Calling for Orthodox unity, with diversity

Scripps-Howard News Service ^ | February 23, 2005 | Terry Mattingly

[Southside_Chicago_Republican]

Week after week, Eastern Orthodox hierarchs guide their flocks through the incense-shrouded rites that define their ancient faith.

Bishops also become experts at another intricate ritual: banquets.

So Metropolitan Philip, the Antiochian Orthodox archbishop of North America, was not surprised to be asked to make a few remarks at the final banquet of the 2004 Clergy-Laity Congress of the Greek Orthodox Church in New York City. He was surprised when Greek Archbishop Demetrios indicated that this was more than a polite request.

"I reminded him that when I speak, I tell it like it is," said Philip.

What happened next caused shock waves that reached all the way to Istanbul, even if the archbishop's words would have seemed mild to outsiders who could not break the Byzantine code.

Philip addressed the delegates as Americans, not Greeks.

[bobjam]

Given the troubles that Anglicans and Roman Catholics are having with their American branches, I imagine the Patriarchs would rather keep a tight lid on their Orthodox jurisdictions in America.

[Kolokotronis]

FL:

You might want to ping the Orthodox list with this one. I'll comment later.

[Southside_Chicago_Republican]

My parish is part of a small diocese under the EP, and I've been able to steer clear of jurisdictional politics -- and I like it that way. I would like to see a unified Orthodox witness in America, but I understand there are all kinds of hurdles -- political, ethnic, cultural -- that have to be overcome before that can happen.

[newberger]

Actually, the problem is mostly with the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

Antioch has already given major independence to the churches under Metropolitan Philip and the Orthodox Church in America (of which I'm a member) has been autocephalous since 1970.

[FormerLib]

A requested Orthodox ping.

[don-o]

bump

[eleni121]

He tells like he thinks it is...He was wrong on Iraq, wrong again on Constantinople. Unity sounds wonderful but not at the expense of primacy.

There is no reason the Orthodox faithful cannot do all kinds of Christian work such as the mission projects together, without asking the GOC to cut ties to the seat of Orthodoxy. Numbers do not necessarily lead to increased power or visibility.

[Agrarian]

"He tells like he thinks it is..."

This was the first thought that I had when I read that particular quotation from him. Metropolitan Philip has a couple of good ideas, but he is not the one I would want designing an "American Orthodox Church." The presumptuousness of stating that his opinions are "like it is" is exhibit A, and there are many other exhibits. Promoting the idea that American ideas of democracy should guide the Church on these shores is another, very dangerous idea.

America is nowhere near ready for any kind of autocephalous, independent existence. Bad as the status quo is, the alternatives are, for the time being, worse.

That said, Constantinople is not "the seat of Orthodoxy," and there is no "primacy" to be "expensed." The EP is a beleaguered rump diocese with more bishops than faithful -- and on the worldwide scene, it is an answer desperately seeking a question. The reason that the EP spends so much time talking to the Pope and trying to micromanage the American Greek Church is that he doesn't have anyone in his own diocese to talk to, and essentially has nothing to do. He should work on converting the Turks to Christianity so he will have a diocese again, and then he can busy himself with catechesis and pastoral work like every bishop is supposed to be doing. The EP is "first among equals," has the right to call a council, and has the place of honor. That's it.

But ultimately, I agree that unity will be achieved through joint work such as missions and charity. Unity will happen, and a distinctively American church will happen. Both ARE happening, and nothing can keep either from happening.

Our time is better spent attending the services, praying, and doing Christian work than in trying to figure out the jurisdictional situation politically. Every jurisdiction in America has strong points, every jurisdiction has weaknesses. Our prime job should be to build strong parishes, and a secondary job should be to build strong extended local Orthodox communities across jurisdictional lines. The rest will take care of itself -- or rather, the Holy Spirit will take care it it.

[eleni121]

Thank you...I agree with everything you say...especially this:

"He (Dimitrios) should work on converting the Turks to Christianity so he will have a diocese again, and then he can busy himself with catechesis and pastoral work like every bishop is supposed to be doing."

[bobjam]

The Orthodox in this country seem to facing many of the same hurdles Catholics faced 100 years ago. Then, Roman Catholicism transformed from a largely immigrant church to a mainstream church as the immigrants who formed its backbone blended into American culture. The Orthodox face similar challenges. More and more parishes are slowly (and in many cases begrudgingly) conducting the Liturgy in English (albeit with a strong accent) rather than Russian, Greek, or Old Church Slavonic. Furthermore, more and more clergy are not only from America, but are also being trained in America (St. Tikhon's, Holy Cross, etc.). Parishioners are no longer seeing themsleves as Bulgarian/Romanian/Antiochan/Coptic/etc. Orthodox Christians living in America, but as American Orthodox Christians.

[Agrarian]

"...I've been able to steer clear of jurisdictional politics -- and I like it that way."

Yes, indeed, that is the best way. Doing otherwise is a good way to jeopardize one's soul.

In my other post on this thread, while having some less than kind things to say about some of the players involved in all of this, I also made the point that every jurisdiction has strong and weak points.

I found it appropriate that this thread was posted today, since for those of us following the New Calendar, the primary commemoration of today is St. Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople. I had read his life earlier in the day, and had had cause to reflect on the curious ways in which the Holy Spirit has cared for his Church, specifically in the way that God specifically has used people on "both sides" of controversies to work his will.

St. Tarasius was made Patriarch of Constantinople during the very hard time surrounding the iconoclastic controversy after Patriarch Paul IV resigned in discouragement. He led a life of asceticism, simplicity, and pastoral zeal, putting to shame other clergy who loved their positions because of the pomp and power that could be afforded them. He worked tirelessly to reconcile the former iconoclasts to the Church, using love and forgiveness.

Simultaneous to this, St. Theodore and the rest of the Studite took a hard-line position on how to reconcile the former (because had they really given up their heresy?) iconoclasts. They actually cut themselves off from communion with St. Tarasius, and were forced into exile.

In the end, St. Tarasius ended up excommunicating the iconoclast Joseph, which paved the way to a reconciliation with the Studites. The end result was a Church which was fully reconciled, *and* which thoroughly had renounced and rid itself of iconoclasm. Try to find any remaining trace of iconoclasm in Orthodoxy today!

My point is that both saints were right. Both were guided by the Holy Spirit. Both played a role in producing the Church we have today: St. Tarasius in his love, forebearance, and desire to reconcile former heretics, *and* St. Theodore and the Studites, in their hard-line zeal to preserve the Holy Orthodox faith regarding icons -- not just in name, but to the very bone.

I'm certainly not claiming that all of our hierarchs and bureaucrats are saints, but I do believe that many of the various "competing visions" of the Church here in America have roles to play in the ongoing development of our Church, and we should resist the urge completely to discount any of them.

I am certainly more comfortable in and with some than in others, but that is a separate issue...

May both the Holy Tarasius and the Holy Theodore pray to God for us.

[Southside_Chicago_Republican]

Well said! Thanks for your reply.

[sionnsar]

A requested Orthodox ping.

Is somebody maintaining an Orthodox ping?

[peter the great]

Did you know that when you put all of the Orthodox Churches together in this country we become the fourth largest Church in the country. I disagree with your assertion about numbers. Too often our Parishes are mysterious fortresses in the minds of the average American citizen and something like this would simplify things. In other words, you would have the Church from Rome and then you would have the Church from Constantinople The keyword from this article is "one voice." Supposing you were a reporter and something happened in lets say Russia and you want an opinion on something who would you go to? If there is one voice it makes the reporters job easier. Finally, in my case. should this happen, the Bishop goes from being someone who lives an hour away to someone who lives less than five minutes away

[kosta50]

Kind of proves my point expressed in our private correspondence, Kolo.

There will be an American Orthodox Church, one "infected with freedom," as Phillip says, and it will be also known as the Protestant Orthodox Church.

I have seen too many expresses ions of freedom -- tailoring the church to our own image -- to have no doubt this will happen. I am sorry, but the Greeks have been reforming the Church from within and without, both at home and in America -- starting with the new calendar, trying to "fit in" with anglomorphism, uniformed choirs, electric organs, paraffin candles, interrupting Divine Liturgy for a pig-roast fund drive speech, pews, even scandals of late.

Impurity once allowed into Adam's body changed his nature. Impurity once allowed into the Church does the same thing. Changing something for the sake of liberty means placing one's personal preference and importance over others. Changing something that is not broken is egoism and self-love.

Welcome aboard Protestant "Orthodox"! Thank you Luther, er Phillip.

[Vicomte13]

"The Orthodox in this country seem to facing many of the same hurdles Catholics faced 100 years ago. Then, Roman Catholicism transformed from a largely immigrant church to a mainstream church as the immigrants who formed its backbone blended into American culture."

There is one huge difference, and that difference enormously strengthened the Catholic Church. 100 years ago, anti-Catholic sentiment was bitter and aggressive. That was the pinnacle era of "Birth of a Nation" Ku Klux Klan ideology. The public schools in many states taught religion, and intentionally and aggressively taught an anti-Catholic bias, requiring children to participate in explicitly Protestant prayers, etc. It was because of this malicious persecution that the Catholic Church in America responded by declaring the Catholic School system, that each diocese and parish should create its own schools.
The Catholic-haters in several states responded by passing laws making private religious education ILLEGAL, and REQUIRING students to attend the public schools.
The Supreme Court struck down those laws.

Anyway, the point is that the all of that nastiness and malevolence actually HELPED the Catholic Church, because by singling out Catholics for special, negative treatment, the backlash was that Catholics made a universal school system for Catholics, something that does not really exist to that degree and depth in other countries. Because the Catholics were quite numerous already, and made up of a bunch of Irish, Poles, Germans and Italians - not people who are characteristically meek or retiring, but who are stubborn as hell - when the Protestant establishment attempted to use the law to act out its anti-Catholic bias, the result was a degree of mobilization and militancy in the Roman Catholic Church that would have never been achieved without the persecution.
That turned out to be an advantage to Catholicism, because it gave Catholics battle scars and made them stick together to stick in in their opponents' eye.

By contrast, nobody is persecuting the Orthodox. In truth, before recently, about the only people who knew what Orthodoxy was were either living in a few ethnic neighborhoods in a couple of immigration cities, or Catholics who had been through Catholic School and had Church history. Orthodoxy is a "below the radar screen" sort of thing. One can sometimes still see idiots cook off somewhere and put up a billboard like the clowns who put up a "Nazi Pope" sign out in Washington a couple of years ago. There's still some residual anti-Catholic bile out there in the fever swamps. (We even see some of it here on the FR religion pages sometimes.)
But it's just not imaginable that anybody is going to put up a billboard of the Ecumenical Patriarch or start fulminating on air somewhere about how Onion Domes and icons are all concealment for the Whore of Babylon.

So, unfortunately for the Orthodox, they don't have the luxury of having the same really mean and really stupid enemies that the Catholics faced 100 years ago to unite them. Who hates the Orthodox? Anybody likely to realize that you, too, are the "Whore of Babylon" that needs to be hated and feared is too ignorant to know you exist in the first place. Sad but true.

And so you face different hurdles.
The first is the LACK of a really unifying enemy, which Catholics had the luxury of having.
And the second is division among yourselves which is one thing that Catholics lack.

[Kolokotronis]

I think I am one of the few "ethnic" or "cradle" Orthodox who haunt these threads and as you all know, I'm a member of the GOA. Some years back, before and certainly during the "Spyridon War" in the GOA, I was a great partisan of an autocephalous Greek Orthodox Church here in America, not, by the way, of an American Orthodox Church. Then, as now, I had confidence that our hierarchs would be able to manage matters quite well here without the interference of a man in Istanbul who owes his continuing existence at least in part to the Turks and who then and now, I am convinced, has delusions about being the Orthodox Pope.

Since that time, however, and after a number of years both on the parish council and as its president, I have come to the conclusion that an independent American Church, or and autocephalous GOA, is a very bad idea for the foreseeable future. I say this for two reasons.

First, I have watched with great dismay the turmoil within the Latin Church. I confess I cannot say if this is the result of actions in Rome, European paganism infecting the Latin Church in America or something which owes much of its source to a purely American phronema; probably a combination of the three. In any event, it seems to me that the lack of a strong hand on the American Roman hierarchy, and on down the line, has made for some bad times here for that Church. Add to that the spectacle we are all witnessing with ECUSA, some Lutherans, some Presbyterians and most members of the UCC and we are presented with a sobering image of a people whose political/social conditioning has lead them away from anything orthodox in their respective denominations into a sort of self-centered, its all about me and my fulfillment spiritual wasteland.

Second, in our diocese, and I understand in a number of others around the country, English is becoming more and more the language of the Divine Liturgy and the various other devotions we have. At first I was against this, but what I have seen is nothing short of a miracle. In our parish, over the past 7 years or so, we have seen an influx of people interested in Orthodoxy, who stay after the first visit, like nothing I've witnessed in my lifetime. And most of these people, once exposed to Orthodoxy, become catechumens and eventually are baptised or chrismated. They are among the most wonderful, spirit filled Christians I have ever known. Their presence does three things. First, it certainly changes the ethnic mix in a parish. Second, not being ethnically insular, their presence makes the rest of us look more outward to the greater civic community around us and finally, they tend to be, perhaps too much in some cases, very Orthodox in their beliefs and praxis. Now on the other hand, they do have much to learn and the development of an Orthodox phronema is a years long process in most cases, but that's the job of people like me and the priests. What one ends up with, and what we have, is a parish which is beginning to look less Greek and more American everyday. Indeed, our metropolitan once said, just a few years ago, that when he looks at our parish, he sees the face of the Orthodox Church of the future.

So why not autocephally now? Well, I think the Orthodox Churches are just now beginning to become American. If that American face can become wedded to an Orthodox phronema, then, and only then, will the Church here be ready to withstand on its own, untethered to Orthodox Mother Churches, the assaults of a society which has all but destroyed various branches of Protestantism and caused severe disruptions in the Latin Church. Maybe in a couple of generations. Not now, no matter what +Philip, no prize himself in my opinion, might think.

[jb6]

Luckily, the Greeks are less then 10% of the Orthodox Church. The Slavs are some 50% or more and they are not changing, neither are the Ethiopians, Kenyans or Arabs. The Russian, Serbian and other none-Greek Churchs I've been to in America look just like their cousins across the pond.

[FormerLib]

So why not autocephally now?

Hey, we're Orthodox! What's the hurry! A two-to-three Century timeline isn't the law, but it's not a bad rule of thumb.