Top 20 Patristic books by Mike Aquilina

From The Way of the Fathers author, Mike Aquilina.

What Would Casey Kasem Do?
Wednesday May 10th 2006, 7:55 am
Filed under: Patristics

A visitor named Simon tells me that I should post my “top ten books on early Christianity…No, make that twenty!” Well, I could call him on a technicality because he never said “Simon says.” But I won’t, because I can’t resist his temptation. So I publish this list, with all the usual disclaimers: I do not, of course, endorse everything every author says in every one of these books; nor do I necessarily root for their favorite football teams. I, after all, am a Pittsburgher. Not all of these books are, strictly speaking, books on the Fathers. But these are the books whose scholarship on the Fathers has (in the words of my pre-teen kids) rocked my world.

1. The Spirit of Early Christian Thought by Robert Louis Wilken.

2. The Rise of Christianity: How the Obscure Jesus Movement Became the Dominant Religious Force in the Western World in a Few Centuries by Rodney Stark.

3. The Church of the Fathers by John Henry Newman.

4. The Spirituality of the New Testament and the Fathers by Louis Bouyer.

5. The Celebration of the Eucharist by Enrico Mazza.

6. In Procession Before the World: Martyrdom as Public Liturgy in Early Christianity by Robin Darling Young.

7. The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), vol. 1 in The Christian Tradition by Jaroslav Pelikan.

8. Face to Face: Portraits of the Divine in Early Christianity by Robin Margaret Jensen.

9. The Christians as the Romans Saw Them by Robert Louis Wilken.

10. Mary and the Fathers of the Church: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Patristic Thought by Luigi Gambero.

11. An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine by John Henry Newman.

12. Easter in the Early Church: An Anthology of Jewish and Early Christian Texts by Raniero Cantalamessa.

13. Patrology (four volumes) by Johannes Quasten.

14. Fathers of the Church by Hubertus Drobner.

15. Early Christian Doctrines by J.N.D. Kelly.

16. The Theology of Jewish Christianity by Jean Danielou.

17. In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity by Oskar Skarsaune.

18. Symbols of Church and Kingdom: A Study in Early Syriac Tradition by Robert Murray.

19. Letter and Spirit: From Written Text to Living Word in the Liturgy by Scott Hahn.

20. Four Witnesses: The Early Church in Her Own Words by Rod Bennett.

On Orthodox chant

Great piece on liturgical music, specifically Orthodox chant. Yes! The music is not sacred- it's the words! She gets it.

Here's a nice video.

BOB ABERNETHY, anchor: This weekend of Easter Sunday for Western Christians, we have a profile coming up of an inspiring Christian musician. We also have a “Belief and Practice” segment on chanting in Eastern Orthodox churches where this is Palm Sunday. Because of differing church calendars, Eastern Orthodox Easter— Pascha — is next week.

Our guide to Orthodox chanting was Emily Lowe, a member of the choir at the Holy Cross Antiochian Orthodox Church in Linthicum, Maryland. She told us not only about chanting, but also about her personal experience as a singer of the Eastern Orthodox conviction that worship brings change.

EMILY LOWE (Choir, Holy Cross Antiochian Orthodox Church, singing): Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit.

The Orthodox Church is unique in modern times, having a completely-sung liturgy. Everything is sung from the very beginning to the end.

In Orthodoxy, the music is not sacred. The words are sacred. The music is really meant to fit the text. So when we talk about heaven, the voice goes up. And when you talk about hell or Hades or sin, it goes down. For instance, (singing), “The company of the angels was amazed when they beheld the number among the dead.”

During the time of the Ottoman Empire, the Greek chants took on sort of a very Middle Eastern character and that’s when you hear this sort of dissonant, odd sounding things: (singing) Hallelujah, Hallelujah, Hallelujah, glory to thee oh God.” It sounds very foreign to western ears.

For instance, (singing) “rejoice o Bethany.” Rejoice O Bethany — it’s a beautiful hymn and it’s very dear to the heart of our Arabic parishioners — (singing) — “God came to thee; God came to thee.” That little flourish at the end, (singing “la la la la”), very unusual and very otherworldly sounding. And that’s kind of — that’s the impression that people get. They might hear 20 things when they walk into an Orthodox church. But that’s what they’re going to take away. They’re going to go, “Whoa, I remember that. That was really unusual.”

I converted about 12 years ago. I was 16. And my family converted together. It was initially my father’s decision. He said, “I think this is the place for us to be. This is where God’s calling us. And this is really the fullest expression of the Christian faith.”

One thing about Orthodoxy is that it really demands change — and expects change. It expects that you will grow spiritually, that you won’t just be the same person that you were the week before or the month before.

From a personal standpoint, I never had a very good voice before we became Orthodox. I believe that I found my voice in Orthodox music — that I didn’t have it in Protestant music or in secular music.

When people say, “Oh, you did such a wonderful job,” I feel like telling them it wasn’t me because it really wasn’t. It doesn’t feel like me when I chant. I’m thinking about God and expressing the words the best that I can.

Orthodx prelate: Benedict XVI good; John Paul II bad?! - 'Tis Outrage!

From Rorate Caeli

Another interesting statement from Bishop Hilarion, formerly of Vienna, now of Volokolamsk, successor of the now-Patriarch Kirill as head of the Moscow Patriarchate's Department for External Church Relations. Emphases mine. I have not corrected the grammatical errors, and I am posting this without comment!


This is the latest in the series of statements from the Moscow Patriarchate in support of Pope Benedict's policies. (See this in support of Summorum Pontificum, this one on the lifting of the excommunications of the SSPX bishops, and the latest on Pope Benedict and condoms.)

The Moscow Patriarchate approves of Pope's uncompromising position on ethics


06 April 2009, 12:09


Moscow, April 6, Interfax - Refusal of Pope Benedict XVI to use politically correct language and offer compromise on traditional issues of Christian ethics has gained support of the Russian Orthodox Church.


"The difference of this current Pope from his predecessor is that this Pope never watches for political correctness in his statements. This is the reason why his statements sometimes produce shocking effect on the Western society: people there are not used when the Church's Head voices a traditional standpoint of the Church," Bishop Hilarion of Volokolamsk, a new head of the Moscow Patriarchate Department for External Church Relations said at a live broadcast of National Interest program shown Saturday on Rossiya TV Channel.


That was Bishop's comment of criticisms aimed at the Pope, also by the French Ministry for Foreign Affairs, for his opposition to contraception.


Bishop Hilarion continued that "we view this as a positive shift in the Catholic Church's position, because head of the Church, in particular, head of the largest Christian Church, should not adapt himself to any PC language, he should tell people what his Church teaches him to tell them."

I don't know. Diss the former pontiff who ended, or at least played a huge part, in ending communism? A pope who engaged the modern world in set the stage for the world to receive Pope Benedict? This argument seems silly, though it is good to hear positive comments. The remarks are valid too, only if time exists in vaccum; no continuity from pope to pope and age to age. This is one reason why I have issues with Orthodoxy.

Metropolitan Jonah on American Orthodoxy - a magnum opus

I haven't read the whole piece yet, but it appears to be quite comprehensive. A nice ecclesiology teaching moment, perhaps.

A Time of Crisis and Opportunity

His Beatitude, Metropolitan Jonah

--The following is a portion of the opening address of His Beatitude, Metropolitan Jonah to the OCA Metropolitan Council at their 2009 Spring Meeting, February 18, 2009


The past years have been a huge struggle and a time of cleansing and purgation, a true crisis in the sense of a time of judgment. The Orthodox Church in America has emerged from this crisis, realizing that much has to be changed and much has to be created anew in its internal structures. This is a time of immense opportunity. Not only did the inadequacies and sins of the past regimes create an impasse for the Church, and present it with horrific choices; but, these revealed the deeper structural flaws in the organization of the OCA that permitted and perhaps created the crisis to begin with. These include, but are not limited to, structures of accountability and delineation of responsibilities, which are not dealt with adequately in our current statute. This was complicated by a lack of appropriate leadership. As a result the central administrative organizations of the Church were thrown into disarray.

Most of the superficial problems have been dealt with, and a new administration is in place, new policies have been implemented to create structures of accountability, and there is new leadership. But the underlying issues of the inadequacies of our statute, and the confusion of responsibilities between the organs of our central organizations, constitute what our essential task is to address in the near future. There are also issues left over that are pressing, and we also need to address and resolve them, so that the Orthodox Church in America can move on and assume the responsibility of its mandate: to be the local indigenous autocephalous Orthodox Church in North America.

During our time of troubles, the national and international reputation of the OCA was severely compromised. Movement towards Orthodox unity in America was severely damaged, and the perception of the OCA as being a viable partner in any movement towards unity, or even a player, was compromised. Various other Churches expected our dissolution. But in the words of Mark Twain, "Rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated!"

Coinciding with this slide there has been a descent into deeper and deeper parochialism, and with that, congregationalism. This "hunker down" mentality really constitutes a loss in the catholic breadth of the vision of our Church.

The breadth of vision is the key to our renewal. During the crisis, the leadership of the Church, Episcopal, clerical and lay, became completely consumed with the "next issue" to arise, the next revelation of wrongdoing, the next betrayal or failure of some leader. The vision of the Church was buried in gossip and scandal, people became demoralized and disillusioned, and God and his Providence were forgotten. What is important to remember is that while these things did happen, evil as they were, it is the pastoral effect that must be addressed as well as the issues themselves. It is a tragic thing to see someone in a position of great responsibility fall; it is a worse thing to judge and condemn them, and then fall into resentment towards the institution and community which itself was the victim. It becomes a self-perpetuating vicious circle. What suffered is the Church as Church, as people lost sight of the Church as the Body of Christ, and instead became focused on individual members and their sins and failings. The bishops are not the Church. The Central Administration is not the Church; nor is the MC, the AAC or any other organization.

Rather, we all constitute the Church, together, in Christ by the Spirit. We who are broken and sinful, dishonest and corrupt people. When we lose sight of our own sinfulness, and start blaming and judging others, we have lost our Christianity. If we want vengeance and retribution, we trample on Christ and the Gospel. We cut ourselves off from God and from one another in a great orgy of ego gratification. "Everyone loves a dirty little sex scandal." And scandals over money are not far behind. But does it not occur to us, as incensed as we are with self-righteous indignation, that all this is a distraction and temptation to betray Christ and betray ourselves as Christians? Temptation always presents this question: Will I act as a Christian, or not, in relation to this provocation?

If we have responsibility for the life of the Church, which we as the bishops and the Metropolitan Council as clerical and lay leaders do, we have to know about this stuff (Unfortunately!) in order to correct the problems. But if we allow ourselves to obsess about it, and especially in judgment and condemnation of others, we not only have forgotten our own sins and hypocrisy, but we will be blind to any constructive solution, any solution that is of God. Ultimately, all these problems came and were revealed as God's Providence for us. They revealed weaknesses that needed to be addressed, and an opportunity for us to address them.

We have to return to the vision of Christ, crucified and risen from the dead, present now, and coming again, that is at the very core of our life as the Church. To be an Orthodox Christian is to focus our lives on Jesus Christ, and to continue His ministry of love and reconciliation, the call to repentance and forgiveness. We are called to bear one anothers' burdens--the burden of one another--and so fulfill the Law of Christ. The Lord calls us to patience and longsuffering, always going by the way of humility and love. This vision of Christianity must be at the very heart of all our decisions and all our lives, as Christians, and especially as leaders of the Church.

Revisioning the Orthodox Church in America

We have an enormous opportunity, and responsibility, to re-vision the structure and life of the Orthodox Church in America. While the basic elements are outlined in the Tradition, especially the Canons of the Ecumenical Councils and the Fathers, there are other elements that we incorporate as 21st Century Americans. Those essential elements from the Tradition are the Holy Synod presided over by the Metropolitan, a diocesan structure, and the canonical heritage. Other values critical to us, and partly coming from the Russian Council of 1917, are the participation of lay and clerical members in decision making. The Strategic Planning process on which we are embarking is precisely the process we are using to re-vision the Church.

Ultimately, we need to rewrite the Statute. The structures that were put in place and incorporated in the Statute reflected the life of the Metropolia and its early transition to being the autocephalous Orthodox Church in America. When the Statute was written, the OCA consisted essentially of a single archdiocese, with three or four sub-dioceses, with bishops who were essentially auxiliaries. It was a fairly homogenous social and ethnic community located mainly in the "Rust Belt" between Chicago and New York, north of the Ohio River. Cultural ideas of egalitarianism, democracy and division of powers, as well as identity as a corporation, shaped the initial document. Transparency, accountability and "best practices" had not even entered the national debate.

The OCA has outgrown its previous structures. It has become a huge, diverse community stretching to every corner of the continent. It consists of 13 dioceses, each with its own life. It is largely a convert church, and has no social, ethnic or linguistic homogeneity--and is authentically local and indigenous, rather than an ethnic church. While culturally very North American (in its own diversity), the OCA can no longer be "one of the jurisdictions," but rather has to develop its internal structures to measure up to the challenge of being the Local Autocephalous Church, inclusive of the tremendous diversity of our continent, but also respecting the uniqueness of each community and its needs.

The Statue itself and the organizations it creates have become obsolete. The AAC not only has become huge and unwieldy, and cannot effectively make most decisions; but the real underlying problem is that it compromises the diocesan structure of the Church, treating the whole Church as a single archdiocese with parish representation. The MC was initially the archdiocesan council, advising the one bishop with full authority, the Metropolitan. The central administration performs all the statutory functions of the Metropolitan Council; and then we wonder why there is conflict. The crisis created a power vacuum, which the MC stepped in to fulfill--a power gap previously filled by the Chancellor. But nowhere in the Statute is the MC given any authority as an organ of accountability; BUT neither is anyone one else specifically. Nor does the MC perform the primary role defined in the Statute: as the main fiduciary, to raise the money to support the life and work of the church. Because the leadership was dysfunctional, the Holy Synod abrogated its authority, and retreated into their own dioceses; the central administration grew to immense proportions and power, and both the Holy Synod and the Metropolitan Council rubber stamped the decisions of the CA, and abrogated their responsibility. Et cetera.

And so, my dears," we have a mess. Not to even bring up any corruption.

So where do we start? First, we have to look at basic Orthodox ecclesiology. The Apostles invested the bishops with the leadership of the Church, through sacramental ordination. This is the principle of authority in the Church: sacramental responsibility. This sacramental responsibility is not only over what is "spiritual," but the entire life of the whole Church, in every aspect, because even how we use our money is spiritual and sacramental. There can be no dualism between the spiritual and the material.

The real underlying question is the issue of leadership--primatial, Episcopal and lay. We need to examine the nature of primacy: how the episcopacy relates to the local church, and the interrelationship of the local churches within their province, and hence, the role of the Metropolitan as Primate. Central to this, however, is the nature of that relationship of obedience: of the presbyters to the bishop, and the bishops to the Metropolitan. Primacy is constituted by accountability and authority, in a relationship of obedience. This is Christian leadership. All of this is, ultimately, defined in the ancient Canons, and rooted in the Scriptures.

Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you. (Hebr. 13:17)

I believe that the starting place to understand all this is to understand authority and obedience as responsibility, rather than as "power." Any reduction to "power" is by definition, corruption. Accountability in relation to responsibility is a core element in obedience. Various areas of responsibility are given to the different offices and organs of the Church by the canons. The question is, how are they invested with responsibility and for what, and to whom they are accountable? Accountability is intimately linked with responsibility; the structures of accountability are built as structures of obedience. Then we have to look at the nature of the support of the whole structure: first, financially, with the flow of money and resources; then, the flow of responsibility and accountability in relation to the organs of advice and consensus.

Bishops and the Metropolitan

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

The basic unit of the Church is the diocese: the bishop surrounded by the presbyters, deacons and faithful. The bishop has responsibility for the whole body, and sacramentally recapitulates it, and all ministries flow from the bishop. This is the literal meaning of "hierarch"--the "source of all priesthood." The presbyters and deacons, in particular, as well as all the faithful, are in a relationship of obedience to the bishop, and accountable to him for their service within the Church. The bishop has a double accountability: to the clergy and laity of his diocese; but also to the Synod which elected him and its head.

The Synod of bishops of a nation is the "Local Church." They bear responsibility for the oversight of all the churches in their care. They have the responsibility to elect and install new bishops where there is a vacancy or need. They are the point of accountability for each other. They elect as president of their Synod the bishop of the metropolis or "mother city," as Metropolitan Archbishop.

The Metropolitan bears the responsibility to maintain unanimity and consensus among the bishops in all matters affecting the life of the Church as a whole, and is the point of accountability for the bishops; while he in turn is accountable to them. This is a relationship of obedience, accountability in mutual love and respect, for the responsibilities given. The Metropolitan has the responsibility to relate his Local Church to the other Local Churches, and maintain unity and communion. This "ecumenical level" is the highest level of accountability, as it is the final court of appeal. The Metropolitan is a diocesan bishop, as are all the others. Thus all the bishops of the Synod bear an equal responsibility, as well as an equal ordination. The one thing that distinguishes the ministry of the Metropolitan is his primacy: his responsibility to be the point of accountability, with the other bishops in a relationship of obedience. There is no "super-bishop" or ordination over that of bishop.

Regional Council of Antioch: 9. The presiding Bishop in a metropolis must be recognized by the Bishops belonging to each province (or eparchy), and undertake the cure of the entire province, because of the fact that all who have any kind of business to attend to are wont to come from all quarters to the metropolis. Hence it has seemed best to let him have precedence in respect of honor, and to let the rest of the Bishops do nothing extraordinary without him, in accordance with the ancient Canon of the Fathers which has been prevailing, or only those things which are imposed upon the parish of each one of them and upon the territories under it. For each Bishop shall have authority over his own parish, to govern in accordance with the reverence imposed upon each, and to make provision regarding all the territory belonging to his city, as also to ordain Presbyters and Deacons, and to dispose of details with judgment, but to attempt nothing further without the concurrence of the Bishop of the Metropolis; nor shall he himself, without the consent and approval of the rest. (p.228)

There is a fundamental difference in primacy between a diocese and a synod. In a diocese there is a distinct difference in responsibility and structure of accountability because the levels of ordained responsibility are unequal. In a diocese, the bishop presides by virtue of his ordination, and all the clergy and people are accountable to him for their stewardship; as well as he to them for his leadership. In the Synod, it is a community of equals, all bishops, though the Metropolitan has primacy.

The Metropolitan's ministry is to hold the bishops to accountability in a structure of obedience that is by its very nature love and respect, unanimity and synergy. The Metropolitan's leadership arises through building consensus, rather than authority over the other bishops. Decisions are communal, by consensus; and the Metropolitan cannot act alone. As a bishop sacramentally recapitulates his diocese, so also does the Metropolitan recapitulates the Synod, personifying it and speaking for it. The Metropolitan cannot intervene in the affairs of another diocese, unless there is a canonical issue; then that intervention is his responsibility on behalf of the Synod. A diocesan bishop is accountable to the Synod for his stewardship of the diocese, because he is given that responsibility by them in election and ordination in a relationship of obedience. That structure of accountability is personified in the relationship of obedience to the Metropolitan.

A bishop's authority comes from his responsibility for his own diocese; the metropolitan's authority is within the Synod. The parishes relate to their own bishop, as their point of accountability in obedience. The bishops relate to one another in the Synod as the structure of accountability in obedience to the Metropolitan. But, the Metropolitan, as metropolitan, has no relationship to either the parishes or the clergy directly, other than those in his own diocese. This is very important, especially in regards to the flow of resources.

The Metropolitan's responsibilities, as primate, are in maintaining unity among the bishops of his Synod, and resolving whatever decisions need to be made on a Synodal level, and whatever issues directly affect the whole Church. The primacy also demands that the Metropolitan relate his Synod to the other Local Churches, maintaining recognition, contact, and communion. This would include, in our contemporary situation, relations with other jurisdictions in America, as well as with the other Autocephalous Churches. Thus, all matters related to the transfer of clergy between Churches, jurisdictional disputes, and so forth, are the purview of the Metropolitan. It is also within his purview to convene the Synod, councils and church-wide conferences; oversee church-wide ministries such as theological education; and oversee economic matters such as tax status, legal matters and insurance which affect the whole Church. The Metropolitan oversees matters dealing with bishops, including election, placement, accusations, investigations, transfers, and canonical actions.

Administration

The bishop is entrusted with responsibility for every aspect of the life of the Church, including full authority over the material goods and finances of the Church.

Apostolic Canon 41. We ordain that the bishop have authority over the goods of the Church, for if he is to be entrusted with the precious souls of men, much more are temporal possessions to be entrusted to him. He is therefore to administer them all of his own authority, and supply those who need, through the presbyters and deacons, in the fear of God, and with all reverence. He may also, if need be, take what is required for his own necessary wants, and for the brethren to whom he has to show hospitality, so that he may not be in any want. For the law of God has ordained, that they who wait at the altar should be maintained at the altar's expense. Neither does any soldier bear arms against an enemy at his own cost.

As this reflects the practice of the 4th Century and before, the later canons bring up the practice of a steward or economos, essentially chancellor or treasurer, to assist in the management of the affairs of the diocese. This is the beginning of diocesan administration other than through cathedral deacons and presbyters.

Chalcedon:26. Since in some churches, as we have been informed, the Bishops are administering the ecclesiastical affairs with the services of a Steward, it has seemed most reasonable and right that each and every church that has a Bishop should also have a Steward selected from its own Clergy to manage the ecclesiastical affairs of that particular church in accordance with the views and ideas of its own Bishop, so as to provide against the administration of the church being unwitnessed, so as to prevent the property of the same church from being wasted as a result of such stewardless administration and to prevent any obloquy from attaching itself to holy orders. (p.84)

In the Orthodox Church, according to the Canons, all responsibility rests ultimately on the bishops: spiritual as well as financial and organizational. They may and should designate people to handle such affairs, both for the sake of ability to administer and to guard the reputation and integrity of the bishop. This is where we can begin to see the foundation of the central and diocesan administrations, as well as the Metropolitan Council.

Vision for Today and the Future

The OCA is the heir of this ancient tradition, and structures its life accordingly. However, over the past decades, this system broke down to some extent because of personalities involved, and to a great extent because it went out of balance. The dioceses, to a great extent, did not take on the full responsibility for their own lives, and the Metropolitan and his staff took on the role of an archdiocese--or rather, continued it according to the existing statute. In the meantime the life of the Church grew and developed, dioceses were formed that assumed responsibility over their own lives--"sovereignty."

What we need now is for the dioceses to develop fully, and each to take on responsibility for itself. Each diocese needs to develop its own programs, funding, and missionary outreach. At the same time, the Metropolitan's Office must focus on the things that are in its purview, and leave the dioceses to handle their own business. Clergy matters, internal OCA transfers, local ministries, youth programs, development of missions, charitable and evangelistic outreach are all the responsibilities of each diocese and its bishop.

The Metropolitan's Office has the responsibility to take care of the administrative tasks that affect the whole church. The Office of the Metropolitan, perhaps a better name than "central administration," is called focus on coordinating diocesan programs for ministries, as well as the intra- and inter-Orthodox relations that are necessary, and develop programs that benefit the whole Church. This requires a staff, as prescribed by the Statute. How large a staff is a different question. Clearly the 37 people on staff, more employees than all the dioceses put together, and a bigger budget than all the dioceses put together, was excessive. How large that staff should be also depends on how much the dioceses are ready to assume their responsibilities. This is not possible until the dioceses are adequately funded.

Another element is the place of the All American Council. The All American Council, as a legislative body per the 1971 Statute, does not work. The AAC does not reflect the diocesan structure of the Church. It treats the whole OCA as a single archdiocese, with one bishop. This is simply not the reality. While the value of lay participation in decision making is almost universally accepted, the scope of the council is too large to allow for meaningful discussion, especially as it effects the life of each particular diocese. The council allows for no contact or discussion, much less constant interaction, of the bishop with the delegates from his diocese. But especially problematic is the fact that the Council treats each parish as belonging to the greater OCA, rather than its own diocese. As a result of this unwieldiness, the Metropolitan Council has taken on the legislative function of the AAC.

The Metropolitan Council is structured like a board of trustees, according to the laws of New York State, where the OCA is incorporated. There are two issues here: the administration in the Metropolitan's Office performs most of the statutory responsibilities of the MC, while others are done by both. Many of these functions, book- and record keeping and coordination, can only be done by a standing administration. The main fiduciary responsibility is in fact given to the Metropolitan Council by the Statute, both for budget as well as for raising funds and supporting the work of the whole Church. Even this was taken over by the Central Administration of old, by a Development Office. The Metropolitan Council needs to turn its attention and considerable talent to the challenge of raising financial support for the Church. There are two elements in this: a development function for donations, trusts, bequests and so forth; and a church-wide rethinking of support, based on the principles of percentage giving or tithing. More later on this.

The second structural issue, however, is more problematic. The laws for religious corporations pertain primarily to parishes, and not to the structure of a synodal Church. On the parish and diocesan levels, the rector and the bishop have full responsibility and accountability for use of resources, and the bishop in particular canonically. In a parish, the Parish Council, led by the priest, has the responsibility to manage the financial and material resources of the parish; in a diocese, the Diocesan Council, led by the bishop. As long as the presiding clergyman is the president of the Council, there is no problem: the Council has the responsibility to assist the priest or bishop in the administration of the material resources as trustees.

The Synod, however, and the Office of the Metropolitan as the organizational recapitulation of the Synod, is different. While the MC started out as an archdiocesan council, with the above function, as the Church has grown into a fully functioning Synodal structure, the structure of the MC has to change. It is the bishops who bear the primary fiduciary responsibility for the Church according to the Canons. The MC shares that responsibility, but on a different level. The Metropolitan and Synod have to approve or can veto decisions of the MC; the Metropolitan cannot veto decisions of the Synod.

This can be resolved in that it must be made clear in the new Statute that the bishops, collectively as the Synod, bear the main responsibility and accountability for the material resources, as well as the spiritual life, of the Church. The MC executes their decisions, and administers the resources of the Church, providing for its maintenance and ministries; but it does not have the same level of accountability as the Synod itself, nor can it make decisions independently of the Synod and/or Metropolitan--which is already clear in the existing statute.

The Conciliar Structures of the Orthodox Church in America

A Time of Crisis and Opportunity: Part II


His Beatitude, Metropolitan Jonah


The Mission of the Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America, as the local Body of Christ (for/on) the North American Continent, is to be faithful in preaching the fullness of the Gospel of the Kingdom to all peoples of North America in fulfillment of the great commission of Jesus Christ to "Go into all the world and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all [things that He has] commanded": so that all may be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, that all may become communicants of the Orthodox Church, that Christ's way of sanctification, theosis and eternal life may be revealed to all. --His Eminence, Archbishop Job of Chicago and the Midwest


******


The Calling of the Orthodox Church in America: Go into all the world and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things I have commanded you.

* Mission/Identity: We are the presence of the fullness of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, incarnate as the Local, Indigenous Territorial Orthodox Church in North America, embracing all Orthodox Christians regardless of any ethnic, linguistic or cultural distinctions. We are essentially a missionary Church, striving to bring the full integrity of the Gospel of Christ to all the people of North America, so that they may come to the unity of the Orthodox Faith and communion of the Holy Spirit, in the One Body of Christ.

* Core Values:
o The Gospel of Jesus Christ
o Missionary
o Diverse & inclusive
o Multi-cultural
o Multi-ethnic
o Multi-lingual
o Non-Colonial
o Non-Diaspora
o Ascetic
o Monastic
o Sanctity


There were a number of issues raised in response to the previous Address to the Metropolitan Council of February, 2009. These include:

1. Fear of exclusion of lay and clergy from decision making, conciliarity
2. This is a "power grab" by the hierarchy
3. What happens when the Metropolitan abrogates his responsibility?
4. The future and role of the Metropolitan Council
5. The future and role of the All American Council.
6. How do we know that anything has really changed? With the OCA in general, and the Holy Synod?

It is clear that we need to change the culture of the OCA. We need not only to change how things are done and attitudes and values. Rather, we need to change the culture and structure of the organization so that the established flow of relationships and information grows and expands. I believe that we need to do this so that we can further develop the life of the whole Church, and facilitate participation by more and more members of the Church in the process of real conciliarity.

There is a very damaging false notion that the lay people are separate from the clergy, and that the clergy are different from the laity. This is not the case! The clergy are simply those laity invested with a particular scope of responsibility by the whole Church, in a structure of accountability. In particular, the presbyters and deacons are accountable to the bishop for their stewardship of the life of the parishes. However, all members share responsibility for the Body, but have differing levels of accountability. The priests and bishops are accountable for each member of the Body by their ordination. Each member is important. Each member has a voice, and must be heard.

There are two related attitudes that constitute baggage from the past, temptations which have afflicted the Church and distorted its life and indeed, its conciliarity. Both stem from an abrogation of responsibility. Clericalism comes from an abrogation of responsibility by the laity for the affairs of the church, with the clergy taking over all functions; even the loss of the traditional ministerial role of the diaconate and pastoral role of the episcopate, with the concentration of all "ministry" in the presbyters, is a kind of clericalism . Trusteeism comes from a refusal of the clergy to accept their responsibility for the more mundane aspects of the life of the Church, which was then seized upon by lay leaders. This resulted in the priests being responsible for what happens in the altar; the parish council for everything else in the church. Both result from a breakdown of conciliarity, in which the integrity of each area of responsibility in a structure of accountability is critical. Conciliarity can be partially defined as shared responsibility with distinct levels of accountability. In both reductions, authority becomes identified with power; there is tremendous resentment and mistrust of the others by the persons disenfranchised. Both the clergy and laity need to recognize their areas of responsibility, and support one another in the exercise of that authority. The rector of a parish, or the bishop of a diocese, has complete responsibility for every aspect of the life of the community under his care, liturgical, spiritually, financial, legal, and administrative. But he cannot do it alone; it has to be done in cooperation with the laity, who are empowered with responsibility for certain areas by delegation.

The image used by St Paul of the body is very valuable in approaching this: the eye is not the foot, which is not the hand; there are parts more or less presentable, more or less private. Yet it takes all the parts working together, doing what they are supposed to be doing, and all have to be united to the Head, to Jesus Christ, the real Leader of the Church.

Conciliarity does not mean democracy. Its Russian root concept, Sobornost, refers to both conciliar structure (councils) and catholicity--wholeness or integrity. That can only happen when each element of the conciliar structure has integrity of its own life and ministry, and each is working in the proper order to build up the whole. Each area of responsibility has to be functioning for it to participate in the whole. Thus the bishops have to take full responsibility and be accountable to one another and to the Metropolitan, as well as to the Body, for their stewardship of their diocese or area of responsibility. The Metropolitan has to accept full responsibility to maintain the unity of the whole, both of his Synod and of the Synod with the other Churches. The Metropolitan has to be accountable to the Synod for his stewardship of the office. Each order or function of the Church, the diocesan councils, Metropolitan Council, and the periodic All American Council, must be accountable to the structures above it in responsibility: the Diocesan Council to their Diocesan Bishop; the Metropolitan Council and Synod to the Metropolitan, and Metropolitan to them.

For some people, "obedience" is a scary word, because it has been much abused. But the word "obedience" is integral to the life of the Church, and to the Gospel. Jesus was exalted above all others because of his obedience (Phil 2:5-11): "Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, who emptied himself,... humbled himself... and was obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." The same passage is read for many feasts of the Theotokos, extol her for her obedience. "Be it unto me according to your word" is the ultimate expression of free, voluntary obedience in love. Obedience is not about power and control; it is about communion, synergy, and a voluntary assent to cooperation. If it is about power, coercion and the like, it is distorted. Jesus is the ultimate example of obedience; wives are called to be obedient to their husbands; and we are all called to submit to one another and be obedient in love to those who have to give account for us (Hebr 13). In a diocese, the priests are in a relationship of obedience to the bishop, similar to the monks to the abbot in a monastery. The bishops are in a relationship of obedience, though slightly different, to the Metropolitan. This relationship is the primacy of leadership.

In the Orthodox Church, the bishops were entrusted by the Apostles, by virtue of their ordination, with the greatest degree of responsibility for the whole Church. An individual bishop is accountable for the people and their lives in his diocese. It is a holistic responsibility for every aspect of the life of his communities and for the lives of the members of his diocese. This does not mean power and control, but rather accountability, and the maintenance of a unity of mind and vision throughout the Church. It means that a bishop must know his priests and people, and actively build and maintain consensus with them. This pertains not only to doctrine and practice of the Faith, but the unity of a community gathered in love.

If a national local church (whatever you would call the ecclesiastical province that has autocephaly or autonomy) is a federation of dioceses, each diocese has to be an equal partner in the community. The primate is elected by the other bishops as its leader and particularly as the one who is accountable for the whole, and for its unity. The Metropolitan is accountable to the bishops, and the bishops to the Metropolitan. He is first among equals; but he bears a unique responsibility and accountability to maintain the unity and obedience with his Synod; as well as unity with the rest of the Churches world wide.

In the Orthodox Church in America, the current Statute envisions the Church as a single Archdiocese, with the Metropolitan as the single fully empowered bishop, and the other bishops as glorified auxiliaries. It does not adequately develop its vision of the dioceses. In other words, the existing Statute envisions complete centralization. I and the other bishops believe we need to decentralize, by emphasizing that the real life of the Church is on the diocesan level. The diocesan foundation of the life of the Church is not policy or philosophy: it is the structure that is at the heart of the canons and the apostolic teaching. The greater the decentralization and upbuilding of the life of the various dioceses, the greater will be the opportunity for authentic participation by more laity in the direction and decision-making, as well as ministries, of the Church.

In other words, we are talking about a major shift in the culture of the OCA: from centralized and dependent on "Syosset" for all leadership, to decentralized and looking to the local bishop to empower ministries to serve the particular needs of each region.

The Metropolitan and Metropolitan's Office

This decentralization does not mean weakening the Metropolitan's Office by strengthening the dioceses. Rather, for authentic accountability, we need a strong Metropolitan; but we also need strong dioceses. Does that mean a massive staff and development of all programs in New York? Not at all. Rather, what needs to be strengthened, and what has failed almost completely in the last decades, is that the Metropolitan needs to be the point of accountability for the Diocesan bishops. The Metropolitan is the one leader of the Church, elected both as president of the Synod by the Synod, but also by the whole Church in Council. While not above other bishops, he is elected to be accountable to the rest of the Church for the other bishops as Synod and the life of the whole. He is to represent it internationally and ecumenically, with an overarching ministry of unity. What is the ministry of unity, but to facilitate conciliarity on the various levels of the life of the Church. More on this below.

The dual election of the Metropolitan gives him a unique capacity among the bishops, as he is chosen as the Primate. Primacy means leadership, but also the responsibility of accountability. Primacy, leadership as first among equals, bears the responsibility to maintain canonical order within the Synod, and accountability of the bishops for their stewardship of their office. If a bishop loses the ability to lead through age or illness, or abuses his authority, or is credibly accused or falls into a state of immorality demanding canonical action, or is derelict in his duties, it is the Metropolitan's responsibility to investigate the situation on behalf of the Synod, and to call that bishop to accountability. If the bishop in question is the metropolitan himself, then the next senior bishop of the Synod bears that responsibility. The canons are clear: bishops alone judge bishops. These structures of accountability are essential if the Church is to maintain its integrity. The bishops, in turn, are responsible to maintain canonical order and integrity among their diocesan clergy.

There are certain ministries that can only be effectively accomplished on the level of the Metropolitan's Office: the calling of councils, Synods and church-wide meetings; the oversight and administration of theological education and training for ministries; administrative matters relating to churches and clergy, such as health care, tax status and pension; the facilitation of relations with other churches, both jurisdictional and inter-church ecumenical; and the communications that facilitate the multiple levels of relationship. These ministries require competent professionals to do the work needed to facilitate, empower and coordinate the various ministries within the dioceses. And it is this office that maintains the Orthodox Church in America in relationship with the other Orthodox Churches, the ministry of unity.

Diocesan Ministries

There are common ministries that must exist within each diocese: missions and evangelism, charitable outreach, youth work, religious education, and so forth. The Metropolitan and his office are given the task of encouraging the bishops to develop these active ministries within their dioceses, and to function as the coordinator and resource center for those ministries. However, those ministries have to be done on a local, diocesan level, not from a central office.

In other words, how is some ecclesiastical bureaucrat in Syosset supposed to know how to evangelize and establish a mission in Louisiana or Oregon? Or work with a native village in Alaska? Or renew a dead parish in the Monongahela Valley? Or establish a homeless shelter in Kansas City? Or how to serve a whole native people that converted in Mexico, who don't even speak Spanish, let alone English? These concrete ministries can only be done on a diocesan level: locally. Each diocese needs to develop the kind of outreach ministries necessary to fulfill the particular local needs that it encounters.

This is another aspect of a major culture shift: rather than simply being focused on developing parishes, according to a particular model, we must look at the diocese, to a large extent, as a collection of particular and diverse ministries. The greatest proportion of these will indeed be parishes; but there are a multitude of ways for a parish to exist and minister to its congregations. We have to embrace diversity of ministries and needs, and move beyond the idea of homogeneity of practice and form. Homogeneity is a characteristic of American denominationalism; we don't need it. For example, a parish might focus on Georgian, Mexican or Romanian immigrants, with specific language needs and cultural particularities. Or the ministry might not be a parish at all: a homeless shelter, an OCF chapter, a monastery, a battered women's center or a cohousing community for widows. The bishop is, by virtue of his office, the one who blesses all these ministries, and without his blessing, they cannot call themselves Orthodox. These can only be done on a local level, on a diocesan level. There can be sharing of information and experience between dioceses; but the ministries are going to be particular to their place. Some places will have a succession of different ministries, as one community dies out or moves along, and another moves into its place. Only on the local level can the Church be responsive to the particular needs of its communities.

As the local Church, as the diocese develops its life and programs, the greater the need presents itself for dialog and conciliarity on the diocesan level. As the various ministries grow and develop, then it would be appropriate for them to be represented, somehow, on the Diocesan Councils--which are the most important organs of conciliarity on the diocesan level. As the dioceses become more and more diverse, the task of conciliar dialog and consensus building will be greater and greater. This will demand more of the bishops; but in turn, it will involve more clergy and laity on an ever increasing scale. This already exists in the South, the West, and Canada; as well as to a great degree with the Midwest and the Romanian Episcopate.

Another major culture shift is to open the Synod itself to bishops sent from other Churches, and actualize itself as the basis of unity in North America. Thus, the vision is to "open up" the Synod to representatives of foreign churches who send bishops to North America to care for their nationals and immigrants, and yet, have them sit on the same Synod of the Orthodox Church in America. We already have three non-territorial dioceses; what needs to happen is to provide greater integration and cooperation, both on the local level between individual bishops, and on the Synodal level as a whole. In turn, the foreign bishops can represent the OCA to their mother churches, and their Synods to the OCA. This then becomes a model for Orthodox unity in North America, with a single Synod of Bishops that respects and preserves the diversity in unity of the whole.

To summarize: The major culture shifts needed in the OCA are decentralization and strengthening of local leadership, Episcopal and lay, and hence the upbuilding of the dioceses; a change in the institutional expressions of the conciliarity, the All American and Metropolitan Councils to reflect the Church as a federation of local churches (dioceses), united under one Synod with one Metropolitan. This is simply rooted in basic Orthodox ecclesiology. We must build an accountability structure within the Synod, which has not existed; but also build in an institutional process should that accountability structure fail. We must transcend the sense of homogeneity that has dominated the OCA, and embrace multiple diverse expressions of Orthodoxy within it. Our unity is not in uniformity; our unity is in the One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism, One Bread and Cup, respecting the legitimate diversity of expressions.

The Bishops and the People

Part of the dynamic currently is that the Synod is coming together as a community as never before. This is due to the personalities in the past, which prevented a sense of community. Now that has changed. And within that, there is a new sense of mutual accountability and co-responsibility for the whole Church. It is simply the Orthodox Faith and Tradition that the bishops bear the ultimate responsibility for the life of the Church. But they cannot and do not bear it alone.

There is no such thing as a bishop (or priest) without a flock. Without his flock, a bishop has no authority, because he has no responsibility. Bishops who are auxiliaries, retired or are without a flock are respected, and can serve as bishops; but they have no power to act on their own, but only with the specific request of the diocesan bishop. Only in relation to his own flock, and synod, does the episcopacy of a bishop have meaning. While the ordination of a bishop comes from the grace of the Spirit, it is always in relation to his particular community. A bishop can do nothing in another diocese without permission from the local bishop.

The point of all this is that if the diocese is the primary unit of the Church, the whole life of the Church depends on the relationship of the people of each diocese to their own bishop. St Paul envisions this as a unity of mind and heart, with common service together to those in need, celebrating a common Eucharist, an authentic community gathered in love. This unity of life has a mystical reality: the bishop is the sacramental recapitulation of the community. But, this in turn has to have a basis in experience: the unity of the community comes from the bishop's active ministry, and involvement in the lives of his people, their consensus, and following of the bishop's leadership. In other words, the community is gathered in love around their bishop, who in turn loves them and cares for them. The two movements are both critical: the love of the flock for the bishop--and hence, obedience and cooperation; and the love of the bishop for the flock--seeking to fulfill their needs by empowering ministries within the Body. The two must be absolutely complementary, a synergy.

The bishop's leadership is crucial. It is what holds a diocese together, unifies it into one body, and fulfills it as the Church the Body of Christ. Otherwise, you may have an efficient organization, but it is not the Church. Ultimately, it is the bishop's ministry, and the grace which flows from it, that transforms a community into the Church. The bishop is the criterion of ecclesiality.

There is no leadership if people don't follow. And there is no leadership if there is only domination and subjection of others. Christian leadership is always about building synergy, communion in love. Obedience is an expression of that synergy, communion in love. It flows from responsibility and accountability, and a sense of mutuality.

Hierarchy is primarily about a distribution of responsibility, and is a structure of accountability. The Orthodox Church is a hierarchical church par excellence! It has nothing to do with dominance and subjection; but rather, with shared responsibility in a structure of accountability. The bishop is within the Church, not over it. Hierarchy is about the facilitation of conciliarity. Hierarchy provides the context for people on every level of responsibility for the life of the Church to exercise their ministries together, communally. It brings forth and employs the "diversity of gifts" coming from the one Spirit.

The organs of conciliar leadership that have evolved in the Orthodox Church in America are: parish councils, diocesan councils, the All American Councils, the Metropolitan Council. The ultimate model of conciliarity and conciliar leadership is the synod of bishops. This synodal/conciliar model is reflected up and down, as it were, in the levels of Church organization. Because the diocese is the basic unit of the Church, indeed is the Local Church, Diocesan Councils have an essential role. The Synod of Bishops is the sacramental type of all councils, the recapitulation of all the dioceses in the Synod. All other councils within the Church have to reflect this essential diocesan structure of the Church, and the conciliar structure that constitutes it.

Diocesan Councils

Historically, the presbyters constituted a council around the bishop, a parish or diocesan council. Contemporary Diocesan Councils, with Diocesan Assemblies, are the means whereby the presbyters and lay leaders make the needs within the community known, and where the bishop works to build consensus and empower lay leaders to serve those needs. While the means is partly financial administration, the diocesan councils are the real organ of conciliarity within each local church. The bishop leads and proposes, the Council discusses and comes to consensus, and then cooperates to fulfill the needs of the church. When it works, there is wonderful synergy, and the Church's needs are fulfilled; when it doesn't, the whole diocese grinds to a halt. It takes as much work from the bishop as from everyone else to come together, discern God's will, and implement it through consensus and cooperation.

This diocesan structure is particularly important in the OCA because of the tremendous diversity within each diocese, not to mention the whole Church. The diversity of communities and ministries has the bishop as its point of unity, and works out its daily life in the community represented by the diocesan council. The acceptance and fostering of diversity in the ministries and communities of the Church is essential for its growth.

The All American Council and Metropolitan Council

While it is true that the Canons do not envision councils of clergy and lay representatives meeting with bishops, the experience of the OCA has shown that councils reflecting the whole community of the Church are essential to its life in the contemporary world. The historical foundations of the AAC and MC lie in the Russian theologians who designed the Great Council of 1917. These decisions, while shelved in Russia due to the Communist period, were applied by the Orthodox Church in America in its canonical structure. They resonate with the culture of the Church in America. Indeed, as 21st Century Christians in the West, it is difficult to comprehend the life of the Church without participation by the laity and the clergy in decision making on most levels of the Church's organization.

One of the most glaring problems of the current Statute is how the All American Council is currently constituted: it currently actualizes the Statute's vision of the whole OCA as a single Archdiocese. Similarly, the Metropolitan Council is envisioned as continuing the work of the AAC between sessions, but also reflects the vision of the Church as a single archdiocese. The AAC, in particular, regards each parish as if the Metropolitan were its bishop, and the dioceses are not reflected at all. The MC, as the old Archdiocesan Council of the Metropolia, includes members elected at large at the AAC in addition to specifically diocesan representation, and now generally excludes the hierarchs. Neither body reflects the diocesan character of the Church.

One way to slightly modify the AAC to give it a more diocesan character, and to make it more effective, would be to change the representation from parochial to diocesan. Either a diocese would elect a given number of representatives to the Council; or the diocesan council, with the deans, would be designated as the representatives to the All American Council. Reducing the AAC from 900+ to less than two hundred people would make it much more effective in dealing with administrative issues, and enable representatives to work together to support and share ministries and other resources throughout the Church. It would also focus the work of the All American Council on the business of the Church, and it could be accommodated at far more modest expense. The expenses of the delegates would be paid by their respective dioceses. This type of council would meet every three years. While there would be a social component to it, the main social/educational/fellowship events would be conferences and conventions that do not focus on business.

What would give the new AAC its diocesan character is that it would not only be composed of diocesan representatives, but it could be structured with a double voting structure, so that each diocese would have one vote, as well as each delegate. This would force the discussions to be focused within each diocesan representation, led by their bishop; and thus build the community of the diocese while also building the greater community of the Church. Similarly, this would force a greater sense of accountability of the bishop to his diocese, and of the diocesan representatives to their bishop, in the task of building consensus and community.

A second type of All American Council, a Great Council, would be convoked to elect a new Metropolitan. This would include much broader representation, from each parish, though it would retain the same diocesan structure of the regular AAC. The Russian equivalent, to elect a Patriarch, takes candidates nominated by the Holy Synod, and then it is the Council that elects; the OCA version is just the opposite.

Pastors' Conferences and Clergy-Laity Conventions: Crosscutting Relationships

It is very important, however, that the Church gather together to discuss issues and for the people to get to know one another across diocesan boundaries. This could be done with annual gatherings, alternating pastors' conferences and Clergy-laity conventions, which would be open to all members of the Church, and would focus on education and fellowship, youth events and the sharing of information about ministries. While these Clergy-Laity Conventions would not have a business component, they could also be designed to pay for themselves, and be events that people would look forward to. The Pastors' Conferences in particular could be used for continuing education, and the building up of the relationships of the clergy across diocesan lines. Both types of meetings are valuable to build and maintain a common vision across the whole Orthodox Church in America.

The Metropolitan Council and Metropolitan's Office

The Metropolitan Council, as an advisory board to the Metropolitan, and a Board of Trustees for the corporation of the Orthodox Church in America, is an important element in the life of the Church. Perhaps the main difference that I would suggest is that representatives be strictly diocesan, rather than having a number of delegates at large elected at the AAC. The MC continues the work of the AAC between sessions; but also is the chief administrative support body to the office of the Metropolitan.

The officers of the Church are ex officio members of the MC, but are also extensions of the MC to assist the Metropolitan as the full time administrative staff. The MC are fiduciaries, who accept responsibility for the life and work of the Church, and who themselves work to support the Church in its various tasks. But, given the diocesan focus, the MC would need to keep in mind not only issues affecting the whole Church, but the common ministries and activities between dioceses.

Metropolitan Jonah (OCA) vs. Patriarch Barthowlemew

Here's a link to a lead up by Rod Dreher, Orthodox reporter.

Below the jump, the full text of Metropolitan Jonah's sermon on Sunday, in which he called for American Orthodox unity, and for the Ecumenical Patriarch to quit trying to strong-arm American Orthodoxy. Discuss.

Metropolitan Jonah, St Seraphim Orthodox Cathedral, April 5, 2009

It is a great joy to see everybody here this evening from so many
different communities, from different traditions. Orthodoxy is a
celebration of diversity in unity, and unity in diversity. Our unity
is in our one Lord and savior Jesus Christ, and our one Orthodox faith
and our one commitment to living the truth, to living as Christians.
Not to live according the spirit of the world, not to live according
to our passions, not to live according to the desires that flit by
through our minds and lead us into all sorts of trouble, but to live
the truth, to live Orthodox. And, our diversity is something we
celebrate, not a diversity of lifestyles, but a diversity that
reflects the whole spectrum of our community, people of all races,
people of all colors, people from a multitude of different ethnic
backgrounds.

And yet, there is another thing that unites us here as well: we are
all Americans. We are a single community, we are a single community of
Orthodox Christians, and we are the local church in Dallas, the local
church in Northeast Texas. It doesn't matter that we have all these
various administrative jurisdictions, ultimately, because we gather
together as one body, to pray with one mind and one heart, to
celebrate the same Eucharist, to come to the same chalice. It doesn't
matter if we are eastern rite or western rite, doesn't matter the
language in the service is, but its all, we are one church, we are one
local Church, and I might add, we are one indigenous Church.

Right now in world Orthodoxy there is a solution to our disunity being
proposed. But I would propose there are two solutions. There's one
solution being proposed in which we all submit to Constantinople. We
all submit to a foreign patriarchate where all decisions will be made
there, where we will have no say in the decisions that are made. We
will have no say in our own destiny. We surrender the freedom that we
have embraced as American Orthodox Christians to a Patriarchate still
under Islamic domination. I think we have a better solution.

And this is something of the utmost importance, and it is something
imminent. It is not something where we can wait and say "Oh maybe in
my grandchildren's time there will be Orthodox unity." I'm talking
about June. And, if you think I'm kidding, there is a conference being
convened in the Phanar in June to discuss exactly this -- (actually,
it's in Cypress) -- to subject the Diaspora to the single singular
control, the so-called Diaspora, to the Patriarchate of
Constantinople, and thereby come into unity.

Well, that's one model for unity. I would submit if we wanted a Pope
we'd be under the real one. And I don't think any of us want a Pope,
otherwise we wouldn't be here. But who are we really? I think part of
this comes from a total and complete ignorance and misperception on
the part of the holy fathers who are the leaders of the churches in
the Old World. They don't understand that there are Americans who are
Orthodox.

There are Americans who have been born and bred in this land who have
embraced the Orthodox faith. There are Americans who have come over
here -- fleeing communism, fleeing Islamic domination, fleeing
oppression. Who have come to this land to embrace a new life, a life
of self-determination as well as a life that is governed by the
Orthodox faith. I don't think they understand that our church here has
this rich diversity but we all share a common identity.

It doesn't matter what language the services are in, we appreciate
them all. We appreciate the Arabic and the Romanian and the Slavonic;
we appreciate the Georgian and the Albanian and who knows what else.
But we also have to appreciate the English and the Spanish and the
French, just as we have to appreciate the Klinkit and the Aleut, and
the Upik and the Athabaskian, who are the true indigenous Orthodox
Christians of our land.

I don't think the holy fathers in the Phanar understand that we are a
Church, albeit with separate administrations, but that has a common
value of determining our own destiny. A church that is dedicated to
the conciliar process, which does not ignore the voice of the laity,
which does not ignore the voice of the priests, a church which is
united in its common commitment. Because we are Orthodox not simply by
birth, we are Orthodox not simply by our ethnic heritage. We are
Orthodox because we have chosen to be Orthodox. We are Orthodox
because we have committed our entire life to Jesus Christ and the
Gospel. And, it is that commitment to Jesus Christ and the Gospel and
our commitment to bring our brothers and sisters in our land to that
same commitment of Jesus Christ and the Gospel, not to some kind of
alien ideology, not to some nationalist or imperialist ideology from
some forgotten empire, not the imposition of foreign customs and the
submission to foreign despots.

But, to a united Church in this country, a Church in which we value
the diversity and value the unity equally. A Church in which we
appreciate one another and listen to the voice of one another so that
no person is devalued. So the traditions that our fathers in the faith
have brought to this country are valued. So the efforts and the labor
and the sweat and the blood and the tears of all those who have gone
before us to establish the Orthodox Faith in America for over 200
years now, 215 years to be precise, to acknowledge their sacrifice.
And, it is upon their sacrifice, upon their martyrdoms, upon their
sanctity, upon their sacrifice that our Church here is built.

There are those there that say that there was no canonical Orthodox
Church in the North American until 1924 until the establishment of the
Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Greek archdiocese.

Excuse me. The Russian Orthodox Church established a missionary work
here in 1794. It established English-speaking churches where priests
were trained to speak, to serve the liturgy, to teach the Gospel, and
to bring faithful people into the Orthodox Church, from 1857 in San
Francisco. They say our unity in America was a myth at the time of St.
Tikhon. Well yes, there were a few dozen churches that were not part
of it, but what about the 800 that were? What about those 800
churches? Churches that may have had Russian clergy, or had clergy who
were trained by the Russians, but were composed of Greeks and Serbs,
of Arabs, of Romanians, of Bulgarians, and of converts, who have stood
for the integrity of the Orthodox Faith and the integrity of the
Gospel of Jesus Christ, and the integrity of the witness, the
missionary outreach which is essential to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Not to make people Greeks, not to make people Russians, not to make
people Arabs, but to simply bring the gospel of Jesus Christ to this
land, in its wholeness and its completeness, as it was preached by the
holy Apostles, in the fullness of its integrity. There are those
there, in the old world, who devalue this, who say that they are the
only criteria of Orthodoxy. Who are ignorant of our Saints, who refuse
to recognize the sacrifice of so many of those who have come before
us, in Christ, to establish the Gospel here.

I think we have a different solution. It is imperative for us to come
together. Not for all the other churches, the Antiochians and the
Serbians and the Bulgarians and the Romanians and everyone, to join
the OCA, but to come together in a new organization of Orthodoxy in
North American that brings us all together as one Church, even just
pulling together all our existing organizations so that all the
bishops sit on one Synod, so that all the Metropolitans get together
on a special Synod or something like that. So we can continue our
relationship with the Mother Churches, a relationship of love and
support. Firm in our own identity as Orthodox Christians and making
our witness to protect them from whatever evils confront them, whether
it be an aggressive Islam, or whether it be Communists who now call
themselves democrats (I'm not talking about Washington by the way, not
at all.)

It's very interesting. Seven months ago I was still an abbot in a
monastery in northern California. Just a few months ago I was made
Metropolitan and I had no idea, really, what the scope of Orthodoxy is
in America. And, now I'm beginning to get an idea. Not only did I find
myself the Metropolitan of the OCA, but Locum tenens of the Bulgarian
diocese. Well, these are people who have fled oppression just as in so
many eastern European countries. It's the same people who were there
under the communists; they just changed their titles.

It's the same thing with the churches in the Middle East. How many
hundreds of thousands of faithful Iraqi Orthodox Christians are living
as refugees in camps in Jordan and Syria, ignored by the world. We
need a united, powerful witness. A witness that will not only bear
witness to the unity of the Gospel and our common commitment to one
Faith in Jesus Christ the one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism that
constitutes the Orthodox Church. We need to bear witness as a united
Body, only to those issues that affect the Phanar, not only to the
tragic situation in Cypress, but to those issue that affect all
Orthodox Christian throughout the world. There is no witness in
Congress. There has been no Orthodox voice, save one lone Serbian
bishop, during the American aggression in Kosovo. There were so many
hundreds and thousands of Orthodox Christians that suffered and died
at our hands, and the hands of our government and our voice was muted.

We have to come together as one united Orthodox Church in North
America in order to truly show people that the Orthodox Church is the
One Holy Catholic Church, in order to show that truly we are the
Church constituted by the Apostles of Jesus Christ. And, there is only
one way to show that -- not by self-righteous proclamations of our
Orthodoxy it's not by self-righteous condemnation of non-Orthodox
Christians, it's by coming together and showing people how we love one
another, how we forgive one another. How we bear common witness to the
Gospel. Though we have multiple churches and diverse traditions, we
affirm that there is One Truth, who is the person of Jesus Christ. The
Orthodox way of life is the way of the healing of the soul and the way
of salvation.

It is imperative brothers and sisters, imperative on us that, we come
together and with one voice, as the Orthodox Church of North America,
to say to the holy fathers of the Old World, the Orthodox Church
exists in North America. We are grateful for the support you have
given us. We love and support your work. We rejoice in your victories
and we are sad with your tragedies. But, you have to give us the
freedom to take care of our own Church in our own country, in our own
culture, and not to be controlled by people who have never heard a
word of English much less allow a word of English to be spoken in the
liturgy. We can't allow our Church to be controlled with people who
have no appreciation of our culture and have to bow to the Turkish
Islamic authorities.

This, my friends, is something truly critical affecting our life and
our witness. We hear of all of these scandals, all the stuff that went
on in the OCA and all the stuff going on in the Antiochian
Archdiocese, and all the petty little stuff that goes on in our
parishes. All of that is pettiness. We have to come together. The Lord
Jesus Christ is calling us together to be one Church in America,
composed of all Americans, no matter where they came from, no matter
how long their ancestors, or they themselves, have been in this land.

Because the canonical organization of the Church, according to the
Holy Apostles and all of the ancient Fathers, is not about some kind
of international organization where we look 8000 miles away for some
source of canonicity. But it is the local Church, the presbyters and
the deacons, and the faithful people gathered around their bishop.
This is the fullness of the catholic Church. This is the fullness of
the Orthodox Church as it was given to us from the holy Fathers, as it
was given to us by the Apostles. And, it is this that we must affirm.

That Church exists now, here, in our midst. It was planted by our
Fathers in the faith generations ago, on this continent. It has grown
and bears fruit. And, it subsists out of our common sacrificial
commitment to Jesus Christ. Let us give thanks to God for our unity,
let us give thanks to God for our diversity. Let us affirm to our
bishops that they will tell the bishops of the Old World,

"There is an American Orthodox Church. Leave it alone."

God Bless you.
(transcribed from Sermon, April 5, 2009)

JPII remembered & Orthodoxy

by Rod Dreher, Cruncy Con

Amy Welborn notes that four years ago today (April 2), John Paul II died. She quotes a First Things essay by Fr. Thomas D. Williams, on why JP2's faith that we were entering a "new springtime" could not be seen as shallow optimism, but something deeper. Excerpt:

So what did he discern? The first significant sign of spring does not involve twittering birds and pink buds. What we see first is slush and mud: The world in spring gets uglier before it gets prettier. That, after all, is why T.S. Eliot called April the cruelest month: Winter kept us warm, covering earth in forgetful snow.

In the slush and mud of his own day, John Paul II saw something emerging: a meltdown of formerly frozen ideologies and consolidated problems. People's disillusionment with the therapeutic promises of Freud, the voluntarism of Nietzsche and the utopianism of Marx may not lead to a sudden embrace of Christian faith, but it does prepare the way, just as the Prodigal Son's hunger brought him back to his father's house. We can witness an opening to and hunger for spiritual realities, located in a generalized dissatisfaction with what the world offers.

Please God, yes. As Walker Percy said, what else is there? It might be worth recalling a piece I wrote some years back, when I was a Catholic, defending John Paul's cultural vision against some extreme narrow-mindedness from a few knotheads of what is now my church. I still stand by this piece. For all my frustration with JP2 over his handling of the sex-abuse scandal, he was probably the foremost Christian prophet of our time. Excerpt:


Unlike his Orthodox counterparts, this pontiff lives in the real world. He understands that if Christianity is to survive, much less thrive, in the third millennium, believers cannot afford quarrels over past grievances. There are deep theological divisions between East and West, and any ecumenism that etends otherwise is false. But isn't working more closely to combat the functional nihilism that accompanies the spread of consumerist values a more pressing concern than fussing over the fate of the Filioque clause? The pope knows that the key question in the era of post modernism and globalization is not what brand of Christianity the world will follow; it is whether the world will follow Christianity at all.

It is said that the Greek Orthodox regard John Paul as a symbol of the Westernization they despise. Who are they kidding? The pontiff who was the scourge of the militant atheist ideology that made martyrs of millions of Orthodox believers is the same man who is the fiercest enemy of the secular Western juggernaut. Have the Orthodox been paying attention for the past two decades? Do they read his stuff? Maybe not. The late Alexander Schmemann, the eminent Russian Orthodox theologian, lamented his faith's "complete indifference to the world," claiming that official Orthodoxy lived in a "heavy, static, petrified" world of "illusion." Orthodox consciousness "did not notice the fall of Byzantium, Peter the Great's reforms, the Revolution; it did not notice the revolution of the mind, of science, of lifestyles, forms of life," Schmemann wrote in his private journal. "In brief, it did not notice history." John Paul does.

Well, I don't completely stand by that piece. I would have phrased things somewhat differently were I to write it today; I understand now why the filioque clause is a much bigger deal than I knew then. But I still believe basically as I did then: that we cannot and should not say the theological differences between us are not serious, but now is not the time to keep a practical and instrumental unity around certain causes. The Evangelicals and Catholics Together movement isn't about converting Evangelicals to Catholicism, or vice versa. It's about bringing traditionalist members of the two great Christian traditions together to work together on issues of mutual concern. Boy, would I ever love to see Orthodox and Catholics Together. Maybe somebody should start that. Metropolitan Jonah is in Dallas this weekend. If I have the chance to speak with him, I'll suggest it. Hey, you never know. Springtime is bustin' out all over.

Church leader sparks Georgian baby boom

Church leader sparks Georgian baby boom

By Tom Esslemont
BBC News, Tbilisi
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7964302.stm

Two years after having one of the lowest birth rates in the world, Georgia is enjoying something of a baby boom, following an intervention from the country's most senior cleric.

At the end of 2007, in a move to reverse the Caucasian country's dwindling birth figures, the head of the Georgian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Ilia II, came up with an incentive. He promised to personally baptise any baby born to parents of more than two children.

There was only one catch: the baby had to be born after the initiative was launched.

The results are, in the words of the Georgian Orthodox Church, "a miracle".

Easy decision

The country's birth rate increased by nearly 20% during 2008 - a rate four times faster than the previous year.

Many parents say they took the decision to have another child on the basis of the Patriarch's incentive.

Giorgi and Pati Bluashvili have just had their fourth child. He is a boy called Giviko. He has big blue eyes and a loud laugh. As I try to interview his mother he takes delight at interrupting by babbling away.

Pati says the decision to have another child was an easy one.

"There's no doubt in my mind that we had Giviko because of the Patriarch's incentive," she says.

"When he announced that he would baptise any child born to parents with at least two children already we could not resist the opportunity to have another baby. To have a child baptised by the Patriarch is so very special."

Many other parents agree. It is perhaps not surprising in a country where more than 80% of people follow the Orthodox faith.

On a Thursday afternoon, dozens of parents are queuing up outside a registry office in central Tbilisi to put their child's name down for the Patriarchal mass baptism. The ceremonies take place four times a year.

Scribbling down the name of her three-month-old boy, Nino - a young mother - says it is an honour to be contributing to the task of boosting birth rates.

"The Patriarch did a really good thing launching this initiative," she says.

"I am sure that most parents decided to have more babies because of him. If his Holiness baptises your child it means he becomes his or her godfather and that is such an honour."

No surprise

The next baptism is scheduled for early April, when thousands of mums, dads and their children will cram into Tbilisi's biggest church, the Sameba Cathedral. The babies will be briefly dipped into a gigantic inflatable font after receiving a blessing from his Holiness, Ilia II.

The Patriarch plays a very influential role in Georgian society. Many see him as the most authoritative figure in their life.

But to Church insiders, the increased birth rates come as no surprise.

"Faith is getting stronger," says Irakli Kadagishvili, a spokesman for the Patriarch Foundation, a movement set up to promote the interests of the Church.

"The Patriarch is seen not only as a religious figure, but also as a national authority. When he saw the need to increase the birth rate he only had to provide an incentive. It was the only stimulus most parents needed if they were already thinking about having more children."

The Church is taking the credit for the sudden trend in having babies. But there are other factors to consider, including economic ones.


Who is now creating families? People who five years ago were out of work
Giorgi Vashadze
head of Georgian civil registry

The head of Georgia's civil registry, Giorgi Vashadze, has been monitoring the recent figures.

He tells me that the jump from 48,000 in 2007 to 57,000 in 2008 can, in part, be explained by the Patriarch's incentive, but also by the rise in average household incomes.

"Who is now creating families? People who five years ago were out of work," he says.

"Previously, they had no income. They could not get married. Today they are working. They have salaries. They are maybe not as high as in [other] European countries but they are quite normal for Georgia. So I think this is a major factor."

In a country which early last year boasted of having economic growth rates of 7.9% there is little doubt that economic factors may have played a role in bringing on the baby boom.

But the role of the Church cannot be underestimated in Georgia.

Twenty years ago, just before Georgia gained independence from the Soviet Union, the Orthodox religion was all but suppressed in the country.

Now it is more than clear that the faith has never been stronger.

Moscow Patriarchate Backs Pope's Stance on Condoms

From Zenit.
Says They Can't Be Considered Remedy Against AIDS

MOSCOW, MARCH 20, 2009 (Zenit.org).- The Russian Orthodox Church is supporting Benedict XVI's position that condoms are not an acceptable solution to AIDS.

A message on the French official Web site of the Church stated, "The Patriarchate of Moscow is in solidarity with Pope Benedict XVI's position on the means in the fight against AIDS, and on the fact that condoms cannot be considered as a remedy against this sickness."

This statement came as a response to the Pope's words to journalists on his flight to Africa, in which he affirmed: "This problem of AIDS cannot be overcome only with publicity slogans.

"If there is not the soul, if the Africans are not helped, the scourge cannot be resolved with the distribution of condoms: on the contrary, there is a risk of increasing the problem."

Today the deputy chairman of the Moscow Patriarchate Department for External Church Relations, Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin, said "It is incorrect to see condoms as a panacea for AIDS."

He noted that AIDS can be prevented not by contraceptives but by education and a righteous life, as the Orthodox Church also teaches.

"The spread of AIDS will only be halted with the ethical education of the affected peoples, and not with recourse to condoms," states the Church's communiqué.

The Russian agency Interfax reported Friday that Father Tchapline took part in a round table in Moscow on the subject. He pointed out that at present certain organizations attempt to simultaneously emphasize the idea of sexual freedom and the fight against AIDS, but that it is impossible to reconcile both of these.

My icon instructor in action...

Here's Vladislav Andrejev working on the parish of St. Michael, in St. Michael, Minnesota. The first image is the dome bearing the icon of Christ the Teacher. Very cool stuff...
I hope to take another icon class sooner than later.

Ravenna & the Roman Primacy

An interesting piece from Homiletic & Pastoral Review.

How is it that no other bishop
but the Roman bishop
ever claimed a universal primacy in the Church?

Ravenna and the Roman primacy

by Daniel S. Hamilton



After two decades of modest progress, the Joint International Catholic-Orthodox Theological Commission, meeting in Ravenna, Italy, October 8-14, 2007, issued a study document on ecclesial communion, conciliarity and authority (1) that acknowledged the Roman primacy in the universal Church as a historical fact, but called for an extensive study and clarification of its basis and nature, issues hotly debated for centuries.

My purpose here is to outline the conflicting positions on the basis and nature of the Roman primacy as these issues are presented generally by leaders and scholars of the two Church communions, including Anglicans, and to suggest how these mutually opposed positions may be brought closer together, followed by a personal reflection.

The Catholic position

Some may be surprised to learn that Orthodox leaders and theologians, together with classical Anglicans, do not dispute the historical fact of Rome’s universal primacy from the earliest Christian centuries; but they differ radically with the Catholic Church regarding the basis and nature of this primacy, arguing, in some cases, that because of heresy it has been lost.

The Catholic Church has insisted from time immemorial—and, indeed, has dogmatized this conviction—that our Lord Jesus Christ gave the ministerial leadership of his Church to Peter and intended this office (like the Church itself) to continue permanently and, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to continue in the leadership or episcopate of the Roman Church, in the city where Peter (with Paul) exercised Church leadership and where both Peter and Paul were martyred, and in which was the capital and center of the Church’s first principal missionary field—namely, the Roman Empire.

This leadership derived from Peter, the chief apostle, was first exercised, then specified and later defined by the Church itself in the course of history, as a leadership of real and final authority to be invoked when needed for the good and, above all, for the unity of all the churches. This authority was spiritual, doctrinal and governmental—and in all cases decisive. Vatican Council I, reaffirmed by Vatican II, described the office as episcopal, ordinary and immediate; namely, that the Roman bishop has the same authority within the whole Church that a diocesan bishop has within his own diocese, that this universal authority inheres in the Roman bishop’s office and that it can be exercised independently (canonically speaking) and personally without need for recourse to any other authority. Inherent also in this office of the Roman bishop is the charism to teach inerrantly under precise conditions specified by the conciliar definition.

The Catholic teaching on the Roman primacy is thus clear, precise, forthright and, for many, overwhelming.(2) It is accompanied by a long list of supportive testimonies from Scripture, the apostolic and post-apostolic Church, the patristic age and subsequent centuries.(3)

The Orthodox and Anglican position

The Orthodox and the Anglicans generally have no dogmatic position on these issues; but they nonetheless have a long tradition of firmly rejecting the Catholic position. They have evaluated the factual and historical Roman primacy as, variously, 1) an office inconsistent with the nature of the Church as a Eucharistic communion of local churches all of which are equally the Church, where primacy on all levels is exercised only in a conciliar context; 2) an office needed in the universal Church and one that was perhaps providentially initiated but that was actually conferred upon the Roman See and its bishop by the other ancient local churches, as witnessed by ecumenical or other councils such as Nicaea (325), Sardica (342), Constantinople I (381) and Chalcedon (451).(4)

This designation of Rome as having the universal primacy came, it is maintained, by reason of Rome’s position at the center of the world in which the Church was then planted and growing—the Roman Empire. The city and its Church also enjoyed the unique heritage of the two apostles Peter and Paul both having ministered there and been martyred there; and, as the centuries followed, it boasted a Church whose authority grew tremendously in the religious and political circumstance of the times and, also, it is said, by arrogating authority to itself within the communion of churches.

Such commentators view the legitimate original Roman primacy of leadership—in the sense of a norm of faith and practice—as having evolved or devolved into a “papalism” or “papal supremacy,” terms and phrases that signify a kind of distortion or wrongful aggrandizement of the original office, which was Peter’s or was conferred on the Roman See by its ancient sister churches. The Roman primacy became, in this perspective, a supreme, monarchical and dictatorial office analogous to an oppressive secular power.

Thus, though universal primacy may have emerged in the Church because of a need for such leadership, the kind of primacy that factually developed rather quickly, asserting its foundation in the indemonstrable claim of the Lord’s gift to Peter, had, in any case, evolved into an objectionable papal supremacy that ever since has become a stone of stumbling for Christians who do not admit it.(5)

A resolution?

How are these conflicting positions to be harmonized? Clearly, the path of resolution will be neither easy nor short. In 1995, however, Pope John Paul II (in Ut Unum Sint)(6) invited the leaders and theologians of all the Christian church communities (a sparse response) to join him in a dialogue as to how the Roman primacy, its essential mission preserved, may best be exercised in our time. This dialogue was not to obscure, however, the basis and nature of this primacy.

All parties to this dialogue would need to commit themselves to a thorough and objective examination of the extant data, beginning with the Scriptures and the very early Church testimonies and those of the Fathers, of the major councils, and of the Eastern and Western Churches’ twenty centuries of mutual relations and doctrinal teaching, distinguishing the various levels of authority in this teaching. A sifting and evaluating of all this material would follow. Joint committees would appropriately pursue these tasks, as well as individual theologians.

True, this task has been done in large measure before. But, today joint committees of scholars are needed to replicate, authenticate and, if need be, correct the work of the past and accomplish new research called for now. Scholars striving equally for objectivity will evaluate evidence differently. Scholarly thoroughness and objectivity will, therefore, not eliminate all differences but will narrow them. Ultimately conclusions from a scientific point of view will need to be drawn in some cases on the basis of the preponderance of evidence and possible alternative interpretations noted.

But scholarship alone—even the most professional and objective—is not enough. Beyond scholarship there is needed prayerful intercession. The Church is not a community of scholars but the Mystical Body of Christ into which we are ingrafted by faith and baptism for the conversion of hearts, the healing of memories and the gift of reconciliation. We must have an intensified dialogue of love and that mutual cooperation which the Church communions have sought with greater or lesser success over these last fifty years. We must seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit for a full reconciliation and we must dearly want it.(7)

Read the full piece here.

Msgr. Daniel S. Hamilton, Ph.D., a former editor of The Long Island Catholic (1975-1985) and chairman of the Rockville Centre Diocesan Ecumenical Commission (1968-1988), is pastor emeritus of Our Lady of Perpetual Help Church, Lindenhurst, New York and consultant to the Anglican Use Society and the Pastoral Provision.

This article appears in the February 2009 issue of HPR.