Our salvation is built on one fact – that Christ did not consider equality with God something to be used for His own advantage but emptied Himself for our sakes. St. Paul shows that we are called to do the same: after encountering Christ, he did not count his considerable advantages to be gain, but instead a loss – in fact, “dung” by comparison to the surpassing value of knowing Christ. (Phil. 3 is a parallel to and application of Phil. 2.) He even claims that “all who are mature should think this way.” Whether our leadership does or doesn’t “get it,” our own life and the lives of those around us and after us will be blessed – or not – by our striving to gain Christ, the pearl that costs everything to acquire – especially our “advantages.”

So often, however, the jurisdictional tub-thumping gets to be wearisome. St. Paul’s point is non-negotiable: Christ transcends our genetic or cultural legacy. While I recognize that good order requires some very practical and essentially political decision, it is always critical to keep our eyes fixed on Christ in the process. The moment we divert our gaze, we begin to sink. All the saints and all the treasures of the Church belong to us through Christ; they are gifts given for our blessing and His glory. (What is amazing is that the same is true of us.) Yet they belong to us – not in the manner that the prophets did to the Pharisees – but in order to lead us to follow them, becoming like them living temples of the Spirit. I am convinced from my own experience that only contact with living saints – with Christ “incarnate” in his people – is powerful enough to be able to effectively turn what is fallen within us and those around us toward God. There is no unity apart from Him. Our own efforts avail nothing. Perhaps we need to focus more on the transfiguration of our hearts and relationships in order to build the foundation that will make true unity possible – namely, participating in the life and communion of the Trinity.

BTW, the pointing out of “Greek(s)” is about providing some answers to Andrew’s query (comment #1 on this post) rather than mere Greek chest beating as I am 100% xeno.

They have ties to worthy hierarchs, clergy, monastics and teachers in the “Old World” like the signatories to the Confession of Faith Against Ecumenism:

http://www.impantokratoros.gr/FA9AF77F.en.aspx

But, this is free country (for a while yet anyway) and anybody who wishes to believe that Chambesy-like proposals will work or are legitimate in and of themselves, is perfectly free to do so.

This Conference, to which all of the most holy Orthodox Autocephalous Churches were invited and were represented, studied the issue of the canonical organization of the Orthodox Diaspora. Pursuant to article 16 of the Rules of Pre-Conciliar Pan-Orthodox Conferences, this Conference discussed the relevant documents submitted in 1990 and 1993 by the Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commission, amending and approving them as follows:

1. a) It is affirmed that is the common will of all of the most holy Orthodox Churches that the problem of the Orthodox Diaspora be resolved as quickly as possible, and that it be organized in accordance with Orthodox ecclesiology, and the canonical tradition and practice of the Orthodox Church.

b) Likewise, it is affirmed that during the present phase it is not possible, for historical and pastoral reasons, for an immediate transition to the strictly canonical order of the Church on this issue, that is, the existence of only one bishop in the same place. For this reason, the Conference came to the decision to propose the creation of a temporary situation that will prepare the ground for a strictly canonical solution of the problem, based on the principles and guidelines set out below. Of necessity, this preparation will not extend beyond the convening of the future Great and Holy Council of the Orthodox Church, so that it (the Council) can proceed with a canonical solution of the problem.

2. a) This Conference proposes that, for the transitional period where the canonical solution of the issue will be prepared, “Episcopal Assemblies” of all canonically recognized bishops in each region should be created (or founded) in each of the regions defined below. The bishops will continue to be subject to the same canonical jurisdictions to which they are subject today.

b) These Assemblies will consist of all the bishops in each region who are in canonical communion with all of the most holy Orthodox Churches, and will be chaired by the first among the prelates of the Church of Constantinople and, in the absence of thereof, in accordance with the order of the Diptychs. These Assemblies will have an Executive Committee composed of the first hierarchs of the different jurisdictions that exist in the region.

c) The work and the responsibility of these Episcopal Assemblies will be the concern for manifesting the unity of Orthodoxy, the development of common action of all the Orthodox of each region to address the pastoral needs of Orthodox living in the region, a common representation of all Orthodox vis-à-vis other faiths and the wider society in the region, the cultivation of theological scholarship and ecclesiastical education, etc. Decisions on these subjects will be taken by consensus of the Churches who are represented in the particular Assembly.

Let’s all get together on things that we can agree upon and stay away from each other for all of the rest.

Chambesy points the way for us in America.

They already are getting together (cf. SCOBA) and are likely to get SCOBA-ier as a result of Chambesy. They will continue to meet together and make mutually agreed decisions together, whilst remaining independent of each other. It’s a perfectly fine and democratic way of doing business. It’s the American Way!

Of course, this status quo does not suit the fancies of the fantasists in a certain American Orthodox jurisdiction that seeks primacy over all other Orthodox bodies in this country, but so what? They have to get with the program and just get over themselves.

Either choice we make, to maintain the status quo or go forward to some type of autocephally, has great risk. The question really comes down to which way is the Holy Spirit leading? Traditionally, for the Church to know for sure requires a council of some sort.

What is wrong with the bishops who are already serving this land getting together?

Certain influential OCA leaders in the hierarchy, clergy and laity are very protestant-like (check out AOI and OCANEWS!) and seek to steer the OCA in that direction. I was OCA for almost 10 years so I know whereof I speak.

George doth protest too much against the words “most protestant” that he likes to put in other people’s mouths.

Fr. Peter Alban Heers, an American Orthodox convert said these words in the podcast that Fr. Johannes posted on this blog, not me. I just happen to agree with these words. BTW, I’m not Greek.

I agree with John, but I will go further: anybody who believes that the OCA (for all its faults) is the most “protestant” of the Orthodox jurisdictions is viewing things from a very –how shall I say it?–“interesting” perspective. I could say, “biased,” “prejudicial,” “nonsensical,” etc, but certainly not “realistic.”

You simply accuse your opponents of doing precisely what you are doing.

I don’t know if you are a phyletist, but I suspect you are simply Greek trying to defend Greek-ism which you perceive to be under attack.

I can assure you that the Greeks who inculturate into America have no problem with a non-Greek Orthodox Church. I don’t think our hierarchs and archons can say the same.

Think for a moment: Which flag is more prominently displayed at GOA Clergy Laity? Which National Anthem is sung first? Which Independence Day is celebrated “officially” by hierarchs?

Is it the country they reside in and are citizens of?
In the GOA: No.

That is phyletism.

There is no American race. There are only Americans.

I’m guessing that you are upset because you feel “Greeks” aren’t getting their due and credit. However, pointing out on each post’s comments who is “Greek” is simply ridiculous and childish.

The reason AOI has been successful is it gives credit where credit is due, but also lays blame where blame is due. That’s why we read it.

“If we assert our identity as a Greek or an American to the detriment of our identity as an Orthodox Christian, we are in the delusion of phyletism. We are in delusion. We are not in the spirit of God.”

Thank you, Fr. Peter!

Here’s a perspective on the phyletism American-style that has creeped into the OCA. Fr. Andrew Philips observes the trend of many in the OCA to “modernize, that is protestantize” their jurisdiction in order to make themselves “truly American” and distinct from the Old World:

“This de facto American phyletism and Protestant ‘missionaryism’ created even more hostility among many ordinary faithful. Genuine missionary work goes with quality, not quantity. In other words, it must remain faithful to the Orthodox Tradition, refusing to make compromises in order to bring in numbers. Missionary work should be fitting, and not some sort of vulgar Protestant proselytism. The only sort of missionary work that is fitting is that which will maintain the converted in the Church, so that, in the words of the Gospel, they will be ‘patient to the end’ and so ‘save their souls’. Becoming Orthodox is not necessarily significant – remaining Orthodox is.”