June 22, 2006
Inga Leonova
Much is being said in the course of the present
discussion on this site and elsewhere about the crisis of our autocephaly. A
widespread concern is that since we appear to be unable to govern ourselves in
a responsible manner, which is becoming more and more apparent as the reports
of the proceedings of our governing bodies are made available, we are therefore
only pretending to be a truly autocephalous Church. But is it just our failing
structure that is a problem?
It has become painfully obvious that our accounting
crisis is but a symptom of a much more serious disease. No longer can we ignore
the feeling that we are failing as a Church on a major scale. The OCA of the
1970s was a Church with a vision. Its unique position among the Orthodox Churches
as a Church unencumbered by either state allegiance or state persecution, its
multi-ethnicity, its unprecedented in recent history wealth of theological
thought, all appeared to give it potential to lead a renaissance of the
Orthodox faith. For the first time in centuries, building upon the legacy of
the All-Russian Council of 1917/18 the Orthodox Church in the person of the OCA
was taking on matters of great ecclesiological importance. Restoration of
liturgical dialogue and true Eucharistic communion between clergy and laity,
expansion of the ministries of laity and women, ecumenical dialogue, etc., -
all that has been on the table and in the works. Almost 40 years later, what
have we become? What do we see when we look in the mirror?
In the course of the last several months we have
asked for, and we are beginning to receive greater transparency. As could be
expected, the emerging truth is in no way comforting. Various reports, among
them the minutes of the session of the Holy Synod and the addresses of the
Metropolitan and Acting Treasurer are being officially published. Sadly, what
they show, first and foremost, albeit in different forms, is the division of
our body and the contempt of our hierarchs for the faithful.
In the minutes of the Synod, Òbusiness as usualÓ
reporting is in the language and style that reminds those of us of the Soviet
background of the ÒPravdaÓ newspaperÕs reporting of the Plenary Sessions of the
Communist Party.
We are also continually being chastised for our
apparently inappropriate and overreaching curiosity. The minutes record
displeasure expressed by one of the bishops about the Ònegative character of
the internet informationÓ without specifying which particular internet postings
are being criticized, thereby creating an impression that it is the circulation
of information itself that is a problem. And, fresh off the press, Metropolitan
Herman in his address to the Metropolitan Council refers to the Òweb sites of
questionable natureÓ and scorns Òthe right to knowÓ, Òfreedom of informationÓ
and, of course, that accursed word ÒdemocracyÓ. Certainly the Church is neither
a democracy nor autocracy. It is hierarchal AND counciliar, and rather than one
side excluding the other both are dependent on each other.
Unfortunately, this attitude of contempt is deeply
rooted in our traditional Orthodox culture. The widespread apathy of the
faithful as well as the guarded attitude of many clergy appear to be the direct
result of what may be one of the greatest chronic ailments of the Orthodox
Church – the centuries-long traditional separation of clergy and laity.
That separation, greatly enhanced and emphasized by the physical barrier
between the nave and the altar, and the transformation of the liturgy from a
live dialogue into the de-facto parallel ÒclergyÓ and ÒlaityÓ liturgies, has
served to create a culture whereupon the Orthodox faithful are brought up to
believe that the laity have no place in the ÒhigherÓ dealings of the Church,
and that the clergy operates on a different plane of existence. I grew up in
Russia, where this culture in the Church remains to this day virtually
unchallenged. Respect for the cloth has with time morphed into idolization of
the clothed, and the faith in the reality of operation of the Holy Spirit in
liturgical practice has become equated with the faith in the infallibility of
the clergy.
Yet in contrast my experience in the OCA has led me
to believe that by and large our Church, building on the energy of the Orthodox
renaissance that after the Council of 1917/18 had made its way into Western
Europe and North America, managed to foster true ecclesiastical communion of
all its members - clergy and laity, Jew and Gentile. It also seemed to me that
our ecclesiology had restored the harmony of its hierarchal and counciliar
sides working in communion rather than in opposition. Hence it could be
expected in such a Church that our respect for our hierarchs would be based on
love and trust as St. Paul described to the Ephesians, akin to that of the
early Church in the teachings of St. Ignatius of Antioch, where the unity of
the bishop with his flock is in essence the manifestation of the unity of
Christ with the Church as His Body.
Unfortunately that trust must be greatly damaged if,
instead of rejoicing in the MetropolitanÕs strong emphasis on his Primatial
responsibilities and in effect a repeated promise Òto take care of thingsÓ,
there is a feeling of primarily being told to Òshut up and stop meddling.Ó The
Metropolitan appears to address the division among the members of the Holy
Synod, yet the emphasis again is on the dissemination of information being the
greater evil than the reported evil – the division in the body of the
Church - itself. Once again we are reminded of obedience to the hierarchal
structure of our Church (notably without as much as a reference to its
counciliar side), as opposed to the Òby the people and for the peopleÓ
principle of a democratic state, and both the MetropolitanÕs and Fr. KucyndaÕs
addresses in many instances appear patronizing and even threatening.
Altogether, the reaction of our governing body seems
to follow closely in the footsteps of the Roman Church of the recent past,
where the hierarchy labored hard to instill in its community the idea that
exposing sin would do greater damage than the sin itself, and that obedience
was supposed to be absolute. Yet were we not commanded to ÒTake no part in the
unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose themÓ (Eph. 5:11), and told
that Òspeaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who
is the head, into ChristÓ (Eph. 4:15)?
I would like to pause on the last quotation from St.
Paul. Did we somehow manage to forget that the Church is based first and
foremost on love? Its hierarchal structure as well as its counciliar nature have
love as their foundation – firstly, love of God for His creature,
secondly, creatureÕs love for God the Creator, and thirdly, mutual love of
creatures as images of God, love as Light original and love as light reflected.
ÒFor God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten SonÉÓ, and Peter
confessed by love, and Paul knew that without love, we are nothing and may as
well not be. True obedience as well as true governance are only possible
through love, as anyone with a simple experience of a happy family life would
ascertain.
Without true, Christian love the Church becomes just another
institution, obedience turns into slavery, and governance becomes dictatorship.
No beautiful words, no aesthetic and sensual pleasures of beautiful rites will
mask the emptiness of the house without love. We may be frightened into
submission or disciplined into silence, but we will then cease to be the Church
– for the time being, at leastÉ