A Response to “How to Expand the Mission”
Archpriest Steven Voytovich, D. Min. – February 2015
His Beatitude Tikhon, Metropolitan of our Orthodox Church in America, together with the Holy Synod, has put out a call on “How to Expand the Mission,” taken from the first All-American Sobor, held in Mayfield, Pennsylvania, in March of 1907. At that time this same question was brought to bear on the Russian Mission here in America. The Russian Orthodox Church had gathered in 1905 to discuss church reform. Part of Saint Tikhon’s response to this question from the perspective of the American mission has been translated and is printed in the Saint Tikhon’s Theological Journal dedicated to his life and ministry (2006, p. 29-30). And though Patriarch Tikhon had already been re-assigned away from the American Mission, his successor had not yet arrived, so he supervised the events of this precedent-setting Sobor that he in fact had laid the groundwork for. According to the article on this council posted on the OCA website: “Saint Tikhon increasingly sought the participation and input of all clergy and laity in the governance of the diocese. This remarkable style of diocesan administration engendered various regional ecclesiastical gatherings over several years to discuss and develop church life” (http://oca.org/history-archives/aacs/the-1st-all-american-sobor). Not only did this council convene, but the very approach to governance used was later embraced by the Moscow Sobor of 1917!
In 1920 Patriarch Tikhon issued an Ukase laying the canonical foundation for further development of self-governance in America. This Ukase, referenced in Bogolepov’s book, Toward an American Orthodox Church was to only be applicable until such time as relations with Moscow were re-established (2001, p. 89-ff). We know that the events transpiring during these tumultuous years were many and conflicting, complicating the pathway forward for the American Mission.
According to V. Rev. John Erickson, in the Saint Tikhon’s Theological Journal referenced above, Saint Tikhon understood both the importance of the American context to be multi-national/multi-ethnic, and that its clergy had to be: “missionaries in America and for America” (p. 86-87). Then Bishop Alexander Nemolovsky was elected as ruling bishop by the convened clergy and laymen at the Second Sobor in Cleveland, 1919. This decision was approved by Moscow. Father Erickson goes on to summarize additional points of Patriarch Tikhon’s vision, stating: “It was to be a Church that maintained diversity in unity, ministering to ‘our people,’ but at the same time open to the world, with a mission to wider society, in which all – clergy and laity – were called to participate in responsible ways” (p. 89).
From this brief statement, there are a number of important dimensions of “The Mission” held together in tension. Not the least is our ability to gather as Church as in the upcoming All-American Council (AAC) in 2015, with clergy and lay participation, as a direct outreach from the 1907 All-American Sobor. Unity in diversity, sobornost, was also a foundational dimension of the American missionary context in expressing diverse manifestations of Orthodoxy, that at the broadest level included the missionary experience in Alaska, mixed with significant immigration from a variety of lands, creating numerous transplanted branches of the vine of the Body of Christ needing careful tending. As already noted, clergy were called to be missionaries in and for the American context. At the same time all representative leadership could come together to discuss issues of mutual concern. And, “mission to wider society and the world,” remains an important manifestation of a growing self-governing church, directly here in the American context and beyond.
Wouldn’t it be meaningful for us to take time to look at each of these areas held in tension before and during our upcoming AAC as real opportunity to reflect on our efforts, and future goals, related to expanding the mission? Rather than quietly grousing about divergences between expectations and lived reality of our inner and external relations, let us instead openly reflect on them: celebrate our present diversity, glean lessons learned, and recommit our ties. Saint Tikhon spoke of “regional ecclesiastical gatherings.” Within the OCA, perhaps broad-ranging regional dialogues with territorial and ethnic dioceses focusing and strategizing around a variety of areas in our shared church life would assist in building stronger relations. The same dialogue could include honest reviews of relations with sister churches. Perhaps in some cases representatives could be invited to participate. We also need to identify and take stock of ways in which we have and/or need to engage “wider society.”
I believe our OCA is also at a significant crossroads with respect to “How to Expand the Mission.” The generations of those who assisted in guiding our church through the tumultuous times (or were directly in dialogue with those who were) pre-dating and following the granting of Autocephaly, are rapidly dwindling. Many of these leaders (clergy and lay) hold vital portions of our lived history, including some very creative and meaningful steps taken by faithful Orthodox Christians. They are often reticent to discuss such events and steps without being asked directly. Unless we make an effort to capture them soon, such valuable contributions will be lost to future generations. Together, we need to value such creative and insightful steps, along with related mistakes, made by clergy and faithful trying to navigate the treacherous waters of Orthodoxy in America in the unfolding aftermath of the Russian Revolution and related historical events both there and here. This active loss, alongside the more recent time of troubles, has resulted in an alarming loss of energy and focus on our ongoing mission as OCA. Metropolitan Tikhon is right to recall this focus at such an hour, on clergy health, church institutions, and evangelization, the latter I might broaden to add ministry, in keeping with the early mission of ministering to wider society.
For example, has anyone noticed the growing silence of anyone openly talking about the life of our church here in America? In previous decades such talks certainly contributed toward the focus of expanding the mission while inspiring present and future Orthodox Christians. In having returned to seminary in my present role as dean, I am continually astounded to see just how much of what was publically shared and written about when I was in seminary 25 years ago, remains as true and meaningful today. Yes, we hear ample critique of many of these authors by subsequent generations, but little in the form of the substantive body of work many of them created simply out of their real and humble love for Christ, and efforts to build on the foundation of the Orthodox mission planted here.
Shortly after beginning service as dean last fall, I had the opportunity to share early steps taken with Archpriest Paul Lazor, former Dean of Students at Saint Vladimir’s Seminary. In our discussion, we each disclosed having reviewed how previous seminary professors taught course material we were assigned to, and then made adjustments relating to our respective perceptions of current contextual concerns. Father Paul identified the fruit of this approach as developing a “healthy continuity,” and I wholeheartedly agree. Can we reflectively and critically apply such an approach to Orthodoxy in America today?
Our growing – and in my estimation unhealthy – focus most recently appears to be on survival amidst the contracting size and financial strength of the OCA. It is important to note that financial struggles were also present at the time of Saint Tikhon’s time of leadership. An example here is of Holy Trinity Church’s building funds of $40,000 being absconded by a banker they were entrusted to in 1901, followed by related false testimony by another against the character of Saint John Kochurov to the parish. It took Saint Tikhon’s direct involvement to both restore the funds and the relationship between parish and priest for the church to be completed in 1903 (2006, pp. 5-6). Funding itself, though necessary, is not a total solution; relationships remain at the core of our church life.
Additionally, as the dwindling (noted above among previous generations) has persisted, new generations of Orthodox Christians have both emerged from and grown up within in this American context. Many now do not hold the concerns that past generations had around “jurisdictions,” “autocephaly,” and much of the history we have too quickly referenced here. Increasing numbers of our faithful today are among those coming to Orthodoxy as converts. So on the one hand, we have sons of current clergy studying at seminary, remaining convinced of the need to serve the church, and holding some amount of generational lived experience of American Orthodoxy. On the other hand, we have converts that are also greatly convicted of the truth of Orthodoxy. They desire, however, to remain unencumbered by what they see past generations having been in some way consumed by.
The need for dialogue around “How to Expand the Mission,” is, therefore, at least as important today as ever before. Together, as church, we can hopefully value and learn from the labors that our forefathers (some now Saints!) creatively offered, inspired by the Holy Spirit, in what was for them a new and foreign context of America that remain meaningful to us today. And, through the lens of a healthy continuity, we can support and embrace the energy and creativity of those who today want the light of Orthodoxy to continue to brightly shine forth in this context, inspired by the same Spirit.
I believe the best pathway forward is to hold our past and present in tension, as we look to the future, drawing from the celebration of the Eucharist that ultimately defines our identity and mission as Church. It is this primary model of the “local Church” – first referenced with James, the Brother of the Lord, together with the Church in Jerusalem where he was bishop, celebrating the Eucharist – that continues to be both our goal and witness as Orthodox Christians in North America today. I should hope that we would be reluctant to give up this witness, unless in solidarity with our sister church clergy and faithful as they are blessed from abroad to similarly freely undertake such regional ecclesiastical dialogue in resolving questions related to Orthodoxy in North America, as begun in small steps by Saint Tikhon. Sister Church leadership from abroad could remain invaluable prayerful mentors and guides for such historic developmental steps!
I would like to close by repeating the prayer offered by Bishop Basil (Essey) closing his address in the aforementioned journal: “By the prayers of all those saints who knew each other and were co-workers in Holy Orthodoxy’s One Vineyard of North America – Saint Tikhon and Saint Raphael, Saint John Kochurov and Saint Alexander Hotovitsky, Saint Alexis Toth and so many others – may God by their intercessions open our eyes and the eyes of Orthodox believers throughout this country and throughout the world to see the vision that they beheld and to live the life they struggled to live, and to recapture and enjoy the blessing of that unity which they indeed enjoyed by God’s grace” (2006, p. 148).
References:
Bogolepov, Alexander A. Toward an American Orthodox Church: The Establishment of an Autocephalous Orthodox Church. SVS Press, 2001 (revising the 1963 original text).
V. Rev. [sic] Michael Dahulich, ed. Saint Tikhon’s Theological Journal. “Patriarch Tikhon: The American Years, 1898-1907 – Our Common Legacy.” Vol. IV, reflecting papers presented at the September 19, 2006 Symposium with this focus, and fall lecture series presentations that followed it.
Archpriest Steven Voytovich, D. Min, is Dean of Saint Tikhon’s Seminary, South Canaan, PA and Chair of the OCA’s Institutional Chaplain Department.
