|
This week on the Illumined Heart Orthodox Christian Podcast: The topic is Orthodox Administrative Unity. This weeks guest Charles Ajalat.
Unity Show Part 1
Unity Show Part 2
| |
 |
 |
Questions for Charles Ajalat
Welcome to this edition of the Illumined Heart. I’m Kevin Allen. Our topic today is an important one. It is titled: “Toward a North American Orthodox Church: The Question of Unity. In this conversation we will discuss the current structural status of the multiple Orthodox jurisdictions in North America; the reasons for (and against structural unity); where the various jurisdictions stand on the question of North American unity as he perceives them; the role of SCOBA (the Standing Conference of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in the Americas); and potential scenarios of what unity might look like.
My guest on the program is one of the preeminent lay leader and advocate for the administrative unity of the various Orthodox jurisdictions in North America. He is the Chancellor of the Self-Ruled Antiochian Christian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America, which has been the most vocal voice for unity in North America among the Orthodox jurisdictions. He was the architect of the historic Ligonier Meeting. This was the first meeting of all North American bishops, twenty-nine Orthodox Christian SCOBA hierarchs, who met on November 30 to December 2 1994, at the Antiochian Village in Ligonier, Pennsylvania. The bishops met together (many meeting each other for the first time), held multiple sessions and presentations, and issued two statements, specifically on evangelism and on the unity of the Church and the notion of North American Orthodox Christians no longer being a "diaspora”. Mr. Ajalat serves on the Board of Trustees of the Antiochian Archdiocese. He was a founder and past Chairman of the Board of Directors of the International Orthodox Christian Charities, the pan-Orthodox humanitarian aid charitable organization and he has also founded or helped found many other pan-Orthodox activities. He is also the founder of a prominent, Los Angeles-based law firm specializing in tax matters and litigation. He is a graduate of Harvard University and the University of California at Berkeley Law School. He is a member of Saint Nicholas Orthodox Cathedral in Los Angeles. My guest is CHARLES AJALAT, Welcome to the Illumined Heart program, Charles!
You are an attorney Charles, so I guess it would be prudent of us to begin with a disclaimer by saying that the views expressed on this program are not necessarily the views of the Antiochian Archdiocese of North America, Ancient Faith radio, or Conciliar Press! They represent the opinions of the guest and the host.
Yes, Kevin, I’d like to say I’m not speaking on this program officially on behalf of anyone other than myself.
1. What is your best estimate of how many canonical Orthodox church members of all jurisdictions are in the United States?
Kevin, population numbers with respect to any churches are hard to pin down. First one has to distinguish between the number of actual members and the number of adherents or those who consider themselves to be part of a church even if in some sense they are not “formal” members. The broader number that is sometime thrown around as to adherents is 3-5 million excluding the non-Chalcedonian churches such as the Copts and the Armenians who didn’t accept the Council of Chalcedon in 451 (and, based on relatively recent developments, many are hopeful of reunion of those churches with the Orthodox Church during our lifetimes).
Alexei Krindatch (Institute of Geography, Moscow, Russia), on the other hand, has done a recent study in which he believes there are a million or a million and a half of Eastern Orthodox Christians and the non-Chalcedonians in the United States. Even if one used these smaller numbers, the Orthodox Church, precisely because it is the historical, apostolic Church, can have a great influence on the culture of our society if it can be seen for what it is and not as a collection of ethnic communities. Even 1 ½ or 2 million people is a lot. For example, the Episcopal Church, I understand, is only about 2 million people.
Another way of “measuring” the Orthodox is to look at the number of church communities. There are about 1800 Orthodox Churches of the SCOBA jurisdictions in the U.S. and Canada and, according to Krindatch, about 2400 including the non-Chalcedonians.
2. Are the numbers growing, or is it stagnant?
I don’t know about the overall numbers. I suspect in some jurisdictions it may be stagnant and in various others it is growing. We have heard, from time to time, that the Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese is one of the fastest growing churches on this Continent. We have had over a hundred new churches in the last decade or two.
3. How many separate SCOBA Orthodox Church jurisdictions, or separate SCOBA Orthodox Church bodies, are there currently here, in your view?
I would say 10.
4. Let’s try to name the major canonical Orthodox bodies here!
The four largest, I believe, are as follows: 1. the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese (about 500 churches). 2. The Orthodox Church in America or OCA (granted independence by Russia in 1970, about 450 churches). 3. The Antiochian Archdiocese (the third-largest and fastest-growing, currently at about 250 churches) and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia which recently came into communion with the Moscow (Russia) Patriarchate (approximately 200 churches in North America). ROCOR has not yet been admitted into SCOBA. Then there are two jurisdictions which have about 100 churches here, the Serbians and the Ukranians. And then not in any particular order there are the Carpatho-Russians, the Patriarchal Romanians, the Patriarchal Bulgarians, and I believe there are 2 Albanian churches under the Ecumenical Patriarchate. These total 10 jurisdictions. In addition there are the Patriarchal Churches here under Moscow that pursuant to the 1970 Tomos chose not to leave Moscow and go under the jurisdiction of the OCA. In listing some of the ethnic groups, one needs to recognize that some (usually a smaller number) are under an overseas Patriarchate and the bulk of that ethnic group are under the OCA, for example, the Romanians, the Bulgarians and the Albanians.
5. Was the situation always this way—one of over-lapping, multiple Orthodox jurisdictions - on the North American continent?
No, Kevin. Orthodoxy was brought to North America by the Russians through Alaska and California, starting back in 1794, approximately 200 years ago. However, the major influxes of immigrants from Europe and the Middle East didn’t occur until the 1890s when various famines and other conditions such as U.S. immigration policy brought people to North America in larger numbers. At that time, the canonical structure of the Church was under Russia. For example, St. Raphael Hawaweeny, an Antiochian, was the first bishop consecrated on North American soil. He was under the omophorion of the Moscow Patriarchate.
When the Russian Revolution of 1917 occurred and the Russian Church was under persecution, the division began. The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese was formed, if I remember correctly, in 1921. There was also a split between the Antiochians, called the Russiye-Antiochye split—some wanted to remain under Russia, some wanted to go under Antioch. After the Revolution, the faithful of Russian background here were either under the Metropolia, (now the OCA) which was ultimately granted autocephaly or independence by Moscow in 1970 or under ROCOR, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, which has recently been reunited with Moscow as an autonomous or self-governing church.
So in a real sense, administrative unity isn’t so new-- we need to get BACK to the Orthodox administrative unity we once had up until the early 1900s.
6. And, each church jurisdiction has separate ecclesiastical infrastructure, Archbishops, Bishops, and runs its affairs separately from the other jurisdictions?
That is true, Kevin, even though we are one in faith and doctrine, one in worship, one in polity and canons, one in spiritual life. And the administrative separatism in North America is such a waste of the meager resources that the Orthodox Churches here have to work with. It makes absolutely no sense that there should be multiple departments of religious education, of youth ministry, etc. And the dollar of seminary infrastructure per theological student caused by the divisions is something business people would never tolerate. Multiple expensive libraries, for example, for a relatively small number of students. And all this is in addition to the canonical and ecclesiological problems resulting from the multiple jurisdictions.
Think of the strength we have together. I would love to see 45 or more dioceses of a united North American Church with 1 Bishop having the title of each major U.S. or Canadian city. For the sake of our children and grandchildren, not to mention the salvation of all, I would love to see our Church through Christ transform our culture while transforming our own lives.
7. What is the canonical standard for Orthodox structure in a country supposed to be ?
The canons provide that there should be one Bishop in one City. This is important theologically and ecclesiologically in part so that the surrounding culture can see the unity of the Church. A council held by Constantinople in the late 20th century also condemned phyletism or ethnicism as a heresy. Many have accused the current non-canonical structure of North America as violating both of these canonical standards.
8. The “One Bishop in One City Canon. Canon 8 of the First Ecumenical Council, as I read it doesn’t exactly prohibit jurisdictionalism – which the Fathers probably never envisioned. This Canon could conceivably be read to allow for multiple jurisdictions in a large territory or country – just not overlapping Bishops in one city (which we also have in America). How do you read it?
I think it is read fairly universally by the Orthodox Church to say the North American situation is uncanonical. You see if I am an American law professor of non-cradle background in the Chicago metropolitan area and I want to become
Orthodox, I find that there is a Serbian jurisdiction headquarted there, a Greek
jurisdiction headquartered there, an OCA jurisdiction headquartered there, etc.
etc. It not only is hard to see that the Orthodox Church is ONE church and the
Church that Christ founded but it is not seen as indigenous to the Continent, but
somehow as a foreign implant.
9. Are there other Canons that are specific to multiple jurisdictions?
Yes, a big point of dispute is that the Ecumenical Patriarch interprets Canon 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council to give himself a papal-type jurisdiction over all territories that were not historically under a particular patriarchate. Most other, non-Greek, Orthodox patriarchates disagree. As Archbishop Paul of
the autonomous Church of Finland said in 1979, “From these statements, we
notice that the Patriarchates of Antioch, Moscow and Romania strongly oppose
the Alexandrian theory on the authority of Constantinople over all the diaspora.”
The Canon provides jurisdiction in the Ecumenical Patriarchate for Asia, Thrace,
Pontus (the three provinces correspond to modern-day Turkey, Bulgaria and
Greece) and adds that the Ecumenical Patriarchate has jurisdiction over them
and the “barbarians.” Perhaps the best explanation of why we North Americans
are not “barbarians” has been written by Patriarch Alexis (of Russia) to
Patriarch Bartholomew (Ecumenical Patriarch) in a March 18, 2002
letter, responding to Patriarch Bartholomew’s claim that 'every province not
belonging to another patriarchal see' should be subject to the Patriarchate of
Constantinople. For those who would like to see it, please contact Kevin Allen of
this program.
10. There is also a spiritual standard (in addition to the canonical), right?
Yes, Kevin, this is what I was referring to before, from the point of view of witness to North America as one Church. As Fr. Alexander Schmemann pointed out, there is a“dogmatical or spiritual essence of the Church as unity.” The Orthodox Church is one. The Orthodox Church, on this Continent, no one would dispute is ONE, one in faith, one in worship. Why, then, do we deny our oneness in Christ, by having these separate man-made administrative structures that are not reflective of our task of bringing the good news of Jesus Christ and His Orthodox Church to North America?
11. What is the historical standard?
As the Church has developed, there has been a separate sister Orthodox church on each of the various geographical territories But this still keeps as its basis total unity between the Church in these different geographical areas through the intercommunion of their bishops. As Alexander Bogolepov said, “The Orthodox Church retained the concept of Church unity which existed during the time of the seven Ecumenical Councils. It is a unity in plurality of sister Churches, only some of which can have the privileges of honor.”
12. So is it fair to say that by most applicable standards – canons; spiritual; historic - the multiple jurisdictional reality of American Orthodoxy is in conflict with canonical, spiritual and historic standards?
Absolutely. Fr. Alexander Schmemann wrote: “The simultaneous jurisdiction of several bishops in the same territory…is a betrayal of both the letter and the spirit of the whole canonical tradition.” Our patriarchs agree, Kevin: the late Patriarch Dimitrios of Constantinople said: “It is truly a scandal for the unity of the Church to maintain more than one bishop in any given city; it contravenes the sacred canons and Orthodox ecclesiology.”
In 1977 Patriarch Elias VI of Antioch said: “the Antiochian Holy Synod has studied in depth the situation of Orthodoxy in the diaspora. Our position is clear. There must be established independent churches in Eastern Europe, North America, etc….We affirm that in North America there should be an autocephalous church with its own patriarch and Holy Synod.”
13. Is this Non-canonical situation (both in letter and spirit) unique to the American situation in Orthodox history?
The same issue of non-canonicity, to a lesser degree because of lesser numbers, exists in Europe and Australia. But looking at the broader picture, yes, the canonical problems caused by this so-called “diaspora” I believe are unique in Orthodox history.
14. How many of these jurisdictions are independent (autocephalous; “self-headed”) and fully self-governing – [e.g., the right to resolve their internal affairs on its own authority; able to appoint its own Bishops, including ruling Hierarch]
1 – The OCA was granted autocephaly (independence) by the Moscow Patriarchate in 1970 although not all the Mother Churches accept the OCA’s autocephaly. The Romanian Archdiocese here is self-ruling or autonomous, as is ROCOR, as is the Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese. The difference between autonomy (quasi-independence) and autocephaly (total independence) is whether the Mother Church has the right to select or confirm the primate or ruling hierarch of a jurisdiction here.
15. How are the rest governed?
Aside from these jurisdictions, the others are canonically subordinate to, for the most part, the Patriarch and Holy Synod in the old country from which they came, for example, the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese is under the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate based in Istanbul, Turkey. Three other SCOBA jurisdictions, the Carpatho-Russians, Ukranians and 2 non-OCA Albanian churches are also canonically subordinate to Istanbul.
16. What are some of the problems associated with multiple jurisdictions – both in matters of governance, growth and evangelism?
I’ve suggested before, the unwise use of resources, the lack of a unified witness of the Gospel and a unified witness of the Church to North Americans. These also result in a lack of witness to governments. For example, whereas the American government stopped our bombing in the Gulf War during the Muslim Ramadan, they would not heed the request of the Orthodox to stop bombing in Serbia during Holy Week and Pascha. And in the first National service after 9/11, the Orthodox were not invited, although in a subsequent service, Abp. Demetrios was invited.
17. I have also heard there are pastoral concerns and issues too (Lady wanting divorce finds a jurisdiction that will grant it), etc.
18. The Standing Conference of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in the Americas (SCOBA) – is it a “form” of an American pan-Orthodox “Synod”? If not, what is it? Has it been effective?
It is and isn’t a “form” of a North American pan-Orthodox “Synod.” It brings together the primates, and in the Conference of Bishops potentially all bishops. In that sense, one could call it a Synod. But in my view the word Synod implies binding internal authority. Because of the control of certain SCOBA churches from abroad, combined with a lack of desire on the part of certain hierarchs here to seek the goal of administrative unity, SCOBA itself at the hierarchical level is not very effective.
On the other hand, SCOBA has served as an umbrella under which the clergy and laity have been able to advance the work of the Church together, International Orthodox Christian Charities (IOCC) being one of many examples that are now coming to the fore.
To have Orthodox administrative unity here, however, needs not just the grass- roots revolution, which is the most important, but it needs simultaneously to have hierarchs who are willing to hear the cry of their clergy and laity, that we must have a unified Church and witness to our society.
19. Part of the justification for the continuing governance of most of the Orthodox ecclesiastical jurisdictions in North America by Mother Churches outside the territory of North America is the claim that North America is not an independent Local (national) Church, but rather a continuing “Diaspora” of Orthodox faithful from the Mother Countries? Could you briefly explain how this concept is understood by the Mother Churches?
I have explained before that the Ecumenical Patriarchate claims it is in charge of the diaspora, a claim others dispute. In addition, other Mother Churches see their extension in North America as a diaspora and aren’t always happy to think about the daughter growing up and getting married. They don’t realize that the entire church including the relations and benefits for the Mother Church are greater as the North American Church comes together administratively.
This is not to say that there aren’t many immigrants from traditionally Orthodox countries still coming to North America and they must be cared for pastorally. Orthodox administrative unity does not mean giving up our cultural roots or our love for and contacts with our Mother Churches but rather preserves those roots and love and contacts while focusing on the land in which we live and will die and the land in which our children and grandchildren will live and die.
20. This continuing “Diaspora” idea does not take into account the fact that growing numbers of non-cradle Orthodox have joined the churches and hundreds of thousands more were born in the U.S. and Canada, does it?
That’s correct, Kevin, and this trend will continue to occur—we cannot and will not be able to continue to hide this pearl of great price—Orthodoxy—that our Lord has given us. Nor, does the idea of “diaspora” properly characterize the cradle Orthodox who have remained in the Church, are third and fourth generation North Americans and those who have married a spouse of non-cradle Orthodox background, which spouse has joined the Orthodox Church here. The idea of diaspora most broadly holds that faithful particularly of the ethnic background of a Patriarchate belong to their jurisdiction no matter where those faithful are located in the world. The word “diaspora” also implies to some, an eventual returning of such faithful to the mother land.
On the other hand, notwithstanding that we are not a “diaspora” in North
America, as I indicated a moment ago, anyone approaching this issue seriously must also understand that there are many immigrants still coming from so-called Orthodox countries and their needs must be addressed pastorally as well. There is no reason why anyone should lose or have watered down their cultural traditions. Just as there are Italian and Irish Catholic churches but they are Catholic first, there can be Greek and Russian and Romanian and Serbian and Arab Orthodox Churches, along with “mixed” parishes and “American” parishes but each parish will be a part of a unified Orthodoxy, doctrinally, in worship, in action and in administration. Orthodoxy, not cultural ties, will be their essential primary component.
21. In practical terms, who benefits from seeing the North American Orthodox world as a continuing “Diaspora”? Why?
I’ve pointed out that seeing the North American Orthodox as a diaspora benefits those overseas who either want to control the Church here, or to feel closely attached to it. I think the latter –close relations with Mother Churches--is important and we must simultaneously, while creating a North American Church structure, strengthen the ties with all the Mother Churches, for the benefit of the entire Orthodox Church.
Again, often Mother Churches think their position, either in world Orthodoxy or in their region of the world, for example, the Middle East, will be diminished and it will hurt Orthodox Christians in that part of the world or in the world overall.
I believe the truth is the opposite—that all of Orthodoxy will be strengthened as the North American Church becomes stronger and more unified.
22. This idea that Orthodoxy in North America was a “Diaspora” was rejected by the Standing Conference of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in the Americas at the Ligonier Meeting of 1994, wasn’t it?
One of the most beautiful moments I remember is when Greek Orthodox Archbishop Iakovos, of blessed memory, stood up at Ligonier and exclaimed,
“We are not a diaspora. Lets declare ourselves to be an Episcopal assembly.”
At the same time, he was telling the truth, both about not being a diaspora, and the fact that SCOBA was intended to be an Episcopal Assembly, a term used by the Mother Churches in the 1990 and 1993 pre-conciliar conference preparing for an Ecumenical Council. As an aside, interestingly enough, the North Americans were not allowed to participate as a separate group in that conference (although two or three Americans were part of the delegations).
It simply is not accurate to refer to the 200 year old Orthodox tradition in North America overall as still being a “diaspora”. Further the term diaspora implies
to many that this is a temporary habitation and that its faithful will return to the Mother countries. This is simply not true for the vast majority of Orthodox faithful.
23. Did all of the Bishops present at Ligonier sign the two Statements on Mission & Evangelism, and Unity? Tell us what happened after the Ligonier Meeting?
The Bishops did sign the two statements on Missions and Evangelism, and Unity.
Those statements for anyone who reads them should be non controversial and
are beautiful statements regarding the purpose and mission of the Church. Again,
those statements together with the signatures of the bishops can be obtained by
contacting Kevin Allen of Ancient Faith Radio. They are part of a booklet,´”A
New Era Begins” which I asked to be produced and which also contains other
documents regarding administrative unity.. As I understand it, after the
meeting, the Ecumenical Patriarchate put pressure on the bishops under its
jurisdiction to withdraw their signatures from the documents and that was
supposedly done. Many believe that the resignation of Archbishop Iakovos was
also a result of Ligonier.
24. Has there been any other formal convocation of SCOBA Bishops for the purpose of moving towards unity since 1994?
There have been two in the intervening 13 year period, but they have not discussed what in my view is the critical issue of administrative unity. In fact, the jurisdictions opposed to such unity insist that even the word “unity” not be mentioned in their statements, etc.
25. Which jurisdictions have spoken openly in favor of a North American Orthodox Church?
The Orthodox Church in America and the Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese are among the primary proponents, though certainly not the sole proponents. Because Ligonier—the first Conference of Bishops—is a
historical turning point for the Orthodox Church on this Continent, I would
encourage your listeners to get and view a copy of the the exciting video produced
regarding the Ligonier meeting where you will see practically all of the bishops
advocating such a Church. The video is called “A New Era Begins.” Again, this is
such an important video to see. Hopefully, by contacting Kevin Allen of Ancient
Faith Radio, he will be able to direct you to how to get a copy.
26.
27. Which jurisdictions have spoken against unity or – in your opinion - oppose it outright and what are the reasons given for opposing it?
I’m not sure publicly any jurisdiction would oppose unity, although in private
even a very key current SCOBA hierarch claims such administrative unity is not
needed or possible now. Often the obstacles to administrative unity are more
subtle than outright rejecting the idea—hierarchs opposing unity don’t allow frank
discussions aimed at achieving unity; or argue for delay—the people aren’t
ready or don’t want it; or argue that we are already one Church since we can
receive communion in each other’s church, etc.
.
28. You told me the E.P. said that there is no support for Orthodox unity in the U.S. Am I getting the attribution correct? Do you think the E.P.’s assessment of the lack of grass roots support for a North American Orthodox Church is correct?
When Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew was Metropolitan, he said to me in 1991 in Canberra, Australia, that he did not believe the people in North America wanted administrative unity here as much as I did. I told him at the time that I thought there were many more than he suspected, and I think that the number has increased significantly since then.
On the other hand, I think that he is right in part. Many Orthodox Christians are only concerned about what happens in their own parish and don’t even know their brother and sister Orthodox in other jurisdictions, so there is much work to be done. Hopefully, the hierarchs will encourage such work and encourage direct discussions regarding how to achieve this administrative unity, but as I’ve indicated, not everyone approaches the issue that way.
29. Has any American jurisdiction done anything structural that would hinder or contravene any such future unity in America? Who or what is behind this?
I’m not sure if what you’re referring to is the fact that the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese now has Metropolitans rather than non-Metropolitan bishops. Their relationship to the Ecumenical Patriarchate probably strengthens the administrative control of their Mother Church to the Archdiocese here. Hopefully, this structural issue, which may or may not be an obstacle, will not ultimately hinder future administrative unity.
Perhaps another structural issue you refer to is the Ecumenical Patriarchate removing from the jurisdiction of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, the country of Canada, while the Antiochians and the OCA, among others, include Canada. This, too, makes things tougher but would have to be resolved. Step by step implementations, I think, are usually the best.
30. No disrespect meant, but the E.P. in Istanbul has – what – perhaps 2-3,000 Orthodox left in Turkey? Without the authority over churches in the so-called diaspora, the ancient ecclesiastical Sees would have much less clout worldwide, wouldn’t they?And less money!???
This is a problem that needs to be solved. We need, together, to find a constructive role for the Ecumenical Patriarchate, while simultaneously strengthening and making administratively independent a unified Church here. The Orthodox Church, precisely because it is a family of Churches does need a point of reference.
The Orthodox Church is a family of Churches that support each other and are one. The local Church is the fullness of the faith. The national Church is the fullness of the faith. The international Church is the fullness of the faith.
It is important to understand that Orthodox ecclesiology in this regard is different from that of the Roman Catholics. The oneness described on the three levels means that Orthodox, in this regard, understand 1+1+1 equal 1. The Catholic Church understands the international church to be made up of its components, so in their ecclesiology, 1+1+1=3.
31. In fact a prominent Orthodox canon law expert (Alexander Bogolepov) wrote: “In the past, the founding of a new Church occurred mostly without the consent of the Mother Church; canonical relations were usually broken off and sometimes the new Church was even excommunicated. Later, however, there was no alternative for the Mother Church but to recognize the independence of the separated Church.”
Some say, as you suggest, that there are two routes to administrative unity— evolution and revolution. I think directly and frankly discussing the issue(s) and seeing the benefit for all, on both sides of the Atlantic, of administrative unity here is what needs to happen. Look at the strength we have together in IOCC--$250 million of aid in 15 short years in 30-40 countries, accomplishing our Lord’s desire to have us help the poor and letting the visibility of the Orthodox Church be seen by all people, including in the corridors of power in Washington and throughout the world. This could not have been done by any one jurisdiction alone. The impact would not have been the same.
32. Is there anything legally – according to U.S. federal law – that would hinder an American Orthodox jurisdiction from declaring itself autocephalous? The only leverage the Mother Church has would be lack of recognition or excommunication (no small things in a canonical structure)? Other than that life would go on as usual? And as we heard eventually the Mother Church(es) has to recognize the independence of the separated Church? I know this discussion is sort of like discussing mutiny, but we are having a hypothetical, academic discussion here, so we can understand all the issues.
Well, let me say first, as Christians, we want the unity of the Church at all levels. Christ said, “That they may be one, Father, even as we are one.” So better routes than causing division, even for a historically short period, must be achieved.
If, as you say you were discussing revolution hypothetically, you have described the fact that historically often the separation occurs and is later, down the road recognized. The only secular legal block in North America comes with the issue of control of the real property and assets of individual Churches, but that, ultimately, if planned, is generally not an obstacle that can’t be overcome.
The right way, however, is to get all to recognize the reality and the benefits of an
administratively united North American Church. And to recognize that such a Church is inevitable, and it should be planned together in unity not in disharmony.
33. The first four Ecumenical Councils not only recognized the principle that the Church consists of several administratively independent Local Churches (as opposed to the Roman Catholic model) but also established and validated new Local Churches, whose number has never been limited. Is this correct?
Originally, as the Church grew, there were four centers of administrative authority—Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, the first three because they were centers of the secular world and the fourth because it was the Holy City. When Constantine created Constantinople in the fourth century, Constantinople took its place after Rome in what are referred to as the dyptichs. When Rome left the rest of the Church, Constantinople because the “first among equals.”
Certainly Orthodox tradition has recognized the creation of administratively independent churches. After the ancient pentarchy, not in any particular order, the Churches of Georgia, Russia, Serbia, Romania, Cyprus, Greece, etc. have all arisen, not to mention the autonomous Japanese and Finnish Churches.
34. The problem however is the Orthodox canonical tradition does not provide clear guidance on the subject of establishing a new local church – say a North American Church? That’s a complicated canon law issue, isn’t it?
Well, as is often true in Church history, if the interpretation of the canons weren’t complicated by the cultural and political aspects, I don’t think it would be so hard. On the issue of the canons, however, the Mother Churches have not come to agreement as to whether autocephaly, full independence, or autonomy, quasi- independence can be declared by the Mother Church responsible for the daughter Church or whether the Ecumenical Patriarchate and/or all other Churches must also agree.
One thing that is very much needed in world Orthodoxy is the idea that Metropolitan Philip has put forward, namely that the Orthodox should have a standing commission of all the Orthodox Churches, perhaps in Geneva, (I would even say perhaps in New York) where the Orthodox can be resolving problems together and be a witness on moral and social issues together to the entire world.
35. Doesn’t it canonically come down to two options: (1) the Mother Church grants autocephaly (which has rarely if ever happens); or, (2) the Ecumenical Patriarch grants autocephaly (which never happens).
I think an in-between process might be the best route for now: where all or as
many of the Churches here are willing discuss frankly how to achieve administrative unity here, how to start integrating their departments of religious education, youth ministry etc., how to have a common voice in Washington D.C. and Ottawa, having a joint Congress of the clergy and laity, etc. As this unity in practice – at the administrative levels of the Churches –is implemented and the benefits perceived by all, finalizing an autocephalous Church at the appropriate time will be easier and the faithful who have not understood the situation well will have become educated to the oneness of the Church.
36. It doesn’t seem likely to me that either option is one that the Mother Churches would take voluntarily – freeing their jurisdictions to become part of a North American Church - or that the E.P. would recognize or support such a move – for political and financial reasons. Do you disagree?
Perhaps I do. I would like to believe that all the bishops of the Mother Churches want what’s best for the entire Church. Sure, the interests of each Church are not the same and there are cultural and political and other problems, but I think the real need is for Orthodox hierarchs, here, and also together with the counterparts abroad, to discuss directly the issues and create structures that benefit all.
I believe the laity in all jurisdictions must stand up and keep giving this message to their hierarchs and simultaneously working together on the local and diocesan level, giving practical meaning to the coming administrative unity.
37. If this is the case, how – other than involuntary separation, mutiny – would such a so-called “unity” come about?
As I just said, Kevin, I think two keys are generating a revolution at the local level, in words and in action, and finding a mechanism to simultaneously get as many as the hierarchs as possible to both talk, and take action, toward making the Church administratively unified.
38. I know we are getting into the weeds here, but If such a thing came about – through God’s will – who would lead it? What would happen to all the other Archbishops, Bishops, etc.?
Any of the bishops I have talked to regarding this agree that this is not a critical issue. As with almost any Synod, the North American Synod should elect or play a major role in electing its primate. In the OCA, for example, I think if one candidate doesn’t, on the first ballot, get 2/3 of the vote of the clergy and laity in the All-American Council, then the Holy Synod of the OCA elects. This and other mechanisms, going from on the one end, election only by the Synod, to the other end (the Romanian route) to election by the clergy and laity and not the Synod, and various possibilities in between are all solutions to this problem.
The important thing is to create the Synod with binding internal authority, perhaps first an interim Synod, with a rotating presidency, and ultimately a unified administrative structure with its own rules for such elections.
39. Don’t some say, “Be patient, we now are having much more pan-Orthodox activity at the clergy and lay level, just wait until that process matures and unity will come naturally?” Do you agree or disagree with that?
Kevin, as I indicated before I think administrative unity must come both from below—the people—and above—the hierarchs, simultaneously. The two feed on each other.
As to timing, this is, of course, up to God. But He does work through us. The Church has been on this Continent for over 200 years and as a fully organized set of jurisdictions approximately 100 years. Delay, as with any complex problem, is often a way of trying to kill an idea.
Orthodox administrative unity in North America is inevitable. Metropolitan Philip has said this clearly and anyone thinking about and seeing what has and is occurring should come to no other conclusion. Therefore, rather than putting one’s head in the sand on the issue, as it seems some Mother Churches are doing, they should be actively discussing with the North American Orthodox jurisdictions how to achieve the benefits for both the Mother Churches and the daughter Churches that both want. Sure the problems are not easy and compromises perhaps may have to occur on all sides, but it certainly is not impossible. The things that are impossible with men are possible with God. And it seems clear to me that God wants the unity of his people and wants His Church unified here to transform the culture around it, even as we attempt to have God transform our own lives in and through Jesus Christ.
My concern is that due to delay many hierarchs, clergy & laity, not recognizing the historical inevitability of an administratively unified Church here, are condemning many Orthodox Christians to becoming heterodox, or atheists or agnostics, those who leave the Church when they might not otherwise do so if they could see the Church in its fullness and historical reality, something that the lack of administrative unity obscures. Orthodox unity is not a panacea for our problems, but it is an important additional obstacle. This is something that we will all have to answer to God for, just as we will have to answer as to why we hid this pearl of great price.
40. I have heard it said – by Orthodox clergy – that the problem with unity in North America really is – not with Mother Churches – but with North American hierarchs. The claim made is that “if they really wanted to make unity happen, they could do it”, with or without the approval of the Mother Church. Do you agree that the problem could technically and practically be resolved by North American hierarchs alone.
Unfortunately, I think the problem is with both hierarchs here and abroad. The ones I have the most difficulty understanding the lack of support for bold new initatives, however, are the hierarchs here.
41. As we wrap us Charles what can North American Orthodox faithful – of all jurisdictions – who support and pray for North American administrative unity – do to impact this somewhat depressing current situation?
The first thing is not to get depressed, but to pray. The Scriptures teach that the fervent prayer of righteous people availeth much. God will accomplish North American administrative unity—it is inevitable. The second thing is to get personally active, to raise orally at every possible moment in every possible forum the need for us to both work together and to be administratively one Church, focused on North America while at the same time being proud of our roots and helping our Mother Churches and the Orthodox Church worldwide. Perhaps someone should organize an internet campaign and get tens of thousands of “signatures” asking our hierarchs, here and abroad, to implement administrative unity now. This would certainly answer the question of whether North American Orthodox faithful want such unity. Third, implement Orthodox unity—put it into action in your own life, getting to know Orthodox Christians from other jurisdictions and in your parish’s life and its relationship with sister parishes in other jurisdictions, and supporting things like IOCC, OCMC, Project Mexico, Conciliar Press/Ancient Faith Radio, OCN, OCF, etc. etc.
|
