Viata parohiala in Ortodoxie se aseamana unei familii, in care predominanta este iubirea, care aduce responsabilitate si angajare. Nimeni nu este mai putin important si totusi nu este anarhie, in care iecare isi reclama discretionar drepturi. Se pastreaza ierarhia si autoritatea, exercitate cu discernamant si grija. Nu numai preotul ii ajuta pe credinciosii laici la mantuire. Laicii, deopotriva, il ajuta pe preot la mantuire prin rugaciune, daruire, participare, constiinta apartenentei la “familia” parohiala si prin responsabilitatea asumata. Nu este suficienta nici “aratarea cu degetul” a lucrurilor sau persoanelor neimplicate, nici indiferenta, precum nici simpla admiratie pentru ceea ce se face bine. In toate trebuie cooperare, dupa modelul treimic: Tatal condescende, Fiul concura si Duhul Sfant conlucreaza. Nimic nu se amesteca, nimic nu se confunda si nimic nu este inutil. De aici frumusetea si “umanismul” Ortodoxiei.

Redau mai jos un text care arata preocuparile Ortodoxiei de peste ocean, unde minoritatea reclama o atidudine mai misionara si o colaborare mai intensa, lucru pe care deopotriva slujitori hirotoniti si laici emigranti din mediile majoritar ortodoxe nu le inteleg in toata profunzimea lor. NB: nu este suficient sa admiram initiativa si textul, ci sa vedem unde ne aflam ca membri ai parohiei, chiar si aici, in mediul auto-suficient ortodox. Textul este public pe Internet si merita lecturat cu toata atentia.

Clericalism

There is a very damaging, false notion that the laity are detached from the clergy, and that
the clergy are significantly “different” from the laity. A superior/inferior model can arise
and if it does, or when it does, the Church suffers greatly. We lose the Lord’s mandate that
“it must not be so among you.” The alienation of laity and clergy poisons us. It is
corrosive; it must not be the case! The clergy are those ordained – by the “Axios” of the
Hierarch, brother clergy, and laity — with a particular scope of liturgical function and
responsibility. They must carry out their sacred priestly vocation in the midst of the whole
Church within a structure of accountability. In particular, the priests and deacons are
accountable to the bishop for their stewardship of the life of the parishes. However, all
members share responsibility for the Body, with uniquely different talents, abilities, and
levels of functional accountability. The priests and bishops are accountable for each
member of the Body by their ordination; they are accountable to one another and for one
another in priestly brotherhood; laity are accountable, in like manner, for their brothers and
sisters in Christ, for one another, the good-estate of their parish, their priest, their deacon,
the children, and so on. We are all accountable because our love for one another – and our
unity in Christ – demands this of us. Therefore, we made every attempt and used every
means at our disposal to communicate with everyone in our diocese – laity and clergy
equally – all things pertinent to our work. We hope that as more detailed information is
discussed in the following paragraphs, you will understand why some things were not
revealed, discussed openly, or remain confidential. It should be noted that two official
memoranda (July 15 and July 27) were addressed to all the clergy and laity of the diocese,
and sent by email to every parish priest for full dissemination to the faithful of every parish.
Any breakdown in communication at the parish level was not within our control and we
deeply regret any circumstance in which a faithful member of our diocese was left
uninformed and unengaged. We believe our actions acknowledged that every member of
the Church – the Body of Christ — is vitally important; each must have a voice, and each
must be heard. We did what was in our power and within our control to make this a reality
as we did our work. We beseech our brethren of the diocese of New York and New Jersey
to purge all vestiges of the “priest vs. laity,” “we and they” cynicism and suspicion so we
can further develop the life of the whole Church, and facilitate participation by more and
more members of the Church in the process of true conciliarity.

Responsibility

There are two related attitudes that constitute unseemly baggage from the past: temptations
that have afflicted the Church and distorted her life and, indeed, her conciliarity. Both stem
from an abrogation of responsibility. Clericalism arises, in part, from an abrogation of
responsibility by the laity in the affairs of the church, with the clergy taking over (or, in
some cases, seizing) all functions. Even the loss of the traditional ministerial role of the
diaconate and the true pastoral role of the episcopate with the concentration of all ministry,
administration, and decision-making in the priests is a form of clericalism. In like manner,
the second attitude — trusteeism — comes from a refusal of the clergy to accept their
responsibility for the non-liturgical aspects of parish life, resulting in the total appropriation
of these matters by lay leaders. Hence, the fragmentation takes hold and festers. This
results in priests being responsible for what happens “in the altar” with the parish council
assuming responsibility for everything else in the Church. One accurate way to diagnose
such examples of fragmentation in the life of a parish is “dysfunctional.” Both clericalism
and trusteeism result in a breakdown of conciliarity. The result of both is a body that limps
(at best) or is unable to stand (at worst). What we must finally acknowledge is this: the
integrity of clergy and lay responsibility in a structure of accountability is critical.
“Conciliarity” can be shown in shared responsibility with distinct levels of function and
accountability. In both of the dangerous reductions, function and authority become
identified with power. And, power with status; and status with importance; and importance
with value. There inevitably comes, by the prompting of the evil one, tremendous
resentment and mistrust by disenfranchised persons. If we are honest, we must confess that
too often, and in too many places, this has cursed us. Both the clergy and laity must
recognize and joyously embrace their areas of function and responsibility; supporting one
another in love as they fulfill their callings and vocations. The rector of a parish, or the
bishop of a diocese, has ultimate accountability for every aspect of the life of the
community under his care: liturgical, spiritual, financial, legal, and administrative. But he
cannot do it alone; he must not attempt to do it alone as (in liturgical analogy) he must also
never celebrate the Holy Eucharist in isolation from others. It must be done with true
inclusion and cooperation of the laity. To paraphrase, the image used by Saint Paul
concerning the body is very valuable: the eye is not the foot, which is not the hand; there
are parts more or less presentable, more or less private. Yet it takes all the parts working
together, doing what they are supposed to be doing. All have to be united to the Head –
Jesus Christ — the real Leader of the Church.

Parochialism

It is sad, but true, that our diocese – for various reasons and over a long period of time –
has created an environment in which parochialism often became the status quo in parishes.
There is no need to affix blame here; from the parish perspective this was a matter of
necessity. In the absence of active and engaged involvement from a hierarchical authority
and the resulting lethargy in diocesan functions, is it any wonder that individual parishes
would act primarily in their own best interests and see these interests as being the most
important work of the Church? How could they do otherwise? Why would they have
reason to think otherwise? As much as the clergy might teach and preach about “the larger
Church” of which we are all members, most of our faithful (including the lay leadership in
parish councils, choirs, teachers, etc.) do not have any tangible experience of this “larger
Church” beyond an occasional fleeting visit by a hierarch, and that (in most cases) on a
once-in-five years, once-in-ten years, or “so long ago no one remembers” timeframe. One
layperson put it this way: “Father, I don’t know how the Church is supposed to be
organized, but in my experience of 24 years it seems to be a very loosely connected
association of independent churches.” The fullness of the Church and the wonderful
relational terms we use regarding her – one, holy, catholic, apostolic, conciliar – are for the
most part, and in the actual experience of parish life, theoretical. It must be said, in fairness,
that there are a good number of parishes that have done a fine job in making connections
with sister parishes in their area, often going beyond the boundaries of the OCA. This is,
by God’s grace, a very good thing. So too, it is a blessing to see that some parishes reach
out into their local communities and offer acts of philanthropy and assistance to those in
need. These “outreaches” should continue and must be encouraged. However, the icon of
a diocese of parishes gathering around their archpastoral shepherd in mutual faith, hope,
and love – laboring together in Christ’s vineyard – must not only be our desire, it must
become our reality. If not, we teach and preach a vision of the Church that “is in vain” or,
God forbid, we simply stop preaching it altogether in the face of “reality” and sacrifice a
fundamental and foundational truth of what we have been called, ordained, and
commissioned to be — Body of Christ. Today our diocese, in the process of this
hierarchical nomination and election process, is at the crossroads of challenge and
opportunity. The easy way of decrying the past and settling for the status quo with
pessimism and cynicism must be denounced; rather, we hope that you, brethren, will recall
and renew the image of the Church in all of her fullness and seek to look toward to the days
when we shall, indeed, be a diocese of parishes united to our hierarch in a real, perceptible,
and observable manifestation of what it is to be the “larger Church”: one, holy, catholic,
apostolic … conciliar.

Conciliarity

Conciliarity does not mean democracy. Conciliarity is not about majority or plurality; it is
not about voting and referendums. Neither is conciliarity opposed to utilizing democratic
principles, voting, etc. when deemed appropriate. It is about wholeness and mutuality. Its
root concept is found in the Russian word, Sobornost. This refers to both conciliar
structure (councils) and catholicity (wholeness or integrity). It can only happen when each
part of the conciliar structure has complete integrity in its own personal life and its
communal life within the Church; when each is working in the proper order to build up the
whole. Each “responsibility” has to be functioning in “accountability” for it to participate
in the whole. Thus, the bishops must take full responsibility and be accountable to one
another and to the Metropolitan, as well as to the entire Body of laity and clergy, for the
stewardship of their diocese or area of responsibility. The Metropolitan has to accept full
responsibility to maintain the unity of the whole, the Holy Synod of Bishops locally, and in
relationship with Synods of other Orthodox Churches world-wide. The Metropolitan must
be accountable to the Holy Synod of Bishops for his stewardship of the office entrusted to
his care. Every order or function of the Church — Diocesan Councils, Metropolitan
Council, Diocesan Assemblies, and the All American Councils — must be accountable to
the structures above them, beside them, and supporting them. We should expand our
discussion of this to every area and aspect of life in the Church, and to every person be they
laity or clergy, but for the sake of brevity let it suffice to say that the extension of
conciliarity to every member of the Church is fundamental. In short, conciliarity involves
responsibility and accountability in mutual love of all and for all. To imagine that such
conciliarity is possible without inclusion, respect, dialogue and cooperation is little faith and irresponsibility.