New Western Rite in the OCA

Greetings in Christ.  

Last Sunday, news of the conference at Nashotah House between Metropolitan Jonah, Saint Vladimir's Seminary Dean Chad Hatfield, and conservative Anglican Leaders was reviewed by our parish priest at Saint Marks in Denver.

One of the major announcements during Sunday School was that Metropolitan Jonah, and by extension the OCA, is proposing a new diocese for the OCA called The Anglican Diocese.

This would be a Western Rite diocese that would mirror other ethnic dioceses that currently exist in the OCA such as the Bulgarian Diocese, the Albanian Diocese, etc.  This Diocese would allow the customs and culture of Anglican converts to Holy Orthodoxy to be preserved and practiced freely.

The OCA also seems to have regional dioceses, so they have the best of both worlds, so to speak.

The new Anglican Diocese would have it's own Bishop, which would be a step forward for the Western Rite overall.  The Antiochian Western Rite currently has a Dean, but not a Bishop.

Of course, this is not to say that the Diocesan Bishops Antioch has aren't excellent.

A Western Rite in the OCA would be a wonderful thing.  Please keep this possibility in your prayers.

Columba Silouan

The OCA Targets Parker

A few weeks ago, during the Feast of the Dormition of the Blessed Virgin Mary, I learned from local Orthodox priest Fr. David Mustian that the OCA has targeted Parker for an Orthodox mission.

The Orthodox Church in America had as it's local dean a wonderful priest named Fr. Hirsch, who died over the summer.  He was the main contact for this effort.

This is an answer to my prayers, but is not without a price.

The OCA has no Western Rite and many among its ranks are not favorable towards the Western Rite.

Another local priest, Fr. John Armstrong is one of the remaining contacts for this missionary effort.  I've e-mailed him once and received a kind response confirming the plans of the OCA, and called him and talked to him.

I've asked my family to make a pilgrimage to Saint Herman's Orthodox Church a couple of Sundays from now in an attempt to cultivate ties with Fr. Armstrong and other Parker residents who might attend Saint Herman's.

I also broached the subject of a Western Rite presence in any new parish, in the form of a chapel or oratory.

Please stay tuned on further developments.

Columba Silouoan.

An Elephant in the Room

With the scandals rocking the Antiochian Archdiocese over the past year, much discussion is taking place about what the future might hold if things don't improve.

There is no need here to go into the details of "the recent troubles" in Antioch.  But the Ochlophobist wrote something of particular interest to anyone who is a part of the Western Rite:

+Jonah, after a few speeches, has put the OCA in a situation where if they were to start a Western Rite they would get virtually all WR parishes that would have thought of going to the AOANA previously. Perhaps the OCA will not go that route, but I'm told of at least one parish and at least one entire small group of continuing Anglicans that are currently more or less holding out for an OCA option in part because they do not consider the AOANA viable at this time. It could well turn out that neither of those institutions would have become Orthodox anyway, but there is no doubt that the "energy" with regard to WR is going to leave the AOANA if this scandal continues (which virtually everyone expects) and the OCA puts another option on the table. 

The statement above becomes an elephant in the room for those of us in the Western Rite and the Antiochian Archdiocese.  The Diocese of Wichita, which is the diocese I worship in, has a godly bishop, Bishop Basil, but the problems at the national level are causing headaches everywhere.

I'm sure these problems can be outlasted, but in the short run real damage is being done to our witness.  

It seems we have an elephant in the room, and a bull in the china shop doing much damage.  Let's pray God in His mercy intervenes.  God save our Archdiocese!

Columba Silouoan

The Ochlophobist Blows Away Wild at Heart

Over on one of my favorite Orthodox web blogs, the Ochlophobist has taken aim at John Eldredge and the book Wild at Heart. Literally.

Here is what he said about this subject:

Ken Myers, of the Mars Hill Audio Journal, wrote an excellent essay some years ago that was an historical overview of the relationship of Evangelicals to “high” culture. He notes the influence of Francis Schaeffer on a generation of Evangelical college students, and the urgent and hasty embrace of “high” culture right at the very time that “high” culture in the West went into a rather earnest self-destruct mode. Myers then describes and catalogs the complete lack of discernment and lack of wherewithal on the part of culturally liberated Evangelicals now with a fetish for all things cultural.

One sees the result of this trend in the later manifestations of (the new & improved) Christianity Today, Book & Culture, Sojourners, the Emergent Church, and a number of Evangelical and Evangelical offshoot cultural enterprises. The desire, or the base impulse anyway, that started all of this crass and furious cultural engagement was more or a less a good one – the thought that to be an embodied Christian in a world God loved meant to relate, on some meaningful level, with culture. But that good desire went, well, pretty much nowhere, for the most part, because it was awash in unmitigated stupidity and intellectual immaturity. The whole ethos of Evangelical attempts at an engagement with culture is adolescent in the current sense of that term (perpetual and narcissistic), to the core. The few anomalies decidedly stand out. Alan Jacobs.

Wild at Heart may declare that “man is made for the purpose of actively participating in and enjoying the wonder, beauty, and the fruits of God's good creation” but this message is so drowned in a sea of effete emotionalism, and unmitigated self-consciousness, and 14 year oldish masturbative catharsis seeking, that the impulse loses virtually all merit. I would argue that the impulse is itself just a game. It establishes a pretty predictable and obvious crisis to do battle in and with, and the battle then plays out with unreserved affect and exaggerated import.

I have heard, from more than a few, how liberating this book is for those who come from certain, “restrained” backgrounds. I do not think the book actually liberates. I think the book sets up an emotional playground of manipulated catharsis in which the reader or group of readers plays out the (now) very common game of personal liberation. It reminds me of Evangelicals who become Anglicans or Catholics or Orthodox and all of a sudden find themselves allowed to drink alcohol. They (often, usually the males) make a big deal out of it. They sort of take on this new identity as “drinker.” They talk about it a lot, they think about it a lot, they feel a lot about it, they convince themselves of their new ontological status. But after three drinks it is apparent to any serious drinker that joe schmuck cannot handle the slightest buzz. They love the new self-fabricated identity far more than they do the actual act of drinking, and on top of it they are incompetent as a drinker.

This book is an icon of that sort of marketed (to self and others) image falsification. This book will not actually bring the reader, any reader, closer to the fruits of God’s creation. It will not teach one anything of importance with regard to wonder or beauty or a genuine thanksgiving for God’s fruits. It will teach one to posture about these things, but not to actually engage them. For real engagement, read Papadiamandis. Read Archimandrite Sophrony.

I stand by what I said about this book above in the thread. It is a horrible book. It is destructive to the soul. Every copy should be destroyed. It is one of many examples of a man profiting from the selling of trash in a religious context. He profits both in terms of money and in terms of his apparent need for cathartic release. Thus a whip is certainly in order.

As I have argued here before, there is a strong strand of antinomianism running in American Orthodoxy. They like the desert fathers and certain modern elders a whole lot, but their ethos strikes me as having a lot more in common with those popular distortions of Zen one sees about everywhere these days than it does anything particularly Orthodox. What I always chuckle about with regard to these folks is this - they espouse a rhetorical pacifism - their understanding of judging goes beyond not judging the man, and extends to an extreme disinclination to judge what the man does, even though what the man does might be affecting many people, even many Orthodox people. I disagree with this extension of the prohibition against judgment, but I would have a modicum of respect for it were it not for this - these same folks who are so averse to the judging of actions apparently find no problem with publicly passing judgment upon the actions of those who judge in a manner they don't like. It reminds me of those who are tolerant of everyone except those who are not tolerant of the things they are tolerant of, in which case they become quite intolerant. Spirit of the age, methinks.

My first response was as follows:

The Orthodox Tentmaker said...

Dear Ochlophobist,

Tsk, Tsk. On this one, you and I will have to respectfully disagree.

I like JE. I consider him to be a potential Orthodox Convert, and then you go ahead and do this.

I actually taught an adult Sunday School class at Saint Mark's in Denver about an Orthodox perspective on his books.

It's better to light a candle than curse the darkness. I don't think Fr. Stephen Freeman would consider this a laughing matter, and I know you respect him.

Now, if you took a gun to The Purpose Driven Life, I wouldn't bat an eyelash. But Eldredge is a potential ally and I don't think it's a good idea to alienate him.

I have every one of his books, and I'm not about to shoot them up. Kindly reconsider bro.

And of course, I'll remain a faithful reader. Although this one sorely tested my loyalty. AHEM!

Sincerely Yours,

Columba Silouan

To which our dear Ochlophobist said...

Orthotent,

Let me assure you, somethin' got lit up.

Should Fr. Stephen ask me to take this post down, I would.

If shooting JE's book does not encourage him to convert, I don't know what will. If the man actually cares to follow the principles and stylized posture he presents on the surface of his work, then I would think he might be inclined to understand this post. If not, well, he sells enough books to get by with the "good life" - so what does it matter?

But thank you, my friend, for being willing to look past my worrisome idiosyncrasies and prejudices. I need all of the slack I can get.

So now I have a ton of things to write about this evening, 

(and I'm sure, a few subsequent evenings).

I'll start out by saying that later, I did chuckle a bit at the picture. I appreciated the male humor. Nevertheless, as someone who really likes John Eldredge, I feel the need to address some things.

As a convert to Orthodoxy, I try to view all subjects through the prism of my faith. Orthodoxy comes first, and all other beliefs from my past life as a heterodox Christian come second. Nevertheless, I don't reject out of hand all the good things I was exposed to in my life prior to Orthodoxy. I believe God was at work, even before my conversion.

Dr. Francis Schaeffer's influence was one of the stepping stones that led to my conversion. And I know from one of JE's monthly newsletters from Ransomed Heart that he is one of JE's main models.

Ortho made a good point about drinking above. I'm afraid that I, indeed have been guilty of the attitude he describes about that subject, at least.

But there is a danger for us converts. That danger is to hold bitterness in our hearts towards any of the people who might of helped to drive us out of our former church affiliations and into Orthodoxy.

There is also a danger of envying the successes of our heterodox brothers and sisters. Och mentioned that John Eldredge lives "the good life." I don't fault JE for this. He's worked hard for everything he has. Is it his problem if we Orthodox can't get our own acts together and become as influential in this culture as he is?

There are many refugees in Orthodoxy who disagreed as a matter of principle with Charismatics and Evangelicals. Some of us have actually suffered rejection and outright mistreatment and disrespect from these people.   I'm included among that number.

Nevertheless, not everything those who have rejected us or our interests have done in their own attempts to live out their Christianity has been negative.

I've learned many Orthodox things from Charismatics and Evangelicals. I first had to convert away from fundamentalist Baptist theology to Charismatic (with a small "C") theology before I was able to finally convert to Holy Orthodoxy.

We can't return mistreatment for mistreatment. We are certainly free to criticize JE and his work, but in my opinion we must maintain a good attitude when we do so. The Holy Scriptures tell us that when we say "Raca" or "You fool" to our brothers, whether heterodox or Orthodox, we are in danger of the "hell of fire."

I know The Ochlophobist meant well.  I think his views are a tad overboard on this matter, however.  JE has many Orthodox leanings.  Now, if only we could give him a good push all the way into Orthodoxy!

I plan to address this subject in greater detail, as time permits.

Blessings in the Holy Trinity,

Columba Silouan

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