As we speak of unity in the Orthodox “diaspora,” it is important to define what we mean by “diaspora.”

It is obvious that “diaspora,” as we now understand it, is very different from the biblical concept of “diaspora”: that of the “dispersion” of the chosen people of God amongst the Gentiles.

In  the  case  of  the  chosen  people  of  God  dispersed amongst the Gentiles, the goal was the return to the “promised land,” with Jerusalem as its capital. The concept of “diaspora” was also related to that of the Messiah expected to come to this “promised land,” so that the Jewish nation might receive the benefit of His presence.

This, however, is not the case for Christianity, because the Messiah has come, and His kingdom has been inaugurated. This kingdom is present not only in the “promised land” and earthly Jerusalem, but also in all parts of the world, where the church, “Jerusalem from above,” lives and operates.

Thus, today’s Orthodox Christian “diaspora” is actually a “missionary  presence”  of  Orthodox  Christians  in  lands which are not traditionally Orthodox. From the point of view of Orthodox ecclesiology, Christian churches in the lands of the so-called “diaspora” are as “indigenous” and “established” as the “mother churches” from which these “diaspora” churches derive.

The “diaspora” churches are entitled to the same characteristics and privileges of the churches in traditionally Orthodox lands. Therefore, these churches enjoy the four marks of the Church of Christ, which are: oneness and unity, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity.

To  remain  within  the  limits  of  our  topic,  “Unity  in Orthodox Diaspora,” we will consider the nature of unity of the Church as it applies to the “diaspora” churches. We will discuss the problem of disunity created in the lands of Orthodox diaspora; and we will seek ways of solving the problem and healing the divisions. Finally, we will make some practical recommendations with regard to fostering Orthodox unity in the lands of diaspora.

I.        The Gift of Unity Given to the Church

By faith, which we profess in the creed, the Church of Christ is One. This oneness is based upon the mystery of our Christian God, tri-hypostatic, but one in essence and energies. As a reflection of the mystery of divine life, the church is profoundly one, as the life of God which it reflects is also one. Christ’s supplication for his disciples was one of unity, so that “as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us” (John 17:21).

According to the very words of Christ, the mystery of Christian unity is founded upon the mystery of the Oneness of God. There is a “perichoresis” of Christian persons, just as there is an inter-dwelling of divine hypostases in God. As the late Vladimir Lossky puts it, a Christian person reflects the personhood of the divine hypostases: Christians share together and in an unselfish way the new humanity in Christ which is redeemed and deified. They are the One people of God, the One Body of Christ, and the One Temple of the Holy Spirit, the One Kingdom of God inaugurated upon our planet earth, and the One Church of God. Because this unity of the church is founded in the mystery of the divine life, it is both a gift given and a dynamic reali- ty. For human beings called to this unity, the process of unity is eternal, as the ultimate goal of this unity is unity with the divine hypostases as they communicate themselves in their energies. The goal of this unity is constant growth in the life of theosis, which is life in communion with God.

From an empirical point of view, the unity of the church is realized on three different levels and in three different ways: doctrinally, sacramentally, and administratively.

The unity of the church is firstly experienced as a unity in apostolic faith, life, and practice. The teachings of Christ and of the apostles are treasured in the life of the church as a depositum fidei, handed down through the fathers and teachers, lived and experienced in the life of the church. It is a living faith, which is believed, practiced, elaborated upon, defended against heresy, sometimes dogmatized, but always lived in the liturgical life of the church. It is a faith which is reflected in the teachings of the “teaching author- ity” of the church. This authority is the bishops who are entrusted  with  this  truth,  and  of  which  they  are  the guardians. Their responsibility is to “teach aright the word of Truth,” mostly in a liturgical and sacramental context. Secondly, the unity of the church is sacramental. Christ Himself, made present through the work of the Holy Spirit, is the celebrant of the sacraments of the church. His abundant life for the world is made available in the sacramental life of the church, the life of the kingdom. Signs of the kingdom, the sacraments unite all Christians in that life that the sacraments confer through the operation of the Holy Spirit. The most central of all of these sacraments is the Holy Eucharist, the celebration of the life of the Kingdom, which is new life in Christ. Participation in the Eucharist presupposes unity in the faith. Thus, the Eucharist is both the seal and the expression of the unity of the Church.

The Eucharist is not only the means of communion, but also the expression of this communion in the one faith, and abundant life of the Kingdom of God. Sharing of communion in the Eucharist with those who are not in communion in the faith is a betrayal of the church’s unity. This is the reason why the Orthodox do not practice “Eucharistic hospitality.”

The unity of the church is especially expressed in the unity of worship, centered around the bishop presiding over the one Eucharist and the sacramental life of the church. According to Orthodox Christian practice and canonical tradition, this one Eucharist, presided over by only one bishop in every city, gathers together all people of Orthodox faith, regardless of ethnicity, language, social rank, or color of skin.

Finally, the unity of the church is also administrative. The same person who presides over the one Eucharist of the church, the bishop, also presides over the entire life of the church as an extension of these liturgical celebrations. The parish, as the concrete manifestation of the diocese, is the place where the work of the church is accomplished, the Eucharist celebrated, the Kingdom made manifest, and where human persons are afforded the opportunity of joining God’s holy Kingdom which has been inaugurated upon the earth.

The goal of parish administration is directing people toward receiving this new life in Christ, which is the life of the Kingdom. This is why the Orthodox parishes are called “eucharistic communities” and “workshops of God’s Holy Kingdom.”

Once more, the bishop —  presiding over the faith, life and worship of his diocese as concretely manifested in the parish, where the bishop is represented by the parish priest — is the sign of unity of the church. He guarantees the unity of his own diocese, as he guarantees the unity of the “universal” church as well. For it is through the bishop that the parishes exit their isolation to become part of the diocese; and it is through the diocesan bishop that the diocese is in communion with the “universal” church, that is, the rest of the “sister churches” throughout the world, also presided over by their bishops.

As the concelebration of the presbytery of a given diocese with their God-loving bishop expresses the unity of the diocese, so the concelebration of the Orthodox bishops under the presidency of their ranking, First (Protos) bishop, is the expression of the unity of the local, national, regional, or even “universal” church. As there is a first bishop in every region, presiding over the concelebration, so there is an order  among  the  ranking  bishops,  the  Ecumenical Patriarch,  presiding  over  the  concelebration  of  all  the Orthodox sister churches, and also presiding over the episcopal conferences, councils, and synod of Orthodox bishops. It is through these structures of unity that the unity of the  Orthodox  Church  is  practically  and  empirically expressed.

Now we can ask the question: how does this apply to the Orthodox churches in “diaspora”?

II. The “Diaspora” Problem of Parallel Jurisdictions

Normally,  that  is,  according  to  traditional  norms  as expressed above, there should be no problem of Orthodox unity in the churches of “diaspora,” for the same norms apply as in the lands which are traditionally Orthodox. However, because of the way in which the churches in “diaspora” were formed, a problem was created in terms of Orthodox unity: that of parallel Orthodox jurisdictions. The problem  exists  in  all  lands  of  “diaspora,”  i.e.,  Western Europe, the United States, Canada, Latin America, Asia, and Australia.

With the “ethnic cleansing” that Greeks suffered in Asia Minor; with the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia; and with the - influx  of  immigrants  following  the  two  World  Wars,  new  - churches were created in all these “lands of diaspora.”  In addition to this, one must add situations such as that of the New Smyrna Greek Orthodox slaves (1765), and the evangelization of Alaska by the Russian Orthodox missionaries (1794). Each of the new communities in these “new worlds” with regard to traditionally Orthodox lands, kept its own ties with their mother church, thus creating a pluralism of Orthodox jurisdictions.

The principle of “one bishop in one city” presiding over the one eucharist of the church in a given place has been and continues to be violated repeatedly.

The basic unity structure, the parish and the diocese, is not utilized in order to create the desired Orthodox canonical unity. To the contrary, Orthodox people live in separation and isolation from each other in the same cities and regions of these “new worlds,” which is tantamount to scandal in terms of Orthodox unity. The apparent disunity, due to non-theological factors, does not allow Orthodoxy to be itself and be the “role model” of unity which it is supposed to exemplify both for itself and its own mission, but also in relation to the other Christians. What are we to do? How must we work to solve this problem of Orthodox disunity seen in the problem of “parallel jurisdictions”?

III. Resolving the Problem of Parallel Jurisdictions

Various  solutions  have  been  proposed  regarding  this problem of “parallel jurisdictions” and Orthodox disunity in the lands of “diaspora.”

One of these proposed solutions is to abide by the claim of one of the jurisdictions which alleges to have “come first” to these lands, thereby establishing a hold over a given land, much as secular conquerors do. The dilemma of this solution is that missionaries do not necessarily bring “jurisdictions” to the land of mission: they bring the Christian faith. Thus, the Orthodox Church in its entirety may decide what the church affiliation of that “mission” church will be. Another solution is to apply Canon 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council to the “lands of mission,” considering them as “lands of barbarians.” There are those who feel that this canon has its merits, in giving to the ranking Orthodox Church, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the right to establish these new churches and have “jurisdiction” over them.

The dilemma of this is that it is difficult to apply a canon of the fifth century to today’s situations, especially when the “new worlds” are not necessarily “lands of barbarians.” On the other hand, we do apply other canons to today’s situations,  like  the  one  which  creates  the  problem  of Orthodox unity: “One bishop in one city.” Is today’s megalopolis the village/city of the fourth century?

However, there is a spirit behind each canon; and that spirit always applies to all new situations.

As the ranking church has an important primatial role to play in the life of the One Church of Christ, as the ranking Orthodox church has always exercised a primatial role amongst the sister Orthodox churches (most of them actually its daughters!), it is only ecclesiologically proper for that primatial church to exercise its primatial role in the lands of “diaspora.”

Actually,  the  late  Ecumenical  Patriarch  Dimitrios  I affirmed his role and his determination to help our church in the United States and Canada solve the problem of parallel jurisdictions. In his speech at the St. Nicholas O.C.A. Cathedral in Washington, D.C., on July 4, 1990, he told his audience that the Mother Church of Constantinople has not abdicated its responsibility to restore unity in the lands of Orthodox diaspora: the Patriarch deplored the unilateral proclamation  of  the  former  Metropolia  as  an  “autocephalous” church (O.C.A.) by the Moscow Patriarchate in 1970. At the same time, the Patriarch kept the dialogue open  with  the  O.C.A.  and  acknowledged  the  need  for “canonical status” of that church, which before 1970 was

“hanging in an ecclesiological vacuum”; the Ecumenical Patriarchate acknowledged this church as a “self-governing”  church, until such time as the  “Great and Holy Council” of the Orthodox Church will resolve the problem of the “diaspora”  parallel jurisdictions.

In  fact,  the  Inter-Orthodox  Preparatory  Commission which  met  in  Chambésy, Switzerland, November 10-17, 1990, proposed the first steps of the solution of the problem, by proposing “Episcopal Assemblies” as a first path towards resolving the problem of disunity in the “diaspora.”

The next meeting of the same commission, November 7-13, 1993, “defined the regions where episcopal assemblies will  be  created,”  and  “asked  the  Secretariat  for  the Preparation of the Great and Holy Council to prepare a regulatory plan (projet de Réglement) for the functioning of the episcopal assemblies, effective for the transitional period of the organizations of the Orthodox diaspora.” It is hoped that this plan will be discussed and finalized in the next (fourth) meeting of the Pan-Orthodox Pre-Conciliar Conference.

Of course, these are steps in the right direction for resolving the problem of disunity in the Orthodox diaspora.

It is to be noted that in two instances, the United States and Canada, and Australia, these “Episcopal Assemblies” advocated by the Chambésy meetings are already in place: the “Standing Conference of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in the Americas” (S.C.O.B.A.), and “Standing Conference of Canonical Orthodox Churches of Australia” (S.C.C.O.C.A.).

IV. Practical Recommendations for Creating Orthodox Unity

In facing the Orthodox “diaspora” problem in a very realistic way, the late Fr. John Meyendorff made the following statement [published in The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 17 (1972) 1041-50]: “In areas and countries where two or more Orthodox autocephalous Churches are sending clergy to exercise a permanent ministry, canonical order requires establishment of a united church. Procedures to be followed are to be elaborated by consultation by all par- ties involved on the universal level. Pluralism of language and traditions will be maintained and guaranteed wherever necessary through the establishment of appropriate structures organized on a temporary basis.”

Even if Fr. Meyendorff does not make reference to the role of the primatial church at this “universal level” where the discussions should take place, Fr. Meyendorff otherwise emphatically acknowledged the need for this primatial church  and  its  role.  He  indicated  this  by  going  to Constantinople to make peace with the Mother Church and to bring back the good news of the “self-governing church” status for the O.C.A.

The statement of Fr. Meyendorff is very realistic with regard to the “diaspora” situation, where more than one autocephalous church sent priests for permanent ministry, and where the unity of the church should be established. Fr. John acknowledges the need for linguistic (and cultural) pluralism, and the need for “temporary structures” which will serve this pluralism.

Now, from a practical point of view, all kinds of good things may happen, in terms of fostering intra-jurisdictional Orthodox unity. Some of these things happen, or may happen in the United States and Canada; similar things may happen in Australia and other lands of “diaspora.” Let us review some of these things:

1)  S.C.O.B.A. This body of church representatives, which serves us so well, may very well develop into an episcopal conference which will be regularly convened to discuss the problems and concerns of all the Orthodox Christians in the United States and Canada. Let us hope  that the Episcopal Conference convening now will be established as such a S.C.O.B.A. instrument.

2)  I.O.C.C.   The  International  Orthodox  Christian Charities, created by S.C.O.B.A. and the Greek Archdiocese, has proven to be not only the only international charitable Orthodox organization, but also a factor of unity for all the Orthodox jurisdictions in the United States and Canada.

3)  The United Board of Orthodox Missions based in St. Augustine, Florida. This board now allows for only one missionary agenda to enhance the missions (both domestic and foreign) of all Orthodox jurisdictions in the United States and Canada.

4)  The  Orthodox  Christian  Education  Commission (O.C.E.C.), allowing all Orthodox jurisdictions to share in their religious education resources.

5)  Mini-S.C.O.B.A. groups. The small group of bishops who meet in the Pittsburgh area has proven a factor of Orthodox unity in our area. We would like to recommend similar organizations of Orthodox Canonical bishops in other regions of the country (United States and Canada.)

6)  Clergy  Brotherhoods.  The  clergy  brotherhoods throughout the U.S.A. and Canada have proven to be a strong factor for Orthodox unity. We encourage these associations to keep up the fine work they are doing.  In addition to all of these, I would personally recommend the following:

1)  A S.C.O.B.A. permanent joint Liturgical Commission for the unification of our liturgical texts and translations.

2)  A S.C.O.B.A. permanent joint Commission on Church Music.

3)  A joint Doctor of Theology Program with the efforts and resources of Holy Cross and St. Vladimir’s Schools of Theology.

4)  A joint program of  Continuing Education  for all Orthodox clergy.

5)  Joint D. Min. Programs for all Orthodox clergy.

6)  Exchange of priests between area Orthodox parishes.

7)  Intensify common activity programs, lectures, services, retreats, pilgrimages, pre-marital counseling, marriage encounters, Theosis programs.

8)  Pursue  Common  Music  Festivals,  especially  at Christmas and Easter