News From Around the OCA

Since Ken Tobin started the Harry Potter analogy, I'll continue it for a moment because as I read "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows," I could not help be struck by the sickening comparisons. While the HP story may be more dramatic, the basic problems are sadly all-too-similar: corruption, subversion, power plays, innocent people losing their livelihood ( and often their lives in the book). I don't think anyone who has not read HP&DH will find any spoilers here. This is nothing new in the story line. For those who are not yet familiar with the HP series, do themes like top leaders refusing to accept reality and silencing all who would seek to keep reality in the public mind sound familiar? What about giving out favours to those who support the party line, or tasking people with reading people's writing to determine who is being "subversive"? Worst of all, what of a person having the idea that he is invincible and the rightful leader? One need only watch the newly-released "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" to get the idea. The question is, where are our real-life Albus Dumbledores, Harry Potters, Weasley families, Hermiones and Neville Longbottoms? It's not magic that makes these characters who they are, any more than it is magic that makes the bad guys in the story who they are. Like Albus Dumbledore tells Harry, it is our choices that define us. The heroes of Harry Potter choose to refuse to accept and tolerate the evil around them; a simple choice that makes all the difference.

I love stories like the Harry Potter series and the Tolkien trilogy because, however fictional the stories themselves may be, these stories point to very fundamental human realities. In Spanish, the word "historia" can refer both to "history" and to "story." Essentially, it means narrative. We say that those who don't read history are doomed to repeat it. I should have to say that the same applies to (fictional) stories. We don't need to believe in Crumple-horned Snorkacks (HP fans will understand) to recognise that fiction often presents us with some of the deepest, most sublime truth.

If you've not read the HP series, but have been curious, do yourself a favour and read it. If you're one of those who thinks that it is straight from the devil, do yourself an even bigger favour and read it. Aside from all that I have said here, it's highly entertaining, a great read from start to finish. Thanks, Ken.

I was very stunned and saddened to read here of the firing of my former colleague, Paul Sidebottom. I can confirm nothing and I do not wish to speculate on the motives behind such an action. I cannot believe for a moment, however, that there were any just grounds. Please, everybody, keep Paul in your prayers, and equally to keep all of the students at St Herman Seminary in your prayers.

In the immortal words of Fr Paul Nadim Tarazi, "Let's just be a little more serious." By saying so blithely that HP is from the devil, you are telling me that you haven't read it, which tells me in turn that you don't do your homework before you speak out. By saying the same of this web-site, you are demonstrating that you need to really NEED to read Harry Potter - then you won't be saying that the one or the other is from the evil one.

Is this forum perfect? Are all of the comments made here constructive? No, of course not! Can one make a case for this site being a temptation to sin? Yes! But to remain silent under the present circumstances, is without doubt sin. Of course, the challenge remains to be constructive, to engage issues and not ad hominem attacks. There may even be people who ought not speak here for their spiritual welfare, but as a whole silence is inadmissable as the alternative to engaging in "prazdnoslovie" (idle talk) here as we say in the Prayer of St Ephraim. Idle talk is a sin of commission, but to keep silent under these circumstances, is a sin of omission; no less a sin.

Greetings, Deacon Youssuf!

Yes, while I can see that you would take my post to suggest that I believe that we have full fledged Voldemort's running about, I should have to agree with you that such a claim, would be melodramatic. I don't think it is at all melodramatic. I haven't seen any strange disappearances or murders, or bridges breaking for no reason, or "gas mains" exploding. However, I do say that we are seeing people display the kind of arrogance that Voldemort shows to the end, and the co-terminous willingness to punish others who oppose them, and at the same time, we are seeing a sad dearth of people like Neville, Ginny and Luna, not to mention Ron, Hermione, or Harry and Dumbledore. In short, way to few people refusing to "go along the program."

It is far easier to be a Rita Skeeter, but I could hardly compare the word of our good editor here to the likes of Skeeter. While some commentary here would have been better left out, perhaps even some of my own, Mark Stokoe, I believe has used anything but a Quick Notes quill. On the contrary, his facts, to the best of my knowledge (contrary to the claims of a certain select few), have been solid, and his commentary constructive.

Thank you for your thoughts in reply. I hope that others, even the non-Potter fans, have been able to follow my point. I never meant to suggest that we should be looking to see the most polar opposites of characters in our real-life drama. Simply put, however, I do see more examples of the less extreme characteristics of the "bads guys" and way to few of any characteristics of the "good guys." As the extraordinary session of the Synod of Bishops approaches, as Fr Alexander Garklavs settles in his new role as Chancellor, and as issues come to light, it is my hope (beyond hope?) that these new issues, along with the old ones, will be faced squarely, and dealt with firmly.

Ande's comment about the hierarchical nature of the Church, and the problems that will not be resolved until that problem is resolved is, if I have understood him correctly both sadly Protestant and, simultaneously, sadly correct.

I certainly do not advocate replacing the hierarchy with Protestant congregationalism. The solution must lie within the existing structures of the Church. I do not wish there to be any confusion about where I stand on that.

The difficulty, as I see it, is that the canons, one might even say the Holy Trinity as well, make a HUGE assumption, which, in these latter times, is proving more and more fallacious. It never was completely sound and I am certain that those blessed hierarchs that issued those canons were quite well aware of the potential problem. Still more would the All Holy Trinity have been quite well aware, knowing like no others, the secret hearts of men.

The assumption to which I refer is that hierarchs will act in a godly manner in their pastoral ministrations over and within the flocks entrusted to them. I have written previously that bishops are stewards, not kings, and do well to remember so. In establishing a hierarchical Church, God certainly knew the potential pitfalls, as surely as He know that Adam would partake of the forbidden tree. It is all the more important, then, that our bishops be elected in a manner that conforms with Scripture and the Tradition of the Church. The fact is that we have certain bishops within the OCA and elsewhere who have evidently completely forgotten their place as steward and have arrogated to themselves - and yes, I mean this with all of the force the word carries - arrogated to themselves royal powers, perogatives, dignities, luxuries, etc. They should thank God that the Church decreed centuries ago that moral corruption does not deprive a cleric of clerical grace. I suppose we should thank God for the same thing, though for different reasons.

Where we might find some realistic relief is from a thorough consideration of new ecclesiastical canons to establish appropriate checks and balances that will not diminish or hamper the legitimate archpastoral role of the bishop, but will curb abuses of power. One other person noted that the Roman Catholic Church has, as a result of its scandals, become more open to lay opinions. I doubt that is true universally, but to the degree that it is, we can be sure that the actual authority of their bishops has not changed. More likely they are learning to exercise it more prudently. Would that this would happen among us. I believe that we do have a few wonderful bishops - who are first of all episkopoi, not autocratic hierarchs. A king may not be required to take counsel with anyone, but only a fool of a king (and I was recently reminded that the Hebrew word for "fool" and for "king" are extremely similar - to the point of allowing plays on words) would not seek out counsel and take it, and heed it. In any authority structure - and we people need authority structures - the buck has to stop somewhere. There must be someone who makes a final decision. In government it is the president, the prime minister, or the monarch. In the Church it is the bishop.

It is highly unlikely that a council will be held to promulgate new canons, but by laws within local churches are possible. Would it be necessarily uncanonical, for example, within a local church to authorise commissions to present candidates to the Holy Synod? Would it be impermissible for such commissions to perform background checks and other types of examinations of candidates? Not being an expert, I cannot speak with abslutely certainty on this matter, but I do believe that the first step, which would be having the Metropolitan Council look into such possibilities would not be uncanoncial.

The situation in Alaska, at St Herman Seminary greatly saddens me. Mark Stokoe has published already the basic story of my release from the seminary. I cannot comment on the present situation in terms of providing any knew information, but I'll eat my hat if anyone can demonstrate to me that budgetary cuts had anything to do with Paul Sidebottom's release, which can only serve to destabilise the seminary. What about accreditation for which all of us worked so hard over the last five years - especially Paul? What about the day-to-day work that Paul did? What about the hours that he put into preparing his lectures? As dean, Fr Chad was obligated to travel a lot. In his absence, Paul played a crucial role in keeping focus in the community life and he did it well. He could always be counted on both by faculty and by students. I fear for the future of the seminary without him, and I pray for him and for all who are connected to the seminary and I pray especially that the Board of Trustees will succeed in getting Paul reinstated, in getting a sound administrative structure in place, and a good dean who will be a father to his children as Fr Chad Hatfield was to all of us. Above all, I pray that God and St Herman will be watching over the seminary and the diocese to correct the problems that we are seeing of which those at the seminary are but a part.

Greetings to all:

First, my thanks to Fr Philip, who, as usual, has expressed important aspects of the canons. It seems that last night was not a good night for me to be writing. I got caught in a private debate also, being a bit lazy in how I put things. Fr. Philip is quite right in all that he said. I was specifically referring to the lack - to the best of my knowledge, and being no expert I whole-heartedly invite Fr Philip's further correction - of canons that deal specifically with "white collar crime" and some other transgrsessions. I am quite aware of canons that deal with sexual aberrations and some other sins. I am not sure at all about theft, or physical abuse, or anything like that. Perhpas there is a general canon. Most importantly, Fr Philip was very correct about the canons dealing with specific matters that troubled the Church. They are more "case law" than "statutory law." This, if there was no 'white collar crime,' or rather, if it stayed quiet enough to not trouble the Church, there would be no canons.

In response to Ande, the Church, historically, as witnessed very clearly by St Ignatius of Antioch and ever since, has always been hierarchical. I am not going to engage in any debate about the exact roles of "episkopoi' and "presbyteroi' in the apostolic era. I just am not qualified to do so. The evidence is absolute from the time of St Ignatius (end of 1st century, beginning of second) on down. Recently, appeals courts have upheld the ruling of lower courts in cases in which members of the Greek Archdiocese have tried to claim that the church is "democratic" not "hierarchical." The courts have ruled that the Church is hierarchical. Last I heard, from a senior layman of the GOA, the courts told the lay group to stop bringing suits to the court on this matter.

I very much hesitate to raise this point, and I implore everybody to not read any doctrinal assertions on my part into what I am about to say, but I have wondered if perhaps the term "hierarch" might not need some review. Again, Fr. Philip, I openly invite your comments, and those of anybody else qualified to give them. The first instance that I recall of the use of the word "hierarch" is the writing of Pseudo-Dionysios. Said writer, because of his nominal (literally) connection with St Paul's convert, has had immense effects on the Church. He wrote well before the schism, and thus his writings influenced both East and West. The cathedral of Saint Denis in Paris is named for him. (Yes, "Dennis" is a pefectly Orthodox name.) Anyway, this writer's works spoke much of hierarchs and hierarchies. His writing struck me personally as edging on what we today would associate with the New Age Movement. That's a personal impression only, but a strong one. I've just never liked his works at all. Nevertheless, the influence has been strong, and we can't just write it out of Tradition. His talk of hierarchs and hierarchies, in my reading, promotes clericalism, and authoritarianism, even if such was not the intent or explicit message. Why the term "hierarch" instead of "episkopos"? The "arch" part in words like "hierarch" and "monarch" comes from Greek, meaning simultaneoulsy "origin" and "rule" / "headship." Monarchs are "sole-rulers." Hierarchs are "chief priests" to translate a littile loosely. The idea is that origination and headship/governance are intimately related. Having laid out these premises, I have a question, and it is that, a question: has the very term "hierarch" confused in our minds the role of the bishop, and detracted from his role as "episkopos"? I have come to seriously wonder about this, but I have reached no conclusions.

Fr Bartholomew - good to hear from you - I hope you haven't had any other dwellings that reached 98F in the Winter, like your room at SVS! No wonder I hated that room the year I had it! Anyway, what I was told was that there is a Hebrew word for "fool", "lemekh" that plays of "melekh." if you have better knowledge, I stand corrected. We have various words for "fool" in English and Spanish, perhaps Hebrew does as well. I was going by what I held to be a reasonable source.

Zach - You may be able to find the canons posted at http://www.ccel.org. Try a Google search too. CCEL I believe has all of the Eerdman's series.

No, I don't think we should expect the laity to simply obey blindly, whatever certain "hierarchs" would have. The laity didn't stand by idly when all but St Mark of Ephesus signed up for union with Rome at Ferrara-Florence. That union was wrong and it was rejected. If the laity in the 15th century could stand, so can we today.

In terms of the use of technology in church adminisration, I think we have a lot to gain, especially a lot of money being saved in the long run. For example, Adobe Presenter now allows for true video conferencing. I'm sure it's a bit pricy. I have access to it as a viewer only through my distance-learning master's program at U.W. Most instructors use it for their lectures. However, I watched a presentation about it, showing how the "chair" could pass the "floor" to another person, how people could ask questions, and how "white board" space can be used. While this might involve an initial layout, how much would it save for meetings of the MC, the Holy Synod, diocesan councils, etc.?

Putting these two examples together, I believe that it would behoove our episcopacy, out of sheer common sense, not to mention a little humility, to listen to the voices of able, knowledgeable laymen. I also am confident that there are some who presently do so, to the glory of God and the benefit of their dioceses. Furthermore, I don't think that they are abandoning their rightful place as bishops.

The canons are not going to change anytime soon. Perhaps Fr Philip, will be able to show us that there is no need to work out new canons at all. Where I hope my previous comments might be particularly beneficial would be in the areas of selecting candidates. Ordination is the perogative of the bishop, and I really don't see how that can change without detrimental effects on ecclesiology. What can change is that we can establish means of at least better advising bishops. If a bishop then ordains someone against such advice, it will be known. Better yet, by the bylaws accepted by his Synod, he will agree to not ordain anyone contrary to said advice. I am, of course, merely laying out basic ideas, trying to suggest a path that would be wholly consistent with Tradition, and yet meeting the needs of our present age.

Fr. Philip - it's your turn.

MAH

Hi Ande,

I understand your frustration and confusion. I have friends and relatives who are not Orthodox and it is difficult for them to understand why I'd stay. In fact, however, it comes down to one central, paramount truth: The life of the Gospel, not just the written teaching, and preaching, is found only here. In spite of the gross, grosser, and grossest sins and failings of the hierarchs, in spite of the inherent problems in a hierarchical system, the Orthodox Church is the Church. In the Church, and I am borrowing from Fr Paul Lazor here in no small part, we find both the good and the bad. We find the spectrum of humanity. We are confronted by the fact that we are all sinners. This has been true from the outset. Just look at the problems that we see in the Apostolic Church. It is precisely in the human imperfection that we find salvation. Trying to escape it, trying to think that "this can't be the Church Jesus founded because these people aren't acting in a Christian manner" will go nowhere. Where else are you going to look? Where are you ever going to find a body of people where sin plays no role? Nowhere! There were sects back in the 4th-5th centuries that tried to claim that the Church was the body of the perfect - that after baptism if you sinned you were cut off. These were sects, not the Church. They didn't embrace the fullness of human reality, which is exactly what Christ came to save. The Novatians the Donastists, the Encratites, etc. all fell into shallow, single-dimensional thinking and in doing so, they lost the gift of catholicity. Fr Paul likes to quote Professor Serge Verhovskoy, saying, "Orthodoxy is the absence of one-sidedness" and I think there is a very profound wisdom in this, that is born out in history. One could substitute easily the word "catholicity" for "Orthodoxy" in this quote. Catholicity means literally, "according to the whole." It's not just universality in some horizontal, human sense. It means having the fullness of the Truth of Christ. All throughout history there have been individuals and sects that have, with the best of intentions, focused so much on a particular aspect of the Gospel and Christian life that they have become one-sided. This isn't the fullness of truth, or the fullness of life in Christ.

I too am very frustrated. I thought about leaving the OCA to join ROCOR or the Antiochians. I could go to a ROCOR community, but the fact is that the first community God placed before me was another OCA parish, and all ready I am feeling at home there. The priest, as I spoke with him this morning was agreeing that it is hard to keep the balance, to not stick your head in the sand and yet to not get so distracted that you're neglecting your family, etc., but that is the balance needed. We can't be ostriches, but we can't neglect our daily lives either. It seems to me that God has provided a good OCA community for me, whether I wanted it or not.

What would I do? I'd cross myself, and pray that God will deliver us from the malefactors of our day who wear shepherds clothing but act as wolves. I'd pray hard for genuine pastors like Archbishop JOB. And I'd ask God to remind me every day of why He brought me to the Orthodox Church. Time and time again, I experience exactly what Fr Paul used to talk about - that the Church in her overall realiity, confronts me, it measures me and my thinking, and it does so not just in the perfection of faith (orthodoxia), precisely also in the depth of failure of the humans who comprise it. It presents there the mystery of my own humanity, that mixed in there with whatever good I may do with God's help, is the evil that overwhelms me far, far more often. if the Church is the ark and fountain of salvation, she also reveals the mystery of salvation - and that means a whole lot of sin along the way.

"There is one Body and One Spirit … One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism." There's nowhere else to do, this is it. That doesn't mean that we just roll over and play dead and let the evil continue. That's why this web-site exists. Laypeople have made the difference in the past, and we can do so again. it doesn't mean financially supporting specific institutions when there is reason to believe that such would be irresponsible stewardship - escrowing funds as has been done in the Midwest is an option. If the Church is truly the Body and Bride of Christ, and I believe she is, then she's worth fighting for, from enemies within and without. It's the ones within that are the most dangerous.

This is life in the Church, because it is human life, wherever you go. No matter how hard we may try to not be "of the world" the world, by Christ's own words, will constantly, until the end of time, encroach on the Church, and inflict wounds. But the gates of hell will never prevail.

"It's my world and welcome to it."

MAH

Father, bless!

I am, in this case, extraordinarily happy to have my ignorance enlightened - to learn that there are canons on such matters. You asked, "So what?" and I certainly see your point. If people are prepared, as they obviously are, to ignore not only the letter of the canons, but their spirit as well, what good are they?

My only answer to that is to say that at least there is a canonical foundation upon which a case CAN be built. My concern had been that if the canons didn't deal with such things, how could we oust bishops who committed such acts? The greatness of oikonomia is that it means neither strictness nor leniency per se, it means finding what is best for all, which could be either or.

Sadly, even this spirit behind the canons is being ignored as you observe. Thus it shouldn't surprise us that people, Karen J., above, for example, don't see Tradition as holy. The result of ignoring the essence of the canonical tradition is that our relationship to Tradition as a whole is distorted. We no longer see Tradition as the very content of the Gospel alive in the Church - as Bishop Kallistos quotes, "the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church." I doubt Karen is alone, and while I was surprised by her comment, after a moment of reflection I believe I understood her post. Certainly she is right that genuine obedience is a matter of the heart (hearing the truth and submitting to it willingly), not a function of fear. But if the canons are ignored or applied in some twisted manner, well, we've been watching the results unfold before us.

Fr Alexander Schmemann, back in the 1960s wrote about what it is to be "canonical" in a rather different context. However, I cannot help but note that by his logic the OCA is becoming truly uncanonical. If our Synod of Bishops fails to correct the problems, we shall be doomed to the fate of the branches that are cast away and burnt (John 15).