I just heard that the small and hip ethics committee – on which I served – has been disbanded.
The email that brought this news didn't say it in so many words. I deduced the evaporation of the Social and Moral Issues Commission when the email stated that SCOBA would no longer exist (despite what a certain hierarch who smokes cigars might think). There is an Assembly of Orthodox Bishops that will meet in NYC later this week, and while this Assembly (which will meet annually) is not a continuation of SCOBA, it certainly supersedes it.
As a dilettante historian, and quite the Philistine theologian, I harbor many "I wonder's" and "What if's" in thinking about this new development.
Here are a few:
I wonder what is the source of funding for this event. In particular, what is "Leadership 100" that is underwriting much of its expense? Are these sources motivated singly by the desire for canonical correction?
The Assembly of Bishops in North and South America, meeting under the presidency of the most senior hierarch of the Ecumenical Patriarch, will try to solve the conundrum of jurisdictional multiplicity and ambiguity. There is a lot of wondering and "what if?" about this objective, to be sure.
Many other, and quite better, voices have discussed the hard process of achieving jurisdictional clarity and unity. It seems that the general principle is for the establishment of one jurisdiction for one country, following the old principle of conforming ecclesiastical jurisdiction to the broad outlines of political jurisdiction. That, I think, is true to Chalcedon.
I am sure that the issue of the presidency of the Ecumenical Patriarchate will encourage alternative opinions.
It is a gross simplicity to say that the jurisdictional confusion is complicated. It is also unprecedented in degree. When ever before has Orthodoxy arrived on the shores of a culture so thoroughly secularized in its denatured and national Christianity? When ever before has Orthodoxy developed in so lay-oriented, even anti-clerical manner? A manner that was energized by ethnic preservation, very often and stridently opposed to assimilation with the dominant culture and language? Centuries ago, the Latin of Rome was embraced by the Apostolic Church, and so was the Greek of Athens and New Rome: but today, the little closets are preserved like shrines, and dusty costumes are wept over, and immigrant cathedra are given feeding tubes.
Godspeed the other and better voices, in untying these knots, and God preserve us from some golden Macedonian who'd just as well use his sword for the solution.
I do not think we understand the potential for this moment. We stand, in American Orthodoxy, on the brink of a climacteric – a moment, if you will, that is more important than most moments (for all time is not of the same compactness). This Assembly is the direct result of the meeting held last year in Chambesy, Switzerland: note well the name of the Chambesy meeting – "the Fourth Pre-Conciliar Pan-Orthodox Conference."
"Pre-Conciliar" means, of course, that all this Assembly-work is leading up to a "Council." I will set aside, for now some obscure questions about the authority upon which the Council might be called, and which meaning of "Orthodoxy" will be used to draw up the invitation list. There is no Emperor, I'm rather sure, who can call the bishops of the Ekumen (for that matter, there is no Ekumen).
Speaking of invites, will there be gate-crashers? I wonder. Worse, will there be "observers" from the Romans (yes, certainly)? The NCC? The WCC?
Setting aside these questions, I wonder about the criteria for the modification, deletion and creation of Canons, for that is – as far as I know – the main purpose for such a Council.
But I am getting ahead of myself. A Great and Holy Council remains a thing of the future, despite the fervency of the hope for it. Some canonists wish deeply for a chance to clean up the large corpus of ecclesial rules: some of which, it must be admitted, are impossible to apply.
The meeting this week is not a thing of the future. It seems to be an honest attempt at correcting real, anti-canonical administrative flaws. The ethnic grouping of this present jurisdictional structure is entertaining at best, mind-numbing at its usual, and depressing always.
There will be a lot of tension, and perhaps not only submerged under the veneer of faux old-world courtesy, percolating from various seismic faults. Moscow, for example, chafes under the rather wide Constantinopolitan interpretation of the 28th Canon of Chalcedon. Constantinople does not second the concept of the Third Rome. There is, too, the embarrassing emphasis of Chalcedon that church order should correlate, broadly, with the outlines of the political order: neither Istanbul nor Moscow is anywhere near the center of the world. New York is (unfortunately). Beijing is (scarily). The center of the world has moved, definitively, away from the European cradle. Neither Constantinople nor Moscow (and certainly not Rome) is the de facto New Rome.
Then there is always the stomach-churning catalog of Orthodox responses to modernity: is a corporation a person, as the Supreme Court has determined? Perhaps it is if it donates in at least seven figures: then it is accounted worthy, no matter how many family farms have been sucked up like Naboth's vineyard. Is co-habitation okay? Is homosexuality sacramentizable? Can priests remarry? Is fasting really that important?
The north is sterile, and has thrown its hope and metaphysics away on video games. The south is fecund, hungry and thirsty, and will take history away. This is reality, and church history cannot ignore reality for long without psychosis setting in (neurosis is already happening).
I do not know whether Chambesy dealt with these matters, or whether the Council of New York this week will attend to these worries. God is afoot, and He is judging the rich and the unjust. BP will pay, inexorably, for its blasphemous discharge, and the unborn and the poor and the weak will have their day. Another Tower of Babel has been under construction since the fin de siècle, and this new confusion of languages has been particularly bloody in the 20th century. The world is shaking again: the 21st may be no better, for Creation cannot abide a humanity that denies its own nature.
We are on the brink of something and I don't know what it is, and God is not telling. I am happy that the Patriarch has thrashed BP and the consumerist polluters of our age. But are these Pre-Councils attending, fervently, to theosis and ascesis? Is there a pre-eminent concern for the preservation and proclamation of the Faith of the Fathers? At the risk of sounding somewhat like Eutyches, is anyone saying that the Nicene-Constantinopolitan symbol is exclusively true of other creeds? That the Trinitarian doctrine excludes all other philosophies, including the soggy paperback whitepapers of the NCC?
One wonders. I worry when I hear that a rather highly placed Russian hierarch has been busy, of late, celebrating Liturgy in Italian places where Mass is usually heard. Meanwhile, in the apparent rapprochement of the two European centers, plans are probably already established for the demarcations of jurisdictions in the America's, Scandinavia, Great Britain, France and Western Europe, but I'm not sure if anything clear has been said about the Ukraine.
I worry when I reflect that in the modern age, unification efforts are always accompanied by a diminution of dogma – a deliberate reduction of theological terms into a more ambiguous rhetoric to allow for a wider (and thus more meaningless) array of interpretation. Look at American religious history as a telling example of the withering effect of modernist centralization on protestant doctrine: in every case of union, an elite emerged in the aftermath that was predicated on a much more "current" accommodation to contemporary antipathy toward Holy Tradition: this administrative elite has followed a seemingly iron-clad script, which called for a redefinition of Scriptural authority, then a redefinition of ordination, then a redefinition of human nature.
I also know that in this same modern age, there is a tidal wave of energy for administrative unity for the sake of political power (what that will get us I haven't a freaking clue): but administrative unity is not the same as ecclesial unity – the dismal tale of Zeno and his Henoticon should be proof of that enough. The Christological prayer, "That They May be One," is not fulfilled by jurisdictional regularity.
I worry, because I see American Orthodoxy clogged with a protestant worldview, overlaid by a veneer of rubrical technical knowledge of uneven depth, camouflaging a frightening deficiency of patristics. Even clergy are lurching toward the ignominious, mind-erasing dichotomy (or maybe "lobotomy") of choosing either wingnut Tea Partyism or moonbat NCC moldy hipsterism. I am, for all intents and purposes, an Orthodox fundamentalist tree-hugger: likely, there will be very little of this in the Great and Holy Council, or any of its pre-conciliar congeries.
If this work toward unity, in this "Local Council of New York," will seek to prepare the American Orthodox community for the Day of the Lord, I'd feel a lot better.
If this Pre-Council sets up an American Orthodox administrative structure that fosters real mystagogy – dogma and ascesis – I'd be the first to publish its Confession and its Canons on this web page.
If New York denounces corporate greed, even the hubris of restauranteurs and gold-mongers and statist-progressives and right-wing dingbat oil barons … if it has the guts to denounce hyper-finance and (even clergy) pension-plans … if it is really interested in establishing an American parish that nurtures theosis – love for God and man, disciplined by Holy Tradition, of which a local bishop is the representative that I know, and we know, as the Person who represents the Apostles, and Christ Jesus …
If New York renounces the world (and Protestantism, and crypto-protestant V2ism, and slushy cotton-mouth semi-deism) and embraces the Apostles, then I'll take New York.
But I'll step out of the closet and say this: jurisdictionalism, even phyletism, is certifiably not the main problem of the Orthodox Church. Passion is. Doctrinal failure is. Boredom with theosis is.
Jurisdictional morass and ethnic preservation, and even BP, are instruments of judgment and consequences of sin, like the Assyrians were to Israel, and al Qaeda and the Taliban are to the West today. But organizational repair is not the problem about which we must first repent.
Prove to me that American autocephaly will help with theosis. I bet you can't. Before maturation, the knowledge of good and evil turned out to be disastrous for the First Couple -- who, in their childishness, understood this knowledge only as autonomy and self-centeredness.
Prove to me that there is the requisite maturity in America for autocephaly that does not devolve into autonomy, for self-governance that does not decline into self-centeredness. Prove to me this, and I'll vote with you, and say "Axios" when it needs said.
But here, in the capital of the demotic, anti-Traditional Tower and Parking Lot of Babel, the demand for autocephaly is cringingly similar to the ancient first bite (i.e., death is getting exactly what you ask for).
Despite my tone and what you probably think, I harbor some hope. His Eminence, Archbishop Demetrios, will preside at the New York meeting since he is the senior hierarch of the Ecumenical Patriarch here in America. I saw him, once, at a celebratory banquet. All the other speakers had made their encomiums and pleasant speeches. Tributes were made and applauses were sincere. But when it came his turn, the Archbishop rose and began reading lines from the Prophecy of Isaiah -- lines that were not at all jovial, and were strident and austere. They were lines of warning for a nation that had forgotten wisdom and had embraced stupidity: it ignored where it was in Creation, and what Time it was. We all clapped, of course, but a few of us wondered what had really happened.
For this act of courage, I remain hopeful.
But I must still say that if New York only turns out to be just a meeting to divvy up the assets, to gerrymander the land between the hierarchs (and their salaried staffs) and to regularize the rules of who is priest and when communion can be taken, with or without going to Vespers, on 12/25 or 1/7 ... if New York, or the Council later on, contents itself with jurisdiction but fails to recognize what day it is, it sure as hell is not going to work.
Fr. I liked your piece and I agree with much of it, but…then I think I disagree with some of it. I agree that for the higher ups, much of it I am afraid has to do more with power than with truth. That may be so. Over that, baring prayer, I have little or no power. So I don’t worry about it much.
But for people like myself and my wife, autocephaly in so far as it eliminates phyletism would be a great blessing. It will be to those who are treated like second class members of the church, who are asked fairly routinely, “If you’re not Greek, why are you here?” Or “Why aren’t you Protestant (or Catholic)? Or who are told to go "somewhere else" since you're trying to "change our Greek church." Or whose children are excluded from summer camps or other activities, because of their ethnic background. Frankly I am sick of “Hellenism” and I am rather tired of clergy who can’t seem to find the body parts they were born with to confront their members with the falsities of Hellenism or American moral liberalism, but rather sit back and smile as people openly flout the teaching of the church. You couldn't preach openly about abortion in my parish without an open revolt I'd wager. I don’t know if they are afraid to lose money or what, but I can tell you this much, they are declining already and a lack of discipline isn’t going to plug that hole. Nor will building bigger buildings. They'e already lost an entire generation and they can't figure it out. duh you preached culture and cultural taste and not the gospel.
Honestly, I never thought I’d have to worry about what my four year olds would hear in Sunday school in the Orthodox Church, but given this Pascha, their being told by a life long member that Jesus really didn’t “come back in his body but the disciples just saw his ghost” after ten years, I am at my limit. But hey, we can’t remove Sunday school teachers because that might offend someone and after all, they’re “Greek.”
Do we really have that many parishoners that can’t understand English that we have to have the Liturgy in Greek? Really? Sorry, I am not buying it. Rather its exclusionary and meant to be. I see it every year when I do the church tours. The impression is given and received that this is the *Greek* Orthodox Church regardless of what I may say in the tour. Frankly, this whole idea of “Greek = Orthodox” has got to go. God can make these stones…I don't give two poops if my sunday school kids are Greek or not. I care if they love Christ or not and if they have a decent grasp of the truths of the faith or not or if their faith is going to survive college or not. I mean look at how these people give. When I was in grad school I was number 12 giver in a VERY large parish. That means only 11 more people gave more than moi and I was poor. They work at the festival so they don't have to give at all. Or they to a Protestant evangelical church during the week and come to the Orthodox Church and partake on major fast days, without any church discipline at all. How about weddings and baptisms? Cut a check and its ok that you haven't been to church in twenty years or that you probably reject Christ. Phyletism won't go away without some church discipline.
So I don’t think that phyletism will go away with successive generations. The Orthodox have been here for 200 years and still we have phyltism. Why? Because the institutions protect and project it and they won’t stop until enough non-Greek or non-Arabs get into the hierarchy to make them stop and slap them silly with a bit of reality by getting them to recognize that Jesus was **Jewish** and that God really doesn’t care about your ethnicity. And it won’t go away by itself because people want their ghetto away from home. They want that tinge of the old country and aren’t there really at all for the religion. They are there for the Greek country club. If you started preaching the truth in a good many parishes, these people would go or kick the priest out or both.
I'm in it for the faith and not for someone's Gyro's.
Posted by: Perry Robinson | May 29, 2010 at 11:47 PM
Father as to your proposition, I would agree.
As to how/if theosis would produce unity, a case will need to be made for this. Simply stating it won't suffice.
Posted by: Robert | May 27, 2010 at 05:52 PM
"Fundamentalist tree-hugging Orthodox." Thank God I found you on this blog-I was beginning to think that I was the last, near-extinct, representative of this small group.
Posted by: Teena H. Blackburn | May 27, 2010 at 05:37 PM
Yes, Robert, theosis would certainly "produce" unity -- a true, ecclesial unity.
But my proposition remains: such an ecclesial unity may not at all be produced by an apparent "jurisdictional unity."
Yes, the Gospel divides. It is dividing right now.
Posted by: Fr. Jonathan | May 27, 2010 at 10:12 AM
Father, burden of proof aside, my question is if indeed a case can be made that theosis would produce unity and such. I truly don't know. It's an honest question. I can see it both ways: the Gospel unites and divides. No?
Posted by: Robert | May 27, 2010 at 01:11 AM
I'm afraid we agree far more than either of us would admit.
Just to show how generous I am, I will take your point about the evangelization of certain countries before the souring of Rome.
Okay, so neither of us are really that sanguine.
Nothing is said about megachurches, which, you must know, I am the first to excoriate as something that Arius would find repugnant. I have done my share of small-minded sniping: I quite enjoy it, truth be told. I have no alternative strategy. I am sans strategy: and I'm not too sad about this. Sorry.
I do not shun any priest. I get along quite well with Greeks, OCA, Antiochians, Serbians, ROCOR-ians.
The only outreach I believe in is the deification of our members who then let their light shine before men. I float advertisements and even web pages now and then, but I don't put much trust in mortal princes.
I do not complain about my salary. My bishop gives his humble salary away, completely. I do complain about the salary of my brother priests, and have made myself unpopular with not a few.
I raise my voice when I preach, and I think my parishioners look at their watches, but they don't complain. I gesture, not wildly, about sinfulness -- my own and everyone else's.
Zeal? If you have to ask, you haven't encountered it.
Posted by: Fr. Jonathan | May 26, 2010 at 09:14 PM
Horrible non-Christian environments? Let's see: Germany, Lithuania, France, etc. I don't think anyone would dispute that these countries were successfully Christianized, until, of course, Old Rome went sour. I count as horrible all environments in which Christian (Orthodox) missionaries were martyred by pagans prior to successful conversion.
No one martyrs Christians nowadays in Western countries, and our hierarchs should have a easy time of evangelization.
Sanguine? I doubt it. What have the Bishops done about the megachurches? I've seen small-minded clerical sniping online, but no alternative strategies. Our priests shun priests of competing jurisdictions. Our parishes generally have zero outreach (GreekFest doesn't count). We pay our married priests squat so we can buy icons with gold leaf.
During my readings, I came across a story that some secular authorities in pre-Soviet Russia forbade clerics to gesture and raise their voices during sermons. Apparently, priests got excited enough about folks' sinfulness that they gestured wildly and shouted their rebukes. How often does that happen now?
I've witnessed a couple of strongly-voiced rebukes, but how much zeal do we generally encounter?
Posted by: Visibilium | May 26, 2010 at 08:02 PM
This is all understandable if we step back. Who of us really, truly prefers to be Orthodox? The sacrament of confession is proof we all, often, prefer to be non-Orthodox. We prefer self-will and disobedience, we prefer excuses for our weakness, we prefer not to give blood and not to gain the Spirit (or, at least, we prefer to gain something else we like to then call 'Spirit'). It should be no real shock that we prefer ignoring these canons, too. It isn't just an ethnic thing, or a political thing, or due to money or government influence, etc. - though these are all in play, too, mind you - it's a sin thing. As you say, it's due to "Passion... Doctrinal failure... [and] Boredom with theosis" and, you know, Orthodoxy.
I'm having a sort of flashback to the lesson behind Dostoevsky's parable of the Grand Inquisitor.
Posted by: orrologion | May 26, 2010 at 12:20 PM
Well said, Orr.
All these "non-requirements" that you point out are the very things that are said to be required, and used to support the proposition for unification.
I may be obtuse, here, but for the life of me, I do not understand what jurisdictional ambiguity is obstructing me now from communion with other local Orthodox parishes, that are of other dioceses. We program together, go to each other's banquets, and pray together.
But you're right, of course: what is required is one bishop in my city and all cities, and a metropolitanate structure so that the episcopacies in the outback know which cathedral to look to, and to appeal to.
The lost sheep are those who are not being fed, those who are not being immersed in Holy Tradition. That, as you pointed out, includes the non-churched, but also the heterodox and, perhaps, many of our own people.
But I doubt whether you'll hear "lost sheep" applied to the heterodox: how could you, if you are a "member denomination" of the NCC -- which is inherently committed to "heterodoxy"?
Posted by: Fr. Jonathan | May 26, 2010 at 09:54 AM
In my reading of the push toward autocephaly by the Metropolia, they were initially looking for a way to maintain communion with Moscow while also protecting itself from Soviet interference. The Metropolia (or, at least the voting members at the Sobor) were looking for a sort of radical autonomy rather than full and complete autocephaly. ROCOR, by comparison, had completely cut itself off from the MP by that time. I don't think it is beside the point to note that autocephaly was the purpose of the 1946 Sobor that broke ties with ROCOR to reach out to Moscow - note the year (Russia was still an ally, the Cold War had not yet started, ROCOR was rather pro-Nazi [anti-Soviet, really] at the time, and the Church in Russia had enjoyed relative freedom during the war).
However, the reasons for autocephaly seem to have changed between 1946 and the granting of the Tomos by Moscow in 1970. Perhaps this was due to Schmemann's influence and vision for Orthodoxy on this continent, perhaps this was Moscow's doing (on behalf of the KGB?), perhaps it was part and parcel with an attempt at union that Iakovos and Philip then balked at, perhaps it was an attempt to honestly fulfill the initial vision of St. Tikhon. Who knows?
Regardless, it is clear that the canons do not require autocephaly, they do not require that local church and diocesan boundaries conform to political borders, they do not require we have our own Synod here because the Mother Churches are so far away, they don't require a bishop or Synod of our own culture(s). They do require one bishop in each city and that the bishops know who is the first among them in their region and they do not allow for overlapping dioceses based on ethnicity such as we find in St. Tikhon's vision, the OCA and the EP. I'm not sure 'separate but equal' or 'apartheid' (in the academic sense) style dioceses are the answer, especially in North America. The 'answers' to the jurisdictional problems are intractable only because we refuse to live and pray together - we refuse to love the other, even when they are others of our own, small Faith. We prefer our petty kingdoms of one and we refuse to acknowledge that the 'lost sheep' of the parable are the non-Orthodox, not just 'our Orthodox' that don't come to church.
Posted by: orrologion | May 26, 2010 at 09:40 AM
Well, Robert, I think the burden of proof lies rather with those who are proposing autocephaly. Your conversion of terms assumes an equivalency that does not exist.
It turns out that ascesis actually does help with true unity -- an ecclesial unity that should exist with or without the explicit sort wrought about by jurisdictional chess-piecing.
Mystagogy, however, if it is faithful to Holy Tradition, may end up working against autocephaly if the latter is not faithful to Tradition. In such a case, mystagogy will not help with autocephaly, nor should it.
Posted by: Fr. Jonathan | May 26, 2010 at 06:40 AM
Why not turn the tables?
Prove to me that mystagogy will help autocephaly.
Prove to me that ascesis will help with unity.
Posted by: Robert | May 26, 2010 at 02:18 AM
Brother Bruce,
Your name is like good news.
Posted by: Fr. Jonathan | May 25, 2010 at 11:23 PM
Martin, you are asking my questions, and they are answered by a hollow echo.
Seek the Table, and the prayers in this noisome time.
There is no other St. Gregory than the one who was and is.
Pax, Martin.
Posted by: Fr. Jonathan | May 25, 2010 at 11:19 PM
I'm glad to find someone who is more sanguine about Orthodox mission than I am. Tell me about these horrible non-Christian environments that have been successfully evangelized.
You are tempting me to say something about the deficiencies of hierarchical kerygma. I cannot for now.
Blessings, V.
Posted by: Fr. Jonathan | May 25, 2010 at 11:14 PM
Speaking of theosis and ascesis, what are the Hesychasts and God-bearing Elders of our times saying about this Assembly and possibility of a Council?
Will there be another St. Gregory Palamas to champion and vindicate the path of theosis and ascesis?
Posted by: Martin | May 25, 2010 at 11:11 PM
New York can't denounce corporate greed, hyper-finance, and pension plans without defining what it's denouncing.
"When ever before has Orthodoxy arrived on the shores of a culture so thoroughly secularized in its denatured and national Christianity? When ever before has Orthodoxy developed in so lay-oriented, even anti-clerical manner?"
Come on now. Orthodoxy managed to evangelize and flourish in horrible non-Christian environments. Perhaps Orthodox hierarchs who believe that our culture is Christian, albeit secularized, sow the seeds of their own paralysis. Relatedly, the hierarchs would have to figure out why they're content to lay back and let Pope Ben and Billy Graham do their talking for them.
Posted by: Visibilium | May 25, 2010 at 11:04 PM
Orr, I would bow my head gladly under the Kartveli, for they know life over death.
You are right about the non-necessity of autocephaly for united witness. Everything in history is being rolled back.
Posted by: Fr. Jonathan | May 25, 2010 at 11:01 PM
It is probably also worth noting that autocephaly is not required for a united witness in North America. We would be just as 'united' as a diocesan exarchate of Jerusalem as we would as an autonomous church under Tbilisi.
I also agree that phyletism and jurisdictionalism is a symptom of the deeper problem, not that deeper problem's cause.
Posted by: orrologion | May 25, 2010 at 09:01 PM
Thanks for this: "If this work. . .will seek to prepare the American Orthodox community for the Day of the Lord, I'd feel a lot better."
Posted by: Bruce Johnson | May 25, 2010 at 08:11 PM
Oh, Christopher, one more thing:
You wrote "... or the theosis of the millions of souls who will not receive the Apostolic Tradition because the Orthodox Churches, who claim that tradition, do not see it as their job to give it to them? And the reason for that, make no mistake, is phyletism."
I really hope that it is not so that American Orthodox Churches "do not see it as their job to give it to them." I think that there are at least some American Orthodox who in fact take that job seriously.
I wish, really wish, you were right in that the reason for the failure of "giving Apostolic Tradition to them" is phyletism.
But despite my wishes, and your claims, this is not so.
If phyletism were the main problem, then we could simply sit back and wait for the immigrant characteristics of our conclaves to fade away.
Phyletism is an eminently sociological problem that will go away in a succession of generations and assimilation. It will go away by itself, fairly soon in a historical case.
But the real problem will remain.
Posted by: Fr. Jonathan | May 25, 2010 at 01:10 PM
James, "Mature Orthodoxy" must always -- as you know -- exist as a goal, as in "be ye perfect as your Father is perfect." Nevertheless, in today's modernist, demotic idiom, "mature Orthodoxy" is usually dismissed as a meaningless impossibility, which has no moral or deifying effect upon the soul.
Thus, the term "mature Orthodoxy" permits me the critique of saying that we are not nearly where we should be, and that we are deficient, while stipulating that while perfection will not be arrived at, yet it is still possible.
It permits me also to complain that we have not even demonstrated a bona fide attempt.
Posted by: Fr. Jonathan | May 25, 2010 at 12:24 PM
Christopher, I do not deny that phyletism is problematic. Not only is this so, but it is heretical. I stipulated, from the beginning, the deplorable morass of dividing up the American Orthodox community into ethnic categories.
I do not even deny the possibility that autocephaly will happen, and that it might even be a good thing at some point. I question, however, the irrational and inordinate hope placed on autocephaly, and upon the aftermath of jurisdictional correction. As a former protestant, I harbor a low view of denominational centralization -- and I recognize too much protestant denominational thinking in the current push for Orthodox centralization.
Posted by: Fr. Jonathan | May 25, 2010 at 12:14 PM
"Prove to me that American autocephaly will help with theosis"
Whose theosis are you talking about? Your own, and that of the faithful who stand at liturgy in your parish? or the theosis of the millions of souls who will not receive the Apostolic Tradition because the Orthodox Churches, who claim that tradition, do not see it as their job to give it to them? And the reason for that, make no mistake, is phyletism.
"Autocephaly" is not the answer. But that does not mean that phyletism is not the problem.
Posted by: Chris Jones | May 25, 2010 at 11:31 AM
Regarding Leadership 100, see www.l100.org, which states the following:
"In 1984, under the guidance of Archbishop Iakovos, Leadership 100 was created as an endowment fund of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese through which Greek Orthodox leaders were asked to commit themselves to offer $10,000 a year for a total of $100,000 each to maintain the life-sustaining ministries of the Church.
Today, Leadership 100, renamed The Archbishop Iakovos Leadership 100 Endowment Fund in recognition of Archbishop Iakovos’ vision, is a separately incorporated endowment fund supporting the priority needs of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, but broadly dedicated to advancing the Orthodox faith and Hellenic ideals in America.
Leadership 100 disburses grants ranging from scholarship funds for individuals studying for the priesthood, building an information infrastructure and Internet ministries for the Archdiocese, promoting the National Ministries and providing assistance to emergencies such as September 11, Hurricane Katrina, earthquakes and medical needs.
With the initial membership of 100 soon surpassed, Leadership 100 “raised the bar” and grew progressively to 300, doubling its membership to 600 in 2000 and now to more than 825 members as it marks its 25th Anniversary in 2009. The membership includes a broad spectrum of Greek Orthodox leaders, men and women of all ages from every field, as well as Leadership 100 Partners, young professionals who join at an affordable level as they progress in their careers.
Leadership 100 is a driving force to seed and nurture new programs that advance Orthodoxy and Hellenism into the 21st Century."
Posted by: orrologion | May 25, 2010 at 10:45 AM
Thank you for this.
Not sure what a fundamentalist tree-hugger is... but maybe you have something there.
I wonder about the location... and whether it is conducive. I am not certain about the chicken-egg dichotomy... aka in contemporary parlance as "the chicken egg situation", as to whether resolution of these issues marks progress towards theosis or away, whether it strengthens voices or weakens them that would direct us rightly. I would agree that the motivation to play a role at the political power table that is oft voiced on some sites not in the name of power but in the name of informing debate... can readily lead to captivity of a different and unconstructive sort. And yet I am not sure whether we are blessed to be under the radar screen in the present arrangements (in some ways "yes") or bedevilled by the same in some sort of assumed unaccountability. And so one wonders whether an autocephalous church would add or remove this aspect?
I am encouraged by your comments regarding Archbiship Demetrios, and wonder whether our immaturity lies in fact in a sense of lack of self-confidence and self-assurance that the Greeks for one reason or another do not suffer... and whether this is in fact a virtue or vice... as the balance is very difficult to maintain. But mostly I agree with your comment regarding the surplus of passion... which I would simply wonder whether it's not of uncertain origin and yet certainly imbued in our culture as it is in many.
I do not know what "mature Orthodoxy" is... and maybe that proves your case, but seems to me that all our Orthodoxies (Russodoxy, Grecodoxy, Syradoxy) suffer in some way... only here it remains legitimate to question it and navel gaze about it in ways perhaps less common abroad?
Posted by: James the Thickheaded | May 25, 2010 at 10:17 AM