I’m Antiochian and I have a lot of friends in the OCA. I’d love to see the merger. Certainly if the merger is in God’s time all that matters is that we listen and discern.

The very opposite is true, I believe. We actually have two hierarchs who like and admire one another. This is a new and promising situation.

Of course a release from the Holy Synod of Antioch would be necessary, but in my estimation, if this was the will of the majority of the people in the OCA and AOAA and the bishops, then it shouldn’t be too hard.

By my count, that’d be 21 bishops in North America and we could start having smaller, more geographically compact dioceses.

The good thing about that is that each parish could have more episcopal visits and the clergy in a city could meet more often as brothers, and of course, the congregations could meet more often as well.

Some would object and say that that already happens. But let’s be honest it’s ad hoc and nothing really comes of it.

It could be that simple. However, if Met. Phillip agreed to second, we’d still have to get agreement within the Antiochian Archdiocese AND get a release from the Holy Synod of Antioch. All of that can happen, but not anytime soon in my estimation. However, cooperation and communication will increase which is a positive.

I tend to agree with you. Personally, I think that a merger can be worked out with all nine of the Antiochian bishops and the 12 OCA ones, dividing up their respective dioceses geographically. As for Metropolitan Philip, he showed us the way when the two Syrian jurisdictions were united. The elderly bishop (Anthony Bashir) took the title “metropolitan emeritus” as an honorary title and out of humility and love allowed the younger man (Philip Saliba) to be the real head guy.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that for the good of Orthodoxy in America, perhaps the older man could do what his predecessor did those forty years ago, in love and humility.

As for the other jurisdictions, I’m afraid there’s little desire for unification. Even if Patriarch Bartholomew allowed the GOAA to be autonomous, their pride would prevent them from taking part in any unification.

Basically, it’s just going to happen this way (if at all): the OCA and AOA will merge first, or the OCA and ROCOR will, and then the Serbs, the Bulgars, etc. Barring an outbreak of the Holy Spirit, it’s going to be piecemeal.

geo

p.s. I’ve met Bishop Basil many times and he was my choice to be elected metropolitan of All-America and Canada. I even suggested to my OCA priest that he should vote for him.

Pat. Bartholomew is even less likely to release the Greeks in the country, even recommending a little independence cost +Iakavos his position–an unnecssary and cruel ending to his leadership in the Church.

The Slavic jurisdictions, in general, are more desirous of recreating strong ties with their ‘mother’ churches since the outward fall of communisim.

All that being said, I tend to disagree with you a little as far as the bishops are concerned, probably because I have a very good one, +Basil.

We generally get the type of leadership we want. When Jesus Christ becomes more important to us than the outward show or hypocritical triumphalism, the fake bishops won’t be able to stay around and the rest will be called to account. We cannot expect the bishops to do for us what we refuse to do for ourselves. When enough people want Jesus Christ, He will come to us through the bishops or they will have to get out of the way.

Any Orthodox believer who puts any serious hope, let alone a messianic hope in any political leader of any party is deluded. The best we can hope for is that the politicians don’t mess it up too badly and leave us alone.

When any politician or political party engage in corruption or have public policy proposals that are immoral, we have an obligation to speak out. When a political party and their representatives routinely make it their policy to overturn moral standards which the Church holds to, no thinking believer has any business supporting those politicians, no matter what else they promise to do.

I understand the problem, the Republicans support policies that can certainly be problematic as well, but none that I know of that actively seek to deny and overturn the moral wisdom of the Church.

We have a moral and spiritual obligation not to kowtow to politicians for political, social and monetary gain.

Echoing John Couretas’ response, my guy (and gal) came in second. Nevertheless, as an American, I am proud of Sen Obama’s historic accomplishment. Never in the history of the world has a white-majority nation ever elected a black man as president. On these merits alone, the President-elect and the nation deserve congratulations. Indeed, the world is in awe of what transpired last November 4th. President-elect Obama deserves our support and prayer.

That said, there are many reasons why I am saddened that the first black man to be elected president is a man of clear Marxist leanings. Indeed one who has associated himself with questionable men such as Frank Marshall, Bill Ayers, Saul Alinsky, and Jeremiah Wright, among others. My concern for the unborn and the creeping totalitarian educational agenda detracts significantly from my pleasure as well. There are many other reasons why as a citizen in a constitutional republic –one dedicated to minority rights—we should fear.

However it is as an Orthodox Christian that I am most disappointed. And it is Bishop Savas’ fawning tributes that saddens me the most. By all accounts, Bishop Savas is an avuncular fellow and a capable administrator. Quite possibly he holds the hardest job in any jurisdiction, that of chancellor. People who have met him have told me that he is an ordinary guy who doesn’t take himself too seriously. (You’ve got to like somebody whose blog is titled “Sava on a Rolla.”) If I ever had the pleasure to meet him, I’m sure I’d like him.

Let us however get to the crux of the matter. There are essentially two particulars wherein I must respectfully disagree with Bishop Savas. The first is his contention that Christian conservatives, Republicans, and traditionalists are somehow “social Darwinists.” Just because somebody works hard for a living, secures a stable home for his family, and tries to navigate this vale of sorrow as best he can, does not make him greedy or a devotee of the Ayn Rand Objectivist school. As has recently been proven by many sociologists, conservatives give overwhelmingly more to charity than liberals. There are many reasons for this but I’ll only give one for now: serious Christians tend to be conservative theologically and this seeps into the political sphere as well. In other words, they practice what they preach, when they go to church and hear the pastor preach about sacrificial giving, they go home and give sacrificially.

Yes, there are poltroons in the conservative movement and Republican Party as well. And yes, many of them take advantage of our hopes and fears. But most conservatives who are pro-life feel that in this fallen world, we have to fight with the army we’ve got. I could go on, but Mr Couretas has successfully exposed the egregious fallacy of the supposed callousness and heartlessness of President Bush and his policies in his response to Bishop Savas. Let me just for the record say, there is no way that the incumbent president, nor the Republican Congress could ever be accused of stinginess when it came to the public purse. Under the present administration, we saw the single largest expansion of social spending since the Great Society of LBJ.

Second, I cannot for the life of me understand how anybody who is theologically trained at an accredited seminary can forget the differences between State and Church. I will not repeat His Grace’s assertions because to do so would invite further embarrassment and some would accuse me of “piling on.” Let us be blunt: a New Day will not dawn ushering away the present Bushian darkness, flowers will not bloom in what was the desert of intolerant Amerika, and the lion shall lay down with the lamb. Utopians may believe such nonsense but clergymen who are trained in patristic fashion know that this fallen world is unredeemable by its own agencies. Orthodox Christians who are fortunate enough to worship in churches where the Antiphons are still chanted hear at every liturgy the following refrain: “Put not your trust in princes or the sons of men, in whom there is no salvation.”

At the risk of belaboring the point, it disturbs me to hear any clergyman giving a full-throttled huzzah to an ever-growing government. One does not need to be a flinty Goldwaterite to fear the encroachment of the Leviathan state. And why has the state grown? One reason that the honest Christian must give is because the Church has ceded so much of its duties to the State. We are very close to the point where sacerdotium and imperium no longer matters. When this happens, what will be the purpose of bishops and priests? The ceremonial? If the Church continues ceding its work to Caesar, then what will Christ return to find? A bunch of fabulously vested hierophants doing complicated rituals? At that point, we will be like the Pharisees in Matthew 26, whom our Lord castigated as “whited sepulchers.”

It used to be a given among rational people that Church and State were two different entities, both endowed by God with specific and not-overlapping attributes. As Paul said, “the king does not hold the sword in vain.” Caesar’s purpose was to execute justice and restrain evil; the Church’s function was to promote mercy. The Church did these things with its hospitals, orphanages, soup kitchens, and schools. Even when the Church was persecuted and worshipped in the catacombs, Christians were known for their manifold acts of mercy. These wonderful institutions are in fact the true leitourgia, the “work of the people,” or as Thomas Hopko said “the liturgy after the liturgy.” By this I suppose he means that if we do not do the work of the Church Recently, Bishop Savas of Troas, Chancellor of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, wrote an encomium regarding the recent election, entitled, “This is the Day that the Lord has made.” The effusion of praise for the new President-elect is palpable, and as an American citizen, His Grace is certainly entitled to his opinion.

Echoing John Couretas’ response, my guy (and gal) came in second. Nevertheless, as an American, I am proud of Sen Obama’s historic accomplishment. Never in the history of the world has a white-majority nation ever elected a black man as president. On these merits alone, the President-elect and the nation deserve congratulations. Indeed, the world is in awe of what transpired last November 4th. President-elect Obama deserves our support and prayer.

That said, there are many reasons why I am saddened that the first black man to be elected president is a man of clear Marxist leanings. Indeed one who has associated himself with questionable men such as Frank Marshall, Bill Ayers, Saul Alinsky, and Jeremiah Wright, among others. My concern for the unborn and the creeping totalitarian educational agenda detracts significantly from my pleasure as well. There are many other reasons why as a citizen in a constitutional republic –one dedicated to minority rights—we should fear.

However it is as an Orthodox Christian that I am most disappointed. And it is Bishop Savas’ fawning tributes that saddens me the most. By all accounts, Bishop Savas is an avuncular fellow and a capable administrator. Quite possibly he holds the hardest job in any jurisdiction, that of chancellor. People who have met him have told me that he is an ordinary guy who doesn’t take himself too seriously. (You’ve got to like somebody whose blog is titled “Sava on a Rolla.”) If I ever had the pleasure to meet him, I’m sure I’d like him.

Let us however get to the crux of the matter. There are essentially two particulars wherein I must respectfully disagree with Bishop Savas. The first is his contention that Christian conservatives, Republicans, and traditionalists are somehow “social Darwinists.” Just because somebody works hard for a living, secures a stable home for his family, and tries to navigate this vale of sorrow as best he can, does not make him greedy or a devotee of the Ayn Rand Objectivist school. As has recently been proven by many sociologists, conservatives give overwhelmingly more to charity than liberals. There are many reasons for this but I’ll only give one for now: serious Christians tend to be conservative theologically and this seeps into the political sphere as well. In other words, they practice what they preach, when they go to church and hear the pastor preach about sacrificial giving, they go home and give sacrificially.

Yes, there are poltroons in the conservative movement and Republican Party as well. And yes, many of them take advantage of our hopes and fears. But most conservatives who are pro-life feel that in this fallen world, we have to fight with the army we’ve got. I could go on, but Mr Couretas has successfully exposed the egregious fallacy of the supposed callousness and heartlessness of President Bush and his policies in his response to Bishop Savas. Let me just for the record say, there is no way that the incumbent president, nor the Republican Congress could ever be accused of stinginess when it came to the public purse. Under the present administration, we saw the single largest expansion of social spending since the Great Society of LBJ.

Second, I cannot for the life of me understand how anybody who is theologically trained at an accredited seminary can forget the differences between State and Church. I will not repeat His Grace’s assertions because to do so would invite further embarrassment and some would accuse me of “piling on.” Let us be blunt: a New Day will not dawn ushering away the present Bushian darkness, flowers will not bloom in what was the desert of intolerant Amerika, and the lion shall lay down with the lamb. Utopians may believe such nonsense but clergymen who are trained in patristic fashion know that this fallen world is unredeemable by its own agencies. Orthodox Christians who are fortunate enough to worship in churches where the Antiphons are still chanted hear at every liturgy the following refrain: “Put not your trust in princes or the sons of men, in whom there is no salvation.”

At the risk of belaboring the point, it disturbs me to hear any clergyman giving a full-throttled huzzah to an ever-growing government. One does not need to be a flinty Goldwaterite to fear the encroachment of the Leviathan state. And why has the state grown? One reason that the honest Christian must give is because the Church has ceded so much of its duties to the State. We are very close to the point where sacerdotium and imperium no longer matters. When this happens, what will be the purpose of bishops and priests? The ceremonial? If the Church continues ceding its work to Caesar, then what will Christ return to find? A bunch of fabulously vested hierophants doing complicated rituals? At that point, we will be like the Pharisees in Matthew 26, whom our Lord castigated as “whited sepulchers.”

It used to be a given among rational people that Church and State were two different entities, both endowed by God with specific and not-overlapping attributes. As Paul said, “the king does not hold the sword in vain.” Caesar’s purpose was to execute justice and restrain evil; the Church’s function was to promote mercy. The Church did these things with its hospitals, orphanages, soup kitchens, and schools. Even when the Church was persecuted and worshipped in the catacombs, Christians were known for their manifold acts of mercy. These wonderful institutions are in fact the true leitourgia, the “work of the people,” or as Thomas Hopko said “the liturgy after the liturgy.” By this I suppose he means that if we do not do the work of the Church outside its four walls, then the work of the Church inside its walls is meaningless.

Let us congratulate our new president. Let us work with him where we can and lovingly criticize him where he is wrong. But let us not adulate him or expect him to set the world aright. He cannot do it and if he tries, he will fail and our country will suffer for it. As for we who call ourselves, Christians, let us reclaim that which is ours and only ours by right: to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and visit those who are in prison. That is not the work of Caesar, but of Christ. Let us never forget that.

omogenia before Orthodox Christianity