If, by the grace of God, persecution descends upon our Church, I am sure we will be surprised at the response of many. Rather than speculate on what others might do, we are called to be prepared for what God calls us to do.

Worldly vs. spiritual strategic approach problem-solving.
Saint Euphemia’s Conversation with Elder Paisios.

One day Father Paisios was going through a very difficult phase. A problem was created in the Church at that time and many bishops had gone to him to ask for his help. However, it was a very complicated problem and even if he wanted to, he was unable to assist; as he said, no matter from which side you look at the problem, you come face to face with a spiritual impasse. So, he decided to turn his efforts to solve the problem with prayer. During that time, Father Paisios constantly prayed for God to give solution to the Church’s problem; he prayed especially to St. Ephemia:

“St. Euphemia, you who miraculously solved the serious problem the Church was facing then, take the Church out of the present impasse!”

One morning, at nine o’ clock, when Father Paisios was reading the service of the third hour, he suddenly heard someone discreetly knocking on his door. The Elder asked from inside:

“Who is it?” Then, he heard a woman’s voice answering:

“It is me, Euphemia, Father.”

“Which Euphemia?” He asked again. There was no answer. There was another knock on the door and he asked again. “Who is it?” The same voice was heard saying:

“It is Euphemia, Father.”

There was a third knock and the Elder felt someone coming inside his cell and walking through the corridor. He went to the door and there he saw St. Euphemia, who had miraculously entered his cell through the locked door and was venerating the icon of the Holy Trinity, which the Elder had placed on the wall of his corridor, on the right hand side of the church’s door. Then the Elder told the Saint: “Say: Glory to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” St. Euphemia clearly repeated those words and immediately Father Paisios knelt and venerated the Saint. Afterwards, they sat and talked for quite a while; he could not specify for how long, as he had lost all sense of time while being with St. Euphemia. She gave the solution for all three matters he had been praying for and in the end he said to her: “I would like you to tell me how you endured your martyrdom.”

The Saint replied: “Father, if I knew back then how eternal life would be and the heavenly beauty the souls enjoy by being next to God, I honestly would have asked for my martyrdom to last for ever, as it was absolutely nothing compared to the gifts of grace of God!”

If, by the grace of God, persecution descends upon our Church, I am sure we will be surprised at the response of many. Rather than speculate on what others might do, we are called to be prepared for what God calls us to do.

Personally, I think being a bishop these days is a form of persecution in and of itself. These men are but into an isolated hothouse of temptations to abuse of power, to the of love money and comfort, etc. In human terms they are without a chance at success. Without a functioning local synod they are without accountability, community and brotherhood. They are in the place of Peter when Jesus called him out of the boat and onto the stormy waves. Frankly, I am amazed that more of them don’t sink like a stone. I know I would.

We can be petulent children when we perceive injustice and malfesance, or we can respond in prayer and love.

They of all people ought to long for a local synod and a chance to pastor their parishes without looking over their shoulders.

The more often they meet as brother bishops, the more likely that the Holy Spirit will fan the flames of that longing despite any concrete evidence of any changes.

Being human, many will resist any concrete change, but if this work is of God, it will endure and bear fruit. If it is not, it will die unfruitful.

May God grant us the mercy of his presence in the gatherings, deliberations and subsequent activities no matter how inconsequential they may seem.

A group of middle-aged men are sitting around a boardroom table. The man at the head of the table says, ”I think it’s high time we quit shilly-shallying and put a couple of committees together to take a look at some of the contingencies of toughening our rhetoric!”

My opinion is not “there is no ‘dogmatic’ reason for autocephaly to occur.” It is simply an observable historic pattern that autocephaly for every state did not always develop, nor, when it did, was it always instituted immediately. Thus, it is not a question of dogma. It is a question of our canonical tradition, which, while changeable, is ultimately an expression of how our dogma manifests itself in the life of the Church.

Not everything prudent or even necessary for Church life is a matter for dogmatic definition. One thinks, for instance, of the many beautiful feasts of the Theotokos—totally standard, appropriate and traditional, but not a question for dogmatic definition.

Fr, sometimes I’m a little slow on the uptake. This thought just occurred to me: since in your opinion there is no “dogmatic” reason for autocephaly to occur, then why don’t all of the presently autocephalous churches dispense with their autocephaly?

I don’t mean to be snarky, but I have a strong feeling that if this question were to be addressed, the mandarin-theologians of the Phanar would come up with intereting and convoluted treatises on why autocephaly is all of a sudden, a “dogmatic” necessity.

Here are Dr. King’s Words:

There was a time when the church was very powerful–in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being “disturbers of the peace” and “outside agitators.”‘ But the Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were “a colony of heaven,” called to obey God rather than man. Small in number, they were big in commitment. They were too God-intoxicated to be “astronomically intimidated.” By their effort and example they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial contests. Things are different now. So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an archdefender of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church’s silent–and often even vocal–sanction of things as they are.

But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If today’s church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century(From Letter from A Birmingham Jail)</blockquote>

Fr Andrew, since I was mentioned, I will come to my defence. I for one never believed that the episcopate in general funcion as a “mafia,” any more than I believe that the Church as a whole is a gathering of [fill in the blank]. This does not mean that individual bishops or even councils of bishops were always saints. Yes, I’ll say it, even thugs. (I’m thinking here of the Robber Council of Ephesus.) Let us also not forget what Chrysostom said about his colleagues: “That the road to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.” Why did he say that? Because he was being acerbic? Let us not forget what our Lord told John in his vision of the end-times: that some of the seven churches were “dead” because they had lost thir “first love.” He told another church (Laodicea) that because it was lukewarm in its faith that He would “spit it out.” This is strong stuff, far worse than anything that appears on this blog.

All too often, we (myself included) fall perilously close at times to judging what is in the hearts of men. This is wrong and approaches blasphemy. Having said that, it is not judgmental to make moral distinctions or to discern intentions based on actions. This is what common sense tells us to do. Please forgive the following example: when we see a man depart from a brothel, this tells us something. We could be wrong however, this could have been a fellow who was new to town, lost his way, went inside for directions, etc. He may have been a doctor who was called to care for one of the girls. Whatever. However, when you see this same man time and time again depart from said brothel, well…I think you know what I’m saying.

Why is our assessment of some (note, I said “some”) of our bishops and clergy as jaded as it is? Probably because we’ve seen time and time again scandalous behavior. Let me just name a few: the firing of +Iakovos, the hasty disposal of his replacement once he outlived his usefulness, the criminality of the previous metropolitans of the OCA, etc. This is a pattern Fr. Reasonable men can make common-sense inferences based on these actions. The treatment of +Demetrios by the Phanar because he stood up for a guiltless bishop (+Jonah) is another such cause for scandal (to say nothing about the execrable treatment shown to His Beatitude himself). And for what? How can someone spin the hatred shown to the OCA by foreign patriarchs? Is this Christian? I rather doubt it.

Nor does it stop there. The culture of secrecy that exists in all too many jurisdictions raises eyebrows. (Such secrecy is a hallmark of mafia-like activity.) Again, I reiterate Andrew’s pointed question: why weren’t the proceedings of te EA videotaped? Were they not doing the work of the people? What did our Lord say when He was pushed against the wall by the pharisees? (Did I not speak openly in the synagogue?”) Regardless the appearance of impropriety is real and scandalous. That’s probably the main reason that giving is so paltry in the Orthodox Church.

I mean no offense, but words mean things, and actions speak louder than words. Honest, good people are interested in the Orthodox faith. These actions however drive them away faster than Bull Connor with a firehose. The absence of love is apparent to a blind man. No, I wasn’t at the EA. I’m sure your assessment is correct (I certainly hope it is). Time will tell.

The irony, Dean, is that I think you really don’t know what my position is, since I agree with most of what you say and write that you want. The two places where I differ with you are these:

1. National autocephaly is not a dogmatic necessity, else the many historical occasions when it did not occur would mean that those involved were heretics. And since it happened so frequently in history, one would think that the Ecumenical Councils would have anathematized any church which had parishes beyond their national borders. They didn’t, else Ss. Cyril and Methodius would be heretics when they looked to both Rome and Constantinople while far away from either.

This does not mean that national autocephaly is not a very good idea, the eventual norm, a proper expression of our ecclesiology, etc. It just means that it is not a sudden violation of our ecclesiology if we do not immediately set up autocephalous churches every time we walk past a political boundary. I have never said that I think churches should perpetually be under “foreigners,” that it’s proper and necessary for the U.S. church to be so, etc.

2. I believe that God is at work in the Episcopal Assembly (and in our episcopacy generally), i.e., that it is not actually being run by the mafia. You and George seem to believe that you know better, no matter what anyone might say in positive terms (including the blog owner here). That you believe you know better and I believe you are wrong has nothing to do with clericalism or laicism, etc. I simply believe you’re wrong, and it’s not because I happen to be ordained. I was of essentially these same beliefs before I was ordained. I know clergy with your opinions, and I know laity with mine.

Anyway, I am sure that you will continue to “relentlessly criticize” my “position,” even though it’s not my position. My position is that it’s about dang time we had an autocephalous Orthodox Church for America which includes all the Orthodox Christians in America. I also believe that the EA is beginning that work. We have a choice either to support and help shape that work in faith and love or to try to kill it in its infancy. I choose the first.

Dear Cynthia,

I know this was not your point, but wanted to underline something that seemed woven into your comments…just to make sure. And at the risk of engaging in “Disincarnate internet pastoring, Self-appointed psychoanalysis, Information-vacuum commentatorship, and/or Trivial, conspiracy theory manufacture” [LOL] I’d just like to point out a couple of things.

Most of us, both cradle Orthodox and converts, have grown up in a Western environment. In that environment, there is a seeming “aversion” to “protestant invididualism” that you noted above. Add to this the fact that the Orthodox Church is only now BEGINNING to emerge from a century of communist occupation, which followed five centuries of Ottoman occupation, with it’s accompanying distortions of Orthodoxy (principally the introduction of many of the monarchical innovations) and you have the makings of some serious misunderstandings about the role of the laity in the Church.

To be honest, this is one of the reasons I might have appeared to be so relentless in my criticism of Fr. Andrew’s position.

At the risk of repeating myself – it is important to recognize the difference in the role of the laity in what I call “The Church of the first 15 centuries” and the attitudes prevalent (particularly in many of the Old World Churches) today. When this is mixed together with the criticisms of the Protestants (innovations, legalistic interpretations, denominationalism etc) there is a serious potential to misunderstand exactly what our role in the Church is, and has been.

Personally, I think it all boils down to literacy. In the East, the level of literacy NEVER fell to the same poor level as occurred in the West following the Fall of Rome. Contrary to what many might beleive, literacy in the East was not a big deal during the first 15 centuries. Literacy was widespread in the cities, and even in many of the villages. This is obvious in that written military orders were issued, to low level officers (in the Strategikon of Maurice) – which would have been pointless had they not been able to read.

As a result of generally higher levels of literacy in the East (for the first 1500 years of the Church), you had a much higher level of lay involvement in the Church at all levels. I always like to consider the rioting in the streets during the Monophysite heresies throughout the Middle East…does that sound like “uninvolved, passive laity” to you? The laity in the East were informed and engaged…from the beginning.

Meanwhile, after the Fall of Rome, the West entered a period of 800 years worth of Dark Ages, when monks in monasteries were many times the only literate people for miles around. This led to a very different attitude of the laity, and TOWARD laity, in the West than in the East. When bishops are the only ones who can read, they are the only ones making the decisions….which is essentially what arose in the West…in turn causing the later rebellions of the various Protestants.

There is a great article written about the traditional role of the laity in the East, ironically authored by the present Ecumenical Patriarch (then Metropolitan) Bartholomew…entitled “THE PARTICIPATION OF THE LAITY IN THE SYNODS OF THE GREEK-BYZANTINE CHURCHES” which very accurately describes the role of the laity in the various synods and ecumenical councils. If you can’t find it online, I’d be happy to email you a copy. In that article, the EP points out that “Church history, dating back to its beginnings, offers several examples of laymen’s participation in Church councils.” He later goes on to describe, as have many others, the participation of laity in even the ECUMENICAL Councils of the Church (the only debate seems to center on whether they actually voted).

There are other examples, the Council of Florence being great one, where the laity rose up, protested and eventually REVERSED the position of the hierarchs in order to preserve the ancient traditions….they preserved the faith.

Unfortunately, as the Church slipped under Turkish occupation, at which point it DID enter a Dark Ages, this critical role of the laity changed. It was during this period that many of the monarchical tendencies of the hierarchy arose. As Fr. Hopko has noted this is also when the traditional role of the Bishop as chief servant changed, along with the introduction of the imperial trappings of power, was transferred over to the hierarchs.

We need to understand where this came from, and how. The bottom line is that when the Ottomans took over the Empire, having executed the emperor, THEY elevated the patriarchs to the position formerly occupied by the emperors – brought the bishops out from behind the iconostasis (where the Russian bishops still sit by the way…the much more ancient tradition), put the bishop’s “throne” on the right side of the nave at the front (the position of the emperor’s throne), and invested the bishops with the imperial regalia (crown, vestments etc).

It was also at this time that the literacy levels in the East DID fall…(we are talking 16th/17th centuries now). English visitors to monasteries during the 1700’s and 1800’s commented on the pitiful education levels of the monks, some of whom they observed “reading” books which were upside down, obviously from memory.

It was at this time, when the Church was invested with secular power from the Ottoman state, that many of the attitudes that we still see in operation today originated.

My point is simply this – we must not fall prey to this simple criticism of activist or “individualist” tendencies, which seem part of the Roman Catholic vs Protestant debate in the West. That debate really has no place in our tradition. We are the heirs to 2000 years of Lay involvement in the East – our tradition is to work WITH the clergy and hierarchs in synergy with them…supportive when we can be, but also in a corrective mode when the need arises – just as they (the clergy and hierarchs) must correct us when we err.

At all times, the informed and engaged Laity is the last bastion, the safekeepers of the faith at times…The Church Fathers recognized this – which was why they considered it SO important that they laity be immersed in the theology (much of which can be gleaned thru the hymns of the church).

BTW – Looked at in this light, it also makes preposterous the “language” issues in the Church, i.e. whether to keep the language of the liturgy in languages that are not understood by the people…this question was decided definitively in the 9th century when Sts Cyril and Methodios were sent to the Slavs.

More importantly, it illustrates the tremendous responsibility which has always fallen on the shoulders of the laity…the royal priesthood. It is our responsibility to be informed. It is our duty to support the clergy and the hierarchs. It is also our duty to correct them when we seem them err. This seeming “rebellious” behavior is NOT something we were introduced to in the West…it’s the ancient Orthodox practice.

Failure to understand this, or a simple acquiescence to the Western model – means that we surrender an enormous source of strength of the Orthodox Church, and places us (back) on a very dangerous path to ignorance and monarchicalism which is simply not the Orthodox tradition.

Furthermore, I’ve always believed that an accurate explanation of this “role of the laity,” which has been the ancient tradition in the East, will be extraordinarily attractive to most Western Christians, Protestant and Catholic alike. After all, it was actually the original practice in the West as well…just forgotten.

Sorry to ramble….I know this was a little incoherent.

Best Regards,
Dean

As an unworthy member of Orthodoxy, a schismatic in heart, and an utter, failure in the royal priesthood of Christ’s Church, I want Metropolitan Jonah+ as the true Icon of Christ and primate for North America for I see that he already is.

For me, no longer can the heresy “there are no saints or elders in the Orthodox Church. That the OCA is not mature enough to lead” be spoken, no longer can we blastpheme the Holy Spirit with such foolish utterances. For the Holy Spirit works in His Church in America.

Glory to God in the highest. And God grant Metropolitan Jonah+ many years.

Chris, I also pick up this nascent quasi-anti-Americanism from some who expect and glory in foreign subjugation. Some of these guys are converts themselves. I don’t get it. Especially now when we are watching before our very eyes the demgraphic collapse of several Balkan countries and the Islamification of Western Europe.

Don’t get me wrong, there is plenty to disdain about American expressions of Christianity, but at least here we have a fighting chance. At the very least, even a president of Muslim background has to pay lip-service to the form of Christianity (that’s why he spent 20 years in the pews of a UCC church, to get street-cred from the African-American community where previously, as the son of two atheists, he had none).

Isa, I could have asked “why not George I then” since he converted to Orthodoxy. However in either case, both men were Christians. The EP then (and now) is a servitor of an Islamic potentate. Seems to me that if you can an underling of a Muslim you could just as easily be an underling of a heterodox Christian.

As a cradle Orthodox Christian with a background from Southeastern Europe, I wonder: Do some of my other “cradle brothers and sisters” expect my American brothers and sisters to express gratitude for us “letting them in the Orthodox Church” and then expect them to jump through hoops and be more Balkan or Eastern (and less American) so that the “true Orthodox” can feel comfortable with them running their own national church? Just a question…

Fr., to be blunt, you ought to heed your own words. In your posts here you have shown no understanding,love or long suffering and, in fact, prove the point of those whom you call cynics and without God.

God bless you, but I will pray earnestly for any parish you serve–they will need even my unworthy prayers.