And Now Back to Condemns, Sex, the Human Person and Culture

When I think of safer sex and condom education and the anthropology that it informs it, I am struck by the superficiality of its vision of the human. It is not unlike a toddler’s temper tantrum; if only I am loud enough, angry enough, assertive enough, I can get what I want. Sadly, and as anyone who has seen a toddler throwing a temper tantrum, if the tantrum is allowed to progress, it quickly becomes an end in itself; self-assertion quickly becomes self-destruction; rage at others and frustration at their lack of submission to my will, quickly becomes terror at my own rage and a growing sense of my own impotence to accomplish my own desires.

So what then should be done?

The great tragedy of human sinfulness, of my sinfulness, is that I am not simply indifferent to my own humanity and yours, but am actively hostile to it. What this means is that I invest immense amounts of energy in avoiding my dependence upon God and neighbor for my self-discover, self-expression and self-fulfillment. I express this in one of two ways.

First, and this has be the main focus of these posts to this point, I simply refuse to acknowledge my dependence. Instead of humble openness and patience that acknowledges the foundational role of your hospitable for my self-fulfillment, I proceed autarkically; I do not receive my life with gratitude but seek to create my own life through the imposition of my own will upon not only the world of persons, events and things but also myself. Life, in this vision, becomes a project of my own ego, a quest for power and control that eventually comes to encapsulate not only the world around me but me as well. I become, in effect, my own project. Ironically, to be even temporarily realized control requires that I narrow the parameters of my life until, and again in parody of the Gospel, my life becomes “one thing,” be that one thing professional success, material wealth or sexual desire.

Compare this to Sören Kierkegaard’s description of purity of heart:

Father in heaven! What is a man without Thee! What is all that he knows, vast accumulation though it be, but a chipped fragment if he does not know Thee! What is all his striving, could it even encompass a world, but a half-finished work if he does not know Thee: Thee the One, who art one thing and who art all! So may Thou give to the intellect, wisdom to comprehend that one thing; to the heart, sincerity to receive this understanding; to the will, purity that wills only one thing. In prosperity may Thou grant perseverance to will one thing; amid distractions, collectedness to will one thing; in suffering, patience to will one thing.

For the Christian tradition, and I suspect for most traditional societies that stress the communal nature of the human, willing one thing is not reductionistic, but transcendent. Insofar as safer sex and condom education limits its concerns to the biology and mechanics of sexual intercourse, it offers only a “half-finished work.” And this work, Kierkegaard reminds us, remains opaque, to the degree that our vision remains limited to the specific work itself.

But there is another way that I can be hostile to my own dependence on God. If in the former, I try and impose myself on myself, in this second case, I simply refuse to undertake the work of self-discover and self-expression. (As an aside, this was part of what I was getting at in a series of posts on the psychological foundations of jurisdictionalism.) Instead, I limit myself to simply maintaining the forms of my tradition but never allow those forms to challenge me to self-knowledge and self-expression in any depth.

In either case, however, what we see is an abdication of chastity or a life that is respectful of self and others. Rather than respect, I live a life that sees self and others in purely, or at least largely, instrumental terms, as I try and shape them and reality to my own, increasingly encapsulated will.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Unless noted otherwise, everything posted here is © 2009 Gregory R Jensen.

Pansexualism: “Do You Think I’m Sexy?”

We see nowhere see the efficiency and popularity of autarky then in matter of human sexuality. Far from being the obsession of the right wing ideologues, unfettered sexual expression has become the rallying cry of contemporary secular society. As Craig Carter, who teaches theology and ethics at Tyndale University College & Seminary in Toronto and who serves as “Theologian in Residence” at Westney Heights Baptist Church, has written,

Pansexualism is the real ideology driving the sexual revolution. It is the doctrine that sexual liberation means that all should have sex with all at will. It holds up promiscuity and the unisex ideal as its goods. True sexual liberation can only occur when sexual pleasure has been totally detached from the bonds of family life and procreation. Pansexualism seeks to sever the connection between parents and children because that tie stands in the way of complete sexual liberation for the autonomous individual. Parenting prevents individuals from satisfying their hormonally driven desires with whomever they feel like doing it with at any given moment. So the family must die. It is an obstacle to individual fulfillment; it is inherently “oppressive.” (h/t: Dr Edward Green)

It is worth noting, if only in passing, that the gods of the Ancient Near East, the gods that tempted Israel to deny God and her own identity, where in the main fertility gods who worship embraced prostitution ( Ishtar) and infant sacrifice ( Moloch). While some contemporary scholarship questions the existence of sacred prostitution, for example, the association between sex and apostasy is unquestioned in the prophetic literature of the Old Testament (see for example, Deuteronomy 23:17-18 and Hosea 4:14 and their parallels).

Pansexualism stands in stark contrast to the Christian (and not merely Christian) notion that human greatness, human transcendence is dependent upon an act of mutual hospitality and service. For me, this requires that I cultivate in myself the virtue of humility, that is an appreciative awareness and acceptance of my dependence on your hospitality and the hospitality of God.

More tomorrow.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Unless noted otherwise, everything posted here is © 2009 Gregory R Jensen.

A Gift Given to be Received

While sexual ethics are not, by any means, the whole of moral concern, they have become so for contemporary culture. Even as other areas of human life come more and more under societal, and even governmental, control, human sexuality seems to be something of a cultural free zone. Where political power is brought to bear at all it is in the service of imposing of sexual freedom grounded in individualistic desire. Contraception, abortion, divorce, to name only three, are all in the service of undoing and even defiling the natural symbolic connection between human sexuality and community. No longer do we see society embodied in procreation. Instead of new life as a gift from a gracious God and the fruit of conjugal love between man and a woman, we come to see procreation more and more as the expression of our own mastery over the human bodies. No longer is a child a gift given to us or not as God (or the gods) decide.

Shorn of gratitude and its connection to what is beyond the person, sexuality has become an instrument of mere self-expression. Culturally, human sexuality no longer reminds us that even in our most intimate desires and moments, we are meant for something larger than ourselves or even each other. Now it seems, that which is larger, that which is shared, has come to serve intimate human desires and moments. But in this service, what is larger is made smaller and cheaper.

Where in traditional societies, immanence and transcendence existed in an ordered partnership (hierarchy) each with its own place and integrity relative to the other, we now see a new hierarchy being proposed in which transcendence is to serve immanence. In doing so, however, transcendence has ceased to what orders human affairs and so both have ceased to be themselves. Returning to what I said above, in this submission of the transcendent to the immanent, the communal to the individual, I see a parody of the Incarnation.

St Paul says of the Incarnate Son,

Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Phil 2:5-11)

The self-emptying (kenosis) of the Son is in the service of human transcendence, deification (theosis) in the traditional language of the Christian East. Or, to borrow from Hasidic spirituality, my self-contraction is always in the service of your self-expression; I make myself small so that you can grow larger.

Alas, where have now come to a place culturally (and safer sex and condom education are illustrative of this) where we have lose sight of the anthropological fact that I do not grow except by the gift of another’s self-limitation. It is “ your” kenosis that makes possible “my” transcendence. And the first step of that transcendence is gratitude for the great gift of your self-limitation.

This all reflects an anthropological vision that is greatly at odds with contemporary understandings of the person. In place of an anthropology of mutual kenotic self-limitation as the means of our shared self-discover and self-expression, contemporary secular culture offers an autarkic anthropology that sees the self-discovery and self-expression of others (whether human or divine) as obstacles to my will. What you have, you have taken from me and so my self-realization must, necessarily, proceed along the path of your destruction or at least submission to my control.

While traditional (and Christian) societies often fail to realize the anthropological vision I have outlined, secular autarky has proven itself to be deadly efficient and terrifying popular in embodying its own anthropology.

More tomorrow.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Unless noted otherwise, everything posted here is © 2009 Gregory R Jensen.

Site News

Looking at the stats, I see that Koinonia has this week broken 200 subscribers1 Thank you to all of you who take the time to read here. And a special thank you to those who have put up with the buggy comment system. God willing, that will be corrected in the next few days.

Recently my wife and I got Iphones–a great product and well worth the cost if you (as we do) travel a great deal. But Koinonia, whatever might be its other virtues, is not configured for those who read it on smartphones. Or should I say, WAS not configured for smartphones.

Today I launched a trial, mobile, version of this blog for those of you would read on the fly. Your smartphone should automatically re-direct you to the slimmed down, tiny screen friendly verision. Alternatively, you can point your browser here: http://palamas3.mobify.me/

Again, thank you everyone for your support and encouragement.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Unless noted otherwise, everything posted here is © 2009 Gregory R Jensen.

Conflicting Views of Self-Interest

For radically individualist, for those who hold to what Robert Bellah and his colleagues in Habits of the Heart call ontological individualism, the traditional notion of community is at once both attractive and frightening. A traditional life is attractive in that it offers an end to loneliness, to a life of isolation in which the person is left to his or her own ever diminishing physical and spiritual resources. But a traditional life is also frightening in that admission to such a life is never something I can simply will; I cannot in the strict sense choose this life, I can only be admitted by the invitation of a hospitable other. The love embodied by a traditional society is not mine. Rather life in as a member of a community is, in the strict sense, outside of my control, it a gift that is first and freely given and only then before can I receive it.

And, once received, it limits my autarkic mode of self-presence and self-expression. Contemporary culture is an autarky predicated as it is on an (illusory) ontology of self-sufficiency; traditional societies, for all their differences in religion and even morality, are based on an ontology of what Western Medieval philosophers describe as primary and secondary contingency, on our radical dependence on God and our proximate dependence upon humanity.

Self-discover and self-expression (including in the sexual dimension) remains an essential developmental goal for the human person in both contemporary and traditional societies. And, and again in both, these are done not simply within social structures but with others.

Where contemporary secular culture deviates, however, is on the goal, or teleos, of human self-discovery and expression. In the autarky that is secular culture, human development is directed toward a self-sufficiency that beings and ends in the individual while in traditional societies, our self-sufficiency is in the service of the community and indeed remains inchoate if it is not in the hospitable and gracious service of the community.

Safer sex and condom education, to return to where I began, seem to me to appeal (rightly I think) to self-interest. We hear similar appeals to self-interest in the Scriptures. For example, in Jeremiah, God instructs His prophet:

“Now you shall say to this people, ‘Thus says the LORD: “Behold, I set before you the way of life and the way of death. He who remains in this city shall die by the sword, by famine, and by pestilence; but he who goes out and defects to the Chaldeans who besiege you, he shall live, and his life shall be as a prize to him. For I have set My face against this city for adversity and not for good,” says the LORD. “It shall be given into the hand of the king of Babylon, and he shall burn it with fire.”‘ (21.8-10)

But where traditional forms of self-interest and expression, to repeat what I said above, are grounded in and return to an appreciative and obedient service of the community, contemporary appeals to self-interest are typically set in opposition to the community. No where is this difference as clearly seen then in matters of sexual ethics.

More tomorrow.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Unless noted otherwise, everything posted here is © 2009 Gregory R Jensen.

Biology Isn’t Destiny But It Isn’t Optional Either

A human being is not, as I said yesterday, a being-in-itself but rather a being-with-others, that is to say a social being.

The social nature of the human person is to say rather a bit more that the I simple fact that the human person is a member of something called the the human community in general sense. Bracketing for a moment ontological considerations, it is to say that our being arises not simply out out of a concrete sexual community constituted by a particular man and a particular woman, that is our mother and father.

The philosopher Emmanuel Levinas reminds us with his usual poetry, that this community is primordially an ethical community. The fecundity of the human is not merely biological, he observes, but moral; a woman becomes a mother through an act of hospitality by which she welcomes into her the intimacy of her own body a stranger whose presence will necessarily reconstitute her life transforming her from a biological to a moral agent.

In most traditional societies, and especially within the Christian community, this biological fecundity is a natural symbol for humanity. To be human is to be a being whose existence transcends the brute givenness of biology and really that whole order described with such precision by the empirical natural sciences. Before all else, I am a being whose being comes to from outside and as a gift from a hospitable other. And I, in turn, become most full myself when (in imitation of my mother) I embody concretely my own willingness not to simply to welcome the stranger into my life, but to allow my life to be reformed and transformed by the presence of the stranger.

For both the pious Jew and the committed Christian, that stranger is not simply a human other but the divine Other. I become who I am by an act of hospitality and care not only for strangers, but the Stranger, Who is God. While I cannot explicate it fully here, it can be argued that the human community as a whole is fundamentally feminine and that while women are by nature maternal, men are only analogically paternal.

Certainly cultural factors play a large role in the development of gender, gender roles as social constructs are themselves grounded in the sexual differences of male and female. The gender roles of a given society may more or less accurately reflect these biological difference, even as they may revere they respect these differences. But it seems to me that we can neither deny the real biological difference between male and female nor can we rid ourselves of gender roles for men and women. The denial of these biological and social differences requires that an anthropological vision that is at odds with most traditional cultures and especially with the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Within the Christian tradition specifically, Levinas’ analysis of human fecundity and the maternal hospitality of all human beings leads quickly and directly to a consideration of the incarnation of the Son of God in Jesus Christ. Human sexuality and reproduction point beyond themselves to a communion that is both ground in the Most Holy Trinity and which embraces the whole created order.

Even if other traditional societies are not themselves predicated on faith in Jesus Christ, there is (or so it seems to me) these societies share a “family” resemblance with the radically communalism that is at the anthropological heart of the Christian tradition. While not universal, nevertheless the communalism of traditional societies stands in stark contrast to the radical individualism and physical reductionism that has come to evermore characterize contemporary Western culture in both North America and Europe.

More tomorrow.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Unless noted otherwise, everything posted here is © 2009 Gregory R Jensen.

More on Condoms, Sex and the Human Person and Culture

Several weeks ago, I posted a reflection on the ineffectiveness of condoms in preventing the spread of AIDS in Africa (see Mirror of Justice: Harvard’s Dr. Green on the Pope, Aids, and Condoms in Africa). What caught my eye about the original report was the agreement on the matter between Pope Benedict XVI and Harvard scientist and AIDS researcher, Dr. Edward Green.

Somewhat to my surprise (and delight) Dr Green left a comment on my post asking me to say a bit more on what I see as the anthropological contradiction at the heart of most safer sex education programs. So this week, I will in fact try and say a bit more about this.

Specifically, in the main most safer sex advocates would assume that the person is (or should be) free of any external constrains on his or her behavior. At the same time their educational outreach is predicated on the notion that shared or cultural norms (in the current case, the use of a condom) ought to intervene between desire and action; indeed the public health norms of the program should determine the person’s behavior rather than the person’s own desires. Or to put the matter differently, the person should desire for him or herself what public health officials desire for him/her. In either case what safer sex and condom education advances and seeks justifies for public health reasons is the virtue of chastity even if they do not advance the as it is usually understood in the Christian tradition.

However noble the goals, safer sex and condom education programs are (I would suggest) contain an inherent anthropological contradiction. While understood in clearly different ways, both the Christian tradition and safer sex educators are advocating for some form of chastity. But while the Christian advocate for chastity argues from within a concrete tradition that sees tradition itself as having a normative and even determinative role for human behavior, in the main those advocating for safer sex practices reject the notion that personal behavior should be shaped by tradition.

Within traditional societies I think it likely safer sex education advocates would be perceived as an attempting to replace the traditional culture with a culture grounded in contemporary scientific theories of physical health. Let me please be clear, I am not rejecting the findings of modern science, far from it. But if I may risk the ironic use of an idiom, safer sex advocates have thrown the baby out with the bath water. In their zeal to protect the health of those at risk of HIV/AIDS they have neglected to see the disconnection between their public health goals and their neglect—and at times open hostility—to the anthropological fact that the human person is foundationally a traditional being. The irony of this becomes all the more biting when we realize that sexual activity is in and of itself a more or less natural symbol of the fact of my human being not a being-in-itself, but a being-with-others.

More tomorrow.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Unless noted otherwise, everything posted here is © 2009 Gregory R Jensen.

David’s Comments "On Some Go Postal…"

Dear David,

Christ is Risen!

Thank you for your thoughtful comments ( here). I appreciate why you think I have been unfair to the EP and the GOA—a my comments where rather pointed. Let me see if I can explain my position with a bit more clarity (and charity).

As Chrys mentioned in his own comment ( here), I think the existence of the ACROD and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (and the Albanian diocese) rather makes my point. My objection is not to the existence of so-called ethnic jurisdictions under the Ecumenical Throne (or in the OCA dioceses). It is rather that these communities (under the EP) exist as parallel communities. It strikes a bit too much like “separate but equal,” rather than as a model of an administratively unified Church.

Now if, and here I’m thinking of Metropolitan Jonah’s proposal that you referenced, the primates of these communities met as a Synod to oversee the life of the American Churches under the Ecumenical Throne (as happens in the OCA) that would be, in my view, a healthier situation. But these bishops of these Churches do not meet as a local synod and so all I see (and I’m open to being corrected) from the EP is more of the same ethnic based jurisdictionalism.

To this I would add that I have not seen any evidence that the GOA has invested any of its considerable resources in growing the smaller communities under the EP. What I have seen is that thanks to the existence of these independent communities under the EP results in the EP getting four seats on SCOBA with relatively little investment on the part of the Ecumenical Throne. Forgive me, but I am always a bit skeptical about any exercise of power that is not matched a comparable investment of resources. (Or as a friend of my puts it, don’t trust people who don’t have “skin in the game.)

All of this is an application of what Jesus says that those in authority must lord it over others. Rather they must serve the least. What I haven’t seen is any evidence from the EP or the GOA of willingness to be of service to even to its own smaller communities.

I would very much in favor of Metropolitan Jonah’s plan of all the bishops in America meeting as a local synod while maintaining their associations with the various Mother Churches. I also would support that synod being under the presidency of the Exarch of the Ecumenical Throne (currently Archbishop Demetrios).

Regarding the canonical status of the other jurisdictions relative to the OCA, my point was not that these communities are uncanonical but that they have a vested interest in not acknowledging the autocephaly of the OCA. To repeat what I said in my post, acknowledging the OCA’s autocephaly means that the Churches of the Old World would be encroaching on the canonical territory of a sister Church.

As I said in a recent email to a friend, I don’t disagree that there are substantive arguments to be made against the claims of the OCA. The essay by Fr Oliver Herbel, “ Jurisdictional Disunity and the Russian Mission,” on OCANEWS has done that in fact quite well.

My concern in all of this two-fold.

First, I think the argument made by Holy Cross faculty regarding the primacy of the EP is flawed not only historically but also (and in a way more importantly) practically. As I said, I simply have not seen a commitment to lead from either the EP or the GOA. Giving orders? Yes, certainly. But leadership seems rather lacking. While I I don’t fault the HC faculty for coming to the defense of the EP, I think their unwillingness to acknowledge the shortcomings of the EP and his lack of leadership in the States only furthers the estrangement that afflicts the Church.

Second, this is not to say that leadership is an abundant supply in the other jurisdictions. Far from it in fact. In the main we seem more willing to tend to our own patches and ignore each other rather than cooperate with one another.

This I think is why Metropolitan Jonah has provoked such a reaction, he’s willing to lead when others are not. His suggestion that ALL the bishops meet as American Synod while maintaining their relationship with the “Old County” may or may not be a viable way forward. It is however an idea worth debating.

The Orthodox Church in this country has tremendous spiritual and material wealth. Unfortunately, our internal divisions cause us to waste that wealth. Yes, we do well enough when the concern is our own parishes–but beyond that we seem rather lacking in our moral, philanthropic and evangelical witness.

Again, thank you for your comments.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Unless noted otherwise, everything posted here is © 2009 Gregory R Jensen.

Some Go Postal, I’m Going Editorial

As a rule, I avoid posting editorials on my blog. This doesn’t mean I don’t have my own views about things, but do I try especially hard to avoid intra-Orthodox controversies. However, events since the election of Metropolitan Jonah have caused me to rethink my approach. While still I think polemics should be avoided, I also think there are times when a more forceful word is need.

This all came to mind when I read John Couretas’ post “ Holy Cross Faculty Weighs in on ‘Distinctive Prerogatives’ of Ecumenical Patriarch,” on the American Orthodox Institute blog, AOI Observer. John writes that,

The Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology in Brookline, Mass., released a “Faculty Statement on the Ecumenical Patriarchate” on April 30 and posted it on the school’s Web site on May 8.

The text of that statement beings as following (my emphasis):

The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople is the preeminent Church in the communion of the fourteen Autocephalous Orthodox Churches. Reflecting the witness of St. Andrew, the First Called Apostle, the enduring mission of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople is to proclaim the salutary Gospel of Jesus Christ in accordance with the Apostolic and Orthodox Faith.

The Ecumenical Patriarchate has a particular responsibility to strengthen the unity of the Orthodox Churches and to coordinate their common witness. At the same time, the Ecumenical Patriarchate has a specific responsibility to care for the faithful in lands beyond the borders of the other Autocephalous Churches. This is a ministry of service to the entire Church which the Ecumenical Patriarchate undertakes in accordance with the canons and often under difficult circumstances.

The Faculty of Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology profoundly regrets that statements recently have been made which misinterpret the canonical prerogatives and distort historical facts related to the distinctive ministry of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Indeed, s ome injudicious remarks have insulted the person of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and have attempted to diminish the significance of his ministry.

While more restrained in tone then recent statements, nevertheless the faculty’s statement is a defense of the Ecumenical Throne and reflects no serious criticism of the failures of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to provide effective leadership either in the United States much less world wide.

What I find most irritating is the condescending tone the faculty take to the Orthodox Church in America (OCA). Referring to the development of the Church in America, they write:

it must be recognized that the proper development of the Church in this country has not always followed the principles of ecclesiastical organization reflected in the canons of the Councils which have already been mentioned. The presence of multiple jurisdictions from various Autocephalous Churches in the same territory and the presence of multiple bishops in the same territory are clearly contrary to the canonical tradition. The good order of the Church has been shaken by acts which have gone contrary to ecclesiological principles and historical praxis.

With admirable lack of subtlety, the faculty’s only example of improper ecclesiastical organization is the grant of autocephaly “to the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church (the Metropolia) by the Church of Russia in 1970” that created the Orthodox Church in America. (This is not to say, I should add, that there are not substantive arguments against the autocephaly of the OCA. While I don’t agree with these arguments, I do think these arguments are often overlooked by apologists for the OCA.)

They write that

This action had no canonical basis. From that time, the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the majority of other Autocephalous Churches have refused to recognize the “autocephalous” status of this jurisdiction. As a result, this jurisdiction has not been accorded a place in global Pan-Orthodox discussions in accordance with the agreement of the Autocephalous Churches.

Nevertheless in their view “the Ecumenical Patriarchate has exercised restraint and has not broken communion with this jurisdiction. Indeed, in the 1990s the Ecumenical Patriarchate frequently received representatives of this jurisdiction to discuss its irregular status. While recognizing the historical road of this jurisdiction, the Ecumenical Patriarchate has affirmed that the canonical irregularities have not been resolved.”

In my view, I think that the leadership of the Ecumenical Throne and the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America has been mixed at best. The events leading up to the autocephaly of the OCA is illustrative of this.

When the old Metropolia approached the Ecumenical Patriarchate ASKING for assistance in regularizing its relationship with the rest of the Orthodox Church, it was told that it had to address its concerns to the Moscow Patriarchate. It did and the result was the creation in 1970 of the OCA. Far from being a rejection of the Ecumenical Patriarchate the OCA was the fruit of the Ecumenical Throne’s unwillingness to involve herself in the life of the Church in America.

Another failure to take a leadership role in America is how the Ecumenical Throne responded to the group of Protestant Evangelical Christians who would go on to join the Church as the Antiochian Evangelical Orthodox Mission. As with the Metropolia, the Ecumenical Patriarchate WAS approached by Peter Gillguist et. al., only to be rebuffed. Is it any wonder then that not simply Metropolitan Philip of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of American, but many Orthodox Christians in America are skeptical about the ability of Ecumenical Patriarchate to lead the whole Church and especially the Church here in the States? 

In both cases I must ask where was the leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarchate when leadership was need?

The letter also references the 1994 meeting of Orthodox bishops in America—Greek, OCA, Antiochian, Ukrainian, Carpatho-Russian, and Serbian—in Ligonier PA. That meeting represented a concrete move toward a united Orthodox Church  most likely under the presidency of then Primate of the Greek Orthodox Church of North and South America, Archbishop Iakovos of blessed memory. These plans were derailed by the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

History to one side, I would take exception to what seems to me to be the faculty’s condescending tone toward the OCA.  This tone is much in evidence when they say that the Ecumenical Patriarchate has “exercised restraint and has not broken communion with this jurisdiction” (i.e., the OCA). These words and the use of scare quotes when referring to the OCA and its autocephaly does not suggest, to me at least, restraint but provocative spirit.

In the first place, whether a majority of the autocephalous Church do or do not accept the autocephaly of the OCA is not the point. Truth is not subject to a majority vote! 

Further, and at the risk of generating more heat then light, it seems that the Churches that do not accept the autocephaly of the OCA have a vested interest in not doing so. If the OCA’s status is accepted, then they have find themselves with parishes and dioceses on the canonical territory of another Church. Put another way, if the OCA is canonical, then by their presence here Ecumenical Patriarchate et. al. are themselves up to charges that they have violated the canons and that it is the OCA that has “exercised restraint” by not breaking communion with these jurisdictions.

Stepping back a bit, and as I posted this on AOI, as long as the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese (with the consent and encouragement of the Ecumenical Throne) sees its primary mission as caring for the Greek community it is not fit for leadership here in America and pretending otherwise is a waste of resources and detrimental to our wtiness to the Gospel. I don’t fault the Holy Cross faculty for defending the Ecumenical Patriarchate.  Nor do I fault the clergy and faithful of the GOA for wanting to care for their own.  Both of these are certainly worthy goals.

But I’m not Greek and to be painfully honest about the matter I have no particular interesting in focusing my ministry as a priest around caring for the Greek community. There’s nothing wrong with what the GOA wants to do, but if this is their primary mission let them take a secondary role in the life of the Church in America. And the same, I am sorry to say, must be said for the Ecumenical Patriarchate on the universal level.

If they want to take a leadership role, what should they do?  A good start would be for the Ecumenical Throne to demonstrate the desire and the ability to care for the whole Church in America and not simply the Greek community. 

The let them demonstrate do so by doing what thousands of American who have joined the Orthodox Church have done, subordinate their own language and culture to the Gospel.  Let the GOA lead by demonstrating through the use of their time, talent and treasure that they are will and able to promote the well being of those who are not Greek. One way to do this would be to commit themselves here in America to do what they have done in overseas missions: Create indigenious English language, non-Greek, Orthodox Christian communities.

After 12 years in the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese I simply have not seen from Archdiocese (or Ecumenical Patriarchate) provide effective leadership in America.  While I do not call into question the faith and commitment to Christ of the bishops, clergy and laity of the Greek community here and abroad, as long as the primary concern for the GOA the needs of the Greek community (which include the preservation of Greek cultural identity and language), the needs of those of us who are not Greek will simply take a backseat.

Put another way, as long the primary mission of the GOA is caring for the Greek community, then non-Greeks and their pastoral and cultural needs will remain secondary.  If caring for the Greek community is primary, pastoral care for non-Greek Orthodox Christians, to say nothing of philanthropic outreach, evangelism and home missions will always come second. Having been a missionary I got to tell you, you cannot be effective in bring people to Christ and His Church under these circumstances.
You can read the rest of the faculty’s response either on the AOI blog ( here) or on the Hellenic College/Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of the Theology web page ( here).

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Unless noted otherwise, everything posted here is © 2009 Gregory R Jensen.

Death Star Rules!

From Gizmodo:

I thought we already established this fact, but this cool video proves it again: It shows what would happen if the Enterprise arrived to an alternative San Francisco, occupied by the Evil Galactic Empire.

Too bad the video gets ruined by the crappy explosion at the end. I’m sure JJ Abrams would approve, though.

Related articles by Zemanta

• New ‘Star Trek’ Wants To Make You Laugh (socialitelife.celebuzz.com)
• Some Older ‘Star Trek’ Fans May Skip This Voyage (npr.org)
• Local Trekkie Upset About Scale of Buildings in Futuristic San Francisco (sfist.com)

Unless noted otherwise, everything posted here is © 2009 Gregory R Jensen.