Pastoral Care and the Crisis of Power

The following comments are by Archimandrite Touma (Bitar), abbot of the monastery of Saint Silouan at Douma. These comments speak to the recent troubles in the Antiochian Archdiocese that began in the winter of 2009. This was originally posted on the Notes on Arab Orthodoxy blog and on The Ochlophobist blog. These are some of the finest words yet written on the subject.

In the See of Antioch, at the current time, there is a confrontation, a crisis of opinion, and painful consequences may follow. Are the bishops, within an eparchy that is headed by a patriarch or a metropolitan as an ecclesial administrative unit, bishops over a territory and a faithful people, or are they auxiliary bishops (asaqifa musa’idun)?

The traditional position, within the Orthodox ecclesiological framework, makes the bishops within a single eparchy brothers and the primate (mallak) of the eparchy first of all the first among equals and secondarily the head of a local council, governed by principles and canons and made up of the bishops of that eparchy. This assumes that each of them oversees a territory and a people. In principle, bishops are not titular or auxiliaries, dependent upon the metropolitan or the patriarch.

But, historical events came about in past eras that divided some bishops from their territories and their flocks, as happened in the Byzantine Empire after the fall of some of its regions to the Ottomans. It was hoped at the time that exiled or refugee bishops would return to their regions. However, matters became more complicated and situations worsened and such bishops found themselves permanently exiled from their flocks. Or, the dioceses which they had overseen in principle were emptied of their Orthodox people.

With the passing of time, this inaugurated the custom of consecrating titular bishops who, at first, longed for military or political turnarounds that would return an Orthodox presence to their former regions. When the years went by and the winds did not blow as the boats wished, hopes changed to almost a formal etiquette, and the custom became firmly entrenched of choosing titular bishops who quickly became helpers (musa’idun) or auxiliaries (mu’awinun) to some of the actual primates of the eparchies, dependent on the patriarch. This gave birth to an unintended custom, without any ecclesiological base. However, it became accepted and enshrined in practice insofar as the ancient traditional practice among us of each bishop being the bishop of a people and a territory into decline in practice. With it, the page closed on local synods within one eparchy and it sufficed to have synods on the level of patriarchates or the equivalent.

Some circles, today, hold fast to the contingent practice over ecclesiological theology because it has become widespread and followed for many years. The temporary became permanent. Others hold to intellectual principles of ecclesiological theology and hope to rectify the current historical deviation in this situation and to return dioceses to their traditional function, especially since there exists a need, here and there, for more bishops of territory and people so that we do not go too far in making the episcopate in general only an administrative, ritual function. The bishop is the pastor par excellence and must remain so in practice.

Between those who seek this or that line of thought, today, there is confrontation and debate. It does not appear that it will result in a speedy understanding in the foreseeable future and it is to be feared that it will grow into an impasse and from there into something with an unpraiseworthy outcome.

How to get out of this dilemma?

The answer is not easy. However, if we were to put forward the reasons for this crisis, we do not find it to be simply ecclesiological or canonical in nature, but also historical, temperamental, and psychological. We have become accustomed to such with the passing of generations! It is not easy for those who have become accustomed to sole power in their eparchies and to dealing with titular bishops almost like deacons to have partners in power within the lifetime in which they work. Let us say it frankly: the problem is the problem of a power struggle! Few are prepared to let go of their prerogatives! The issue, at the base, is not ,as it is put forward, a theological issue and it is not a pastoral issue. What determines the traditional or the ecclesiological, theological or the canonical argument, at the basic level, is the holding on of each of the concerned parties to the power which they think rightly belongs to themselves and not to others. Each one brings forward this or that evidence, in reality, because it is convenient for him. If we were to hold fast to ecclesiological theology and the traditional canons, in the matter before us, then we would have to openly express only a small number of the positions we implicitly adopt or to which we consent and which are not in agreement with [Orthodox] principles.

The question of the diaspora, especially North America, is today in our opinion the foundation of the current problem and what brought to light the intellectual divide which had long remained hidden. The status of any of the Orthodox churches, the See of Antioch included, is not sound there, either from an ecclesiological or a canonical standpoint. By what right do we hold on to the dependence of the Antiochian Archdiocese in North America on us? That eparchy is no longer at the stage of just being sent out. We helped it during its beginnings, but now it is mature, and more mature than us here in its theology and its learning and its organization. By what right, then, is it assumed that it should be under our care? Is it because some of its people have left us? So what? Generations and generations have grown up there for years and the people in those lands have become American. Is it because there is a sentimental heritage which ties us to them and them to us, or because there is something like nationalist feelings which hold us to them and them to us so that they must be subject to our local ecclesial structure? This has no relation in any case to ecclesiological thought nor to the ancient ecclesiological practice which has come down to us from the Apostles and saints. Thus the practical theology which we use in this matter is faulty and unacceptable if we were to be fair and correct.

And what is to be said about the canonical disorders that we’re up to our ears in over there?

The situation of all the Orthodox eparchies dependent on mother churches in North America is uncanonical. There is one Orthodox church in those lands whose situation is sound and canonical: the American Orthodox Church (OCA). This alone is independent and autocephalous and this is de-facto recognized by the other Orthodox eparchies. Its recognition, formal or implicit, by the eparchies depending on mother churches is clear and frank confirmation that the status of these eparchies is uncanonical and unsound. If these eparchies and mother churches on which they depend were to be logical with themselves and consistent with Orthodox ecclesiological and canonical thought, in the true sense of the word, then they would belong to the OCA or would at least enter into an understanding with it and the thorny crisis of the Orthodox presence there, theologically and canonically, would end. The simplest position and the most sound is for us to leave the Orthodox in North America to themselves and to encourage them to arrange their affairs themselves! We and the other mother churches are the ones who are complicating their affairs!

Naturally, there are those who claim that the problem of the diaspora is, to a great extent, a problem of nationalist sentiment. The sentiments exist, but not to the degree that is thought. The Church in the past has dealt with nationalism-- in Constantinople, in Antioch, and elsewhere-- and she is able to deal with it in every time and place whenever proper ecclesial sentiment abounds. But if nationalistic notions eclipse concern of the Church, then this is a dangerous event and a serious deviation because we are no longer a church possessing one faith, but rather a group of tribes. The truth is that the mother churches hold on to their eparchies in North America because they do not want to be stripped of their prerogatives and their benefits and their power there. The issue of money plays an important role in this matter and likewise does political and ecclesial influence. None of this has any connection to the Church in the exact meaning of the word, not to her theology, nor to her canons, nor to pastoral care for her people nor to her spirituality.

I will return to the subject of the bishops and I will say that the hidden cause behind the debate going on between those who hold to the concept of titular, helper bishops and the concept of local bishops over a people and a territory is, in reality, related to the passions. There is struggle for power, in the worldly sense, going on, and the arguments put forth call for each to claim his own power and leadership. But we have no power to receive, rather service to give for the Church of Christ and the People of God. For this reason, if we were to be just, then we must, first and last, to put pastoral care for the People of God before ourselves and before any other standard. The struggle for power going on today is, unfortunately, on account of this pastoral care! The single legitimate and acceptable question in this context is: what is most appropriate for the care of the Orthodox faithful here and there?

For this reason it is to be hoped that the interaction of the metropolitan with the bishops within a single eparchy, wherever they may be and especially right now in North America, will be first of all with goodness, love, humility of heart, and magnanimity. The issue of the episcopate, which has long been outside the genuine ecclesiology, will not be solved by emptying it of its pastoral content and enshrining its titularity, and not by, in response, idolatrously harping on the application of cannons but rather by the metropolitan embracing the bishops as brothers, and the bishops the metropolitan. Calmly and deliberately we will become able to solve our issues in cooperation and simplicity and flexibility, relying on [Orthodox] principles, and we will raise up the People of God in truth so that God will be glorified in us. The way of dividing, subjugating with decisions from on high, and debasing is of no avail. It will only alienate and create factions and lead to schism! I say this and it is to be feared that we are in a delicate and dangerous situation. Orthodox America will not be treated in the ruinous way we are accustomed to in our lands here! If we do not leave our selfishness and our pride and build each other up with kindness and generosity and put the good of the Church and its unity and theological principles ahead of any personal consideration, whatever it may be, then worse is to come!

Archimandrite Touma (Bitar)
Abbot of the Monastery of St. Silouan the Athonite-- Douma
Sunday July 12, 2009

Thoughts about the Western Rite

Sometimes I wonder if the Western Rite in its current form is all it should be.

One of the thoughts I've had frequently is why the approach to a "Western" from of Eastern Orthodoxy didn't just take the following approach:

Start with a King James English language version of the Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom and build western practices around it. The core Liturgy would be all the same words with collects and other texts added around that skeleton. Then add Western Hymnody and you have a Western Rite closer to what the Eastern Rite Orthodox use.

The texts to the Eastern Rite liturgy combined with the styles and forms of the west would be a powerful combination.

I wonder sometimes why no one ever thought to try this approach?

At any rate, I love the Liturgy of Saint Tikhon and the Book of Common Prayer, but some of the most vocal critics of the current Western Rite liturgies focus their criticisms on this Liturgy the most.

So were we wise in adapting it for Orthodox use if doing so has proven to be so controversial?

I would be able to grow quite comfortable with a new Western Rite liturgy that had at it's core the Eastern Rite texts combined with Western forms of ritual, music and the like.

Things to ponder on a Wednesday evening.

Columba Silouan

Get to Know the Original

I've just found a "Widget" on the website for Saint Andrew's Orthodox Church, located in Oklahoma. This is the coolest thing ever! After my "shock and awe" from seeing what the ACNA is doing with evangelism efforts, it was a real shot in the arm to see something this innovative coming from our Orthodox brothers and sisters.

Maybe there's hope yet in our own efforts to reach others with Holy Orthodoxy.

Pax,

Columba Silouan

Reflections on the ACNA

Well, it's now official. The Anglican Church of North America, with it's inaugural assembly is officially launched.

One of the guest speakers at this event is Metropolitan Jonah of the OCA. It is my hope that he will generate interest in Holy Orthodoxy among many.

There is much that is admirable about this new Anglican province, but it differs from Holy Orthodoxy in important respects.

While Orthodoxy unreservedly acknowledges the Seven Ecumenical Councils in their entirety, the ACNA accepts the first four, and the Christological statements of the fifth, sixth and seven Councils. One would guess that this would allow ACNA Anglicans to be favorable towards the use of Icons and Images, because they are aspects of the Christology of the Seventh Ecumenical Council.

The Orthodox Church holds Scripture and Holy Tradition to be part of the one revelation of Jesus Christ, while the ACNA puts Holy Scripture alone as the final authority on matters of faith and doctrine.

The ACNA limits the office of Bishop to those who are male, like Holy Orthodoxy. Unlike Holy Orthodoxy, there is limited acceptance of female priests and deacons permitted in some quarters of the province. In other quarters of the province, this practice is not allowed.

The standards for worship will differ between the ACNA and Western Rite Orthodoxy, not to mention with the wider Orthodox world. My guess is that the majority of ACNA Anglicans will worship in a more contemporary manner than what would be acceptable in Holy Orthodoxy.

One area where I expect the ACNA to continue to outdo us in Holy Orthodoxy is in the area of Evangelism and Church Planting. I hope we can gain ground in this area.

I have some unique feelings about this new Anglican endeavor, since I was once a member of one of the sub-groups that make up this new province, the Anglican Mission in the Americas.

I wonder what my life would be like right now if I had stayed in the AMIA.

I think I would have been constantly frustrated by the lack of interest in traditional Anglican worship. Thankfully, I'm not faced with this issue in the Antiochian Archdiocese.

It is unavoidable that there will be ties and frequent interaction with ACNA Anglicans and Western Rite Orthodox Christians. Those in the ACNA are "our country cousins" of a sort and many of them experienced similar battles with the Episcopal Church. But those of us who converted to Holy Orthodoxy went down a different path.

I still believe our Holy Orthodox faith is THE TRUTH and anything else, even if very close, is less than the truth.

So it's good that my family and I are where we are.

This being said, I firmly believe a large percentage of ACNA Anglicans have a closeness to the same God I worship.

Christ is in our midst,

Columba Silouan

Saint Ambrose Orthodox Church, Revisited

Good afternoon and Happy Father's Day everyone!

The Antiochian crisis over auxiliary bishops appears to be over, with a favorable ruling from the Holy Synod stating that the Episcopate is one, and that a Bishop is a Bishop, period. There is no such thing as an "auxiliary bishop."

At first glance, it appears that the decision is a bit of a split decision. No, there is no such thing as an "assistant bishop," but the existing bishops were still said to be those who assist the Metropolitan in the administration of the Archdiocese.

At any rate, during the crisis, one of the silliest edicts that came down was a prohibition of public prayers at the Divine Liturgy for any bishop but the Metropolitan and the Patriarch, unless the "auxiliary bishop" was present in the parish at the time.

Of course, most of the Priests thumbed their noses at this unwise and unnecessary edict. I say, rightly so. All of our bishops need prayer all the time.

I learned from observing this to respect the office of bishop, but not necessarily every lame-brained decision coming down from the individuals who hold the office.

I've also come to the conclusion that it's time to move forward with the dream of finding new convert families in the Parker area in the hopes that an eventual Western Rite mission can be established.

The benefits of establishing new parishes are increased revenues for the new retreat center and for Lancelot Andrewes Press, and a much greater readership for our materials. Other benefits are obvious: Increased conversions, vital parishes, and the blessings of obeying the Great Commission.

A local priest responded to a question I offered about an exception to the 60-mile rule in the following manner:

Benedictions,

I cannot do anything about the 60 mile rule. I can, once some of the
dust settles on the Diocesan bishops crisis, offer an opinion under
the best circumstances and get a response, maybe, from Bp Basil and
that, so far as I am concerned would be the road map. However, a
'mission station' would still need layers of approval further up the
hierarchy at some time. My sense is the whole scheme would float on my
reputation and personal contact with Metropolitan Philip and
Chancellor Kevorkian and Bp Basil. So far all that is working pretty
well.

A Road Map is designed to be followed to a destination.

I took the following from this response:

Maintain a good relationship with the established priests in our area at all times. Be obedient to their leadership and guidance.

Go ahead with dreaming and planning for an eventual mission. Start the work.

Don't do anything that might embarrass our local priests or harm their reputations.

Once enough people and resources are garnered, put the ball in the court of our local priests and let them carry that ball to the Bishop, the Vicar General, and on to the Metropolitan.

We live and serve in a heirarchical church, and acquiring permissions is just part of things with us. As long as everything is done decently and in good order, God can open doors no man can shut.

So if we build it correctly and bathe the endeavor in prayer, perhaps the approval will come.

In other words, do the work and then cross the bridge of gaining the proper approvals when we come to it.

Worst case-scenario: Generate interest and conversions to Holy Orthodoxy and if no approval comes, pack out Saint Marks.

But I believe God can move mountains, and there is no harm in trying to brush back the "60 mile rule."

Pax Christi,

Columba Silouan

The Recent Troubles in the Antiochian Archdiocese

In my opinion, the issue of the American Bishops being reduced to Auxiliary Status came at a really bad time. The Archdiocese is growing and new Western Rite Parishes are joining from the Charismatic Episcopal Church, an organization I spent a year in myself.

In addition to the new parishes joining en-masse, here in Colorado we've seen the publishing of a new Book of Common Prayer, and the continuing progress of the new retreat center in Southern Colorado.

Why now, when enthusiasm is building and exciting things are happening did this unwelcome interruption occur?

I think first and foremost, this controversy is a spiritual attack from the enemy of our souls. My hope is that, as often is the case, the devil will overreach and Christ and His Church will emerge stronger and better for these travails.

I have prayerful hopes that the trip of the American Bishops to Damascus to meet with Patriarch Ignatius will bear good fruit.

Pax Christ,

Columba Silouan

Free at Last! My New I-Mac and Me

At long last, I have a new and powerful tool at my disposal. After following the Dave Ramsey plan, my wife and I saved up enough emergency fund and living expenses money to allow for the purchase of a new computer.

My old PC, complete with Windows 98 finally got to the point where my virus protection would no longer update because the operating system was too old and not supported.

This new machine will allow for better and faster blogging and many other things. It's a powerful tool that I would like to use to promote Eastern Orthodoxy.

Now, if I could just think up a name for my new machine.

Blessings,

Columba Silouan