Moving toward an administratively united church

The Hellenic Chronicle - February 29, 1996

By FR. NICHOLAS K. APOSTOLA

PART III

I think that we can see — albeit in a subconscious way — the different ways of seeing Orthodoxy in America in the various reactions to the "Statement on the Church in North America" made by the Bishops at Ligonier, especially the reactions around the word "diaspora." The Bishops said:

We have agreed that we cannot accept the term 'diaspora' as used to describe the Church in North America. In fact the term is ecclesiologically problematic. It diminishes the fullness of the faith that we have lived and experienced here for the past two hundred years.

In a remarkable moment of self-insight, the Bishops were stating a simple sociological — and historical for that matter — fact. The Church in North America does not see itself any longer as a Church in dispersion, or that has been dispersed — if it ever did. They said in fact that the Church is present here, in this particular time and place, living and preaching the Gospel, with no intention of 'going back' anywhere. For all of the reasons stated above, this still administratively disorganized entity sees itself as the One Church sojourning in this particular time and place, while trying to make present God's Kingdom.

However, this Statement was interpreted by many through a canonical lens. While I believe, and almost all of the Bishops participating in the Ligonier meeting believe, that both of the Statements issued were intended to be read as prophetic and spiritual documents, some have chosen to read them in a canonically literal manner. When the Bishops objected to the concept of 'diaspora,' especially as it was applied to the Church in North America, this was seen by some as a challenge to the canonical relationship of the Churches here to their respective Mother Churches, or even the concept of Mother Church itself. However, Archbishop Iakovos, when asked directly if this were the case, used the image of children who had grown into adulthood; without disrespecting their parents, adult children still need to make and take responsibility for their own lives. He continued by pointing to the fact that even people like himself who had immigrated to America, who were first generation, had no intention of returning to the country of their origin. What he was saying in both of these comments reflects the double nature of ethnic-group consciousness in America. Without ever denying their ethnic identity, members of ethnic groups consider themselves to be totally American. Most of the time this double identity goes unnoticed and unasserted, until it is challenged. When it is challenged, from whichever front, then that aspect of their identity that has been called into question will he defended to the utmost.

This is why people from the Mother Churches believe, with all of their hearts, that their respective ethnic Daughter Churches in North America are absolutely and totally committed to the ethnic Mother Church. Because if someone were to attack that commitment, they would defend it with all of their being. However, when these same people or Churches have their American identity attacked or challenged, it too is similarly defended. Because there has been a general lack of understanding of this genuine double identity, this ambivalent reaction on the part of Daughter Churches has been a source of confusion for the Mother Churches, and a cause of division here in North America.

Any attempt at uniting the Church in North America must take care to account for and affirm both of these identities if it is to succeed. But we must also, carefully, shift the organizing focus. We must begin to create a process by which the informal ways in which the various ethnic dioceses in North America cooperate will be replaced with more formal structures. And ethnicity, which is now the primary organizing principle of the Church, would become a secondary organizing principle as we move toward administratively uniting the Church.

This can and must be done. As the pull of ethnic self-identification weakens, the message of the Gospel must become the primary way in which the faithful will be retained in the Orthodox Church. As I stated above, this does not mean that 'ethnicity' will disappear in the Orthodox Church in North America. However, it does mean that unless people find spiritual meaning and comfort in the Church, they will not remain affiliated with the Orthodox Church. The power of ethnicity as the primary source of identification to retain our faithful has seriously diminished. We have all witnessed to the decline in our numbers over the past twenty years. Some of this decline may have to do with the ways in which Americans are choosing to express their religiosity. However, much more of this may have to do with the feeling that the Church, as currently configured, is not addressing the spiritual needs of at least a large portion of the faithful, A powerful aspect of the American character is that individuals seek out what they perceive that they need and go where they can find it. Americans do not stay where they can see no possibility of positively impacting a situation.

So much of our energy as Orthodox in North America has been directed at maintaining our ethnic identities that we have neglected to understand the American part of ourselves. Americans are pragmatic and self-reliant. They have a deep sense of justice, order, and fair-play. Americans are also deeply religious. Contrary to popular opinion, by the objective standards of how often people attend Church or pray, we are among the most religious people in the world. These are values that are consistent with Gospel. The Church, if it is to survive here, must begin to help our own faithful understand these American values within the framework of Orthodox Christian spirituality. At the same time, these values also bring a judgment on the way the Church has been managed and presented, both to our own faithful and American society generally.

For example, one of the primary impulses of the Orthodox Church is unity. It seeks to reach out and transfigure everything in the world in order to restore the original harmony and unity with which God made the creation. This is a theme that runs through all of our liturgy, all of the spiritual writings. As Americans we begin to ask, "If this is a good and true value, of divine origin, then why is the administration of the Church in such chaos?" And conversely, "If you claim this to be true, and you are so far away from it in practice, then either you are an incompetent, a hypocrite, or a liar." This may seem harsh. We would probably rarely, if ever, hear someone say this out loud. But people think it and feel it. Americans, by and large, are very straight-forward people. One could almost say there is a studied naiveté. Sometimes it feels like arrogance. However, unlike the ethnic part of ourselves, the American part has almost no tolerance for ambiguity or even finesse. What in other parts of the world is considered to be polite diplomacy, is often seen by Americans as duplicity.

Therefore, as we begin to think about how we move toward an administratively united Church, we should keep three principles in mind. The first is that unity is an intrinsic value. We do not have a choice as to whether or not we want to bring total unity to the Orthodox Church. For us this is an imperative, and if we do not do it in a timely fashion, then the American part of us will not tolerate it. The second is that orderly administration is not necessarily unspiritual. Historically and canonically, one of the reasons why the unity of the Church came to rest and be manifest in the person of the bishop was to provide administrative coherence to the Church. But we must remember that unity does not mean bureaucracy. The third is that we must move from ethnicity as the primary organizing principle of the Church in North America to the faith, without ignoring or even diminishing either aspect.

Fr. Nicholas K. Apostola is secretary of the Standing Conference of Orthodox Bishops of America (SCOBA) and was recording secretary for the Bishop's meeting at Ligonier, PA. This piece is excerpted from an article that will be appearing in an upcoming issue of St. Vladimir's Quarterly later this year.

[ The Hellenic Chronicle - Vol. LXXXI, No. 9 - February 29, 1996 - p. 5 ]