+JONAH ELECTED METROPOLITAN

AMEN!

Deacon Eric Wheeler's full rehabilitation by the new Metropolitan would be an excellent sign that times have changed.

KRT

As Nancy Reagan once famously asked, "a kinder and gentler version of what?" Sorry to rain on most everyone's parade, but after carefully listening to the full version of then Bishop Jonah's remarks, at the behest of the Synod (good choice btw), I must agree with Mark's initial reaction contained in his report. Not that now Metropolitan Jonah's remarks were not impressive, and in many , if not most, respects true. But to believe that Kondratick, +Herman, and +Theodosius, presumably the referenced drunk, failed in or perverted their leadership roles, misled the Synod, and everyone else is therefore off the hook is, to be kind, disingenuous. So end of discussion, move on or risk your salvation.

Well not so fast. The three mentioned individuals above are hardly the sole cause of the scandal. Nor has their warped ecclesiology been exorcised from the OCA as Metropolitan Jonah would like to believe. While I certainly hope that his Beatitude will bring a more conciliar and open leadership style to Syosset, I wonder if his monk's vision of the world will really succeed in bringing modern men and women to Christ? Time will tell.

I sincerely wish the new Metropolitan all the best. He probably is the most appropriate choice under the current circumstances (as a converted Episcopalian as well, I too take some pride in his selection), and one that I had not previously considered. For the most part, he talks the right talk--let's see if he walks it.

KRT

Dear Mark,

Once again, I remind you and Fr. Fester that only time will tell if this was the right choice and inspired by the Holy Spirit. I certainly hope it was, and your testimonials are most reassuring.

On another website, some questions have been raised concerning Metropolitan Jonah's tenure in the California monastery. As distasteful as it may be, these questions need to be answered.

The price one pays for selecting an unexpected and partially vetted candidate is that these sorts of questions will come to light. Forthright answers are the best and only antidote.

KRT

(Editor's note: And I believe you will get them. Ken, I have not fallen for "irrational exuberance", to quote our late Fed Chairman, nor would I encourage others to do so. There wll be things with which all of us will disagree over the next decades - reasonable people can reasonably disagree - but I am confident that the discussions will take place on a foundation of integrity . And that is not small thing. The forces of evil have been scattered this week; scattered, not removed, nor rendered powerless. It's time to thank God, raise a cup - or muffin - or whatever floats your boat - in good cheer, and then go back to the battlements to maintain a vigiliant watch, for our adversary, the devil, like a lion is still about, seeking whom he may devour.....)

If Metropolitan Jonah can indeed walk this talk, we will all be truly God-blessed and his will be a historic ministry!

KRT



Episcopacy, Primacy, and the Mother Churches:

A Monastic Perspective



A Paper delivered at the Conference of the Fellowship of St Alban and
St Sergius,

St Vladimir's Seminary, June 4–8, 2008

Abbot Jonah

A prominent orthodox theologian has remarked that he thinks bishops
have become useless. And he is only echoing a widespread and long-
standing sentiment in our tradition. This is clear evidence of a
crisis of episcopal leadership and primacy in the Church, a crisis
that cuts to the heart of the apostolic and catholic identity of the
Church.

While most of the problems Iwill address in this paper are specific
to the extraordinary situation of Orthodoxy in America, they have
broader application because they reveal the crisis of primacy on the
ecumenical level. (And Iuse "ecumenical" to refer to the oikumene –
the whole Orthodox Catholic Church). They also reveal the challenge
to the Church's organization and ecclesiology posed by the new
political and cultural realities of the third millennium.

I. Vision and Mission

The nature of Church leadership stems directly from the nature of the
Church's vision. The only true vision of the Orthodox Catholic Church
is the Kingdom of God revealed in Jesus Christ, in other words, the
Gospel. And all levels of Church leadership have the task of
constantly renewing this vision. The Liturgy is the core of this
constant renewal. It provides for us the icon of the Kingdom and of
spiritual ascent into Christ, raising us up into the Body of Christ
and fulfilling us as the community of the Faithful.

Leadership in the Church has a single task: constantly to call us to
this repentance in order that we may be purified of all distractions
which hold us back from the living vision of the Kingdom and from
fulfilling the mission to make disciples who will share the same
vision. It is a call to faith: to enter into the living Body of
Christ which is animated by the Holy Spirit, and to receive the "mind
of Christ," the shared faith of all the saints from the very
beginning. This call to repentance, to membership in the Church, and
hence to a share in the vision and mission of the Kingdom of God, is
unequivocally addressed to all people, without any qualification by
any human distinction: race, ethnicity, citizenship, or language.
There is "One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism," (Ephesians 4 : 5) and
hence, One Church. There cannot be different churches for different
kinds of people.

With that shared vision and mission comes shared responsibility. Our
task within the Church is also to call one another, including our
leaders, to repentance. This mutual responsibility for the integrity
of the Tradition and for one another is the core of conciliarity –
sobornost: mutual accountability of the leaders to the faithful and
of the faithful to the leaders. But it is the particular role of the
bishops to foster this conciliarity. Conciliarity is a healthy
interdependence and synergy, in which mutual responsibility and
accountability function in a spirit of love and respect. This holds
on all levels of ecclesial organization.

II. Leadership: Responsibility, Authority, and Accountability

"Remember those who rule over you, who have spoken the word of God to
you, whose faith follow, considering the outcome of their conduct.
Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out
for your souls, as those who must give account." — Hebrews 13 : 7, 17

At the heart of leadership within the church is the care of souls,
making the leader accountable for the lives and faith of those with
whom he has been entrusted. The greater the role of leadership, the
greater the accountability for the model one provides by one's own
life, for the integrity of one's own faith and conduct, and for one's
oversight of others. This responsibility is essential to authority.
Authority has two meanings, both referring to the source of the
vision and mission of the Church. It consists in the constant renewal
of the vision itself, its "authorship;" and the "one who authorizes"
or gives responsibility to others to fulfill the mission, holding
them accountable for it.

How do the elements of responsibility, authority, and accountability
manifest themselves in an Orthodox theology of leadership?

The Local Church

Let us consider some basic ecclesiological principles of the Orthodox
Catholic Church. There are two facets of leadership in Orthodox
ecclesiology: mysteriological and organizational.

Mysteriological or sacramental leadership is vested in the bishop,
giving him the responsibility to authorize and empower others,
through his blessing or ordination, to participate in that ministry
for the building up of the Church.

The bishop sacramentally recapitulates his community in himself by
virtue of his ordination. He bears all the fullness of the grace of
the priesthood. Thus, the bishop is the "hierarch," "source of
sanctification" as well as "archiereus," high priest (citing the pun
of St Dionysios the Pseudo-Areopagite).

The focus of the life of the Church is local: a bishop surrounded by
his clergy and people, celebrating the Eucharist, is the icon of the
Kingdom in all its fullness. It is the actualization of the Church as
the Body of Christ. The local church headed by its bishop is itself
the fullness of the Church; but the communion of these churches with
each other through synods of bishops conveys the catholic identity to
each level of organization. These synods, national and ecumenical,
also constitute Eucharistic communities. Each is a communion of
persons with a single presidency, which manifests the unity of the
body of Christ.

The primates of the national churches are not "super-bishops." There
is no sacramental status above the ministry of bishop, so that,
according to the Church's sacramental life, all bishops are equal.
Thus it is a misnomer to refer to a national church or regional synod
as a "local church."

Each level of institutional organization expresses the Church and its
catholicity in a particular place. The essential principle of
organization, and hence jurisdiction, is that it is geographically
and politically defined. This principle is expressed by one bishop in
each city, and one Synod in each region, with the president of that
synod as the primate. This held true for the Roman Papacy as well as
all other local and regional churches.

Catholicity

The catholicity of the Church has two dimensions: the integrity of
its orthodoxy and the universality of its mission. The local Church
is the fundamental principle of Orthodox ecclesiology because it
bears the fullness of sacramental life, the fullness of Apostolic
faith and practice. Though there may be multiple ministries for
diverse needs within the population – language, culture, or other
demographic issues – all the Christians in each diocese are the
responsibility of that one bishop. Thus the local church is truly
Catholic, embracing all elements of human diversity within itself.
Its catholicity, however, depends also on its communion with other
churches in the common faith and practice. Neither sense of
catholicity is possible without the bishop.

This is so because the local bishop bears responsibility both for the
internal integrity of his church as well as for its relationship with
the other churches. It is through its bishop's presence on the synod
that the local church relates to other local churches. The bishop is
the point of accountability for that unity, both to his flock and to
the synod in relation to them.

In the apostolic vision, the essence of primacy is episcopal
leadership. Every bishop occupies the chair of Peter that preserves
the unity and integrity of Peter's Faith. There is only one
episcopate, which each bishop possesses equally and completely.

A "national church" is actually the synod of bishops, which elects a
president from among its members. Their unity is a sign of the unity
of the whole Body, and it is expressed in the person of the primate,
who, as the agent of accountability, is responsible for fostering
unity and communion. The primate, in turn, relates this synod and its
local churches to the other national churches by maintaining
doctrinal and sacramental communion with them.

There can be no primacy without synodality, and no synodality without
primacy. The primate is one among the others, first among equals; yet
is given the responsibility of holding the others to accountability.
The authority of the primate arises from the mutual consent of those
who elect him, and his acceptance by the greater community of
primates throughout the world. Real primacy is an active role of
actual leadership, of responsibility and accountability, in the
context of actual jurisdiction.

III. Issues regarding Primacy in the Orthodox Church

"The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among
them and account to him as their head, and do nothing of consequence
without his consent. But each may do those things only which concern
his own parish and the country places which belong to it. But neither
let him, who is the first, do anything without the consent of all,
for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the
Lord in the Holy Spirit." — Apostolic Canon 34

Autocephaly and Primacy

Is there a primacy beyond that of the national church, and, if so,
what is its role? The principle of the autocephaly of national synods
has become the quintessential ecclesiological stance of the Orthodox
Churches. According to this principle, each national synod has
complete independence in governing its own affairs, and especially in
electing its bishops and primate. The double office of a primate is
to foster communion between the bishops and local communities through
the regional synod, as well as to maintain relationships with other
national churches.

But at present, there is no effective overarching primacy in the
Orthodox Church. Perhaps this is because there is no
active "ecumenical synod" that embraces all Orthodox; and there has
been no ecumenical council for over 1200 years. The idea of the
Ecumenical Patriarchate is based on primacy over an empire-wide
synod, or ecumenical council. Indeed, canonically, the primacy of
both Rome and Constantinople had one foundation: they were the
imperial capitals. While this was feasible in the days of the Roman
Empire, and later during the Ottoman Millet, it has long since become
unrealistic. For the Empire effectively ceased to exist eight hundred
years ago, and now only the Greek ethnic churches, and a few others,
recognize the Ecumenical Patriarchate to be what it claims to be.

While no one denies it a primacy of honor, it has no real
institutional role, much less a role of actual leadership. This is
partially due to its location in a hostile Islamic society; and
partially due to the lack of cooperation and consensus as to its role
among the other Orthodox Churches. Primacy of honor without primacy
of jurisdiction is meaningless.

Autocephaly without an overarching primacy has given rise in the
national churches to an exaggerated self-sufficiency and to the
blending of national or ethnic identity with that of Orthodox
Christianity. Cultural and political agendas have become central to
the missions of these churches. For many believers these agendas are
intermingled with or even supersede the Gospel. Ethnos and culture –
not Christ – have come to determine identity.

As a result, worldwide there are few expressions of a unified
Orthodox Church beyond those of Eucharistic concelebration and a few
commonly enunciated positions. Even the Ecumenical Patriarchate is
primarily a Greek ethnic institution, unabashedly promoting
Hellenism. Ecclesiastically, this has come to mean that an Orthodox
Christian's loyalty is to his ethnic homeland and to his "mother
church," and that those churches maintain responsibility for all the
people of their culture and nation, wherever they may be in the world.

Mother Churches and the "Diaspora"

The result is that almost all national churches have extended their
jurisdictions beyond their geographic and political boundaries to the
so-called diaspora. But Orthodox Christians who are faithful to the
Gospel and the Fathers cannot admit of any such thing as a diaspora
of Christians. Only ethnic groups can be dispersed among other ethnic
groups. Yet the essential principle of geographic canonical
boundaries of episcopal and synodal jurisdiction has been abrogated,
and every patriarchate, every mother church, now effectively claims
universal jurisdiction to serve "its" people in "diaspora." Given
this fact, on what basis do we object to the Roman Papacy?

This situation arose in reaction to the mass emigration of Orthodox
from their home countries, and is continued as a means of serving the
needs of these immigrant communities. It is perpetuated as a means of
maintaining ethnic, cultural and political identity for those away
from their home country; but also as a means of financial support for
the mother churches from their children abroad.

The confusion of ethnic identity and Orthodox Christian identity,
expressed by competing ecclesiastical jurisdictions, is the
incarnation of phyletism. Due to this confusion of the Gospel with
ethnic or political identities, multiple parallel communities, each
with its own allegiance to a foreign mother church, divide the
Orthodox Church in North America and elsewhere into ethnic and
political denominations. This distorts the Apostolic vision, and has
severely compromised the catholicity of the Orthodox Churches, in
which all Christians in a given territory are called to submit to a
local synod of bishops.

The problem is not so much the multiple overlapping jurisdictions,
each ministering to diverse elements of the population. This could be
adapted as a means of dealing with the legitimate diversity of
ministries within a local or national church. The problem is that
there is no common expression of unity that supersedes ethnic,
linguistic and cultural divisions: there is no synod of bishops
responsible for all the churches in America, and no primacy or point
of accountability in the Orthodox world with the authority to correct
such a situation.

In the 21st century, people emigrate and move around, and Orthodox
Christians need to be ministered to in their own language and with
familiar traditions at least until they are acculturated. However,
these should be particular ministries of the local or national church
to particular groups – i.e. ministries to immigrant communities –
rather than points of division. The cultural agendas of these
external missions both distort the message of the Gospel and prevent
people from entering into the Orthodox Church by forcing them to
relinquish their own cultural identity in favor of someone else's.
This also undermines any genuine missionary activity in the new land.

In reality, people do assimilate to their new cultures, and
join "native" churches. This has accounted for a massive apostasy
from the Orthodox Church in the West, as people find their parents'
ethnic cultures, and thus the churches that promote these cultures,
to be increasingly alien. This apostasy begins with the second
generation, and by the fourth generation there are few that remain
practicing Orthodox Christians. They leave because they were unable
to find Christ and salvation through the incomprehensibility of the
now alien forms and language. No matter how successful they may
appear, due to new waves of immigration, churches that superimpose a
national or ethnic agenda over the Gospel will die out.

Missionary Churches

But in North America there is another, very different aspect to the
ecclesiological complexity. Orthodox Christianity first came to
America not as an ethnic diaspora but as a missionary outreach by the
Russian Orthodox Church in 1794. While the 19th century saw great
immigration of Orthodox people from different countries, nevertheless
the normal canonical order embracing all Orthodox of all ethnic
backgrounds was observed in America, up to the 1920s, under the
supervision of the Russian Mission. There was a united Synod with a
single archbishop, and several bishops with missionary outreach and
ministries to the various ethnic communities. But for more than a
century the overwhelming needs of the new immigrant communities did
make the Church in America lose sight of its original missionary
purpose.

The division of the Orthodox Mission in America began in 1922 with
the collapse of Russian Imperial support of the Mission following the
Bolshevik coup, and the formation of parallel hierarchies, beginning
with the Greek Archdiocese under Constantinople. They justified their
action by a novel and idiosyncratic interpretation of Canon 28 of
Chalcedon, relegating to Constantinople jurisdiction in
all "barbarian lands." This was followed by the formation of several
other ethnic jurisdictions, each subject to an Old World mother
church. Further complications ensued as many of these communities
were then divided into two or three competing segments corresponding
to their various attitudes towards the political situation in their
homelands, especially vis-à-vis Communism. Thus not only ethnic but
political criteria distorted the message and mission of Orthodoxy in
America.

However, missionary work and conversions within the Russian
Metropolia and throughout the Church, continued. By the 1970s the
missionary expansion of the Orthodox Church had embraced large
numbers of converts, as well as the children of immigrants who had
only vague identification with their ethnic roots. Today, a great
majority of the clergy and laity, including the bishops, are converts
or children of converts. We have an American cultural identity and a
multitude of divergent ethnic and racial roots, but our primary
identity is as Orthodox Christians who live in America. This
missionary expansion has taken hold in all the Orthodox jurisdictions
in America, even the ones that assert cultural agendas. In no way are
we in diaspora.

In 1970, the Russian Orthodox Church granted autocephaly to its
American mission, forming the Orthodox Church in America. While this
action remains controversial to this day, it recognized the existence
of a local Church in America, with the fullness of sacramental
integrity and institutional self-sufficiency. In other words, the
gift of autocephaly established a hierarchy with the authority to
incarnate the vision and mission of the Orthodox Church in North
America by its own work, and to take responsibility for the life and
growth of the Church in North America while remaining accountable to
the other national Churches throughout the world. Finally, there was
an effort to establish church life according to canonical norms.

The dilemma, however, is that with autocephaly, the presence of any
other jurisdiction on American territory becomes uncanonical, and
membership in the Synod of the Orthodox Church in America becomes the
criterion of canonicity for all bishops in America. This, of course,
has not been pushed by the OCA. What is at stake, however, is the
canonical order of the Church, its vision and mission.

IV. Some Possible Resolutions

Ecumenical Primacy

The absence of a functional ecumenical primacy within the Orthodox
Church has severe implications. There is no ministry or point of
unity or accountability functioning beyond the level of a national
church, nothing to point to a Christian identity aside from national,
linguistic, political, and cultural identities. This compromises the
catholicity of the Orthodox Church, threatening division and
competition between its various churches.

The Patriarchate of Constantinople is universally accepted as having
a primacy of honor; but given its current situation, it is unable to
lead. Furthermore, it promotes a cultural agenda of Hellenism that
mutes its voice to the other churches. Its claim of jurisdiction over
the so-called "barbarian lands," or "diaspora" falls on the deaf ears
of other patriarchates that have established identical institutions
in the same territories, disregarding its claims to jurisdiction
outside the geographic boundaries of existing churches. Beyond this,
having been the first to abrogate the unity of the Church in America,
Constantinople's own political adventurism has divided the Church in
Estonia, and threatens the unity of the Church in Ukraine and other
places, and hence, its communion with Moscow and other autocephalous
churches. By these actions it has broken trust in itself, and
sacrificed its ability to lead.

The only way an ecumenical primacy could work is if there is a
functional and active ecumenical synod, which meets at regular
intervals and is composed of the heads of all the autocephalous
Churches. Such a permanent synod, provided for by the canons as a
permanent synod presided over by the ecumenical primate, would create
a context for the up-building of the sense of unity of the Orthodox
Churches, and for the resolution of particular issues as they arise.
Its primate would be a point of accountability, responsible for
preserving the unity and vision of the Orthodox Church. Now more than
at any time in history is this feasible, given available means of
communication and transportation. This would take the full
cooperation of all the autocephalous churches, providing an
opportunity for the Patriarchate of Constantinople to exercise real
leadership, inviting the rest of the Church to unity.

Mother Churches and the "Diaspora"

The fullness of the Church is present sacramentally in a local bishop
and his community; but a local church's integrity is actually
compromised when its bishop belongs not to a local synod but to one
in a foreign country, a synod which can neither hold its bishop
accountable nor be responsible for the life of the remote diocese. We
have seen this over and over again in America. The territorial
structure of the Orthodox Church is rooted in very practical issues:
only through a local structure of accountability is a church able to
maintain responsibility for its integrity. Outside that territorial
structure, it is a disaster waiting to happen.

Being tied to a "mother church" is not of itself a guarantee of
legitimacy, nor even the identity of practices and customs with those
of the mother church. The canonical tradition emphasizes the
integrity of the local church and its communion with the mother
churches; then both its legitimacy and its tradition remain intact.
The diversity of traditions within Orthodoxy is completely
appropriate, but the identity of the local church has to embrace all
these traditions, and respect their integrity. The common vision of
the Gospel, to which all these traditions bear witness, is the
underlying point of unity, and the real source of identity. We cannot
make the traditions something absolute: God is the only absolute.
Each tradition is unique and valuable, but is also subject to growth
and change if it is alive. Ministry to people who are formed in each
tradition is a legitimate function of the local church; but it is
also necessary to bring all the diverse ministries and expressions,
the whole People of God, into unity and coordinated action, to
conciliarity. In this consists the catholicity of the Church and the
role of the local bishop.

Afeasible option which would both preserve the unity of the local
church and minister to people of varying ethnicities and cultures
would be for the "mother churches" to send clergy, even bishops, to
care for the particular needs of those immigrant flocks, but who
would sit on the synod of the local national church, and have their
ministries coordinated through the local church. Such a bishop
responsible for his ethnic missionary diocese could then be the
representative of the American Church to his mother church. This
could only promote a sense of unity both among the Churches and
within the country, and preserve whatever flow of resources is
necessary. Yet the overall vision and mission would remain the same,
and the Apostolic canonical order would remain intact.

The Episcopacy: A Monastic Perspective

The role and nature of episcopal leadership within the Church is the
core issue underlying all these institutional problems. All levels of
episcopal primacy have been secularized, cast in terms of civil
offices. Thus the patriarch is made analogous to an emperor, a bishop
to a prince of the Church, etc. They even dress up in Church like
Byzantine civil officials. The real nature of ministry, of arch-
pastorship, and of Christian leadership, is lost.

What is the structure of leadership within the Church? On all levels,
it is a structure of obedience. The presbyters are in a relationship
of obedience to their bishop. The bishops are in a relationship of
obedience to their primate. The primate is in the relationship of
spiritual father to his bishops. Jurisdiction is about a relationship
of obedience, which is precisely responsibility and accountability.

The crisis in the episcopacy is rooted in the breakdown of the basic
structure of spiritual obedience, which is the essence of Orthodox
Christianity. Spiritual obedience is not subjection and compliance.
Rather, it is a hierarchy of love and shared responsibility, a
hierarchy of discipleship. What is this but a structure of
accountability in a spirit of trust and cooperation, in mutual love
and respect? Moreover, it is a complex of very personal
relationships. When these relationships become simply institutional,
and the personal becomes relativized, the very nature of the Church,
which in its very essence is about the actualization of authentic
personhood, is distorted.

This breakdown comes from the secularization of the Church's
structure by the centuries of imperial subjugation, by the corruption
of authority into power, by the reduction of church leadership to an
institutional model, and the reduction of membership in the Church to
civic duty. The Faith itself was degraded from a personal commitment
to Christ to a socio-political ideology. Nominal church membership
and nominal Orthodox identity are the foundations of secularization.
This kind of corruption began in the fourth century. When the Church
was subjected to the Roman, then Ottoman, and then Russian Empires,
then to the status of state church, it was effectively reduced to a
department of state. The bishops and administration of the Church
assumed imperial roles, insignia, and rituals; and with them, the
Christian vision of the leader as servant became a hypocritical
parody. Of course, there have been notable exceptions.

This led to the separation of charismatic and institutional authority
within the Church. What followed was the bureaucratization of church
leadership: the reduction of the episcopacy to institutional
administration, and the virtual elimination of its pastoral role.
Charismatic authority within the church was tolerated among monastic
elders, but had little other influence in the life of the Church from
the late Byzantine period through the Turkokratia and the
suppressions of monasticism in the Russian Empire. The fruit of this
was the suppression of creativity and initiative, theologically and
organizationally, for fear of being disciplined and rejected.
Instead, personal ambition and competition for position became
dominant within the church's institution. Charismatic leadership
arising from spiritual vision, the fruit of asceticism, found little
context to express itself, even being regarded as dangerous, in the
state-controlled institution of the church.

The bishops came to wield power over the lives of their clergy, and
instead of being chief pastors, they became distant administrators
feared by their clergy. Obedience became confused with compliance and
submission. Authority came to be identified with power, humility with
subjection, and respect with adulation and sycophancy. Accountability
was always referred "upwards:" the bishops to the patriarch and
emperor or sultan; the priests to the bishops; while the people
simply ignored the hierarchy. Even the monasteries, where the ancient
vision of the apostolic church was most clearly maintained, were
subjected to this secularization of power and office.

The corrupting fruit of secularization is fear and the lack of trust,
hence isolation, autonomy, self-will and the breakdown of the real
authority of the episcopacy. It destroys souls and the institution of
the Church. Secularization reduces the Body of Christ to a religious
organization; it is the form of religion, deprived of its power.

The original vision of the episcopacy was a model of spiritual
discipleship, mirroring Christ and the apostles. Christ is the
Master: not the master of slaves, but the teacher – not despota (!)
but didaskalos. The apostles were his disciples, his students. Christ
did not exercise power over his disciples, but his authority in their
lives arose from their voluntary cooperation in love and respect.
Thus, He no longer called them disciples, but friends. What made them
friends is their obedience – not subjection, but synergy in love. Is
this not the model we should be following?

But Jesus called them to Himself and said, "You know that the rulers
of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise
authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever
desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. And
whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave – just
as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to
give His life a ransom for man." (Matthew 20 : 25–28)

Spiritual Fatherhood

Christ exercised the role of spiritual father to his disciples. The
role of the bishop, as well as that of any headship in the Orthodox
Church, is spiritual fatherhood: pastor in a parish, abbot in a
monastery, bishop in a diocese, primate in a synod. To be a spiritual
father means to be a shepherd and teacher, to exhort, rebuke, and
encourage his disciples in their faith, service to one another, and
especially, love for one another. It means to take responsibility for
the salvation of these particular others, which presumes a
relationship of obedience. True obedience is offered freely in love;
it is in absolute opposition to the corruption of power and control.

Spiritual obedience is precisely a structure of accountability. The
disciples are accountable for their obedience to the father; but the
spiritual father is responsible not only to develop each disciple to
the fullness of his potential through that obedience, but to unify
the whole body through his pastoral role – to keep the whole body in
synergy. The authority of the spiritual father comes from the
cooperation of his disciples. The spiritual father is thus
accountable to his disciples. True obedience is thus a relationship
of absolute mutuality. Thus, the ministry of spiritual fatherhood is
a charism within the Church and for the sake of the Church, not over
it. The bishops and presbyters are part of the People of God, not
lords over them; as spiritual fathers, they can only function within
this structure of mutual accountability and responsibility, upon
which all Christian authority rests.

Christian authority cannot be imposed from above, but has its source
in the voluntary cooperation of love, obedience, and mutual
accountability. This is conciliarity, sobornost, in the true sense.
The bishop recapitulates his local church in himself: this is the
charism of ordination. Yet, the bishop has no authority without his
church. Ordination only functions within the body of the faithful and
is meaningless outside the context of the Church. While grace
elevates the one ordained, that grace can only function within a
context of the synergy and consensus of the Church – ultimately
manifest in the Liturgy. But this vision was distorted by the
conflation of the clerical hierarchy and the imperial office,
spiritual authority and political power; and the divorce between
charismatic and institutional leadership, thus secularizing the
clergy.

In other words, the bishops elect the primate of their synod, the
presbyters should elect their bishop, and monastics elect their abbot
or abbess. Thus primacy, the authority of the spiritual father,
proceeds from the consent of those who offer their obedience to him.
And he is responsible to them and for them, as they are to him. Grace
acts through and fulfills their synergy and unity of mind and heart
in mutual love.

This model works on every level of church organization, and is the
core of the evangelical, patristic, and canonical vision. In it there
is no place for fear, power, or control but rather, a communion in
love and mutual respect in voluntary cooperation.

Even presidency at the Eucharistic celebration is in function of this
relationship. The pastor in his parish, abbot in his monastery,
bishop in his diocese or primate in his synod, presides because of
his role as spiritual father. He is not the spiritual father simply
because he presides; this eliminates the personal dimension of
ecclesial community leadership. He is the "good shepherd who gives
his life for his sheep." This is the ultimate accountability of the
spiritual father.

The true spiritual father, like Christ, can never refer or take
anything to himself. He always points to God the Father, "from whom
every paternity is named." Any kind of ego gratification is spiritual
death, but this is especially so in the case of spiritual fatherhood
which demands kenotic humility, the death of the ego. The only way to
achieve this is spiritual formation.

Spiritual formation has one goal: the ascent to spiritual maturity,
to spiritual vision. Spiritual vision, or theoria, is a gift of grace
bestowed only after one has prepared oneself to receive it by opening
oneself to God through purification, leading to dispassion through
ascetic discipline and contemplative prayer. Through the experience
of illumination, one gains perspective on all the external forms and
issues which constitute temptations. One must first transcend the
ego, one must "crucify the old man who is corrupt through the
passions of the flesh," in order to attain to a clarity of vision and
the gift of discernment. As long as we are controlled by our
passions, our motives and desires will be self-serving. Only through
attaining dispassion can we be freed from the blindness of our self-
centeredness, in order to truly love the other unconditionally, free
from any selfish agendas. Then a man has the ability to be a true
spiritual father: to discern in his disciples what holds them back
from attaining dispassion and spiritual maturity, having the vision
to see what each one needs to grow.

The episcopate, and all primacy, demand this kind of spiritual
vision, the charismatic dimension, arising from ascetic self-
discipline, in order for the bishops to discern the pastoral task for
each person for whom they are responsible, and the clarity of mind to
discern the path for the future. This kind of spiritual vision is
necessary to discern the will of God, the Presence and the activity
of God, in order to guide the church into active cooperation,
synergy, with the Divine will, and to see and eliminate any personal
agendas or passions which disrupt the communion of the Church with
God and with one another.

Conclusion: Spiritual Fatherhood and Primacy

Real primacy is about leadership, and Orthodox spiritual leadership
is inseparable from spiritual fatherhood, in which spiritual children
offer their obedience in love to their spiritual fathers, who in turn
care for their souls. This model holds true for a monastery with an
abbot and his monks, a parish with a pastor and his flock, a diocese
with the bishop and his presbyters, or a national church with the
primate and his bishops. So it must also hold true on the ecumenical
level.

The Church is not a civil society, with its programs, political and
social influence, and worldly goals. It is rather a community built
on faith in Jesus Christ, united in the common mission of the Gospel.
The Church is composed of those who share an identity that comes from
faith, and transcends all worldly and secular, ethnic, social,
economic and racial divisions. It is the living incarnation of the
Kingdom of God on earth. It embraces all human diversity, bringing
all to unity in Christ.

Spiritual leadership within the Church, especially the episcopacy,
has as its function to lead people into that Kingdom, to illumine and
perfect them in the Faith, and thus to transform life in this world
one soul at a time. This leadership is primarily a call to
repentance, to re-focus on God, and to leave behind all the
distractions of sin. This leadership is manifested in authentic
spiritual guidance, which exorcises the corruption of sin and ego-
centrism, and leads the Church in oneness of mind and heart to the
synergetic praise of God in the glorious Liturgy of the Kingdom.