church is all too often a Church of the mind still in this country.
Thanks very much, Father Alexei! A thoughtful and most Orthodox assessment of the so problematic “strategic” plan. I would only add that the plan is not strategic at all: on the contrary it is a tactical blueprint and adversarial, rather than conciliar in conception.
I don’t know, at eighty, how many more chances I’ll have to express myself. So now I’ll just say the “Strategic Plan,” is a crock, a total crock.
By the way, I notice that one of the recent screeds on the OCA homepage came up with the non-word, “plentitude.” I know that Father Tosi vaunts a resume which includes a stint at “The Economist”.. He must have given that periodical’s editors and proofreaders a great workout.
If the OCA Chancery has so much money they can waste it on Strategic Plans, Chancellors’ Diaries, and Sex Czars, surely they should be able to come up with a salary for a proof reader!
When then-Bishop Nikon attended our mission’s ten-year anniversary a year and half ago, I asked him privately as we drove up to the church what he thought about the so-called strategic plain. All he said to me in response, quite pointedly, was this: “Our strategic plan is lying right there on the altar.”
If we had spent as much time on committees and focus groups studying the Gospel of Jesus Christ and His commandments which we are to teach to all nations as we have spent creating, revising, discussing, applying a strategic plan that will never lie on the altar, we might be making some progress by now. In fact, I’m quite sure of it. The Gospel is life. The strategic plan is anything but that.
Well-said Fr. Alexey!
Ok, Fr. Justin, but if as +Nikon says he believes “Our strategic plan is on the altar,” than why isn’t he–along with his “brother” bishops–bent on seeing ++JONAH treated fairly and with love and dignity and released to serve in another jurisdiction immediately? Why isn’t he bent letting the DOS nominate a bishop? The months and years are passing and there is NO sense of urgency to do what the Gospel says and see the Church edified and equipped for growth in love and service.
Why do these men who claim to be successors to the apostles and ought to be examples of Christ to us, look more feckless and less Christian than your neighbour agnostic? whay are they acting like practical atheists? Where is the love? the humility? the repentance?
Service beyond the OCA is looking more appealing all the time and the time may not be far off when one’s moral duyty is to put his shoud to the plow in a more profitable field, where the soil of pure hearts is more apt to receive the seed and bring forth much good fruit. Here the harvest is getting pretty sour and the fruit aas bitter as poison.
I pray each day for every member of our Synod–and for JONAH–but frankly the sky seems as brass, for there is no escaping that as we sow, we reap and there is scant to no hope without heartfelt and humble repentance–of which there is littleif any sign–and which often only lately comes in response to exile and disaster–and sometimes not even then, for the refrain of the Apocalypse of St. John the Theologian is: “Even men refused to repent.”
lxc
Father Alexei writes; “Also, the section on the Holy Synod notes that “In the spirit of conciliarity, and more fully to hear the voice of the people, the Holy Synod, through The Statute of the Orthodox Church in America, has delegated the authority for legislative and administrative matters to the All-American Council and to the Metropolitan Council.” Unless the common understanding is that this delegation by the Holy Synod to the AAC is not an abdication of its authority, this document radically changes the role of the Synod and its relationship to the AAC and the MC.”
The Statute is quite clear that both the AAC and the MC are subservient to the Holy Synod as any decision taken by either body must be blessed by the Holy Synod. I really do not know of anyone who thinks otherwise. I am of course talking about folks who have acquainted themselves with the Statute and do not rely on Internet blogs.
Here is what the working draft of the Strategic Plan, Version 4.6, dated June 24, 2010, says:
“Canonically, the Holy Synod is the ultimate authority of the Territorial Church and has
responsibility for every aspect of the Church. In the spirit of conciliarity, and more fully to
hear the voice of the people, the Holy Synod, through The Statute of the Orthodox
Church in America, has delegated the authority for legislative and administrative matters
to the All-American Council and to the Metropolitan Council. The actions of each of
these bodies are subject to the blessing of the Holy Synod.”
I have a problem with the statement that the Holy Synod has delegated authority to the AAC and the MC. What has happened is that the AAC and the MC have been assigned various competencies/responsibilities in legislative and administrative matters per the Statute. In each instance both bodies are under the supervision of the Holy Synod.
Carl,
Quoting a working draft of a strategic plan as proof of what Adamant truth? More power to the proletariat? All that you quote appears to be just another attempt to legitimate a broken system spawn from a KGB Bishop during the Cold War who worked to establish the OCA.
James: Here is the relevant portion of the Version 6.1, December 20, 2011 (Updated to reflect the inputs of the 16th All American Council):….Lo and behold, they took it out!!!! And, here is the reason “…the Strategic Plan has undergone two major revisions. The first reflected the strong input from the Diocesan Assemblies during the fall of 2010 that the Plan should focus on priorities for ministries in the Church and not on organizational change. The second, during the fall of 2011, reflected the AAC’s continued development of top priority ministries and the identification of initial projects in each of these ministries. Both of these major revisions are captured in this current draft.”
http://oca.org/PDF/NEWS/2011/2011-1221-strategic-plan-draft-v6.1.pdf
Now, I am scratching my head and wondering why I referred to an outdated draft? …
OK, I remember, I was responding to a point made by Father Alexei, to wit: “Also, the section on the Holy Synod notes that “In the spirit of conciliarity, and more fully to hear the voice of the people, the Holy Synod, through The Statute of the Orthodox Church in America, has delegated the authority for legislative and administrative matters to the All-American Council and to the Metropolitan Council.” Unless the common understanding is that this delegation by the Holy Synod to the AAC is not an abdication of its authority, this document radically changes the role of the Synod and its relationship to the AAC and the MC.” (Apologies to readers who object to redundancy, as this quote is mere three posts above this one).
So, James, I admit it: I took a shot in the dark to find A version of the Strategic Plan that Father Alexei had some qualms about. May be it was yet another version that he had issues with. I apologoize if I have in any way misrepresented or misunderstood his point. My point remains the same: the OCA Statute has canonical force and not the Strategic Plan (in any version or draft status). Furthermore, regardless of its applicaton in any given situation, the Holy Synod is in charge. Period. Not the AAC, the Metropolitan, the MC, protopresbyters, deacons, or self-important laity.
When did the church start having strategic plans? And why does the church need a strategic plan?
Mr Johnson,
If I may be so bold, I think you misunderstand. So far as I can see, nobody wants the Central Administration to do more…in fact the more it does as it has done of late, the less and less we want it to even exist. There are a number of us I think who would be very happy to see central administration fiscally starved to extinction…or very nearly so…it might be useful to keep on an accountant and someone to route correspondence to the appropriate diocesan bishop, set up conference calls, and secure lodging for visiting bishops when the Holy Synod meets in person…and of course they would both be answerable to the Primate first and foremost.
It’s time for them to go away, for the metropolitan council to be dissolved and an administrative organ more in keeping with Orthodox tradition be put in its place.
If the MC is not soon laid to rest they will likely succeed willingly or not in killing the already weakened OCA. The will either turn it into a desert, or into a disease that can no longer be recognized as an Orthodox communion. Either way, it dies…and not in a good way.
Mr Johnson,
If I may be so bold, I think you misunderstand. So far as I can see, nobody wants the Central Administration to do more…in fact the more it does as it has done of late, the less and less we want it to even exist. There are a number of us I think who would be very happy to see central administration fiscally starved to extinction…or very nearly so…it might be useful to keep on an accountant and someone to route correspondence to the appropriate diocesan bishop, set up conference calls, and secure lodging for visiting bishops when the Holy Synod meets in person…and of course they would both be answerable to the Primate first and foremost.
It’s time for them to go away, for the metropolitan council to be dissolved and an administrative organ more in keeping with Orthodox tradition be put in its place.
If the MC is not soon laid to rest they will likely succeed willingly or not in killing the already weakened OCA. They will either turn it into a desert, or into a disease that can no longer be recognized as an Orthodox communion. Either way, it dies…and not in a good way.
It’s fascinating isn’t it? The people at Seattle voted overwhelmingly for the New York Plan (which was to take the per capita down to $50 over a three year period) but they come up with this boondoggle to show how relevant and necessary they really are.
My take on the hatred of and collusion agains Met. Jonah remains the same: He directly challenged the three major power centers in the OCA all at once. In so doing he quickly and irrevocably alienated himself from any possiblity of actually acomplishing anything.
He wanted to de-centralize
He wanted to change the authority of the Metropolitan Council
He wanted to discuss the nature and scope of the autocephaly of the OCA
On top of that he challenged the moral assumptions of many (although did too little, IMO, to effect change there).
Basically, he upset just about everybody in the first 5 minutes in office (hyperbolic overstatement) even those who might have otherwise been initially on his side.
He made the tactical error of giving his enemies reason to unite against him. If he had taken one thing at a time, he might have had at least some success and still be Metropolitan.
You have hit that nail squarely on the head! In his naivety he believed what was said around him…that change was wanted, and he saw what needed to be changed, so he proceeded. Unfortunately there was another element: he had NO backing or supporters close by who understood what happened immediately around the Syossot gang, and to suppress the jealousy’s undermining of him, nor warn him to take it more slowly.
In addition, he challenged B. Benjamin directly as he was having the porn on his computer investigated – that was quickly squashed – and B. Mel was asked to correct his release from Greece – that was summarily ignored, and B. Nathaniel was asked to clear up that little mess down in Florida – all of which met with enthusiastic rage against Met. Jonah which goes on to this date.
We are all to blame here for not offering support when it was warranted and when we agreed with the changes he proposed…if applicable. I was!
Well! Father, I always thought you were a puffed up bloviating POS.
Looks like Photius was wrong. Well said.
Lets see, I already have two BA’s and one Masters.
I also have four internships and a concentration in mental health and studies which included sexual maladaptive behaviors / sexual abuse.
So does this CE program lead towards a degree in continual BS?
What next, frontal lobotomies? Not a bad idea!
What is the good intention that you have conveniently left out?
I don’t have anything against clergy continuing education. It can be a a good thing, but I find it the height of cynical self-centered elitism when the OCA prances out this CE program and then tells us that the “money saved” from lowering the assessment can now be used to pay for this program. What a big pile of steaming cow patties!
Syosset giveth and Syosset taketh away while Chancellor Jillions tells us about his rock star son. God, deliver us from such a pompous arse!
Loved the “except no supper, that would trouble me.” Father Z!
It made me laugh out loud – and laughter is an increasingly scarce commodity as I watch my parish and the OCA crumble.
Within extended driving distance of where I live, there are two OCA parishes. One is doing OK, but they don’t exactly light their incense with hundred dollar bills and the other is just barely hanging on-barely. Where are they supposed to get the funds and money for related expenses for these courses? If they remove the priests for failure to take the “courses” it is extremely unlikely that they will be able to find replacements in the near (or extended) future. The church that is “barely hanging on” went for several years before finding a priest willing to take on the parish. What happens to the people in these churches. Well, as it turns out, one of them is a stone’s throw from a GOA parish that is on the upswing. So, the people might be OK. THe other is in the middle of nowhere. What do they do?
And might this not be a thinly disguised way to push the lavender agenda, perhaps stressing that no matter what sexual orientation it is ( gay, lesbian, transgender, pedophilia, etc. ), it is REALLY ok and you, the priest, are not to come against it/them for any reason? Continuing education, indeed! Who writes the rules for these classes, and when will the bishops need to come up to Biblical standards?????
Just wondering.
Well said, Oliver.
Since when is it permitted to remove priests – if that is the intention – for not attending CE courses due to lack of funds to pay for same? Is this in the Canons? I think the Canons are concerned with rather more weighty matters. This whole thing reeks of the arrogance of a central administration disconnected from the life of those it is meant to serve.
You OCA folk might want to have a look at how ROCOR has run on the smell of an oily rag for the last several decades (not that it is perfect and not that it doesn’t face some real financial issues, eg the future of the E 93rd street NY property and Jordanville) yet has a vibrant and orthodox church life across several continents.
And who is running the whole thing? I think it’s important to know the credentials of those responsible for educating our clergy, and as much as I’ve tried researching it online, I cannot find anywhere any indication that the new CE Department Director, a priest, actually graduated from a seminary. I find this disturbing. Am I wrong?
Father Z writes,
“I think I’d get more benefit from a couple of days (with some good coffee and quality adult beverages for those so inclined) in informal discussion with a bunch of guys from this list than from anything likely proposed in this CE program.”
This is a fantastically good idea and something that should be cultivated in all cities. Doesn’t have to be a couple of days — meeting up once a week or so for coffee or adult beverages or pizza and wings (on a non-fasting day) for good discussion on a variety of Orthodox Christian books, subject, spirituality, or whatever other topic.
Jonathan Johnston writes,
“If the you want the OCA central admin to do more, GIVE MORE.”
But that’s the thing, we don’t want the central admin to do more. They could sell the expensive mansion in Oyster Bay Cove and use the proceeds from the sale of the mansion to fund continuing education. And move the central admin out of the Northeast for a fresh perspective to help our church grow.
I cried at your suggestion. It made me remember Wednesday Nights with the venerable Arch Bishop Dimitri. The coffee hour would start with 5 minutes of casual hellos and then someone would say either, “I have been reading (enter your Orthodox book of choice)” or “I have been studying (enter here Orthodox topic).” And let the discussions begin! It was wonderful. More theology in 50 minutes than I have heard since. If I knew a group was getting together I would want to join just to listen. I understand that the clergy probably would just want clergy but us enquiring minds would love to hear. Note: I hope I used the correct term for Arch Bishop Dimitri.
I found interesting postings on the blog Orthodoxy in the District , written by an undergraduate student, about which see http://www.american.edu/profiles/students/rh8507a.cfm
But, spurred on by reading his summary of a banquet he did not attend, I thought to read his blog and found the following interesting and well written for someone of such a young age.
On reasons for switching to the ROCOR:
http://ryanphunter.wordpress.com/#comment-1621
On the above, it should be said that unmentioned is that the OCA cathedral is walkable from his university wheras the ROCOR cathedral is quite a hike from there.
On the primatial cathedral as a national war memorial:
http://ryanphunter.wordpress.com/#comment-1188
Commentary on one of Metropoitan Jonah’s bible studies:
http://ryanphunter.wordpress.com/2013/01/22/bible-study-with-metropolitan-jonah-1-corinthians-7/
Articles on Bishop Basil Rodzianko:
http://ryanphunter.wordpress.com/2012/04/14/marilyn-swezey-remembers-bishop-basil-rodzianko-26/
http://ryanphunter.wordpress.com/2012/09/17/on-the-thirteenth-anniversary-of-bishop-basils-repose/
http://ryanphunter.wordpress.com/2012/09/17/when-christ-promised-hi/
The last above link lets many of us know where Metropolitan Jonah serves when he is not at St. John the Baptist ROCOR cathedral or, rarely, and not since the coronation of Metropolitan Tikhon, at St. Mark’s OCA church. It should be noted that only about fifteen people total can even fit in Bp. Basil’s apartment, so that the laos of the nave / living room / dining room means a very few privileged to hear his sermons.
A Ryan suggests, we might all profit from a visit to the Bishop Basil Rodzianko website run by Holy Archangels Foundation:
http://www.rodzianko.org/english/
on line education. provided by OCA. paid for by OCA
i want my oca parish to erase me from membership so they remit NONE of my contributions to assesments. take away the 90 percent adm. exp. . if give a thousand., church retains 600. this is a black hole vortex of waste.perhaps a movement of this type will awaken syosset and awaken the prodigal sons of syosset to return to the father.
I had the same idea, George. But doesn’t Syosset still collect a tithe from the offerings? Or from the Diocese which gets a tithe from the offerings? In other words, if we give anything at all to any OCA church, doesn’t some of it trickle into Syosset somehow? They have already demonstrated their adeptness at legerdemain with budgets, cutting here only to increase elsewhere.
It reminds me of a job I had once in marketing. The company wanted to take a price increase in order to raise revenues, but our franchise base would not stand for it. The brain trust decided to lower prices on the 80% of the bell curve that was seldom ordered and raise prices on the 20% ‘bread and butter’ items. My task (which I refused) was to write copy convincing the customer base this was a net decrease in pricing, since 80% of our prices had been reduced. Of course, our customers saw an increase in their monthly statements because the prices on what they actually bought most of the time went up. We gained a little revenue, and lost a little bit more of our corporate souls.
That company, once the largest in its field, is not any longer. It succeeded in snatching failure from the jaws of success by making itself odious to its customers who came to expect deception and underhanded dealings from the corporate policy wonks. Which, of course, is exactly what they were getting.
Trust, once lost, is hardly regained, if ever. Lessons aplenty here. “He who hath ears to hear…”
Theodore,
The DOS gives much more than 10% of Tithe income to the OCA, somewhere in the neighborhood of 30-40%. If they only gave 10%, the OCA would take a real beating. However as Tithe income increases in the DOS, that actual percentage that goes to Syosset is lower with the goal of it only being 10% once tithe income is a true reflection of a baseline of diocesan income. So the less money the diocese gets in tithes, the greater percentage of income they now give to New York goes up. This I think is based on a minimum calculation of what the dollar amount would be if the diocese did a head tax on each person based on the OCA assessment of $95. That figure becomes the minimum and goes up from there. Does that make sense to you? So, yes, every dollar one gives to Dallas a percentage of that goes up north.
Angels and ministers of grace defend us!
Hamlet. Act I, Scene iv
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
Unknown
Figures don’t lie, but liars can figure.
“Pappaw” James Thurman Arrington, Sr.
To Syosset: Get your hand out of my pocket. You don’t know me that well.
Me
To Whom It Concerns:
Barely a month ago I wrote to the Holy Synod and to Metropolitan
Tikhon respectfully requesting that they release Metropolitan Jonah
to ROCOR as he had requested and as ROCOR had requested. To
date I have not received a reply. If anyone needs it, here are the
addresses once again. If there is an address in Syosset that I should
be using, please post it here.
His Beatitude
Metropolitan Tikhon
c/o St. Nicholas Cathedral
3500 Massachusetts Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20007
Holy Synod
Orthodox Church in America
c/o St. Nicholas Cathedral
3500 Massachusetts Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20007
Word is that ROCOR has withdrawn its petition for the transfer of Met. Jonah. Two reliable sources have confirmed this for me.
In fifty years of protestantism (my pre-orthodox life) I saw preachers fired for marital infidelity and for getting crosswise with the hierarchy and for just boring the congregation to death. But I never saw such vile maliciousness against a former servant no matter his failings. This is positively satanic to want to fire the man, and destroy his reputation and his family, and to keep on hurting him indefinitely. I don’t get it. Lord have mercy.
I don’t get it, either. When I am in his presence, I get the sense that he is much better a person than I am.