George,

I’m glad you have a sober attitude to this question. I see practical problems with unity that make it more of a long term goal than a short term, “Let’s get it done this year!” type thing.

A large part is money. It is true, as far as I can tell, that the “old world” patriarchs use America as their ATM machine. It’s difficult to battle Mammon. It must be done, but it isn’t easy.

I think that perhaps GOARCH and AOCNA could unite without a lot of controversy over praxis. The same could be said about OCA and AOCNA. There is a significant distance however, on average, between practice in GOARCH and the OCA. There’s a world of difference between GOARCH and ROCOR (as well as some conservative OCA parishes).

Also, of course, there is the ethnic thing. In my experience, most people are much more enlightened in conversation and rhetoric then they are deep down at gut level. And gut level is ultimately where such decisions are made. Greeks want to maintain GOARCH as a Greek thing. They feel comfortable that way. They would never want to become a minority in “their own church”. To ask that seems unfair to them and they would look at it as a betrayal of the sacrifices of earlier generations of Greek immigrants. They are the big fish in their pond and want to keep it that way. The same could be said, to one extent or another, of the other ethnic jurisdictions.

I don’t really believe much will come of the new episcopal assembly(EA). I see it as a small side-step and a delaying tactic. I don’t think that much of the work – – the real logistical stuff – – can be done until the American Church is allowed to (or dares to) declare autocephaly. My reasoning is that the really dicey stuff involves which bishop gets which diocese, what practices will prevail, the whole ethnic structural thing, etc. While we remain in different jurisdictions, this stuff can only be planned theoretically. Neither SCOBA nor the new EA can shut down an Antiochian diocese, make its current bishop an auxilliary and place its clergy and laity under an OCA bishop or a Greek bishop.

Whether we end up with an American Orthodox Church that has ethnic, non-geographical jurisdictions (as began to form under the ROC before the revolution) or we go the straight route of ignoring ethinicity altogether (except, perhaps, at the parish level), there are formidable tasks ahead.

Really, if they wanted to and had permission of their Patriarchs and Synods, Arch. Demetrios, Met. Phillip, Met. Hilarion, etc. could sit down with Met. Jonah and hammer out a structural agreement that makes immediate only those decisions in leadership at each level that are necessary for functional order, leaving the question of which of the non-diocesan bishops retire, which become auxilliary or missionary, etc. to later. That might take a few weeks and a lot of good faith. Then an American Orthodox Church could be proclaimed and recognized immediately (assuming good will). It could happen practically over night if the will was there. In fact, the thing that would take the most time would be finaincial restructuring.

I’m not holding my breath.

For those who want a united American Orthodox Church quickly, Fr. Thomas Hopko, in my opinion, had the best solution. The bishops could simply defect and make it happen. It would involve a betrayal of vows of loyalty to their respective sees. However, you have to ask yourself which is more important, a vow of loyalty to a see that is, in itself, supportive of uncanonical division or canonical order itself? Put another way, does God really want these bishops to honor a vow that is, in its effect, a sin?

Scott, as am I. I used to be obsessed about unity but given the laxity of some jurisdictions, now…not so much.

I am sorry to have been away from this very interesting and informative discussion. As you may recall, I am a Priest of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA). In its Constitution, ACNA has made clear that one must be male to be consecrated Bishop. Some of our Dioceses do “ordain” women, but I hope that we will follow the lead of the Anglican Mission in America (now a constituent part of the ACNA) who did a searching and fearless study of the issue, and concluded that to “ordain” women priests was in error.

I am pleased to say that his Beatitude Metropolitan Jonah and His grace Archbishop Robert of the ACNA have restarted the ecumenical dialog between Anglicans and Orthodox (OCA) which were suspended with the Episcopal Church (TEC) when that body began to ordain women. Indeed, the ordination of women has not brought forth the blossoming of church attendance predicted by its proponents.

On the liturgy, Scripture and Tradition: I believe them to be so interwoven and knit together as to defy our attempts to separate them — Thanks be to God! In TEC it is the “movement of the Holy Spirit” which is used to justify all manner of innovations and doctrines contrary to the witness of Orthodoxy. I think this is a direct result of the attempt to separate the three streams of the great river of orthodox faith and praxis.

Of pews: I agree with the critics. to what has been said, I would add that the encourage a kind of theater goers approach to liturgy — rather than the shared work of the people of God, it tends to put the laity in the role of passive observer.

My apologies to all for the alphabet soup of trying to understand Anglicans in 2010!

In Christ,

OSO

I must confess that I’m more concerned about orthopraxis than I am unity. I do not see GOARCH, as part of a unity deal, taking on the practices of the Greek OldCal’s. What I believe would happen is that practices would either, on the whole, liberalize (because the largest jd is Greek) or be left to local option. Neither idea is appetizing. The first is a step back; the second, at best, status quo.

Scott, if I may, I believe the question is ultimately the classic chicken-or-egg conundrum: is it modernism that’s driving the liberalization of the Church (or certain jurisdictions) or is it liberalism that’s in the driver’s seat? My own suspicion is that it’s just plain laziness. Anyway, you bring up some excellent points, all of which unfortunately make me even warier of the upcoming Episcopal Assembly.

I known I’m in danger of becoming a Johnny One-note in this regard but please indulge me: unless the bishops of the ethnic exarchates repent of their decades of slavish devotion to non-America and nostalgia-worship, I just don’t see how we’re going to come to grips with resolving any of these issues (i.e. modernity, family life, modesty for women, etc.)

Eliot, I fear you are right. Far too many theologians forget what it’s like to serve in the trenches (i.e. parishes). Don’t get me wrong, we need well-educated academics instructing our future priests but I would expand the quantity of retired parish priests in the professoriate to perhaps on a 1:1 ratio.

One reason I hate pews is that make people passive. And they unnecesarily lenghthen the services (esp. the sermons).

Michael,

http://freetocover.blogspot.com/2009/02/early-church-fathers-quotesagain.html

The link above is one which I just now discovered. Rather than testing the patience of those here who might not agree with us, I decided not to copy and paste but just refer you to it. On the front page is a list of quotes as long as your arm from the Fathers on women’s headcovering. Very interesting.

Coincidentally, I actually know the woman who runs this site, Alana. She went to the OCA parish I mentioned but has since moved.

Scott

Fr. Johannes,

I don’t think we’re getting anywhere and you’re losing me in the ether. It has been a fascinating conversation though (sincerely).

Thanks,

Scott

1 Corinthians 11:3-10:

3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 9 † Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 10 For this cause ought the woman to have powerb on her head because of the angels.

The “angels” may be a reference to bishops, as in Revelation. I.e., “Don’t distract the celebrant.”

That St. Paul commanded it and it is a usage that goes back to Judaism is enough for me to accept it without reservation. Additionally, however, it demonstrates female modesty and submission (which elsewhere is commanded by the apostle). Women can be a distraction in church, depending on how they dress. Focus, as you say, is part of it. Also, removing an occasion for sin (fantasizing or lust) during a particularly holy time.

As you know, I have a bone to pick with feminism, even very moderate feminism. I could recount the sins that result from this noxious ideology, but you already know them. They all stem from the notion that women should be equal in authority – – in the family, in society, etc. – – to men. St. Paul elsewhere stated that he did not put women in authority over men. I take it as axiomatic that any woman who would not cover her head in church would never consider assuming the role that Scripture and Tradition assign to her.

The real question is why would one change this rule? What would be the motivation? I can think of none other than feminism. Most women are simply too proud and bold to be capable of the humility and submission it takes to cover ones head. And the clergy are either sympathetic to feminism or are too afraid that they would lose parishoners, money and volunteers if they actually followed this practice.

The bottom line for me is that we had a lot of problems under the patriarchy, but nothing at all compared like to what we have in feminist society. St. Paul’s words on this seem very strange to us – – us being those of us who have lived in the last 50 years or so. But there was nothing particulary controversial or objectionable about these words for most of Christian history.

Another story: I started out in an OCA parish close to the town in which I live. The priest there, who was ex-evangelical (or maybe not so ex-) and I had a few discussions about the role of women and family life. Finally, exacerbated, he told me that the only place that I was going to find people who shared my viewpoint was in ROCOR or Islam. I replied to him that that might be so, but he should ask himself: “Would anything that I said have even raised an eyebrow in any Orthodox church in the world 100, 500 or 1000 years ago?

Dead silence.

Why do so many Orthodox think that there is some particular chrism of wisdom bestowed on the last three generations?

All I can say is that Western society has become a dramatically compelling force for corrupting Christianity.

You posit the possibility that Tradition might not conform to Scripture. This is not possible. Either it is Tradition; i.e., apostolic teaching passed down through the Church, or it is not.

Not all tradition comes directly from the apostles. That would be impossible. Nevertheless, many things in tradition are authoritative because they conform to the apostolic word — the scripture.

Scott, it is not only “teaching” that is passed down. That’s only part of it. What is passed down is the word of life, the words of grace and truth that proceed from God and have an intrinsic power because they come from God.

Grace and truth in this context refer to concrete, existential, realities appropriated through the concrete, existential, encounter with the Risen Christ, who first approaches us through the hearing of His word, mediated as it is through the words of the apostles. And this word can change the world. It has power.

And it is out of this concrete, existential, encounter with the risen Christ that the tradition emerges. In this emerging some men rise above others and their word too becomes authoritative, but only with an authority derived from the word of those who first received it directly from God — the apostles. That’s why the scriptures are the source and ground of authority.

“In the quotes you gave, the primary and final authority is the word of the apostle — Chrysostom quotes Paul’s word given to us in scripture. The ground of authority then is the apostolic word, that is, scripture since that is where we encounter it.”

I’m not sure I can go along with you 100%, Fr. Johannes. I don’t think it is only in Scripture where we encounter the Apostolic word. If you mean words written or dictated for writing by the Apostles themselves, then I see your point. However, the oral teaching of the apostles was also conveyed, only by a different means. A word is not a word because it is written down. There is nothing magical about the written word as a means of transmission.

If we do not trust the bishops to transmit the Apostolic teaching orally or by later writing it down, why should we trust them to establish the canon of Scripture or to transmit it intact? It is true that Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit. But I do not think you can conclude that other Apostolic teaching is not. At the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem, the decision of the council was announced as, “It seems good to us and to the Holy Spirit . . .” I agree with you that Scripture has a particularly high place, and I would agree that within Scripture itself there are books that occupy a higher place than others – – the Gospels, for instance. But the faith is the Apostolic Tradition, delivered by any number of means.

In the quotes I mentioned above:

“. . . it is clear that they did not hand down everything by letter, but there is much also that was not written . . .” from Chrysostom, and

” . . . some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the Apostles, handed on to us in mystery . . .” – from Basil

These Fathers seem to be saying that Scripture is the earliest written testimony of the Apostles, but the Apostolic teaching was also passed down by word of mouth in the line of Apostolic Succession through the bishops, etc. Some of this was later written down, but all of it is the “apostolic word”, since all of it is Apostolic teaching.

The same bishops who transmitted the Scriptures to us transmitted the teaching of the Apostles, written or not. The final authority is the teaching of the Apostles, however it reaches us, through the Church. I do not suggest that Scripture does not have a primary place. Nor do I suggest that it is not true that all teaching must be in harmony with Scripture. I neither wish to diminish the status of Scripture nor of Tradition. They cannot possibly contradict one another because they come from the same source – – the teaching of the Apostles.

“Tradition, as I wrote upstream, is authoritative — it can even claim an aposotolic authority (which is what Chrysostom is claiming here) — to the measure that it conforms to that apostolic word, but that authority is derivative, not primary.”

Here we disagree. You posit the possibility that Tradition might not conform to Scripture. This is not possible. Either it is Tradition; i.e., apostolic teaching passed down through the Church, or it is not. The real question is, “who says so?” Anybody can make an argument that something in our Tradition is contradictory to Scripture and or not in accord with it. But by what authority? Christ gave His apostles the authority to bind and loose. He transmitted His teaching to us through them. The bishops, in a Great Synod, are charged with the responsiblity and authority to weigh whether a teaching is part of Tradition by weighing it against all prior manifestations of Tradition, most importantly Scripture. So Tradition cannot possibly contradict Scripture in the eyes of a Synod that has the authority to make that determination. Otherwise, it’s not Tradition.

No problem, I just wanted to make sure I had made myself clear.

The idea of making up one’s own prayers is not new to me, but I’ve not heard it in a long time. I actually tried it once the first time I heard it–once only.

I know what the the Bible says about head-scarves. I have trouble making the same type of case for them that I do for the pews. Can you help Scott?

The separation of genders seems to me to be primarily one of modesty and focus. Do you agree?

One more thing, just for clarification:

Christ conveyed his teaching to His apostles and they were confirmed by the Holy Spirit.

Sort of. Think of it this way: The words of Christ (the word of the Word), are the words of grace, power, and truth — so much so that they created the universe out of nothing. It is not so much that his words are the primordial “teaching,” but that they flow from the mouth of the Creator. They are transformative in and of themselves, which is to say that no one who hears them is left unaffected (repentance or judgment).

That’s why Paul said the gospel has to be “preached” (spoken so it can be heard). The Gospel reveals Christ. We have to hear in order to see, and the transformative potency of that word is so great as that it can create something out nothing and transform men’s hearts through the hearing of it.