Byzantine Politics or Holiness? The Future of the Church in America

A classmate in graduate school once told me that (and I'm quoting), “You are the most cynical man I have ever met.” In response I told him “I am only cynical if I'm wrong; if I'm right you're naive.” (His response to me was, “See!”)

Recent comments on one of my posts (see here) put me in mind of that exchange some 20 years ago.

In response to my query as to what he meant by “ Byzantine politics,” a reader (Peter) offers a number of observations that I am tempted to dismiss as cynical rather than face the possibility that they are true. He writes:

The EP never, and I mean NEVER picks a fight it cannot win. It has survived in a hostile land since 1453. It has plans within plans, and the EP's statement made at Holy Cross was made for a very specific purpose - to assert the Phanar's power over the Orthodox American flock. The OCA cannot afford to underestimate its strength as others have in the past (i.e. former Archbishop Spyridon, the OCL, GOAL, etc.) and have lost and are now simply voices in the wilderness.

Referring back to a speech given at Holy Cross School of Theology by a representative of the Ecumenical Throne, Peter argues that “The EP with that statement at Holy Cross just smoked out Metropolitan Jonas [sic], tested his resolve and now with Met. Jonas' [sic] apology saw him cave in. The EP just won the battle and most people don't realize it.” He offers then what is to my mind a frightening conclusion:

While everybody is arguing about this little war of word the EP has been working in Australia, Britain, Eastern Europe and elsewhere shoring up his power. Once this is done you will have a juggernaut that will be coming towards the OCA and will destroy it canonically. . . . Machinationsare now in place that could either canonically destroy the OCA or force it to join with the Greek Archdiocese.

My first thought in reading this was simply to dismiss the argument being made. To even have such thoughts is horrifying to me. But if I have learned anything as a priest it is to resist my own desire to minimize sin, my own or others, no matter how much I want to do so.

I have no idea whether or not Peter's analysis is correct and I hope to God that it is wrong. At the same time I worry about the easy comfort that comes from dismissing information I don't like or that makes me uncomfortable. If the above scenario is correct—and I have seen no evidence that it is—then there are those in the Church who are doing the Devil's work for him.

While I think that a united American Orthodox Church is essential and (more importantly) God's will for His Church, I also believe that unity can only come by way ofreconciliation.In the Old Testament the Jewish People were divided into the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel because they sinned against God. Division, whether from the Church or within the Church, is always and everywhere a consequence of human sinfulness. We can see the symptoms of our sinfulness not simply in heresies and schisms but in the acceptance of our parallel ecclesiastical lives across jurisdictions and within our dioceses and parishes.

The Orthodox Church is coming quickly to a moment of crisis. The scandals in the United State and in the “Old World” have highlighted our own spiritual anemia. Yes part of our weakness is the result of persecution by the Soviet government and Islam. But as events in America suggest that there is only so much blame we can shift those outside the Church.

Let me conclude with what I fear might be taken as a polemic comment. I'm not being polemical, but I do think we have overlooked something that my wife pointed out to me.

The saints of the American Orthodox Church, the saints that God has raised up in and for North America and the whole Church share two qualities. One they were, missionaries, evangelists and (with a few exceptions) monastics. And second they were under the omophorion of the Church of Russia. Unless this history is acknowledge and appreciated, there will be no real unity in America. God has shown His Church in America the way to unity and it is up to take that road not out of ethnic chauvinism but in gratitude to the work of God in America.

The real competition for leadership of the Church in America, and world wide, is not one that can, or should, be resolved through canonically arguments. Yes the canons have their place. But what is need is sanctity. The saints of North America have given us the path that God would have His Church here in America travel. We cannot be a monastic Church or an evangelistic Church; we must be both. And we can only be one if we are also the other.

Leadership in the Church must not to be based in sterile canonical arguments not but in the witness of holiness. For all that it might be canonically sound, our witness is not true if it is predicated on an attempt to usurp the role of other Churches. For us as Orthodox Christians in American this means, as Metropolitan Jonah has said, that we be shining examples of fidelity to the traditions of the Churches of the “Old World,” of the whole Church. We must be men and women known for love of the saints (both in the body and out of the body).

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Some Songs for Saturday

Some music to brighten your Saturday.  First up a flash mob pays their respect to some bad music and some very bad pants:



h/t: One of the funnest and most insightful bloggers frrom the Republic of Texas Rachel Lucas.


Next up, an amazing new performance group, Voca People:



h/t: Brian Hollar from a great economics blog, Thinking on the Margin.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Related articles by Zemanta

• Hammer Pants Dance: A&E is latest "big corporation" to take flash mobs mainstream (citymama.typepad.com)
• Hammertime Flash Mob Hits Trendy L.A. Boutique (shoppingblog.com)
• MC Hammer Dance Flash Mob: Parachute Pants are Back in Style [VIDEO] (inquisitr.com)
• It's time to pick a new name for Texas (americablog.com)
• Commenter Of The Day: The Texas Archive War Edition [Commenter Of The Day] (jalopnik.com)
• Governor Perry's Tantrum: So What If Texas Secedes? (time.com)
• Is every idea worthy of becoming viral? (currentbuzz.org)

Freedom and the Church's American Exile

Both on the AOI blog and my own, my post, “Pentecost, Lincoln and the American Experiment,” brought some very interesting and thought provoking comments. Your thoughts have helped me think a bit more deeply about the relationship between the Tradition of the Orthodox Church and the American Experiment. For this I thank you all.

And even more importantly, your words were very much in mind as I read Michael Baxter recent review of American Babylon: Notes of A Christian in Exile, by the late Fr Richard John Neuhaus.

As is no doubt clear from what I wrote, I do not see Orthodoxy and the American Experiment as necessarily in opposition to each other. Or maybe it might be more accurate to say, that the differences between Orthodoxy and America are certainly no wider or deeper than what one would expect between that between God and Caesar, between the City of God which is to come and the City of Man which is here and now.
Be that as it may, however, my interest in political philosophy is motivated by the intuition that—for better and worse—the City of Man conditions the pastoral situation of the Church until the Kingdom which is to come.

I have not yet had the opportunity to read Neuhaus's last book. Having been a faithful reader of First Things and a follower of the work of its parent organization, The Institute for Religion in Public Life, I have good sense of the argument that he is likely to make and so I was interested to read Baxter's review in the National Catholic Reporter (a publication together with others which, as Baxter puts it, has “bore the brunt of [Neuhaus's] sardonic, scathing, at times unfair attacks”). Together with the work of John Courtney Murray, Neuhaus (and again this probably does not come as much of a surprise) has always served as a touchstone for my own thinking about the inter-relationship and inter-dependence of Church and State in the American context. Far from being merely my own idiosyncratic view, I would argue that this inter-dependence of Church and State is part of the teaching of the Orthodox Church. We can see this, for example, in the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom.

In and through the Liturgy we join ourselves to Christ Who offers Himself as a sacrifice to God the Father. And we do so not with but also on behalf of the “forefathers, fathers, patriarchs, prophets, apostles, preachers, evangelists, martyrs, confessors, ascetics, and for every righteous spirit made perfect in faith,” the Most Holy Theotokos, “Saint John the prophet, forerunner, and baptist; . . . the holy glorious and most honorable Apostles . . . ; and for all Your saints, through whose supplications,” we ask God to bless us.

And just as in the Liturgy we intercede on behalf of “all Orthodox bishops who rightly teach the word of Your truth, all presbyters, all deacons in the service of Christ, and every one in holy orders” and acknowledge our dependence on their faith, holy prayers and service, we likewise stand before God and intercede on behalf of “all those in public service.” We ask God to “permit them, . . . to serve and govern in peace” so that “through the faithful conduct of their duties” in the civil realm, “we [the Church] may live peaceful and serene lives in all piety and holiness.”

Owning to her conciliar nature, the different orders in the Church each have their own areas of authority and concomitant competency. Modeled on the Most Holy Trinity, in the Church authority and competency are intrinsically personal and reflect not only the unique role of the different orders of the Church but also the personal vocation of each Christian. As such these differences ought not be opposed to each other; nor can one order advance at the expense of the others anymore than one person can (or should) advance at the unjust expense of another. It is rather the case that each progresses only with and through the other orders of the Church. To borrow from Benjamin Franklin in a not wholly different context, “We all hang together or we all hang separately.”

In like fashion while the authority of Church and State are different, difference need not mean opposition even if (I would argue) the State is not a Christian state but (as in the case of America) a secular one. Back now to Baxter's review.
Nuehaus's American Babylon, writes Baxter, “is about being Christian in the United States. The title is an allusion to the Babylonian exile after the fall of Jerusalem in 587 B.C.” While in exile “God, through the prophet, called upon the Israelites there to build houses and plant gardens, to make families and multiply.” I imagine that to an exiled people who understandable viewed their overlords, as well, their overloads and enemy, God command “to 'seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare' (Jeremiah 29:4-8)” came as something of a surprise. God counsels captives not simply to forgive but to actively cooperation, support and even enrich their captors. According to Neuhaus both the “New Testament and patristic authors” understood this to mean two different, but related things.

First, “Christians, in whatever land they live, await their return from exile, not an exile from the earthly Jerusalem however, but from the heavenly Jerusalem.” As a result (and I must confess, Orthodox Christians have not always been faithful on this point), for those who follow Jesus Christ “every nation is Babylon.” Second, just as every land is Babylon, it is our duty in every land “to go along with the customs and seek the welfare of the city.” We must not simply suffer America, we must enrich her as I said earlier.

But, as Neuhaus reminds us, “there is a limit to . . . going along.” Again in Baxter's summary: “Like the Old Testament heroes, Christians are not to worship false gods or accommodate themselves to the ways of the city when it involves betraying their faith. Thus there is a tension or dialectic for Christians between their ultimate allegiance to God and their political allegiances, which are “penultimate.”

Acknowledging and honoring this tension is often easier in theory than practice but for that it is important not only for Christians but also all men and women of good will that we take on the ascesis of doing so practically and not only theoretically. If we don't then we are prone to two extremes that must be undermine the proper function of the State (and for that matter the Church). We must not succumb to either to “the twin dangers of direct governmental control of religion, as in a theocracy, and of privatizing religion, as in the militant secularism of many European governments since the French Revolution.” And again, as Orthodox Christians we have (I think) inadvertently helped set the stage for the latter by our unwise embrace of (or in America, nostalgia for) the former.

In like manner, much of the tension we see in the American Orthodox Church reflects I think our heretofore unwillingness, or at least inability, to grapple with the interdependence of Church and the American Experiment in a way that avoids on the one hand our nostalgia for a lost theocracy and our dread of oppression under a militantly secular (or Islamic) state on the other. Digging deeper I think part of the lesson we might draw from the Church's new American context is that just as our “allegiance to America is [as Neuhaus argues] provisional, not eschatological, limited yet substantial and real,” so too our allegiance to the other cultural and social settings and forms of government in which the Church found herself must be also “provisional, not eschatological, limited yet substantial and real.”

No matter how much these other cultural and social settings or forms of government might be rooted in Holy Tradition, and indeed even served to structure public life (for example) around the liturgical tradition of the Church they are not as such Christian. Yes, as I said in my earlier post, they have become carriers of the Eternal but they do so in a way that does not undo their character as limited and limiting. And how could they not remain finite? Their ontological and historical contingency is part and parcel of their character as human artifacts and we dishonor the past not only when we make it less than it is, but also more.

There are to be sure weaknesses in the American Experiment. Too easily does liberty become license; freedom of religion become indifference (and even hostility) to religion; and for more and more Americans, the pursuit of happiness become the mere search for pleasure and profit rather than the cultivation of the virtues essential for personal and civic excellence. Yes the media and secular forms of education have their role to play in all this. But first and foremost the cultural excesses that plague us reflect the failure of the Church to take seriously our responsibilities. As Stanley Hauerwas and William Willimon, (1990) in their book Resident Aliens: Life in the Christian Colony, put the matter, “All Christian ethics are social ethics because all our ethics presuppose a social, communal, political starting point—the church.” And is is through her “teaching, support, sacrifice, worship and commitment of the church, utterly ordinary people are enabled to do some rather extraordinary, even heroic acts, not on the basis of their own gifts and abilities, but rather by having a community capable of sustaining Christian virtue. The church enables us to be better people than we could have been if left to our own devices.” (p. 81)

We have, I fear, too often contented ourselves (as Orthodox Christians and American) to be anything but women and men of extraordinary and heroic virtue. And we have not simply settled for leaders (religious and political) who are themselves be no better than we, we have actively pursued this goal and punished them when they dared to see their service as requiring of them that they “be better people” than they would “have been if left” to themselves.

There is no question in my mind that in planting the Church here in America God has challenged us to a kenosis and martyrdom as real, if less bloody, as any the Church faced under Caesar, Islam or Communism. What we now face is the terrible temptation of our own freedom. Who will I become if I can become anyone I want to be? Who do I want to be?

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Pentecost, Lincoln and the American Experiment

One of the things that interests me a great deal is the relationship between the Tradition of the Orthodox Church and the founding political philosophy of the American experiment. At the risk of appearing overly critical, or even dismissive, I think the failure of Orthodoxy in America is our not having engaged theologically and critically the American experiment on its own terms. Instead we have been willing to use America without necessarily seeing ourselves as obligated to contribute anything to her.

In this the Church has allowed herself to become merely one interest group among others. The Orthodox Church has not engaged the American experiment as yeast in the dough. We have contented ourselves instead merely to fit within the broad, and decadent, framework of modern identify politics.

This failure is more than simply a matter of our presenting ourselves as an ethnic, albeit religiously themed community. Even when the religious character of the Church is focal, it is often the religion of mere morality.  Not without cause have some complained that some in the Orthodox Church seem to want to put the Church's patrimony at the service of the political and social agenda of the Religious Right.

These criticism I think are rather beside the point however. 

The moral tradition of the Church is, in the main, no different then the classical moral teaching of Western Christianity. I suspect the attraction of some Orthodox Christians to the Religious Right reflects more a love of this shared tradition and a real concern for the moral health of American society than a grab for power as such.  Further I suspect that those Orthodox who criticize their brethren's  involvement in conservative politics do so from a desire to see the Church support (if only passively) their own more left leaning politics. But whether from the moral, cultural or political, right or left these criticism are, to repeat myself, are different then my own concern.

The American experiment is I think best expressed by Abraham Lincoln in the Gettysburg Address. Reflecting on the horror of the war tearing at the fabric of the country, President Lincoln looks back to the historical and philosophical founding of the Nation: “Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” The challenge facing the United States in Lincoln's time (and ours) was not war per se, but whether the American "nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.”

Reading over the years the work of the late Catholic theologian and political philosopher John Courtney Murray, I have come more and more to appreciate the wisdom of Lincoln's words at Gettysburg. Unlike other countries that are united by land or blood, a shared culture or language, America and Americans are, or should be anyway, united by an idea, the fundamental equality of all human beings.

While it has not always done so well, or even at all, at its best what the American political experiment asks of us is not to surrender our language or culture. Rather as a nation of immigrants, we ask each other to put the riches of our respective cultural and ethnic heritages at the service of the common social good. Granted in our short history there are times when we have honored this idea more in words than deeds. But even when honored in the breech, if there is a unique American culture or mindset it is that enduring faith in the equality of all human beings and the centrality of committing ourselves to the common good of all.

Contrary to her critics harsh words our failure to be faithful to our own ideals is to be expected. It is to be expected not simply because we are sinners, but and again as Lincoln points out at Gettysburg, because the American experiment is always an unfinished work. Whether in times or war or peace, it remains for each generation to answer in the affirmative Lincoln's challenge to his listeners on that not so long ago battlefield:

It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government: of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

So what does this have to do with the Orthodox Church? Two things I think.

First, internally, if the Church is to be a real, indigent Orthodox Church and not simply a pale copy of the Church in Greece or Russia, we need to take seriously the challenge of America that in the neither the City of Man nor the City of God do we have to lay aside language or (to the degree it does not contradict the Gospel anyway) our culture. Let me go further. 

On Pentecost Sunday I reminded my own community that the work of salvation while it is directed at human beings certainly.  Salvation also, however, results in the deification of culture. Just as Greek culture was Christianized and became the carrier of Eternal truth without lossin of its own character as either Greek (or so ontologically and historically contingent) so too American culture can be Christianized, become itself a means of communicating what is Eternal in and through the contingent and limited structures of culture and language.

Part and parcel of the Christianization of American culture is I think demonstrating, and this speaks to my second point, that E pluribus unum is not simply a political motto. It is also at the heart of all human community. More than that, it is also at the heart of Church. 

We sing at Vespers on Pentecost:

The Holy Spirit gives all things: makes prophecies flow, perfects priests, taught the unlettered wisdom, revealed fishermen to be theologians, welds together the whole institution of the Church. Consubstantial and equal in majesty with the Father and the Son, our Advocate, glory to you.

The Church is a pneumatic community of unity and diversity not in opposition but harmony. So too while at it best it falls short of this, this is what America aspires to be. The Church offers America a glimpse not only of  her own biblical foundations but the Eucharist which is both a reminder of that towards which America aspires and the standard against which she must also evaluate her own actions, domestic and foreign.

The American Experiment is for me as an Orthodox Christian a real, if imperfect, icon of the Eucharist. Or to borrow from Hebrews, if the Eucharist is an image of the Kingdom which is to come then American Experiment, seen in light of the Eucharist image, is a shadow of the image. And it is as a shadow, as something which points beyond itself to the image, even as the image points beyond itself to the Reality which is to come (see Hebrews 10.1) that Orthodox Christians can and should not only engage but wholehearted love and support the American Experiment.

If we have as Orthodox Christians have been seduced by the identity politics that has come to so mark  contemporary American political discourse on both the left and the right, this doesn't mean that we have to remain bound by our shared failure. Rather we can, if we only decide to do so, return not only to ourselves but return in a way that we can serve the common good of both the City of God and the City of Man.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Sunday Sermon?

Hmmm, tomorrow is Pentecost after all, I wonder, maybe I should preach a bit more like this? Yeah, maybe, well see.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory



h/t: Fr Philip Powell, OP at Hanc Aquam!

Urban Parish Summit, July 16-17, St Theodosius Cathedral, Cleveland OH

The OCA Diocese of the Midwest will hold an Urban Parish Summit on July 16-17 at St Theodosius Cathedral in Cleveland OH. The summit will gather clergy and lay representatives from 17 urban parishes to discuss the possibilities for parish growth and spiritual renewal. My parish is hoping to send at least three lay representatives. I'll be attending as well and will lead a workshop on the second day of the conference. My topic will be the importance of storytelling in parish renewal. 

More information about the summit is available here.

God willing, and if you are able, do consider attending the Urban Parish Summit this July.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Go Vote!

Voting for the Eastern Christian New Media Awards is now open.  This blog has been nominated in two categories, best individual blog and best theology blog.  So on the link and go vote for your favorite Eastern Christian blogs.  Vote here!

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

And Now Back to Condemns, Sex, the Human Person and Culture

When I think of safer sex and condom education and the anthropology that it informs it, I am struck by the superficiality of its vision of the human. It is not unlike a toddler's temper tantrum; if only I am loud enough, angry enough, assertive enough, I can get what I want. Sadly, and as anyone who has seen a toddler throwing a temper tantrum, if the tantrum is allowed to progress, it quickly becomes an end in itself; self-assertion quickly becomes self-destruction; rage at others and frustration at their lack of submission to my will, quickly becomes terror at my own rage and a growing sense of my own impotence to accomplish my own desires.

So what then should be done?

The great tragedy of human sinfulness, of my sinfulness, is that I am not simply indifferent to my own humanity and yours, but am actively hostile to it. What this means is that I invest immense amounts of energy in avoiding my dependence upon God and neighbor for my self-discover, self-expression and self-fulfillment. I express this in one of two ways.

First, and this has be the main focus of these posts to this point, I simply refuse to acknowledge my dependence. Instead of humble openness and patience that acknowledges the foundational role of your hospitable for my self-fulfillment, I proceed autarkically; I do not receive my life with gratitude but seek to create my own life through the imposition of my own will upon not only the world of persons, events and things but also myself. Life, in this vision, becomes a project of my own ego, a quest for power and control that eventually comes to encapsulate not only the world around me but me as well. I become, in effect, my own project. Ironically, to be even temporarily realized control requires that I narrow the parameters of my life until, and again in parody of the Gospel, my life becomes “one thing,” be that one thing professional success, material wealth or sexual desire.

Compare this to Sören Kierkegaard's description of purity of heart:

Father in heaven! What is a man without Thee! What is all that he knows, vast accumulation though it be, but a chipped fragment if he does not know Thee! What is all his striving, could it even encompass a world, but a half-finished work if he does not know Thee: Thee the One, who art one thing and who art all! So may Thou give to the intellect, wisdom to comprehend that one thing; to the heart, sincerity to receive this understanding; to the will, purity that wills only one thing. In prosperity may Thou grant perseverance to will one thing; amid distractions, collectedness to will one thing; in suffering, patience to will one thing.

For the Christian tradition, and I suspect for most traditional societies that stress the communal nature of the human, willing one thing is not reductionistic, but transcendent. Insofar as safer sex and condom education limits its concerns to the biology and mechanics of sexual intercourse, it offers only a “half-finished work.” And this work, Kierkegaard reminds us, remains opaque, to the degree that our vision remains limited to the specific work itself.

But there is another way that I can be hostile to my own dependence on God. If in the former, I try and impose myself on myself, in this second case, I simply refuse to undertake the work of self-discover and self-expression. (As an aside, this was part of what I was getting at in a series of posts on the psychological foundations of jurisdictionalism.) Instead, I limit myself to simply maintaining the forms of my tradition but never allow those forms to challenge me to self-knowledge and self-expression in any depth.

In either case, however, what we see is an abdication of chastity or a life that is respectful of self and others. Rather than respect, I live a life that sees self and others in purely, or at least largely, instrumental terms, as I try and shape them and reality to my own, increasingly encapsulated will.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Pansexualism: “Do You Think I'm Sexy?”

We see nowhere see the efficiency and popularity of autarky then in matter of human sexuality. Far from being the obsession of the right wing ideologues, unfettered sexual expression has become the rallying cry of contemporary secular society. As Craig Carter, who teaches theology and ethics at Tyndale University College & Seminary in Toronto and who serves as "Theologian in Residence" at Westney Heights Baptist Church, has written,

Pansexualism is the real ideology driving the sexual revolution. It is the doctrine that sexual liberation means that all should have sex with all at will. It holds up promiscuity and the unisex ideal as its goods. True sexual liberation can only occur when sexual pleasure has been totally detached from the bonds of family life and procreation. Pansexualism seeks to sever the connection between parents and children because that tie stands in the way of complete sexual liberation for the autonomous individual. Parenting prevents individuals from satisfying their hormonally driven desires with whomever they feel like doing it with at any given moment. So the family must die. It is an obstacle to individual fulfillment; it is inherently "oppressive." (h/t: Dr Edward Green)

It is worth noting, if only in passing, that the gods of the Ancient Near East, the gods that tempted Israel to deny God and her own identity, where in the main fertility gods who worship embraced prostitution ( Ishtar) and infant sacrifice ( Moloch). While some contemporary scholarship questions the existence of sacred prostitution, for example, the association between sex and apostasy is unquestioned in the prophetic literature of the Old Testament (see for example, Deuteronomy 23:17-18 and Hosea 4:14 and their parallels).

Pansexualism stands in stark contrast to the Christian (and not merely Christian) notion that human greatness, human transcendence is dependent upon an act of mutual hospitality and service. For me, this requires that I cultivate in myself the virtue of humility, that is an appreciative awareness and acceptance of my dependence on your hospitality and the hospitality of God.

More tomorrow.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

A Gift Given to be Received

While sexual ethics are not, by any means, the whole of moral concern, they have become so for contemporary culture. Even as other areas of human life come more and more under societal, and even governmental, control, human sexuality seems to be something of a cultural free zone. Where political power is brought to bear at all it is in the service of imposing of sexual freedom grounded in individualistic desire. Contraception, abortion, divorce, to name only three, are all in the service of undoing and even defiling the natural symbolic connection between human sexuality and community. No longer do we see society embodied in procreation. Instead of new life as a gift from a gracious God and the fruit of conjugal love between man and a woman, we come to see procreation more and more as the expression of our own mastery over the human bodies. No longer is a child a gift given to us or not as God (or the gods) decide.

Shorn of gratitude and its connection to what is beyond the person, sexuality has become an instrument of mere self-expression. Culturally, human sexuality no longer reminds us that even in our most intimate desires and moments, we are meant for something larger than ourselves or even each other. Now it seems, that which is larger, that which is shared, has come to serve intimate human desires and moments. But in this service, what is larger is made smaller and cheaper.

Where in traditional societies, immanence and transcendence existed in an ordered partnership (hierarchy) each with its own place and integrity relative to the other, we now see a new hierarchy being proposed in which transcendence is to serve immanence. In doing so, however, transcendence has ceased to what orders human affairs and so both have ceased to be themselves. Returning to what I said above, in this submission of the transcendent to the immanent, the communal to the individual, I see a parody of the Incarnation.

St Paul says of the Incarnate Son,

Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Phil 2:5-11)

The self-emptying (kenosis) of the Son is in the service of human transcendence, deification (theosis) in the traditional language of the Christian East. Or, to borrow from Hasidic spirituality, my self-contraction is always in the service of your self-expression; I make myself small so that you can grow larger.

Alas, where have now come to a place culturally (and safer sex and condom education are illustrative of this) where we have lose sight of the anthropological fact that I do not grow except by the gift of another's self-limitation. It is “ your” kenosis that makes possible “my” transcendence. And the first step of that transcendence is gratitude for the great gift of your self-limitation.

This all reflects an anthropological vision that is greatly at odds with contemporary understandings of the person. In place of an anthropology of mutual kenotic self-limitation as the means of our shared self-discover and self-expression, contemporary secular culture offers an autarkic anthropology that sees the self-discovery and self-expression of others (whether human or divine) as obstacles to my will. What you have, you have taken from me and so my self-realization must, necessarily, proceed along the path of your destruction or at least submission to my control.

While traditional (and Christian) societies often fail to realize the anthropological vision I have outlined, secular autarky has proven itself to be deadly efficient and terrifying popular in embodying its own anthropology.

More tomorrow.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Site News

Looking at the stats, I see that Koinonia has this week broken 200 subscribers1 Thank you to all of you who take the time to read here. And a special thank you to those who have put up with the buggy comment system. God willing, that will be corrected in the next few days.

Recently my wife and I got Iphones--a great product and well worth the cost if you (as we do) travel a great deal. But Koinonia, whatever might be its other virtues, is not configured for those who read it on smartphones. Or should I say, WAS not configured for smartphones.

Today I launched a trial, mobile, version of this blog for those of you would read on the fly. Your smartphone should automatically re-direct you to the slimmed down, tiny screen friendly verision. Alternatively, you can point your browser here: http://palamas3.mobify.me/

Again, thank you everyone for your support and encouragement.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Conflicting Views of Self-Interest

For radically individualist, for those who hold to what Robert Bellah and his colleagues in Habits of the Heart call ontological individualism, the traditional notion of community is at once both attractive and frightening. A traditional life is attractive in that it offers an end to loneliness, to a life of isolation in which the person is left to his or her own ever diminishing physical and spiritual resources. But a traditional life is also frightening in that admission to such a life is never something I can simply will; I cannot in the strict sense choose this life, I can only be admitted by the invitation of a hospitable other. The love embodied by a traditional society is not mine. Rather life in as a member of a community is, in the strict sense, outside of my control, it a gift that is first and freely given and only then before can I receive it.

And, once received, it limits my autarkic mode of self-presence and self-expression. Contemporary culture is an autarky predicated as it is on an (illusory) ontology of self-sufficiency; traditional societies, for all their differences in religion and even morality, are based on an ontology of what Western Medieval philosophers describe as primary and secondary contingency, on our radical dependence on God and our proximate dependence upon humanity.

Self-discover and self-expression (including in the sexual dimension) remains an essential developmental goal for the human person in both contemporary and traditional societies. And, and again in both, these are done not simply within social structures but with others.

Where contemporary secular culture deviates, however, is on the goal, or teleos, of human self-discovery and expression. In the autarky that is secular culture, human development is directed toward a self-sufficiency that beings and ends in the individual while in traditional societies, our self-sufficiency is in the service of the community and indeed remains inchoate if it is not in the hospitable and gracious service of the community.

Safer sex and condom education, to return to where I began, seem to me to appeal (rightly I think) to self-interest. We hear similar appeals to self-interest in the Scriptures. For example, in Jeremiah, God instructs His prophet:

"Now you shall say to this people, 'Thus says the LORD: "Behold, I set before you the way of life and the way of death. He who remains in this city shall die by the sword, by famine, and by pestilence; but he who goes out and defects to the Chaldeans who besiege you, he shall live, and his life shall be as a prize to him. For I have set My face against this city for adversity and not for good," says the LORD. "It shall be given into the hand of the king of Babylon, and he shall burn it with fire."' (21.8-10)

But where traditional forms of self-interest and expression, to repeat what I said above, are grounded in and return to an appreciative and obedient service of the community, contemporary appeals to self-interest are typically set in opposition to the community. No where is this difference as clearly seen then in matters of sexual ethics.

More tomorrow.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Biology Isn't Destiny But It Isn't Optional Either

A human being is not, as I said yesterday, a being-in-itself but rather a being-with-others, that is to say a social being.

The social nature of the human person is to say rather a bit more that the I simple fact that the human person is a member of something called the the human community in general sense. Bracketing for a moment ontological considerations, it is to say that our being arises not simply out out of a concrete sexual community constituted by a particular man and a particular woman, that is our mother and father.

The philosopher Emmanuel Levinas reminds us with his usual poetry, that this community is primordially an ethical community. The fecundity of the human is not merely biological, he observes, but moral; a woman becomes a mother through an act of hospitality by which she welcomes into her the intimacy of her own body a stranger whose presence will necessarily reconstitute her life transforming her from a biological to a moral agent.

In most traditional societies, and especially within the Christian community, this biological fecundity is a natural symbol for humanity. To be human is to be a being whose existence transcends the brute givenness of biology and really that whole order described with such precision by the empirical natural sciences. Before all else, I am a being whose being comes to from outside and as a gift from a hospitable other. And I, in turn, become most full myself when (in imitation of my mother) I embody concretely my own willingness not to simply to welcome the stranger into my life, but to allow my life to be reformed and transformed by the presence of the stranger.

For both the pious Jew and the committed Christian, that stranger is not simply a human other but the divine Other. I become who I am by an act of hospitality and care not only for strangers, but the Stranger, Who is God. While I cannot explicate it fully here, it can be argued that the human community as a whole is fundamentally feminine and that while women are by nature maternal, men are only analogically paternal.

Certainly cultural factors play a large role in the development of gender, gender roles as social constructs are themselves grounded in the sexual differences of male and female. The gender roles of a given society may more or less accurately reflect these biological difference, even as they may revere they respect these differences. But it seems to me that we can neither deny the real biological difference between male and female nor can we rid ourselves of gender roles for men and women. The denial of these biological and social differences requires that an anthropological vision that is at odds with most traditional cultures and especially with the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Within the Christian tradition specifically, Levinas' analysis of human fecundity and the maternal hospitality of all human beings leads quickly and directly to a consideration of the incarnation of the Son of God in Jesus Christ. Human sexuality and reproduction point beyond themselves to a communion that is both ground in the Most Holy Trinity and which embraces the whole created order.

Even if other traditional societies are not themselves predicated on faith in Jesus Christ, there is (or so it seems to me) these societies share a “family” resemblance with the radically communalism that is at the anthropological heart of the Christian tradition. While not universal, nevertheless the communalism of traditional societies stands in stark contrast to the radical individualism and physical reductionism that has come to evermore characterize contemporary Western culture in both North America and Europe.

More tomorrow.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

More on Condoms, Sex and the Human Person and Culture

Several weeks ago, I posted a reflection on the ineffectiveness of condoms in preventing the spread of AIDS in Africa (see Mirror of Justice: Harvard's Dr. Green on the Pope, Aids, and Condoms in Africa). What caught my eye about the original report was the agreement on the matter between Pope Benedict XVI and Harvard scientist and AIDS researcher, Dr. Edward Green.

Somewhat to my surprise (and delight) Dr Green left a comment on my post asking me to say a bit more on what I see as the anthropological contradiction at the heart of most safer sex education programs. So this week, I will in fact try and say a bit more about this.

Specifically, in the main most safer sex advocates would assume that the person is (or should be) free of any external constrains on his or her behavior. At the same time their educational outreach is predicated on the notion that shared or cultural norms (in the current case, the use of a condom) ought to intervene between desire and action; indeed the public health norms of the program should determine the person's behavior rather than the person's own desires. Or to put the matter differently, the person should desire for him or herself what public health officials desire for him/her. In either case what safer sex and condom education advances and seeks justifies for public health reasons is the virtue of chastity even if they do not advance the as it is usually understood in the Christian tradition.

However noble the goals, safer sex and condom education programs are (I would suggest) contain an inherent anthropological contradiction. While understood in clearly different ways, both the Christian tradition and safer sex educators are advocating for some form of chastity. But while the Christian advocate for chastity argues from within a concrete tradition that sees tradition itself as having a normative and even determinative role for human behavior, in the main those advocating for safer sex practices reject the notion that personal behavior should be shaped by tradition.

Within traditional societies I think it likely safer sex education advocates would be perceived as an attempting to replace the traditional culture with a culture grounded in contemporary scientific theories of physical health. Let me please be clear, I am not rejecting the findings of modern science, far from it. But if I may risk the ironic use of an idiom, safer sex advocates have thrown the baby out with the bath water. In their zeal to protect the health of those at risk of HIV/AIDS they have neglected to see the disconnection between their public health goals and their neglect—and at times open hostility—to the anthropological fact that the human person is foundationally a traditional being. The irony of this becomes all the more biting when we realize that sexual activity is in and of itself a more or less natural symbol of the fact of my human being not a being-in-itself, but a being-with-others.

More tomorrow.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

David's Comments "On Some Go Postal..."

Dear David,

Christ is Risen!

Thank you for your thoughtful comments ( here). I appreciate why you think I have been unfair to the EP and the GOA—a my comments where rather pointed. Let me see if I can explain my position with a bit more clarity (and charity).

As Chrys mentioned in his own comment ( here), I think the existence of the ACROD and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (and the Albanian diocese) rather makes my point. My objection is not to the existence of so-called ethnic jurisdictions under the Ecumenical Throne (or in the OCA dioceses). It is rather that these communities (under the EP) exist as parallel communities. It strikes a bit too much like “separate but equal,” rather than as a model of an administratively unified Church.

Now if, and here I'm thinking of Metropolitan Jonah's proposal that you referenced, the primates of these communities met as a Synod to oversee the life of the American Churches under the Ecumenical Throne (as happens in the OCA) that would be, in my view, a healthier situation. But these bishops of these Churches do not meet as a local synod and so all I see (and I'm open to being corrected) from the EP is more of the same ethnic based jurisdictionalism.

To this I would add that I have not seen any evidence that the GOA has invested any of its considerable resources in growing the smaller communities under the EP. What I have seen is that thanks to the existence of these independent communities under the EP results in the EP getting four seats on SCOBA with relatively little investment on the part of the Ecumenical Throne. Forgive me, but I am always a bit skeptical about any exercise of power that is not matched a comparable investment of resources. (Or as a friend of my puts it, don't trust people who don't have “skin in the game.)

All of this is an application of what Jesus says that those in authority must lord it over others. Rather they must serve the least. What I haven't seen is any evidence from the EP or the GOA of willingness to be of service to even to its own smaller communities.

I would very much in favor of Metropolitan Jonah's plan of all the bishops in America meeting as a local synod while maintaining their associations with the various Mother Churches. I also would support that synod being under the presidency of the Exarch of the Ecumenical Throne (currently Archbishop Demetrios).

Regarding the canonical status of the other jurisdictions relative to the OCA, my point was not that these communities are uncanonical but that they have a vested interest in not acknowledging the autocephaly of the OCA. To repeat what I said in my post, acknowledging the OCA's autocephaly means that the Churches of the Old World would be encroaching on the canonical territory of a sister Church.

As I said in a recent email to a friend, I don't disagree that there are substantive arguments to be made against the claims of the OCA. The essay by Fr Oliver Herbel, “ Jurisdictional Disunity and the Russian Mission,” on OCANEWS has done that in fact quite well.

My concern in all of this two-fold.

First, I think the argument made by Holy Cross faculty regarding the primacy of the EP is flawed not only historically but also (and in a way more importantly) practically. As I said, I simply have not seen a commitment to lead from either the EP or the GOA. Giving orders? Yes, certainly. But leadership seems rather lacking. While I I don't fault the HC faculty for coming to the defense of the EP, I think their unwillingness to acknowledge the shortcomings of the EP and his lack of leadership in the States only furthers the estrangement that afflicts the Church.

Second, this is not to say that leadership is an abundant supply in the other jurisdictions. Far from it in fact. In the main we seem more willing to tend to our own patches and ignore each other rather than cooperate with one another.

This I think is why Metropolitan Jonah has provoked such a reaction, he's willing to lead when others are not. His suggestion that ALL the bishops meet as American Synod while maintaining their relationship with the "Old County" may or may not be a viable way forward. It is however an idea worth debating.

The Orthodox Church in this country has tremendous spiritual and material wealth. Unfortunately, our internal divisions cause us to waste that wealth. Yes, we do well enough when the concern is our own parishes--but beyond that we seem rather lacking in our moral, philanthropic and evangelical witness.

Again, thank you for your comments.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Some Go Postal, I'm Going Editorial

As a rule, I avoid posting editorials on my blog. This doesn't mean I don't have my own views about things, but do I try especially hard to avoid intra-Orthodox controversies. However, events since the election of Metropolitan Jonah have caused me to rethink my approach. While still I think polemics should be avoided, I also think there are times when a more forceful word is need.

This all came to mind when I read John Couretas' post “ Holy Cross Faculty Weighs in on 'Distinctive Prerogatives' of Ecumenical Patriarch,” on the American Orthodox Institute blog, AOI Observer. John writes that,

The Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology in Brookline, Mass., released a "Faculty Statement on the Ecumenical Patriarchate" on April 30 and posted it on the school's Web site on May 8.

The text of that statement beings as following (my emphasis):

The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople is the preeminent Church in the communion of the fourteen Autocephalous Orthodox Churches. Reflecting the witness of St. Andrew, the First Called Apostle, the enduring mission of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople is to proclaim the salutary Gospel of Jesus Christ in accordance with the Apostolic and Orthodox Faith.

The Ecumenical Patriarchate has a particular responsibility to strengthen the unity of the Orthodox Churches and to coordinate their common witness. At the same time, the Ecumenical Patriarchate has a specific responsibility to care for the faithful in lands beyond the borders of the other Autocephalous Churches. This is a ministry of service to the entire Church which the Ecumenical Patriarchate undertakes in accordance with the canons and often under difficult circumstances.

The Faculty of Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology profoundly regrets that statements recently have been made which misinterpret the canonical prerogatives and distort historical facts related to the distinctive ministry of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Indeed, s ome injudicious remarks have insulted the person of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and have attempted to diminish the significance of his ministry.

While more restrained in tone then recent statements, nevertheless the faculty's statement is a defense of the Ecumenical Throne and reflects no serious criticism of the failures of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to provide effective leadership either in the United States much less world wide.

What I find most irritating is the condescending tone the faculty take to the Orthodox Church in America (OCA). Referring to the development of the Church in America, they write:

it must be recognized that the proper development of the Church in this country has not always followed the principles of ecclesiastical organization reflected in the canons of the Councils which have already been mentioned. The presence of multiple jurisdictions from various Autocephalous Churches in the same territory and the presence of multiple bishops in the same territory are clearly contrary to the canonical tradition. The good order of the Church has been shaken by acts which have gone contrary to ecclesiological principles and historical praxis.

With admirable lack of subtlety, the faculty's only example of improper ecclesiastical organization is the grant of autocephaly “to the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church (the Metropolia) by the Church of Russia in 1970” that created the Orthodox Church in America. (This is not to say, I should add, that there are not substantive arguments against the autocephaly of the OCA. While I don't agree with these arguments, I do think these arguments are often overlooked by apologists for the OCA.)

They write that

This action had no canonical basis. From that time, the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the majority of other Autocephalous Churches have refused to recognize the "autocephalous" status of this jurisdiction. As a result, this jurisdiction has not been accorded a place in global Pan-Orthodox discussions in accordance with the agreement of the Autocephalous Churches.

Nevertheless in their view “the Ecumenical Patriarchate has exercised restraint and has not broken communion with this jurisdiction. Indeed, in the 1990s the Ecumenical Patriarchate frequently received representatives of this jurisdiction to discuss its irregular status. While recognizing the historical road of this jurisdiction, the Ecumenical Patriarchate has affirmed that the canonical irregularities have not been resolved.”

In my view, I think that the leadership of the Ecumenical Throne and the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America has been mixed at best. The events leading up to the autocephaly of the OCA is illustrative of this.

When the old Metropolia approached the Ecumenical Patriarchate ASKING for assistance in regularizing its relationship with the rest of the Orthodox Church, it was told that it had to address its concerns to the Moscow Patriarchate. It did and the result was the creation in 1970 of the OCA. Far from being a rejection of the Ecumenical Patriarchate the OCA was the fruit of the Ecumenical Throne's unwillingness to involve herself in the life of the Church in America.

Another failure to take a leadership role in America is how the Ecumenical Throne responded to the group of Protestant Evangelical Christians who would go on to join the Church as the Antiochian Evangelical Orthodox Mission. As with the Metropolia, the Ecumenical Patriarchate WAS approached by Peter Gillguist et. al., only to be rebuffed. Is it any wonder then that not simply Metropolitan Philip of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of American, but many Orthodox Christians in America are skeptical about the ability of Ecumenical Patriarchate to lead the whole Church and especially the Church here in the States? 

In both cases I must ask where was the leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarchate when leadership was need?

The letter also references the 1994 meeting of Orthodox bishops in America—Greek, OCA, Antiochian, Ukrainian, Carpatho-Russian, and Serbian—in Ligonier PA. That meeting represented a concrete move toward a united Orthodox Church  most likely under the presidency of then Primate of the Greek Orthodox Church of North and South America, Archbishop Iakovos of blessed memory. These plans were derailed by the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

History to one side, I would take exception to what seems to me to be the faculty's condescending tone toward the OCA.  This tone is much in evidence when they say that the Ecumenical Patriarchate has "exercised restraint and has not broken communion with this jurisdiction” (i.e., the OCA). These words and the use of scare quotes when referring to the OCA and its autocephaly does not suggest, to me at least, restraint but provocative spirit.

In the first place, whether a majority of the autocephalous Church do or do not accept the autocephaly of the OCA is not the point. Truth is not subject to a majority vote! 

Further, and at the risk of generating more heat then light, it seems that the Churches that do not accept the autocephaly of the OCA have a vested interest in not doing so. If the OCA's status is accepted, then they have find themselves with parishes and dioceses on the canonical territory of another Church. Put another way, if the OCA is canonical, then by their presence here Ecumenical Patriarchate et. al. are themselves up to charges that they have violated the canons and that it is the OCA that has "exercised restraint" by not breaking communion with these jurisdictions.

Stepping back a bit, and as I posted this on AOI, as long as the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese (with the consent and encouragement of the Ecumenical Throne) sees its primary mission as caring for the Greek community it is not fit for leadership here in America and pretending otherwise is a waste of resources and detrimental to our wtiness to the Gospel. I don't fault the Holy Cross faculty for defending the Ecumenical Patriarchate.  Nor do I fault the clergy and faithful of the GOA for wanting to care for their own.  Both of these are certainly worthy goals.

But I'm not Greek and to be painfully honest about the matter I have no particular interesting in focusing my ministry as a priest around caring for the Greek community. There's nothing wrong with what the GOA wants to do, but if this is their primary mission let them take a secondary role in the life of the Church in America. And the same, I am sorry to say, must be said for the Ecumenical Patriarchate on the universal level.

If they want to take a leadership role, what should they do?  A good start would be for the Ecumenical Throne to demonstrate the desire and the ability to care for the whole Church in America and not simply the Greek community. 

The let them demonstrate do so by doing what thousands of American who have joined the Orthodox Church have done, subordinate their own language and culture to the Gospel.  Let the GOA lead by demonstrating through the use of their time, talent and treasure that they are will and able to promote the well being of those who are not Greek. One way to do this would be to commit themselves here in America to do what they have done in overseas missions: Create indigenious English language, non-Greek, Orthodox Christian communities.

After 12 years in the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese I simply have not seen from Archdiocese (or Ecumenical Patriarchate) provide effective leadership in America.  While I do not call into question the faith and commitment to Christ of the bishops, clergy and laity of the Greek community here and abroad, as long as the primary concern for the GOA the needs of the Greek community (which include the preservation of Greek cultural identity and language), the needs of those of us who are not Greek will simply take a backseat.

Put another way, as long the primary mission of the GOA is caring for the Greek community, then non-Greeks and their pastoral and cultural needs will remain secondary.  If caring for the Greek community is primary, pastoral care for non-Greek Orthodox Christians, to say nothing of philanthropic outreach, evangelism and home missions will always come second. Having been a missionary I got to tell you, you cannot be effective in bring people to Christ and His Church under these circumstances.
You can read the rest of the faculty's response either on the AOI blog ( here) or on the Hellenic College/Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of the Theology web page ( here).

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Death Star Rules!

From Gizmodo:

I thought we already established this fact, but this cool video proves it again: It shows what would happen if the Enterprise arrived to an alternative San Francisco, occupied by the Evil Galactic Empire.

Too bad the video gets ruined by the crappy explosion at the end. I'm sure JJ Abrams would approve, though.

Related articles by Zemanta

• New 'Star Trek' Wants To Make You Laugh (socialitelife.celebuzz.com)
• Some Older 'Star Trek' Fans May Skip This Voyage (npr.org)
• Local Trekkie Upset About Scale of Buildings in Futuristic San Francisco (sfist.com)

Robert's Comments and the Psychology of Jurisdictionalism

Let me switch gears here and return to filling in a bit more of the psychological content of jurisdictionalism. These comments are offered in response to something that Robert posted a few days ago. He writes:

Without naming names, it would be helpful to take this discussion out of the theoretical and into the practical of our present day situation. Veiled references to a minority group of broken and wounded individuals just leave me a bit puzzled.

First, forgive me for being unclear. I do not have a discrete group or groups in mind when I speak about a minority of individuals within a parish, diocese or jurisdiction.

Rather, I think that in any community, whether we are talking about cradle Orthodox, converts, laity or clergy, there are broken individuals whose attraction to Orthodoxy while often sincere is also mixed with an attempt to avoid intimate human relationships.

To be stereotypical, think about a parish composed primarily of converts in which the vast majority of the community's energy is focused on keeping a strict liturgical cycle. Or, and again to traffic in stereotype, think about a a community of cradle Orthodox that is internally divided into self-selected factions based on village or geographic region from the "Old Country." In both cases the people substitute a formal category external to the person for a bond of love which is always person.

So in the first case, the deal we make is this, we'll have a beautiful liturgical life, but we will never speak to each other except superficially and then only in insofar as we must to arrange the service schedule. In the second case, we remain indifferent to those parishioners who are not from our region (or our families) in the Old Country. Again what matters is not person but some standard external to the person. In effect, the parish is not a community of persons but a mere association of strangers whose interactions are purely formal and always mediated by some structure external to the person.

You see this kind of behavior in families in which there is some type of abuse—physical, sexual, emotional or chemical. In order to keep the painful truth of Dad's alcoholism, for example, at bay we speak about anything else and everything else. Yes, dear old Dad might be asleep drunk in the middle of the living room floor, but we simply walk around him. (And when I worked in mental health, I heard just this story more than once.)

What I'm getting at is this, while we need to care for these individuals, we must be attentive that we not allow those who come to the Church to avoid healthy, intimate human relationships to set the tone and the agenda of the Church. And under no circumstances should they be placed in lay or ordained leadership positions.

There are, sadly, some people who are so psychologically wounded that normal, healthy forms of human intimacy are painful and even impossible. When these people seek out the Church, they often do so not for healing but in order to find in the formality and structure of the Church as means of escaping intimacy and love. What they seek is not communion but collusion.

If given the opportunity to do so, they may very well create for themselves a well ordered, theologically sound, liturgical perfect community that is, tragically, spiritually dead. Or they might create, as the late Fr Alexander Schmemann would have it, a museum to the past glories of Byzantanium or Holy Rus, But again for all its beauty and fidelity to history, it is not a living community but a diorama.

I know this sounds harsh but we need to guard against what I see is a growing tendency to emphasize tradition over person. This is simply wrong. Why? Because instead of being lead by Holy Tradition into an ever deeper encounter with God and neighbor, they use Holy Tradition as an escape, a shield from what they (wrongly) perceive to be a hostile God and a hostile neighbor. When this happens, rather than being a hospital for sinners, the Church becomes a source of new and deeper wounds.

As always, your comments, questions and criticism are not only welcome, they are actively sought.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

James the Thickhead's Comments and the Psychology of Jurisdictionalism

James the Thickhead's Comments and the Psychology of Jurisdictionalism

My post on the psychological roots of jurisdictionalism seems to have struck a cord with people. Let me say upfront, I most think of my blog as a way to think out loud about the psychological and pastoral issues that interest me. For this reason, my posts are more often then not “though experiments” that I'm offering to people for their comments and criticism.

Doing scholarship this way is important if we want our reflection on the life of the Church to be a work of the Church and not merely—as some of you have rightly pointed out about my recent posts—the theoretical reflections of one individual.

In their recent comments, both James the Thickheaded and Robert have helped me clarify my own thinking on the psychological structure of jurisdictionalism. Today, I will respond to James and tomorrow to Robert.

James is right I think when he says:

I am puzzled by the analysis of the problem as psychological primarily rather than sociological. Surely the two are related, but this seems a failure - as a friend is wont to put it - to learn to play nicely in the sandbox. Is that psychological or social? I think the latter... though it may stem from other internal causes. Is it insecurity? Sure. But it may be more consistent with studies of behavior problems due to economic status rather than theology. I'm aware of quite a few of the former studies... but not so many on the latter.

Let all thinkers, I have my own biases, personal and methodological. And my bias tend toward emphasizing the psychological rather than the sociological.

While I wouldn't discount the economic factors, it seems to me that jurisdictionalism is too broad a reality in the Church to be simply a matter of economic or social setting. It interests me, for example, that jurisdictionalism is not simply an Orthodox problem. We see it as well in the Catholic Church with not only overlapping Eastern Catholic dioceses (e.g., Melkites, Ruthenians, Ukrainian and Romanian Catholics all using the Byzantine rite in the same geographical territory) but also the overlapping of Latin and Eastern Catholic Diocese (e.g., in the Middle East and Eastern Europe). And there is now the variety of continuing Anglican communities in the North America that are outposts of dioceses that are overseas and in communion with one another.

Again, while I wouldn't discount theology, it seems to me that jurisdictionalism is an increasing equal opportunity temptation for communities with different ecclesiological models and sacramental theologies.

Granted, individuals and communities can have a variety of motives for how they organize themselves. And I would grant as well that often these different motivations are not only contradictory when looked at between traditions, there is often inconsistencies, contradictions and outright failure even within a given community. That said, consistency is not necessarily a virtue and inconsistency, by the same token, is not necessarily a vice.

But it does seem to me interesting that Orthodox, Catholic and Anglican communities ALL seem to have embraced some form of jurisdictionalism. I'm not sure what to make of this except to make not of it and to wonder if we might want to at least consider if we share a common shortcoming.

As always, your comments, questions and criticism are not only welcome, they are actively sought.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Chris Jones' Comments on The Psychological Roots of Jurisdictionalism

Thursday and Friday of last week, I posted a two-part conclusion to my reflections on the Orthodox Church and American religious culture. Those post (The Psychological Roots of Jurisdictionalism Part I and Part II) resulted in some interesting, and substantive, responses from Chris Jones and James the Thickheaded (their comments can be read here).

In this post, I want to offer my own thoughts in response to Chris's comments and questions. God willing tomorrow I will respond to what James had to say.

Chris writes,

An interesting thesis; but you have not given us the evidence that leads you to your diagnosis. It would be helpful if you would describe the behaviors and expressions that are symptomatic of avoidant personality disorder.

It is not uncommon to find people in positions of ordained or lay leadership who are motivated in their actions by the dread typical of people diagnosed with avoidant personality disorder.. What in both cases is feared is that that they will be found out to be a “fraud.” I would add to that the often crippling fear that if they move outside of a fairly narrowly drawn circle of Church concerns they (or the Church which seen as an extension of their own wounded ego) will be “put down, demeaned, or rejected.” Consequently, fear based individuals adopt as their “main strategy” the avoidance of “situations in which they could be evaluated.” To avoid being evaluated, or if you will judged, “they tend to hang back on the fringes of social groups and avoid attracting attention to themselves.” As well in a professional or work situations, “they tend to avoid taking new responsibilities or seeking advancement because of their fear of failure and of subsequent reprisals from others” (see Beck, Freeman, David, et. al., Cognitive Therapy of Personality Disorders , 2007, p. 38)

One way of avoid all this is to adopt a formal, aloof, overly intellectual or intentional or quasi-intentional eccentric style of engaging the world of persons, event, and things. In this sense, the formality and theological richness of the Orthodox Church, for example, serves as a screen behind which the person or community can hide and deflect challenges much as does the Wizard of Oz hides behind the curtain when Dorothy first “mets” him. Orthodoxy becomes for the person (or community) a distracting curtain, a way of self-concealment rather than self-revelation. When this happens life is characterized not by peace and joy but by “a combination of anxiety and sadness”(see Beck, p. 38). It is precisely this sense of anxiety and fear that has come to dominate in the lives of at least some Orthodox Christians. To broaden my argument beyond my own observation, let me borrow from recent comments by Dr. Sr. Vassa Larin, a nun of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia's Diocese of Berlin and Germany.

Responding to criticism that Fr Robert Taft, SJ, a Russian rite Catholic priest should not have been invited, but less given, a presentation at ROCOR women's conference, Sr Vassa said “It seems that some of our faithful experience Orthodoxy first and foremost as fear, while their faith remains largely uninspired, uncurious, and hence uninformed.”

She continues that “ At the same time, a fearful Orthodox is often willing to spend hours in the Internet, feeding on church politics and dulling the theological senses all the more. To such a culture of ignorance and fear, even the most brilliant non-Orthodox scholars of our Byzantine liturgy are seen as threats, rather than a humbling admonishment to our own negligence of Orthodox tradition.”

Fear of being rejected by those with whom we share a common creed but not a common culture (and for that matter, a common culture but not a common creed) is I think at the psychological foundations of not only jurisdictionalism but the common polemical attitude one encounters in Orthodox circles.

While this is certainly a theological problem, it is not simply a theological problem. Nor is it, for this reason, a problem of “translating” theological scholarship to the faithful.

It is rather a question of personality of how our character influences our approach to Holy Tradition so that our lives are personal and shared lives are characterized not of trust but fear. Theological scholarship as such cannot undo the fearfulness. In fact, as Sr Vassa's comment suggest, theological scholarship is being taken up by those who twist it to the sustain a “culture of ignorance and fear.”

While I see why Chris said it, I am not advocating here a model in which theological scholarship is translated “and given to the people,” resulting “in good psychological health.” I am rather arguing that we have in our midst a vocal, but strident, minority of individuals (cradle and convert, lay and ordained) who are themselves suffering from from a broken sense of self, substituting Holy Tradition for a health sense of self and others.

These broken individuals (and again they are a minority) are not guided by the Church's Tradition. Instead they apply the Tradition ideologically—cookie cutter fashion if you will—to life, rather than allowing the Tradition (which is to say the Holy Spirit) to illumine and guide their life circumstances. Pastorally, these wounded individuals whose lives are motivated by fear need to be restored to wholeness in Christ. But they cannot be allowed to set the Church's agenda.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory