I am under the impression that general comments from “the crowd” so to speak are welcome here, thus here are my unworthy thoughts.

I may be helpful to follow standard leadership axioms. It is truly too late for +Met. Herman to make amends in any form. That should have been done from the very outset. A good leader would have run up to the plate, said “mea culpa” and “here’s what we’re going to do to fix this.” Now it is to the point for His Grace to say, “mea culpa” and step down in peace.

We are The Church. She corrects Herself from the inside. God will correct us and as my spiritual father said, “God’s mercy and patience are long and great. But when His patience is done, His fist is iron.” And His correction will not be what WE want, but will be His Divine Will – which is what we all ought to be praying for. And in humility the laity, I believe, ought to be upholding our Bishops and Priests in strong prayer for God to not only guide, but to give courage and strength for them to step forward and declare what needs to be done. They have been handed the Tradition of the Apostles. And like they Apostles, may God grant them strength to step out and speak boldly as St. Peter and St. Paul and St. Stephen and all of them did.

I am not convinced full disclosure of all financial scandalous information is necessary. What I ‘do’ believe is necessary are procedures, signed commitments to follow those procedures, and then publicly documented quarterly audits showing accountability. With this type of transparency, only then will trust be built, slowly.

I dearly hope this blog does not turn into the same kind as another website that comes to mind. May all of us who speak here, do so with the humility and love that we would do were we face-to-face with our Lord and Saviour Himself because our dearly loved Vladykas are His representatives.

Kissing your right hands! Pray for me, poor and unworthy sinner, Athanasia

Your Eminence, Your grace, brothers and sisters, in Christ…

THE FINANCIAL SCANDAL

The OCA’s current financial scandal represents a fundamental breach of trust between the central administration and the faithful. This much is obvious to all. If it were only that, however, it would be a relatively easy matter to solve.

In point of fact, the financial scandal has laid bare even more fundamental problems within the OCA and, for that matter, within North American Orthodoxy itself.

It’s evident to any impartial observer that trust within the OCA can only be restored by a complete, open and unobstructed investigation of the financial scandal itself, an investigation that lays bare ALL the facts related to the scandal and those implicated in it, no matter how uncomfortable those facts are, and when those responsible take the full consequences of their actions, whether that means being deposed from the episcopate, removed from the ranks of the clergy and / or criminal prosecution.

Without such an investigation, the upcoming AAC in November will go nowhere. The Holy Synod of the OCA has lost the trust of the body of the Church. Hence the importance of Professor Paul Meyendorff’s resolution, that the entire synod should resign at the council.

In particular, Met. Herman’s removal from Episcopal office is imperative for the future of the OCA and the restoration of trust. His constant attempts to interfere with the ongoing investigations and to obstruct all attempts to get at the truth are more than sufficient grounds for his removal, irrespective of any personal culpability he may or may not have with respect to the misuse of Church funds.

DELUSIONS

During this crisis, the faithful have been subjected to unrelenting propaganda from many of the episcopate to the effect that all we need is reconciliation, to be nice to each other and to forgive all the wrong-doing, because, after all, it’s only money.

This point of view is one of two things – at best it is pure delusion, springing from a naïve mentality that will do anything to avoid conflict. At worst, it is a self-serving attempt to deflect our attention from the issues at hand.

This is a standard technique known and used by politicians everywhere, and often referred to as “wrapping it in the flag”. You attempt to reframe the issues by equating them with something so fundamentally good or beyond question that no one can see straight anymore. For example, the Bush administration is well known for trying to deflect criticism of its mishandling of the occupation of Iraq by painting all criticism as if it were an attack on freedom and democracy itself.

Exactly the same tactics have been used by our shepherds since the financial scandal was made public. And, brothers and sisters, those who use this tactic must think you’re quite literally as dumb as sheep. It’s hard to say which is worse – someone who really believes that all we need is “forgiveness” and “reconciliation” or someone who is cynically using this as a tactic to cover up wrong-doing.

Premature “reconciliation” that papers over the sad truth and perpetuates lies and cover-ups would be a great evil. Real conflict is much better than a false peace, because only this necessary conflict holds out hope for the future.

The only way to restore health in the OCA is to get at the truth – the WHOLE truth. If we do not do so, then it’s inevitable that a) the sickness that lies at the heart of the OCA will persist and b) trust will not be restored.

THE EPISCOPATE AS THE PROBLEM

In truth, brothers and sisters, the heart of the problem lies within the synod of bishops itself and this problem is a genuine pathology that dates back many decades.

Whereas the theory of restricting the episcopate to monks was to ensure a consistently higher level of spiritual life for the leadership of the Church, this custom has had exactly the opposite effect in North America, where there is very little monasticism and even less spiritually healthy monasticism.

Having virtually no monks to choose from, the Church has felt itself obligated to look to celibate clergy to fulfill this role, despite the demonstrable fact that members of this group are very often psychologically dysfunctional. Consequently, the result of turning celibate clergy into bishops has been a long history of placing people with significant psychological abnormalities in positions of leadership.
This is quite the opposite of what St. Paul had in mind when he wrote:
“Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher, no drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and no lover of money. He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way; for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he care for God’s church? …moreover he must be well thought of by outsiders, or he may fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.” (I Tm. 3:2-7)

This reminds us of the words of St. Symeon the New Theologian, that not everyone who is ordained has been ordained by God, and that many of the bishops of his time did not meet even the basic requirements of catechumen.

Despite this sad state of affairs, which is all to evident for all to see, many of the episcopate appear to believe that they rule by divine right, and that the priests, deacons and laity are mere appendages and sometimes inconveniences to their own power and authority.

As someone who has taught university courses on Orthodox ecclesiology, I believe this is a key point. The whole concept of “sobornost’” or conciliarity that harkens back to St. Ignatios of Antioch’s words, “Only what you do together is right”, is simply dead letter in our Church.

Many bishops appear to believe that, to use the infamous words of Pope Pius the IX at the first Vatican council, “I AM the tradition.” The bottom line here is that papist ecclesiology is very much alive and well… and ironically it is nowhere as alive as it is in the heart of Orthodoxy.

To be fair to the bishops, of course, why should they not believe they rule by divine right? They have the impression of commanding the unearned respect of the laity and the obedience of their clergy. And there are fewer checks and balances on their power than on the power of most communist dictators. We have, essentially, built a dysfunctional episcopate answerable to no one.

Now we are paying the price. Unless we are willing to go through the pain involved in transforming the synod from a dysfunctional group into a coherent body of spiritual men dedicated to serving God and others, we will be no further ahead, even if we do find a way to resolve the financial scandal.

An episcopate of absolute despotism, where there is no collegiality and no checks and balances, and where the incumbents would cause scandal to any thinking person interested in real Christianity, these are factors that severally compromise any attempt to evangelize in the Western World.

In short, brothers and sisters, the current situation is more critical than we think, because the real problem is greater than we think. We need to be resolute in our determination to get to the bottom of the financial scandal and to be honest about the real problems represented by our perilous practices for selecting bishops. This is our responsibility to our Church and to our children.

We have reached a tragic stalemate in our Church’s territorial life. It must certainly be acknowledged that we have, as a local Church, failed to find adequate avenues to fully express and to solve our current concerns about administrative and financial accountability at the highest levels of church governance. Rank and file priests and lay people are frustrated and disenfranchised from engagement in healthy discourse and conciliar life beyond parochial boundaries.

Some will claim that everything can be solved by obedience to the hierarchical order of the church: lay people obedient to their priests, who in turn are to be good foot-soldiers of their “general” bishops, under the overall benevolent oversight of the territorial Metropolitan.

One might conceivably defend the merits of such a vertical schema if indeed the supremacy of divine love prevails, and therefore Freedom spreads her sweet fragrance upon the Church, so that obedience becomes the lover’s waiting upon the beloved. But that is hardly the air we all inhabit and breathe today.

In a culture of technological efficiency, where human creativity gives way to the dominance of processes and machines, we are asked to believe that Best Practices will prevail where once we trusted in prophets and saints. But the Church’s historical road is paved not with procedures but with saints who in each age leave their remarkable trace.

No doubt saintly and courageous leaders are here, but they remain silent for now, and we see ourselves rather as the stereotypical “victims”, broken, leaderless, abused, waiting for a Jeremiah.

One cannot adequately describe that spirit of leadership in a document. It is either inherent in a person or it is absent. Its presence is self-evident to the Church, which responds naturally. If it’s absent, to whom does the body look?

I am personally convinced that our crisis has alerted the vast majority in the church to the need for a restored model of leadership based on the tenth chapter of St.John’s Gospel, a gospel read at the celebration of bishop saints—the paradigmatic Gospel of love and trust, rooted in profound mutual knowledge: “The shepherd knows his sheep by name…they hear his voice and follow him.” We can only hope that our bishops would want to turn towards that model if they have failed in the past.

Yet it is with the deepest sadness that we have to generally acknowledge the evident absence of such a desire, as witnessed in the discord and lack of unanimity in the Synod itself, and the stark absence of that Gospel model in particular in the current titular headship of the OCA, in the office of the Metropolitan. Under saintly and courageous leadership the present crisis could have been averted and dealt with expeditiously. Instead it has resulted in a protracted nightmare of failures for which there is no end in sight. Our primary mission today is not so much to nurture fresh vocations to the episcopacy, as to re-examine the ecclesiological foundations of that same episcopacy. For some of its tyrannical manifestations today are only partially the product of personality types eager for that office in its manifest distortions—they are in large part the result of how the entire church has de facto accepted a papal vs conciliar style of governance, shown in the way priests often refrain taking any creative initiative for fear of reprisals from bishops. And we know that such reprisals have proven a very effective deterrent to intellectual and spiritual growth.

If this Town Meeting is a possible voice towards a realization of a benevolent and conciliar leadership, then let that voice be first expressed through a closed, YES or NO, ballot of confidence in the current Metropolitan’s leadership. One can hope that the collective voices on this matter expressed at all regional Town Meetings may prove an incentive for the entire church to focus her future deliberations on recovering her true purpose and existence. It is our belief that only an inspired and enlightened leadership can orient and adequately promote such a course.

===

PROPOSED BALLOT:

Please check ONE box:

YES, I am confident in the leadership of Metropolitan Herman, and believe he should remain in office.

NO, I am not confident in the leadership of Metropolitan Herman, and believe that he should voluntarily resign his post.

===

HISTORICAL MEMORY
Some simple and humble reflections

Your Eminence, Your Grace
Brothers and Sisters in Christ

It seems to me that part of our responsibility and tradition and part of our life in Christ, both for clergy and laymen, is to constantly desire to discern the mind of the church.
But what is the mind of the church?
Although it is true that the mind of the church is a mystery, it is also true that we develop an historical memory of how to approach mystery and/or mysteries.
So here is a simple reflection into that memory bank with the help of the fathers, in my stammering effort to have a glimpse into their approach.
We know quite well that the virtue of virtues – the virtue of discernment – historically, has always been articulated by the church in times of ecclesiastical crisis and turmoil through the vehicles of His choice, as long as the faithful and the church was ready to follow all stages of the approach.

The approach requires preparation, prayer and patience.
The insistence of the fathers is not that we need any one of these three more that the others, but that we need all of them. It is the only possibility for receiving the revelation of the mystery in whatever form it will be revealed.
In other words approaching the mystery does not only presuppose understanding the mystery noetically or intellectually or sentimentally (although that can be part of the preparation), but really to do whatever is possible to prepare and open ourselves to discernment of His revelation.
The harmony of all three: preparation, prayer and patience, opens the door to the discernment of His will.
A few random thoughts about these three:

A) Preparation
We should have a look at history. Old and new. The facts should be unveiled. Reports should be prepared and analysed. Experts should offer their opinions. The wise and elders their words. The leaders and the simple faithful their feedback and opinions, frustrations and joys.
Remember the councils. The gatherings. The exchanges. The arguments. The secret meetings. The anathemas. The prayers. The battles. The robber synods and the Holy councils
All these are necessary, but they do not constitute by themselves the solution.
B) Prayer
We learn that it would be better to get on our knees than in our chairs, better to have our minds in the liturgy than in our offices and meeting places , better to talk to Him about His Church rather talking to the Church about Him.
All these are necessary, but they do not constitute by themselves the solution
C) Patience
We learn not be anxious about having all our concerns and questions answered according to our own time schedule, our own calendars, our own emergency alarms.
We cannot rush to the Resurrection on Holy Wednesday or Thursday. Although we always live in the light of the Resurrection, we know extremely well that there is no mature joy without a mature journey. For how long? For as long as will take to arrive at the real joy and not a fake one
All these are necessary, but they do not constitute by themselves the solution.

So, in what direction is there a solution?
The patristic direction, in my very humble opinion entails:
Prepare on your knees and be patient
But do it as a church, as a body, all the steps simultaneously , together.
And let the discernment come as mature fruit in whatever form and time and articulation He will allow it to come.
And what do we mean by solution?
A solution in a form within the tradition of the Church.
This is the faith of the Orthodox Church.
This is the faith that establishes the Universe.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I, like most children, adored my mother when I was growing up. It wasn’t as though we didn’t have our disagreements, arguments, and occasional bouts of yelling (which usually ended up with me storming off to my room and slamming my door). I knew that she had her own foibles and eccentricities, but that was OK because that was just all part and parcel of who she was. A divorced, spiritedly independent woman, she worked outside of the home and was friends with a man whom she knew was gay (all quite unusual for the 1960s). She drank, she smoked — but then so did everyone else back then. The bottom line was she was my mother, I loved her more than anyone or anything else, and, in my mind, she could do no wrong.

That all changed the day my much-older brother talked to my young adult self about his childhood relationship with her. “I had a friend at school,” he said, “who used to show up the odd time with a black eye, or the outline of large fingerprints bruised into his arm to complement the split lip or smashed ear. When I would go home and report his latest condition to my mother she would just smile quietly and say that Freddie’s dad should learn to hit where the bruises didn’t show.” He continued, “After all, that’s what she did with me.”

Life is full of parallels, and the one between the administration of the OCA and my mother is quite painful, and difficult to bear.

Both have been (and, in the OCA’s case may still be) abusers, and…Both have been (and, in the OCA’s case may still be) adept at hiding the abuse, knowing full-well that the abuse ought not to be happening but letting it continue.

The Orthodox Church in America became my spiritual parent in 1981. After many years of searching for a spiritual home I unexpectedly stumbled upon a tiny parish which has since grown into the Cathedral Church I now stand in. From mission status through amalgamation with a dying parish to growth into Cathedral, from truly humble ‘house church’ beginnings to grand building, I have been both witness to and participant in the greatest joy available to mankind. I became Orthodox because of that joy. I became Orthodox because through Orthodoxy God’s capital-T Truth, Beauty, and Goodness were revealed with clarity. I became Orthodox because of the manifestation of Christ’s love through His people. I became Orthodox because in and through Orthodoxy God’s pure light was shining, calling, beckoning. Here at last I could trust in this Truth-filled Theology, for “Christ is Risen!” and it, at last, all made sense!

The trust that I, and many many others once had in the integrity, honesty, purity, and holiness of those whose job it is to be faithful in leading us with Truth, Faith, and Love is shattered. It is not because the abuse is now public knowledge that this is so. It is because the abuse has occurred (for the past 15 years, if not longer) at all that trust is broken. Archbishop Seraphim seems to think that, like some of his “older and experienced parishioners…it is only money after all”(Canadian Orthodox Messenger, 19:3 Summer 2008). His Eminence has entirely missed the point if this is what he believes. Money is involved, yes, but it’s the broken, severed trust behind the mishandling of that money that is the issue.

To answer one question put to us by the PCC: What are your concerns and suggestions for the future of our Church?

If this trust is ever to be restored, it is imperative that everything that remains hidden be put out on the table before the convening of the All-American Council this coming November. Healing the Body of Christ demands that the putrefaction be totally exposed and purged. Only in this way can the Light of Christ shine on it and begin the process of binding us together again. At this point in time the Body of Christ of the OCA is gangrenous: if not fully excised it will kill us. It is folly to think that it can be done in any other way.

To quote our beloved Matushka Juliana Schmemann in her open letter to the Bishops and the faithful of the OCA of April 8, 2008:

Would you (our bishops) agree to be witnesses, martyrs,
helping each other with courage, strength and tenacity
in seeking the truth in spite of threats and outcries?
What a sigh of relief and renewed hope would be
felt by the church if a few of the Bishops could
take a firm and courageous stand
towards truth and transparency.
(http://www.ocanews.org/news/SchemannLetter4.8.08.html)

In fact, I would dare to say that unless ALL of the Bishops (and anyone else in the know) take ‘a firm and courageous stand towards truth and transparency’ in the months preceding the AAC, then there would be no basis at all for trust to be rebuilt. We, the faithful flock of the OCA need to be able to trust our Shepherds. Our questions about the scandals, financial and otherwise, do not make us unfaithful or disloyal. That we are committed to not only ‘reasonable worship’ but also to ‘reasonable governance and accountability’ show us to be intelligent, responsible people, people to be proud of, not dismissed as ‘having no business asking such things’.

Another question put to us by the PCC is: What would success at the All-American Council … look like to you? In a word: reconciliation. Reconciliation that must needs be predicated on a) individual confession of specific sins by those who have abused our trust ‘willingly or unwillingly, in word, deed, or thought, committed in knowledge or in ignorance’ (this would include, by the way, a specific, unambiguous public apology to Protodeacon Eric Wheeler, among others), and b) the rite of forgiveness as practiced on Forgiveness Sunday with all attendees (bishops, clergy, laity) face to face, one poklon at a time.
Our Archbishop Seraphim has been fervent in his appeals for our (collective) reconciliation over these matters, with the most recent appeal appearing in The Canadian Orthodox Messenger (19:3 Summer 2008). Quoting from his ‘From the Archbishop’s Desk: The time for reconciliation’ article: “…if we follow through on this work of mutual forgiveness and reconciliation, our restructuring will be blessable by the Lord”. I think we all would have to agree with him about this, otherwise we’d be building on quicksand, to say the least.

However, this ‘mutual forgiveness and reconciliation’ cannot come about as long as the members of the Holy Synod, and especially Metropolitan Herman, continue to deny wrongdoing, and refuse full disclosure and the acceptance of personal responsibility (‘Mutual forgiveness and reconciliation’ would not mean forgetting the errors of the past, for ‘he who forgets history is doomed to repeat it’). Even if, as Archbishop Seraphim claims in that same article:
Our current crisis has had mainly to do with administrative difficulties. Our structure, as an Autocephalous Church, does not yet properly support the way we should be living our ecclesiastical life. As a result, there is a vagueness of responsibility, which allowed for big mistakes to be made, and at the same time made it difficult for them to be seen until it was far too late.

He continues:
True, the Holy Synod of Bishops is always in the end responsible for everything – for good, or for bad. At the same time, both the Holy Synod of Bishops, and the Metropolitan Council…depend upon the clear presentation of facts, for them to make proper decisions. Both bodies (not only) had unclear information presented (although it appeared to be clear)…

The ‘administrative difficulties’ and ‘our structure’ which ‘does not yet properly support the way we should be living our ecclesiastical life’ of which he speaks indicates to me that he believes that the basic fundamental truth of living a moral life according to Christ’s calling cannot exist in the current state of affairs. I submit that it can indeed exist and it should have been existing from the beginning. No amount of administration reorganization is going to make people choose to live according to Christ. If they cannot do this without being told to, then they have no business being our leaders.

That being said, ‘success at the All American Council’ would have to come in the form of forgiveness, reconciliation, and quite probably with the resignation and retirement of Metropolitan Herman, given the current ‘vote of no confidence’ expressed by what appears to be a great majority of the faithful (both clergy and lay), indicating his failure as a ‘good shepherd’.

Another question put to us by the PCC is: What would you want to see the OCA do in the next decade?
There are four areas of need that I see for the OCA in the next decade. The first is the need for transparency and accountability, specifically in the creation of the office of an Auditor General, such as exists at the federal level in Canada:
The Office of the Auditor General of Canada is an independent and reliable source of the objective, fact-based information that Parliament needs to fulfill one of its most important roles: holding the federal government accountable for its stewardship of public funds. The Office audits departments and agencies, most Crown corporations, and many other federal organizations; it is also the auditor for the governments of Nunavut, the Yukon, and the Northwest Territories. ttp://www.oagbvg.gc.ca/internet/English/admin_e_41.html
The mandate of this office (quite separate from the office of Treasurer) would be to be vigilant in its investigations and make public its findings with specific recommendations for improvement.

Secondly, there is a need for clear, improved communication within all levels of the OCA. Sorting this one out could fall under the Auditor General’s purview.
Thirdly, collaboration with the Antiochian and Greek Churches so that with the sharing of resources (i.e. Church School, Youth, and Young Adult ministries) can come a greater mutual respect, understanding, tolerance, and community. The OCA does not need to spend the time and money it does not have simply trying to ‘reinvent the wheel’. Working together to build up the Body of Christ (instead of being exceedingly territorial and possessive) is what all Orthodox churches are called to do. Let’s do it.
Finally, (and I sincerely hope that this would happen within the next year, not the next decade): the reversal of the decision that denied an auxiliary bishop for Canada. Our Archdiocesan Assembly of 2004 supported the need for an auxiliary bishop and a candidate’s name was put forward. It was totally incomprehensible that the Holy Synod vetoed that archdiocesan decision and completely unjustifiable, given the need of this archdiocese for an auxiliary bishop, which it is able to support. It was wrong to passively abuse our overworked, overtired Archbishop of four years ago through this decision. His need, and the need of the Archdiocese of Canada for an auxiliary bishop is even greater now. Archbishop Seraphim, Eis Polla Eti Dhespota!

My brothers and sisters in Christ, forgive me, for I am a sinner.