Union benefits

"Thy fate is the common fate of all," the hirsute Longfellow once wrote: "Into each life some rain must fall."

Here it is, Bright Week, and after our Gospel processions yesterday one of the faithful brandished a folded page from our metrop's daily, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette -- from the April 15th edition, in particular.

For a moment, I imagined that the good editors decided to run an article on Orthodoxy in honor of Pascha.

But instead of meditating on the glories of Christ descending into the center of death and revolutionizing time, the article saw fit to speculate on the dull mysteries and mind-numbing eccentricities of Orthodox ecclesiastical unity.

My wife -- who keeps herself better informed about these matters -- tells me that the article is making the rounds on the fb and tweeting circuit. It might have even appeared on Tumblr and Reddit by now. 

Now, I must say that the article is not nearly as sullen as the ray of sunshine published by the New York Times, which runs under the rather strained metaphorical title "Ripples on the Surface of Easter." Instead of saying Christos Voskrese, which would have done the Gray Lady some spiritual good, she smirks rather about a recent rant by Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus and about the airbrushed rapture of a Breguet Réveil du Tsar (very pretty, that: I'm obviously in the wrong jurisdiction) that had somehow perched itself on the hierarchical wrist of Patriarch Kirill I.

Here in Pittsburgh, where we are neither so cosmopolitan nor hard-bitten, we are treated to an article written by a local reporter. I must also say, here, that you can tell you live in one of the greater Orthodox communities of the Diaspora, when you have a writer of the quality of Ann Rodgers, who is so much better than the usual religion writer that, when given an Orthodox assignment and he finds to his dismay two more pieces of the Cross than the usual two, writes like a deer staring at halogen lamps on a Pennsylvania highway late at night in the mountain fog.

I don't know how she did it, but Ms. Rodgers was able to quote, in a single article, the likes of His Grace Bishop Melchisedek, layman Cal Oren of Baltimore, Charles Ajalat Esquire of Southern California, Associate Director Andrew Walsh of the Leonard Greenberg Center at Trinity College (Hartford CT), Rev. Josiah Trenham (media relations officer for the Assembly of Bishops), Executive Director George Matsoukas of the OCL (you need no legend here), His Eminence Metropolitan Savas of GOA Pittsburgh, President Rev. Radu Bordelanu of the Orthodox Theological Society in America and Duquesne professor.

How she got around to these voices I cannot understand. One thing is clear, however: Ms. Rodgers is much better connected than I.

I will not bury my negative prejudice under a bushel: I'm gonna let it shine, as the song goes, and won't let Satan blow it out either. I have never gotten excited about unity or union. But seeing as I got this article on Bright Monday, I thought I'd give the hopeful (and jejeune, I might add) paragraphs a once-over to see if the environment's changed for the better, and if I had moved into a better mood.

All in all, I found some interesting dreams/hopes/aspirations/beliefs articulated in the various interviews. I will list these cognitions (or logismoi), in the order of their appearance in the article, under the heading, "Union Benefits."

UNION BENEFITS

... or, "Nice Things that Will Happen If Orthodox America Is Subsumed Under a Single Administrative Structure"

1.  Administrative Unity will establish the proper canonical practice of one bishop residing in and ruling from one city.

First of all, I am thrilled that there is so much concern for the canonical quality of our administration. Here in Pittsburgh we have four Orthodox bishops, I think. And in New York there are nine. This must present an insufferable problem, as most unionists quickly don their Cassandra costume and hint darkly about the creation of "unnecessary conflict." 

So I will segue quickly into the second benefit:

2.  Administrative Unity will prevent unnecessary conflict.

There: let's just let that sentence stand bleakly in the space of black and white for a second. Or, if you'd like, let's turn it around to savor the sense of the proposition: "Unnecessary conflict will be prevented by Administrative Unity." I wonder about the Apostles, in light of this assertion. No one doubts their canonicity, and they probably subsisted under a sort of Administrative Unity: was conflict prevented, even after Pentecost? Or: how about the history of unification projects in protestant America? What was the fruit of those endeavors?

3.  Administrative Unity will erase the ethnic divisions that disrupt the American Orthodox community.

This statement, too, is abrupt and looks all the worse when it just stands there, frail and twisting like a single blade of grass in the breeze.

I would like to say something about ethnicity here, if only to get it off my chest. First of all: we all talk about ethnicity but more often than not, we mean a lot of different things by this word. Some people mean by "ethnic" the rather comic and vain practice of speaking a language that is not understood well by even the speaker, and is meant to exclude undesirable outsiders and to exude a level of tribal membership that hasn't really been gained yet. Others mean, by the same term, a collection of customs that might be unnecessary, but really do help with the experience and transmission of the faith. 

Second: a person's family-of-origin (a dull term borrowed from my old family theory days) has a much greater impact on his thoughts and behaviors than does his ethnicity. His or her media immersion probably wields an even greater force. A coach has more moral authority, nowadays, in a young man's life than does a priest, especially if his locker room is housed in a multi-million dollar program.

All this to say that there is a dizzy array of many, many more ethnicities and tribal associations -- none of which are remotely benevolent or theological -- and these are the real bogeys that disrupt the American Orthodox community today.

4.  Administrative Unity will enable the American Orthodox Church "to speak with one voice."

Well, that would matter if anyone were listening. If we ever get around to unifying and setting up house on K Street in DC, then we will find out for real whether a tree falling in the forest really makes a sound.

What is this "voice" about which there is so much concern? Will this disembodied voice, thundering from Mt. Cyber and in glossy four-color zines, say stuff like "Abortion is a sin! Racism is a sin! Co-habitation and sleeping around are sins! Mountaintop-removal, pollution and environmental degradation are sinful! Wall Street hyper-finance that siphons money away from the poor is wicked! And an Orthodox blessing on homosexual marriage has the proverbial chance of a snowball in a certain eschatological state!"

No, rather, one will be more likely tasked to a long day's journey into the night of reading endless dreary moral science treatises, without a scrap of humor or immediacy. 

There will be no active voice. 

5.  Administrative Unity will standardize pastoral practice.

There are a number of reasons why pastoral practice is inconsistent in Orthodoxy, and in American Orthodoxy in particular. One is that "economia" has been practiced differently in different jurisdictions. As a result, now, we have different sets of precedents that have only gained in authority over time. 

I think this is a surmountable problem, as many of these ethnic traditions are losing their force. It used to be, in my own community, that the odd practice of "First Holy Communion" was observed (and insisted upon) with no small amount of stridency. Nowadays, the practice has the status more of a vapor than of a reality.

But another problem remains; and it is the very old problem of church members whose money or social standing gives them an authority that is completely at odds with their spiritual state. This is probably the main reason why the real catechumenate evaporated from history, and why second and third divorces were ever countenanced. 

The first task in any pastoral practice is not to look for consistence or standardization. It is to establish faithfulness. It is to root pastoral practice in deification. The priesthood without deification is a scary, depressing and haunted thing.

Pastoral practice has meaning only in terms of Holy Tradition, the fidelity of the clergy and the penitence of the faithful. Any other rubric will produce only digression and degeneracy.

And Administrative Unity is powerless to fix that.

6.  Administrative Unity will save us money.

O. M. G. 

My sardonic reading of Western Religious History -- particularly American Religious History -- makes me suspect that the opposite is true. Administrative unity will end up being much more expensive than the inefficient structures we have now. 

Permit me merely to quote a passage from 1 Kingdoms: This will be the custom of the king who shall reign over you. He will take your sons … and your daughters … the best of your fields … a tenth of your grain … But the people were unwilling to listen to Samuel; and they said to him, "No, rather it is that we want a king to be over us. Then we will be like all the other nations, and our king will judge us and go out before us and fight our battles" (1 Kingdoms viii.11-20).

A good friend was airily wandering in his thoughts about union, dreaming about the day: "Just think, Jonathan, if we all got together we wouldn't need so many camps or seminaries or chanceries. Think of the money we'd save."

Just ask the Catholics how the wholesale closure of elementary and secondary schools is working out for them on the long term.

By contrast, I suggest to you that we don't have nearly enough seminaries or camps or monasteries (perhaps there are enough chanceries). But if seminaries would leave off the professionalization standard as dangled in front of them by the mainline protestants, then every single metropolis ought to have a pragmatic seminary that is semi-monastic in practice. 

In the tragic-comic history of administration culture, money is never saved by unification. "Unification," in the understanding of administration, can only be meant as "aggrandizement."

7.  Administrative Unity will save us.

This statement was never said out loud, but it was sure intended. It lurked as the rather neurotic insecurity at the nearly-unconscious edges of the interviewed speech. 

I bear honest pity toward this position. I have no patience, whatsoever, for any agenda that has anything to do with power or domination. If anyone is attempting hegemony or aggrandizement under the sign of unity (for the sake of the hoi polloi), then they will find out the hard way that nominalism is the only universal that does not exist.

But some people worry that American Orthodoxy, to survive, must unify.

I always wanted my daughters to never have to worry about survival. I am happy that my wife and I probably succeeded in this regard, because childhood should not be burdened with this worry.

Well. Permit me to quote another verse: If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?  (Matthew vii.11)

Since when did God permit us to worry about survival? Even the survival of His Church in this time, in this place?

REAL BENEFITS

I do not oppose unity in the least. I pray the petition, "… and for the union of them all" with gusto.

But this sort of union we pray for is already present. It is the union of koinonia, rooted in the Eucharist.

It is a pragmatic, practical union that permits me to serve at other Orthodox temples. It encourages my parish to cooperate with our neighborhood GOA parish in providing a summer church school to the community. 

I am willing to stipulate that an administrative unity would be convenient, but it is not a necessary objective that must be achieved before the realization of its organic manifestation. 

In fact, premature administrative unity might turn out to be injurious, and just might end up producing disunity and even alienation. It is not difficult for me to imagine that a single administration might founder itself in the bubonic mud of our present, and very stupid, national political discourse.

(I will tell you this despondent news, if it is any news at all: the ranks of the Orthodox priesthood are now dividing up into clumps of political partisans, in dilineations very similar to the junior high cafeteria quality of rhetoric one meets in the protestant clergy as a whole. I have seen too many shrill alarums, too many recitations of talking points, too many epithets, too much wealth-and-power protection, too much affiliation with political thinking that derives from patently antichristian thinking.)

I can see, in my spotty crystal ball, a statement by an American Patriarch on economic justice (with which I would completely agree) exciting choirs of Facebook sacerdotal refutations, some of which might turn positively scatological. The raspberries and catcalls would be breathtaking.

I can see, even more clearly (from the patterns of American religious history) the usual institutional degeneration in dogma and morals. In American history, religious unions have always tended toward doctrinal ambiguity and moral laxity.

We cannot assume that we would escape this sinkhole.

We will not.

I can see this because I do not see, in unionist statements, much mention of repentance or deification. I see all sorts of reference to self-rule and autonomy and independence, which are sort of embarrassing terms in the context of Holy Tradition.

It is entirely possible that culture demands of us a single organization. We are, as one of the experts in the article opined, "hard to understand." Our Greekness and Russianness get mistaken for denominations. Or so he said.

The marketplace, perhaps, wants our institutional unification and our "tidying up" more than the Spirit does. We would become, then, a more manageable population, and the potential market would be much easier to tap. Think of the publishing and trinketing opportunities. The prospect of producing conferences and retreats under the rubric of a unified administration might by itself make all this "worth" while.

But I really do not care what the world thinks about the Church. The Body of Christ has ever been confusing to people who would rather see institutions than fellowship.

Real unity will prevail in America after prayer and fasting, and the practice of Holy Tradition, and more monasteries than we have now.

An administrative union that is established before, or even apart from this condition, is a union that will, unfortunately, not be real.

Unfortunately, that is precisely where we are headed. Gravity has ordained it so.

Comments

[123]

Correct, we use "repentence". Rarely when it comes to things we actually care about.

[Fr. Jonathan]

Anti-Gnostic: you are right about the fundamental error of predicating unification on the corporate language of the marketplace. That culture of barbarism has infected the Orthodox Church with a series of subtle degeneracies: in rhetoric, leadership and organization (even academics, insofar as theology has been chained to the Western model of scientist rigor).

I am happy that you raised the point of "sameness" from the reverse point of view. That is exactly my experience: most free church tradition people, even non-churched people, experiencing Liturgy a few times are driven mad by the presence of Liturgy's persistent structure.

Which makes me wonder whether we Orthodox are hyper-sensitive to differences, and use these differences as childish complaints with which to establish precedence in our sandbox wars.

I am not so bleak as to think that even administrative unity is hopeless: but surely it is if all this work toward union could possible fit in a business plan, or a triumphalist "vision" a la Fuller Third Wave nonsense.

123: Your handle is sort of Jacksonesque and mnemonically facile: i.e., easy as ... well, you know. You will be happy to know that we give out both willow branches and palm leaves on Palm Sunday. It matters little to me whether Rumanians (and more than a few non-Rumanians) kneel at the epiclesis.

More seriously, you are righter than rain about the prideful demand for uniformity as a dynamic of assimilation. The inane groupthink that identifies attractive people and puts the mark of Cain on unattractive people violates the very substance of Christological fellowship (i.e., wherein there is neither Jew nor Greek).

It pains me when I see neophytic clergy pass judgment on elderly priests for transgressions of certain sets of arcane rubrics. It is one thing to work for a common and beautiful service. But beauty, in its Christian sense, never requires human sacrifice.

Darlene: yes, I do worry that the process of unification could become (if it hasn't already) a horserace for precedence. I used the equestrian term since you suggested "jockey."

But my use of "horserace" for its metaphorical antecedent might turn out to be slander to both horse and rider, and even the racetrack and the bookies. For none of them play the sort of turf work that seems to be going on under the sign of the Cross.

But we do. And some of us probably like it.

I wonder if anyone's ever asked God Himself this question: "Is this something You want? Here? Now? With this crew?"

You know the old saying: "God always answers prayer, but sometimes He says no."

Were I in my old haunts, and hearing something like "Administrative union is not the problem, our lack of love for each other is," I would have said, in a trice, "What we need is revival."

But we don't use that word, don't we?

[Darlene]

Father,

From your recent entry here, it seems you think in a unification effort for One Orthodox Church in America, there would be jockeying for position on the part of some (or many?).

Is it possible to have unity in diversity? I suggest that there is. I think there are those Orthodox Christians who seek to unite in works of mercy, and in worship, and various outreach efforts, yet still appreciate worship within their jurisdiction, whether it be OCA, ROCOR, Greek, Bulgarian, Ukrainian, Serbian, Antiochian, etc. Perhaps I sounded too skeptical with regard to unity in my post above. It isn't that I don't think that (jurisdictional) unity shouldn't be the aim, but rather, that we aren't ready for it here in the U.S.A. How about we try the actual DIFFICULT work of loving each other aross jurisdictional lines first?

Orthodox Christians need to be reaching out to each other doing those things which Christians naturally do, or should be doing if they aren't. That is, on a parish level, we can work together in the community in evangelization efforts, in works of mercy, for Christian causes (pro-life work) and then, as the saying goes: "they will know we are Christians by our love." Whatever the hierarchy do, meeting at yearly conferences to "discuss" unity, etc., the most important and necessary unity is that which is encouraged and practiced on a local parish level, by the laity and parish priests, in the form of "love thy neighbor as thyself."

[123]

Lack of unity is not the issue, jurisdictionalism is, a sort of factionalism based on who we consider ours, who is worthy of care. We have reversed the parable of the lost sheep. We no longer seek out the one who is lost, we seek out the one who is saved and say damn the 99. In fact, we don't even really seek out the one who is saved, we only seek out the one who is saved who we like and have nice feelings about based on culture, language, and family connections.

I was roommates with the son of a Russian princess in college - he was not roayl as the mother had married a commoner, also Russian-American. Discussing things Russian as I was wont to do even then, I mentioned the Orthodox church down the street from our dorm. "Oh, we don't go to that one, they have pews." (With more experience in Orthodoxy, I realize his family was ROCOR and the church in question is OCA.) Which church do you imagine he did go to? Yes, that's correct, he went to no church - except when he accompanied his parents at Christmas (he couldn't get home for Pascha, of course).

So, closely held, emotional, familial and cultural connections with the specific traditions and tenor of one's patrimonial local church are so important that it would be better to have no church at all than to do something at all different (though still Orthodox) than what is done in one's Old World village or city. Great, akreveia in the service of the intergenerational de-christianization of Orthodox immigrants - except for the blessed few who like things just the way they are and make up the membership of the religious corporation in charge of decisions.

The solution seems unthinkable: worship in community with all Orthodox in a given regions regardless of ethnicity and liturgical preferences and love our way into serving each other rather than ourselves. This is a lesson the typical convert learns should he or she remain Orthodox after realizing they are welcome primarily as guests, not as equals or members in the Club. But, no one wants to give on the dominance in a single parish of the traditions of a specific local church.

Transgressions of the canons regarding one bishop in one city (and thus one Eucharist) are preferred over a comparatively odd, ironic intransigence over trangressing the canons regarding more than a single, daily Eucharist at a given altar by a given priest. It's sad this isn't even noticed. Better to create what are essentially parallel churches (in the jurisdictional, denominational sense we pretend we don't have) in a given region than - horror of horrors - worship together and be forced to listen to a Russian tone or a Greek "Most Holy Theotokos, save us" in a litany, or to see pussy willows alongside palms, or to see a Romanian kneel on a Sunday during the epiklesis, etc. Aesthetics demand a single, dominant tradition in each place, and thus we atomize, fragment, and generally refuse to love one another in common worship.

All that said, our disunity is a blessing saving us from the nonsense a united hierarchy and chancery would almost inevitably foist on the faithful, and which would likely result in a different sort of fragmentation on the back end. Administrative unity is not the problem, our lack of love for each other is.

[.]

I wish someone would please explain to me how having a "American Orthodox Church" changes(improves) the "Mysteries" of the Apostolic Faith?
If the Apostle Paul traveled from Palestine to the many churches he established, and some he didn't, repeatedly I might add, are we Orthodox in America to assume that those churches were considered by the Apostles "under on nation(flag)? The notion that it is important to have one leadership in America mistakenly implies that the Mysteries, or their application, becomes a secondary issue, or they have somehow been improved. One Bishop, or one thousand Bishops, will not change the meaning and life creating qualities of the Mysteries.
I think people who wish for a unified church in America have become deluded by the "religious" politics of our time. The term I believe is PRELEST. I hope I'm not confusing anyone.
But here is my little story since everyone seems to be throwing in stories. And it's a complaint about the excessive sameness in Orthodox churches. That's right, sameness. I met a man down town ( pick a town, any town). He said, "I can't stand going to your church. Every time I go there you people are singing the same thing. Every Time. It doesn't matter if it's Easter or Christmas. It's always the same thing".
I'm praying that the Poinsettias and Lilies of the world never create a unified church in America.

[The Anti-Gnostic]

Americans are simply not equipped to debate Orthodox unity because for us, history began very recently and concepts like ethnicity and nation-state are not allowed in public discourse. Thus, we resort to corporate-speak like 'administrative unity' when talking about the Bride of Christ.

The overseas Patriarchates, for example, don't have 'administrative unity' because a bunch of bureaucrats looked at everybody's balance sheet and determined that was the best way forward. They were organically 'Russian,' 'Serbian,' etc., already. The Church, being as every bit Local as she is Universal, joined herself to a people of common ancestry in their geographic redoubt.

'America' has no distinct people, no distinct language, no distinct customs and no distinct borders. The Catholic Church and the Protestants do not recognize national borders, and hence thrive in a place like America.

The more I think about it, the more I fear that an American Orthodox Church is doomed--at least spiritually if not existentially--so long as she attempts to yoke herself to an artificial entity like America. It is noteworthy that the Patriarchates linked, willingly or unwillingly, to empire--Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople, Rome-- have practically ceased to exist in a canonical sense.

[Fr. Jonathan]

Friends, I thank you for your well-reasoned thoughts, and for your courteous responses. This sort of conversation is a pleasant change from the usual post-and-riposte (pun intended) that characterizes internet speech, and most other speech (I, for one, do not see much difference between texting and talking these days).

What follows is something I would usually publish as a separate post, but because of its specific character, I am "burying" in the comments section, hoping that it addresses only the folk who have burdened themselves with the weight of this conversation, and who are not reading (and copying) for less than salutary reasons.

I honor the sanguine hopes that the majority of you hold for administrative union.

As I hope I made clear in the body of the post, I work for organic union out of the limited set of my own endeavors -- ranging from my prayers, to my conversations, and to my participations in various filial enterprises (I would have used the word "program" here, but I rather despise that word).

I am glad to hear that there is a kind of unity that permits local variations in speech. The dull notion that we must all follow the same exact text in Liturgy depresses my weak constitution. Not because I would chafe under the yoke of having to say "Let us beseech the Lord" rather than "Let us ask of the Lord." Rather, I think that such a slavish devotion to surface details is an expression of a serious disorder in certain corners of ecclesial thought.

I will explain this disorder with an example: a convert acquaintance of mine likes to complain, repeatedly, that different people (and priests) in different parishes (and jurisdictions) do different things. “Different things” -- which in his perceptions are by definition offensive -- include the usual complaint of the “standing/sitting/kneeling” variations, of course, but also turning on and off of electric lighting at evening services.

He pretty much demands that “everything should be the same.” This demand is for an obvious uniformity -- but a uniformity that might actually be superficial, and might turn out to be quite at odds with an actual, and very disturbing, disharmony in deeper and less obvious strata of community and individual life.

Personally, I do not enjoy stories (and I have heard them by the raft load) of old world baba’s literally smacking and pinching neophytes in their assimilation into uniform practice.

And just as personally, I worry about a single administration being empowered to do all the “smacking and pinching” for the sake of surface uniformity.

Some of you have chided me, perhaps rightly, for doubting whether the deeper concerns of ecclesial fellowship -- i.e., Christological deification and Trinitarian communion -- are helped by the agenda for administrative union. I confess that I tend toward the barrel-dwelling and onion-eating attitude of Diogenes here: I gravitate toward a distrust of any institutional development toward union that appears -- at least to me -- incommensurate with the presence of salvation.

I will cue you here: this is the very moment to reproach me, and to suggest that my gravitation is less than faithful, and that the mere suggestion of incommensurability reveals a patent, if not unchristian, deficiency of hope … or, at least, of positive thinking.

I have not a little practice in groaning about incommensurability. Somewhere, in these pages, I have suggested that the episcopacy should be correlated to deification, and that only from such a deified episcopacy can real discernment -- out of holy tradition and toward the “spirits” of this present moment -- arise. I have suggested, too, that a non-deified episcopate produces moral digressions that should come as no surprise, and that produces any number of bureaucratic degeneracies that manifest in various idioms (I like to categorize these idioms as following Roman, Protestant, Academic or -- nowadays -- Wall Street genealogies).

Permit me to offer another example. I know, in depressing certainty, of a particularly crazy meeting in which a young man (obviously not me) had gotten a dressing down by his superiors. His faults were neither moral nor canonical. Rather, he was, let’s say, impolitic and less-than-savvy. His faults were more callow and jejune than cynical.

Unannounced and coming as a complete surprise, a cadre of his superiors -- about eight of them -- called him into confrontation, a “woodshed” experience, if you will. The group listed their dissatisfactions in detail, with rising intensities of dudgeon.

And then -- here’s the main point of this little vignette -- the young man, flustered, finally expressed his essential protest: “But I only did what I thought the bishop wanted!”

To which -- and here’s the main point, really -- the prosecutor and spokesman of the group responded, “But we ARE the bishop, don’t you understand?”

Now, contrary to appearances, every single man in this meeting was characterized by good intentions. I count them all -- the defendant, the prosecutor, and the rest -- as friends, especially the one who has since reposed.

One can only wonder in this day and age just who will end up saying "But we ARE the bishop."

Just sayin'.

This sad story could have happened only in the context of an ecclesiality that neglected deification. Not rejected it, for no one in that dismal woodshed would have gone so far as to denounce repentance, asceticism, the Eucharist or communion.

But still: one must infer, from the evidence of recent history, that deification had fallen by the wayside in the institutional consciousness of the community. It was no longer a practical “concern,” in the list of top priorities. Other things were.

I am rambling, I know. But I have one more point in my outline:

Our Lord Himself offers, as points of consideration, His own practical concerns that should mark the community that bears His Name:

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He has anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor.

“He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.” (Luke 4.18-19, and also Isaiah 61.1-2)

Here is my last true story of parabolic proportions:

I know a man who is beset with chronic pain and complicated familial concerns. His ague and neuralgia are frequently so intense that he is immobilized.

He thinks back, then, on happier days: years ago and hundreds of miles away, when he was much more eager and robust, he involved himself as one of the lay leaders of a new Orthodox mission. The young organizing priest in that halcyon project was a singular man of vision who, I’m told, “only did God’s Will” and, of course, “had a burning vision.”

The vision was for the construction of a new facility and the development of a new parish. And, after a series of appointments and disappointments that has been novelized as a narrative of “pilgrimage” and “God’s promise” and a “sign and wonder” -- with all the trappings of the Exodus psychology, the building was built and was appointed beautifully (though not in the architecture that I would have picked, but that is beside the point).

The building accomplished what this man, who is now much less robust, considers to have been God’s Will. This is despite the fact that he is now more given to questioning providence and wondering, audibly, about theodicy.

His chronic pain has, as it does in so many cases, produced in him a rather elevated scrupulosity when it comes to the moral qualities of others. So he is not averse to note ethical digression where he sees it.

Still, when he speaks of that annus mirabilis, he is fond of relating one particular episode to me. I wonder why he does this: perhaps I am in need of some helpful stories to fill “that which is lacking” in my rather indistinct executive style.

Here is the story. It is little, so do not worry:

The young church-planting priest had met with a few Orthodox faithful in the area. These households were of a certain ethnicity, and they were already members of a parish of their certain ethnic jurisdiction -- so the story, narrated by the priest, went.

They must have complained to the priest about the distance to their nearest parish. And they complained vociferously of the onerous burden of the annual membership dues that their parish required of them.

In a very interesting ethical maneuver, this young visionary priest told them that that his new mission required no dues. All they had to do was to sign on the dotted line, and they were in like flynn.

This young man succeeded, by such hook and crook, to establish a “self-sufficient parish” with a nice physical plant and everything, in a narrative that follows to the detail the usual church planting and sheep-stealing model that is customary in the Fuller/Schaller/Wagner school of Christian institutional development.

And he succeeded, in archetypally American fashion (i.e., eminently individualistic and entrepreneurial) ... what's more, he succeeded in a moral, patently counter-apostolic fog -- where the usual scruples do not obtain.

But his developmental vision remained acute.

And since it was “pan-Orthodox,” one can argue that this sort of successful mission -- called by many, far and wide and sundry, as a manifestation of “God’s Will” -- was a symbol of what will turn out to be a paradigm for “unification.”

If unification turns out to be better than this, I will eat crow fricassee.

But I don’t think so, because history shows how the crow flies.

[Nathaniel McCallum]

Father, there is a lot to like in your post. Indeed, it calls into question the more ridiculous reasonings on this topic. But I ultimately have to side with Chris Jones. When I read statements like "I am willing to stipulate that an administrative unity would be convenient, but it is not a necessary objective that must be achieved before the realization of its organic manifestation" it sounds like people who talk about "living in intentional community." These phrases mean little else other than "It is easier to love my neighbor when I get to pick my neighbor." One of the main principles of unity is to learn to love and live at peace with people I disagree with. You observe precisely the problem here: "the ranks of the Orthodox priesthood are now dividing up into clumps of political partisans, in dilineations very similar to the junior high cafeteria quality of rhetoric one meets in the protestant clergy as a whole." I don't disagree with the observation, and indeed I think there is little we can do to avoid this. But I do think this type of thing is accelerated by a lack of unity.

I also think you underestimate the importance of standardized practice. Practice is not merely economia, as we love to tell ourselves, but eventually becomes a means through which we articulate doctrine. For Orthodox Christians, praxis has always been tightly coupled with dogma. And in fact, our increasing disunity on this point is affecting our doctrine. Fr Viscuso, the noted canonist, makes this point quite clearly when he asks: is the Eucharist the constituting element of the marriage? He uses this question precisely to point out how differences in praxis have lead to differences in doctrine of marriage within Orthodoxy. No where is this more noteworthy than reception of converts from existing Christian traditions. Our practice needs to be standardized not to fulfill the wishes of some liturgical actuary, but to avoid the fracturing of doctrine within Orthodoxy. This is important.

I'll end by mentioning one clearly important benefit of unity: a standing episcopal committee for clergy discipline. Nearly all North American jurisdictions have, out of necessity due to limited numbers of bishops, adopted the praxis of ad hoc panels for clergy discipline. The end result of this is clergy discipline which is essentially arbitrary, entirely open to claims of bias and malpractice, and discipline by "retiring" rather than deposition. That we have not had *more* lawsuits is a miracle. We need a big enough synod to establish a standing, episcopal-only clergy discipline body. This can only happen through unity.

[Samn!]

Joe,

Musical and liturgical diversity exists in most Orthodox Churches. In Romania, for example, in some regions parishes use Byzantine music and in other regions they use Russian music. In the Republic of Georgia, I have attended liturgies where the music, language, and rubrics were Georgian, some where they were Russian-Slavonic, and some where there is a mix. I've never seen two Orthodox printings of the Psalms or of prayers like Small Compline and the Akathist in Arabic where the words were exactly the same. In Russia, the liturgy is celebrated in a few dozen different languages, at least. Local and regional diversity in itself in no way harms the Church's unity! If anything, they can be a sign of the organic unity of a Church and the depth of its expression within the diversity of cultures and traditions in a single country.

[Joe]

I think we are past the point of ever building a truly "Orthodox Church in America." Services will never be all in English, the tones will vary from ethnic parish to ethnic parish, etc. When I was overseas every translation was the same as were the tones in the music. To build a truly American Church would require the same thing we see in the Old World Churches; common music and common language. I do not even need to digress into whose English Translation we would use. Is it "Thee" or "YOU" or "Now and forever and unto ages of ages" or "now and ever and unto ages of ages" or "now and ever and forever."

Rubrics vary widely. If you want to see a liturgical circus watch Greeks and Russians serve together, or be a Carpatho-Russian priest serving at a Rocor cathedral where there are so many bows and kisses and gradual unfoldings of the antimensia you forget about the Liturgy itself.

The best we can ever hope for in my opinion is one bishop in one city, and this concludes my rant.

Great article by the way!

[Chris Jones]

Sorry, I don't buy it.

Not that I buy what the 'unionists' (as you call them) are selling either. But the whole lot of you have missed the point.

Way back in the 80s when Fr Golitzin taught us canon law, he taught us that the canons are the application of the dogmas of the Church to the particular reality of Churchly life in specific times and places. If that is true (and I believe that it is) then something being "uncanonical" is a very, very grave matter. I think sometimes, rather than saying "uncanonical" it would be clearer to say "unGospel."

The canonical principle of "one bishop in one city" is not just a slogan; it is a consequence and an expression of the dogma of the unity of the Church. Consistently and unrepentantly to disregard, to flout, that canonical principle is to deny the dogma of the unity of the Church. Further, it is a denial of the Catholicity of the Church. For what is the Catholic Church? It is one people of God in one place, gathered under the presidency of one bishop, celebrating one Eucharist, breaking one loaf and sharing one cup. When there is more than one bishop and one liturgical assembly in one place, there is more than one Church, and the unity and catholicity of the Church is broken. I think St Ignatius would know what I am talking about.

It only makes matters worse that the principle by which the Church is divided is, of all things, ethnicity. Because that makes clear that the ground of unity of the liturgical assembly is ethnicity, and not the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

"I do not see, in unionist statements, much mention of repentance or deification."

Perhaps not; but that does not mean that there is not much to repent of, nor that phyletism is not a serious roadblock to deification.

"But this sort of union we pray for is already present. It is the union of koinonia, rooted in the Eucharist."

This is just a dodge, a way to ignore the fact that the Church is divided and to justify not doing anything to heal the division. Yes, it is true that an Orthodox can commune in an OCA parish or a GOA parish or a ROCOR parish; but that does not change the fact there are multiple Eucharists where there should only be one. You can't say "it doesn't matter, we are all one in the Eucharist" because it does matter, and you are not one in the Eucharist because you are not celebrating one Eucharist.

What are we to make of a religion that claims to be "the One True Church," but when you actually go looking for it you find out that it is "the Fifteen One True Churches"?

[EddieB]

Again I have witnessed the myrrh streaming Kardiotissa(Of The Heart) and Iveron icons. As you approach these icons it is very difficult to prevent tears from welling up in ones eyes(not that I want to, but it's almost a spontaneous occurrence. It seems to happen whether you like it or not), as everyone around you is singing Bohorodice Djivo. The miracles that have occurred because of these icons are just overwhelming.
I pray that everyone who has been placed in the role of leadership in the Orthodox Church, will be granted the opportunity to approach these icons and be moved by their power to compel one to follow the Apostolic Faith. To disregard the demands of the world, it's origin of lies, and spiritual delusion(prelest). It's hard not to want to be near these icons. It helps to keep one's heart and mind on the right path so to speak. God bless.

[Darlene]

Father,

There's something that pesters me in my gut (I know that's a bit blunt) when I hear about a unified Orthodox Church in these United States. I don't understand what all the fuss is about. How well has the project of the "melting pot" worked for us Americans? We have a culture that has become abiguous - what defines it anyway - other than American Idol, American rock 'n' roll, McDonald's and Burger King, strip malls, Jersey Shore episodes (which I've never seen - only heard about, which is why I've never seen it) - along with all the latest popular reality t.v. shows, conscienceless Capitalism, escalating materialism, love of violence and increasing antipathy toward anything sacred, more Fatherless children and children out of wedlock, less marriage and more divorce, and....I'm sure many more things can be added to this list. I'm sorry to be so cynical about the state of American society - but I have no illusions or delusions that it will improve.

Back to that unity thing. As I said, why all the fuss? I can attend Divine Liturgy at the local Greek Orthodox Church, or the local OCA, or the nearby Holy Protection Monastery, or the Unkrainian Orthodox Church, or the Antiochian Orthodox Church, or any of the canonical Orthodox Churches and partake of the holy mysteries (implicit in this is that my heart is rightly disposed and prepared to receive the Holy Mysteries). So why the push toward unity - who's doing the pushing and why? Why the urgency?

[David]

Thanks Father, you saved me from a day or two of tedious rebuttal to the usual unionist arguments that populate the blogs and discussion boards this Paschal week. Well stated and as us etniks would say- Pravda jest!

[Steve Robinson]

As usual, well said!