Image

Submitted April 2, 2005

Breaking the Image of Christ: A Response to Mr. Peter Haikalis' "A Tale of Two Cities"

The Sunday of Orthodoxy celebrates the downfall of iconoclasm; yet in reading the commentary by Mr. Peter Haikalis entitled "A Tale of Two Cities – 2005 Update," which contrasted the celebration of this feast in Pittsburgh and Worcester, I fear that we resurrect the dispute. Yet instead of breaking the images painted on wood, we break the images of Christ within each other by insulting instead of loving, and by blaming instead of trying to understand the perspective of the other. I believe that the essay, written by a man who clearly cares deeply for the church, does not so much illuminate a problem as exacerbate it. I admire his energy; I see in his words the zealot's drive to make things right. Yet the zealot's fire can wound as easily as it can warm.

Mr. Haikalis begins by praising Worcester on one hand for its SCOBA-led Sunday of Orthodoxy. He then turns to his counterpoint, the churches in Pittsburgh celebrating their Sunday of Orthodoxy no longer in a pan-Orthodox way but in various individual ways. He then says that "the chasm between jurisdictions grows, and the clergy and the faithful are in a state of disappointment, frustration, and anger," and calls demonic the "dynamic" at work in Pittsburgh. Now Christ may have called St. Peter by the name of Satan when Peter objected to the idea of the messiah suffering and dying, but I think that there are few other deeds in the world that can be addressed with a hellish name, and in my opinion contemporary ecclesiastical power struggles do not qualify for this category, being petty squabbles. He then sums up the pan-Orthodox background of both cities, emphasizing the common work accomplished by the Worcester churches, and some of the past accomplishments of the Pittsburgh churches as well, ending his paragraph with a note that there may not be an icon festival, and that there are no laypeople in the Brotherhood of Orthodox Clergy. Now, if "demonic" was the first sign of rhetorical excess, then "an angel's eye view" with which he surveys the two cities is the second. In addition, the assertions about jurisdictional chasms and the various emotions felt by the clergy and faithful seem unjustified as presented, since the only concrete justification of any of the claims made in the article are rooted in mere assumptions about Metropolitan Maximos' motivations. None of us are angels or devils, are somewhere in-between, and most in the church are desperately trying to do what they believe is right with the powers given us, whether we be lay people, priests, or Metropolitans. Excessive rhetorical tools like "demonic" and using the imagined musings of angels hardly bring a peaceful resolution to the situation.

As mentioned above, he says that there are no laypeople in the Brotherhood of Orthodox Clergy, contrasting that situation with the council in Worcester that is made up of both clergy and lay people. I would suggest that the functions of the bodies are rather different. When I came to my current assignment, in Fredericksburg, Virginia, there was no Orthodox clergy brotherhood because there were no other resident Orthodox clergy. Yet in my local ministerial association, composed of professionals all, I found brothers and sisters who could tell me where in town to send people for problems with alcohol or drugs, or domestic abuse, or what community resources could help people from losing their homes. I found friends to discuss the frustrations of ministry without scandalizing the laity, because sometimes a professional healer needs another professional healer. I found people who did the same kind of job that I did, day in and day out, who had the same struggles, the same skills, the same needs, the same drive. There are no lay people in the Brotherhood of Orthodox Clergy, but there are probably no dentists in your local association of podiatrists either. Different groups have different functions. Orthodox Clergy form these groups not for the sake of political power, but because it is helpful to have a professional organization for the sake of fellowship and shared resources.

"What would an angel surmise from these statistics? Too many churches in Pittsburgh? No chance for cooperation? Too many bishops in Pittsburgh? Is turf more important than conciliarity? That lay participation and leadership pay dividends!"

This string of assumptions is inflammatory; indeed, most of the essay seems to me to be a great string of assumptions, with little justification shown and no proof offered. Perhaps there is more to the situation; there often is, but I the reader am not shown it in the commentary. To examine the conclusion about lay participation and leadership, he reviews a point in the fifty-year history of the Worcester Council when the OCA Albanian churches were excluded, the lay president of this council questioned the bishop about the matter, and the Greek bishop withdrew his objections to their inclusion. He then fast-forwards to 2005, when the Greek Metropolitan of Pittsburgh (i.e. Metropolitan Maximos) instructed the Greek churches to celebrate the Sunday of Orthodoxy on Saturday night (which, incidentally, is when the liturgical day that is the Sunday of Orthodoxy begins, since a liturgical day starts on the previous evening, stemming from Genesis 1:5). Yet the point does not seem to be proven, because (1) Worcester priestly leadership could have met with the bishop just as the lay leadership did if the council had only been composed of clerics (2) exclusion from a pan-Orthodox body is hardly of the same order as holding a celebration on a more liturgically correct date, and (3) the Metropolitan's motives are presented as capricious and arbitrary, without exploring positive reasons why he may have made the change, such as a desire for liturgical accuracy.

"What is the Angel to conclude? The Greek Metropolitan is acting for his own ends and pride? Does he not remember he is to be a Shepherd to his flock and not an autocratic monarch? Why is there no cooperation among the six bishops in Pittsburgh? Bishops nursing grudges? Not forgiving each other? Only God knows."

God may be the only one that knows, but the author implies by the new string of assumptions and accusations that he has an inkling. He states that "bishops chose to perpetuate divisions and discord rather than build bridges among the faithful." The rhetoric grows more heated at this point, calling the behavior of the Pittsburg bishops unchristian embarrassments. In the paragraphs following, he states that "monarchal" bishops are an impediment, self-righteous, and egotistical, then saying that we need instead pastoral bishops who "put their flocks ahead of themselves" and "act according to Scripture" like Ss. Ignatius, Polycarp, and Ambrose.

Let us consider the writings of Ignatius, since he has been mentioned. Now Ignatius was humble, but he also encouraged his followers to avoid the contamination of heresy and was as hard-headed as a ram in resisting paganism. He emphasizes that those who separate themselves from the church cut themselves off from God (Philadelphia, iii), denounces the principle of private judgment in matters of religion (Philadelphia, iii), emphasizes that the hierarchy is instituted by Christ (Ephesus, vi), and that the authority of the bishops is superior to that of the priesthood (Magnesia, vi; xiii; Smyrna, viii; Tralles, iii). As much as I respect the OCL for doing what it can to encourage the ministry of the laity, which is an essential part of Christian ministry, it seems that this OCL leader goes too far in disparaging the hierarchy whose authority Ignatius himself was rather strong in defending. If we call another self-righteous and egotistical in a public forum, it hardly paints a positive picture of our own spirituality, and in my opinion, invalidates our own argument. Yes, I know what Mr. Haikalis is getting at: every bishop should follow the model of Ignatius, Polycarp, and Ambrose. Every priest and every lay person should follow the examples of the corresponding ranks of saints, but for the moment we are trying the best we can and we will probably never measure up to the superstars of the faith. All we can do is try, and keep trying.

I am not writing this to be a sycophant or curry favor with the hierarchy, because there is quite enough of that already and it is demeaning to the church as well as being a little sickening; may God chastise me if I ever start spewing the boilerplate praise spoken around the powerful. Rather, I am writing because if there is a disagreement with the clergy or hierarchy, it should be resolved in a manner that is polite and fair. The way in which we resolve problems can be constructive or destructive. Having listened to the Metropolitan's lectures on various subjects, and having read Mr. Haikalis' impassioned essay, I believe that each man is struggling to do what is right; each seeks the greater good, and each may see a different way of getting there. If this is understood and respected, then both sides often deal tenderly with one another despite their differences. A bishop does not issue a directive merely to disturb the clergy and people. There is no authoritative statement in the commentary about why the Metropolitan acted, only an assumption, a guess, and a guess is not proper justification for a tirade. Off hand, I do not know if the Metropolitan's action was a good one or a bad one, and it is probably not my place to judge, either. I do not expect the Metropolitan to be omniscient; I expect him to make the best calls that he can, and in this world that means that some are going to be hits and some are going to be misses. There are judgment calls I have made as a priest that were far from perfect, and I am sure there were instances in Mr. Haikalis' life where his decision could have been better. It is part of the human condition. How does this essay help, other than stir up rage on both sides? When we are pushed, do we not push back? Will this article, which insults certain bishops, then cause those bishops to throw up their hands and realize they should have followed Mr. Haikalis' position all along? No. It will merely harden them in their resolve, and make a dignified resolution to the situation all the more difficult. At the end of it all, all the woes of the piece hang on an assumption about why Metropolitan Maximos acted. That gives short shrift to the inevitable complexities of the situation.

I always hesitate to criticize, but when an extreme argument appears in the public forum there are no delicate ways to counter it, and I apologize if my approach is in the least way brutish. If there is one thing that the great state of Virginia has taught me, it is that civility, that core virtue of southern chivalry, is a healer. There are few arguments that were ever won by one side yelling louder than the other. In these, both sides always lose.

(Fr. Matthew Streett is the priest of Nativity of the Theotokos Greek Orthodox Church in Fredericksburg, Virginia).



Volume 7 Number 14 - Tuesday, April 5th, 2005	A Publication of the ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN LAITY