![\"Fr.](\"https:\/\/www.aoiusa.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/01\/fr-steven-kostoff.png\" "\\"Fr.")
<\/a>Fr. Steven Kostoff<\/p><\/div>
\nHis Eminence, Archbishop Job of Chicago and the Midwest fell asleep in the Lord on Friday, December 18.\u00a0 His funeral services were held in Chicago on December 22 & 23, and he was buried in Black Lick, PA on Saturday, December 26.\u00a0 Thus, we have lost an able\u00a0archpastor who served us well in the Diocese of the Midwest. This was during a time of great distress throughout the entire\u00a0Orthodox Church in America, when we were forced to come to terms with a “Church\u00a0scandal” that exceeded the boundaries of the merely “financial.”\u00a0\u00a0I have no intention of rehearsing the facts\u00a0of that story beyond what would be essential here, as I offer a\u00a0personal assessment as to how I\u00a0now\u00a0understand the role\u00a0of Archbishop Job in serving the Church\u00a0throughout this “time of troubles.”\u00a0 I believe that his role was\u00a0essential, decisive, and yet painful for him personally.\u00a0 I also believe that His Eminence grew in stature throughout this ordeal by his principled position, and in so doing he manifested a human capacity for “self-transcendence.”\u00a0 Perhaps I am using this term somewhat modestly in this context, but I am referring to his ability to stay on course despite his own limitations, flaws and weaknesses,\u00a0when the pressure on him was enormous to fall back into the dreary conformity of personal and institutional self-defensiveness.\u00a0 Yet, even with that modest\u00a0understanding of the term,\u00a0I am certain that Archbishop Job’s clear demonstration of self-transcendence was part of the process of theosis that we hold to so dearly in our Orthodox theology.
\n\u00a0
\nI need to acknowledge that I was not personally close to His Eminence. My observations are thus made from something of\u00a0a distance.\u00a0 However, we spoke more often and much\u00a0more candidly\u00a0as the years passed, and I believe that we had a mutually respectful relationship.\u00a0 His pastoral visits to our parish were always very positive experiences for our community, and many of our parishioners\u00a0also deeply respected him for his\u00a0witness to the truth. \u00a0A good deal of this was made possible by the creation of the Columbus Deanery during my ministry in Cincinnati\u00a0and our open meetings during the time of the Church scandal.\u00a0 His Eminence always shared openly with his clergy concerning the unfolding – or\u00a0covering up –\u00a0of events in Syosset\u00a0and his reactions to them, yet always drawing a line between that sharing and idle gossip.\u00a0 He trusted his presbyters and we, in turn, respected him and supported him in the realization that His Eminence was acting as a good bishop should.\u00a0 It was encouraging to experience the build-up of that support and respect by witnessing Archbishop Job “do the right thing” time and again by witnessing to the truth and not being intimidated into meaningless silence.\u00a0 This was a time when the normal was positively heroic!\u00a0 This was his podvig (a Russian term meaning a “great feat” or “spiritual deed”).\u00a0
\n\u00a0
\nI believe that four of the most important words that His Eminence ever uttered – or put to paper – during his entire episcopal ministry\u00a0were:\u00a0 “Are the allegations true?”\u00a0 These words were formulated in response to the “revelation” of financial malfeasance within the OCA in late 2005\u00a0and the stiff opposition that was forming against an open and unbiased investigation\u00a0into this unsavory revelation. \u00a0How utterly liberating that simple question, based on those four words, proved to be!\u00a0\u00a0These words were the breath of fresh air that\u00a0blew through the odor of corruption that was\u00a0immovably and\u00a0noxiously\u00a0hovering over\u00a0an\u00a0already beleaguered central administration. \u00a0How meaningful\u00a0that word “truth” was when it was in danger of being eclipsed, forgotten, and buried amidst an avalanche of legal jargon, pseudo-pious rhetoric about “serving the Church”\u00a0by a cynical manipulation of the virtue of obedience, obfuscation, and deliberate falsification.\u00a0 A desire to uncover and know the truth served as a rallying cry for all members of the Church who were convinced that there\u00a0was no other legitimate way “forward.”\u00a0 One modest archbishop’s witness to the truth\u00a0most certainly inspired and awakened many men and women from a sense of frustration, discouragement and complacency, to an emboldened sense of commitment and a fierce insistence that we could, actually, “handle the truth” as mature and responsible Orthodox Christians – as sordid as it may be.\u00a0\u00a0If there was a march on Syosset by faithful members of the Church who were demanding accountability, I\u00a0am certain\u00a0that amidst the icons and banners held aloft, there would have been a large banner in\u00a0bright letters that read:\u00a0 “ARE THE ALLEGATIONS TRUE?” \u00a0Would it be too bold to say that those four\u00a0words may have redeemed\u00a0many past mistakes, or\u00a0even sins, of\u00a0Archbishop\u00a0Job’s past ministry?\u00a0\u00a0 May it be so!
\n\u00a0
\nThe slow unraveling of the crude attempts at stonewalling and cover-up emanating from Syosset\u00a0was made possible by the role of His Eminence Archbishop Job during the key years of 2005 – 2008.\u00a0 It is difficult to believe that this could have happened without at least one bishop on the Holy Synod behind the movement toward uncovering the truth of our scandal in the name of “transparency and accountability”\u00a0– although that mantra-like phrase should not further “cover up” Archbishop Job’s attempt to act in the Name of Christ and the Holy Gospel.\u00a0 The Church is hierarchical, so it was essential that at least one hierarch from within the Holy Synod of Bishops would assert conscience over convenience regardless of personal cost. This singular position was clearly Archbishop Job\u2019s cross.\u00a0\u00a0As admirable as\u00a0Mark Stokoe\u00a0and his\u00a0ocanews.org<\/a> website were in relentlessly covering the scandal with journalistic professionalism united to a real concern for the OCA’s well-being; I am sure that\u00a0Mark would acknowledge that he needed the episcopal protection that\u00a0Archbishop Job\u00a0gave to him within the Diocese of the Midwest to continue in working toward that goal.\u00a0\u00a0In other dioceses – the majority?\u00a0 all of them? –\u00a0the attempt to\u00a0“shut down\u201d ocanews.org by threat of ecclesial sanction would have been\u00a0very difficult\u00a0to resist.\u00a0 Surely, great pressure was put on\u00a0His Eminence to do precisely that in the Diocese of the Midwest.\u00a0 \u00a0But, as\u00a0he famously said:\u00a0 “We are free men in the Midwest.”\u00a0\u00a0 Again, His Eminence trusted the integrity and intentions of the faithful of his diocese.
\n\u00a0
\nIn my estimation, or at least from what I have heard, there were three basic responses to Archbishop Job’s freely-chosen position that left him very vulnerable and isolated on the Holy Synod:\u00a0 1)\u00a0Some brother bishops were silent supporters; 2) others offered a kind of passive-aggressive resistance; and 3)\u00a0there was open hostility against him.\u00a0 This open hostility led to what His Eminence called the “worst day of my life,” when the now-removed Bishop Nikolai of Alaska made an attempt to remove Archbishop Job from the Synod of Bishops and have him deposed on canonical charges that betrayed their artificiality. To the credit to the rest of the Holy Synod, this ill-conceived attempt at removing – and thus silencing – His Eminence failed to gather any real support.\u00a0 Yet, from what I understand of this incident, any support offered to Archbishop Job was more “behind the scenes” than openly and boldly\u00a0vocalized.
\n\u00a0
\nUnfortunately, this same\u00a0evasion\u00a0of acknowledging the integrity of Archbishop Job’s principled position\u00a0of resisting a cover-up only continued\u00a0at his funeral service.\u00a0 Both the Vigil on Tuesday evening and the Liturgy on Wednesday morning were served with due solemnity and with a dignified liturgical grace that was moving for all who were present.\u00a0 I am very glad to have been present at such a memorable event.\u00a0 And it\u00a0was an\u00a0honor to\u00a0join in the singing of “Memory Eternal” for our departed hierarch.\u00a0 What I am referring to, however,\u00a0are the eulogies\/homilies delivered on both Tuesday evening and Wednesday morning.\u00a0 I must state here that I was not able to remain for the closing eulogy on Tuesday evening,\u00a0and therefore did not here it with my own ears.\u00a0 But from a reliable source, I was told that there was no real\u00a0mention of Archbishop Job’s “witness” and role in serving the Church by struggling to uncover the truth of the allegations. And then I was personally surprised, and not a little disappointed, at what was not stated again on Wednesday morning by our chief hierarch at\u00a0the Liturgy.\u00a0 We heard the Christian hope of deliverance from death through our Lord\u2019s resurrection. And, when referred to, His Eminence\u00a0was treated with respect and compassion, and held up as a model of a good pastor who took up his cross to follow Christ.\u00a0 But all this was delivered without the necessary specificity of applying it to Archbishop Job’s courageous witness in the face of determined opposition.\u00a0\u00a0Thus, one of the OCA’s greatest hours of honesty and integrity\u00a0was left unrecognized, as was the application of episcopal integrity to a specific pastoral situation. This was a serious omission.\u00a0 The “crown” of Archbishop Job’s episcopal ministry, and for which we pray he receives his “crown” by the mercy of our philanthropic Lord, was essentially left unmentioned.\u00a0 In no way was that “meet and right.”\u00a0 It was “unfair” to the memory and\u00a0legacy\u00a0of His Eminence.\u00a0\u00a0Though it\u00a0did not need to be dramatized or delivered with rhetoric, that legacy demanded some tribute by specific mention.\u00a0 It needed to be acknowledged, and I believe that it was something of a “scandal” that it wasn’t.\u00a0 I wonder if there\u00a0remains any lingering resentment or envy over the courage of his response.<\/p>\n