Orthodox Christianity does not allow cremation because the origin of this practice is rooted in the belief that the body is inconsequential, that it is evil by virtue of the fact that it is material, and/or that it is a “prison” for the soul, which only reaches its “true potential” when it is released from the body—as expressed in the thinking of certain ancient philosopher, such as Plato.

Christianity holds that the body is a gift from God, that it is the temple of the Holy Spirit, and that even after the soul departs therefrom, rendering the body lifeless, it is still to be treated with the utmost respect, for it bore the soul and in it was borne the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist. Hence, the body is not destroyed, as if it had no meaning, as if because it no longer has a “meaningful function” it is no more useful than a flat tire, or as if some dualistic notion that that which is spiritual is good while that which is material is evil is truth. This is not Christian teaching.

Contemporary ideas concerning cremation—that it is “less expensive” than burial [a totally repugnant thought that smacks of the height of monetary greed—“If we cremate grandpa, we’ll inherit more!”], that it is more convenient [“We can get the service over in an hour and won’t have to deal with a viewing or driving to the cemetery”], that it is “more dignified”
than placing the body in the ground to rot [as if placing a body in an oven to burn is dignified or “natural”], or that it is necessary because “we’re running out of land and cemetery space” [ever drive across Nebraska or Kansas?!]—are seen as simply ridiculous.

There is no “required amount” of works that are necessary for salvation. What is crucial is that, if we indeed have faith that Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God, Who came into the world to save sinners, that we manifest or reveal our faith in how we live and how we treat others.

Read Matthew 25:31-46, in which we find the parable of the sheep and goats. In this parable, Christ reveals that which He will ask of us when He judges us, as well as that which He xpects from those who call themselves by His name. He asks if we have fed the hungry, clothed the naked, given drink to the thirsty, ministered to the sick and imprisoned—and, of utmost importance, whether we have discerned His very image in those around us, especially the “least of the brethren.” If we fail to put our faith into action through such works of mercy, our faith is purely intellectual, “lip service,” so to speak. Simply stated, if we accept Christ as the Son of the Living God and the Savior of the world, yet we fail to bring His love to others around us, then we are liars. Hence, faith without such good works is dead, and it is precisely on our willingness to put our faith into action that our eternal salvation hinges, as Christ reveals in Matthew 25.

The fingers are arranged to form the following letters—IC XC—which are the first and last letters of “Jesus” and “Christ” in Greek.

Hence, the index finger points upward, forming an “I.” The middle finger is curved to form a “C.” The fourth finger crosses over the thumb to form an “X,” while the little finger is curved in a manner similar to that of the middle finger, thereby forming another “C.”

I’d like to know if the Church believes this is a “family matter” to be taught by the parents- their responsibly?

Is it a subject that should be discussed in Church school?

QUESTION 1:

Could you please inform me of the Orthodox Church’s position on the subject matter of sex education being taught to children by laity?

RESPONSE:

While the Church has no official position on this, Saint John Chrysostom is quite firm that the primary responsibility of Christian parents is to see to the evangelization of their children. By “the evangelization of children” he means the overall spiritual, religious, and moral formation of their children for the purpose of leading them to salvation.

From his venerable statement we can deduce 1. that parents are the primary instructors and examples in the moral and faith formation of their children.

2. that, as such, Sunday School—something relatively new to Orthodox Christianity, having been introduced in imitation of non-Orthodox traditions in America in the 1930s and 1940s—while indeed important, is quite secondary to that which parents alone must and should impart in terms of knowing, living, and applying the Gospel of Christ to their lives.

3. that the imparting of Christian morality—which is the broader context in which “sex education” must be placed by Christian parents and the Church—is primarily the responsibility of the parents, demanding that they themselves live a moral life and that they provide an appropriate role model for their children.

4. that “sex ed” as commonly understood in our culture—and the school system is really wishy washy on what this means, to be frank—is first and foremost the responsibility of parents, not public schools [which unfortunately cannot impart morality, much less Gospel-based faith formation], nor be expected to express the Orthodox Christian view] or even private schools. [I know of “Christian schools” that teach “situational sexuality,” reflecting non-Orthodox traditions that have shunned Scriptural values with regard to sexuality.] 5. that parents who insist that imparting morality is the “job” of the Church, Sunday School, or public school are in effect displaying irresponsible behavior, violating the clear maxim of Saint John Chrysostom, to whom “Sunday School” would have been a very foreign concept.

Finally, “sex education” apart from Gospel-based moral formation is nothing but biology/health/science, as evidenced in most public schools, precisely because it is primarily interested in describing how/how to/what. It is well known that much of what passes for “sex education” indeed “educates” individuals in the “mechanics” of having sex. Without first implanting a moral conscience and attitude into a child—and this MUST be done well before a child is four or five years old, as even secular education professionals acknowledge—broaching the subject of human sexuality apart from Gospel-based morality is a futile task indeed.

Further, many sex ed programs offered in schools, while claiming to be “objective” and “non-judgmental” in terms of morality, in fact impart a morality that is utterly foreign to Orthodox Christianity. Claiming that a curriculum is “objective” while teaching that “Susie has two daddies” is a contradiction in terms, to be kind!

QUESTION 2:

I’d like to know if the Church believes this is a “family matter” to be taught by the parents- their responsibly?

RESPONSE 2:

I would have to say “yes.”

QUESTION 3:

Is it a subject that should be discussed in Church school?

RESPONSE 3:

My personal opinion—and the practice I’ve followed in my parish during my 32 years of priesthood—is that sexuality within the broader context of Christian morality should be discussed, but that it is better discussed within the context of a focused retreat, rather than in the brief, weekly, 45-minute Sunday School session. Better still, parishes should offer workshops for parents on this subject, not only instructing them in how to approach these matters with their children, but also reminding them that they are the ones who are primarily responsible for the religious, spiritual, and moral formation of their children, and that they should not dump their kids off at Sunday School to that “the Church can make them good Christians,” especially if the parents do not attempt to live Christian moral lives themselves—which, sadly, is often the case.

I would also say that all too often the only concern of parents is that their kids don’t get pregnant, or impregnate others, or acquire an STD.

Sadly, I’ve heard otherwise intelligent parents say blatantly stupid things like, “Well, little Nikita, you should NEVER engage in sex, but IF you choose to do so, please make sure you use ‘protection.’” This is no different than saying, “Well, little Nikita, you should NEVER drive 100 miles an hour, but IF you choose to do so, please make sure you have your seat belt buckled,” or “Well, little Nikita, you should NEVER do methamphetamines, but IF you choose to do so, please make sure that you don’t overdose.” Not acceptable, and hardly expressions of good parenting.

As one very astute and honest parishioner told me many years go, “If we spend the week at home living like pagans, we can’t expect the Sunday School to transform the kids into model Christians.” Much wisdom in this.

YOU WRITE: I was raised in a Catholic/Protestant family. Lately, I have been drawn to Orthodox Christianity, but I am worried that there will be a language barrier. Do Orthodox churches worship only in Greek or Russian or other ethnic languages?

RESPONSE: Orthodox Christianity is not limited to any particular ethnic or language group, just as Roman Catholicism or Lutheranism are not limited to any particular ethnic group. One will find Greek Orthodox parishes, Russian Orthodox parishes, and “generic” Orthodox parishes, just as one will find Polish and Italian Catholic parishes as well as “generic” Catholic parishes, and German and Swedish Lutheran congregations as well as “generic” Lutheran parishes.

If a parish has no “ethnic adjective” in its title, chances are that the parish worships in English. However, many of the “ethnic” parishes also use a good percentage of English, just as a Slovak Catholic parish, while offering some services in Slovak, generally would offer others in English.

YOU WRITE: Also is it possible for someone outside these ethnic groups to convert to Orthodox Christianity? I have seen things in the newspaper that talk about “Greek Easter” and “Ukrainian Christmas,” and I get the impression that only members of certain ethnic groups are welcome in the Orthodox Church.

RESPONSE: Just as being Irish or Hispanic is not a prerequisite for conversion to Catholicism, and just as being Finnish or Danish as a prerequisite for conversion to Lutheranism, so too one need not be Serbian or Lebanese to convert to Orthodox Christianity. The Church embraces everyone, regardless of their ethnic background, culture, or language, in fulfillment of Christ’s command to “teach all nations.”

YOU WRITE: And how do they do this?

RESPONSE: The first step, in addition to reading and studying about the faith—and praying to discern the Lord’s will for your life—is to begin participating in the worship and fellowship of an Orthodox parish. Once you are convinced that you wish to convert to Orthodox Christianity, make your wish known to the parish priest, who will be more than happy to guide you through the program of instruction and length of time it will take and explain the other expectations leading to your reception into the Church.

Have you ever heard of coincidence—or have you ever considered that the astrological “personality types” are go broad and so general that just about everyone would see himself or herself as fitting into what is described?
Also, have you considered that a “nearly 100% match” falls short of being an “absolute 100% match?”

I know many Capricorns, who are usually defined as being quite gregarious and outgoing, who suffer from social anxiety disorder. And I am sure that, if you check everyone born under your particular “sign,” they will have a wide variety of different personalities—even though they all might be predisposed to seeing themselves different than how they really are.

I know a woman who, years ago, went to an astrologist. He told her that she would move and live near water. Years later she got married and bought a house that had a creek running through the back yard. This, she claimed, proved that the astrologist indeed held the truth and forsaw her destiny. I responded by asking, “Where would one have to live to NOT be near water, short of Mars?” She insisted on remaining convinced that the astrologist held the truth and knew her future; his information was so general, however, that it was bound to come true at some point in time. Everyone, quite frankly, lives “near water.”

Jesus Christ is “the” Way and “the” Truth of our lives. There’s no truth in astrology. Stars do not control our destiny any more than rocks do.

YOU WRITE: Why do Orthodox Christians attend the Divine Liturgy and other religious services of the Church?

RESPONSE: We do so to worship God, to enter into union with Him and His People through the Eucharist and other Mysteries, or sacraments, and to receive strength as we continue on the road of salvation and “the life of the world to come.” In worship, we stand before the throne of God, loving one another “that with one mind we might confess Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the Trinity one in essence and undivided.” And in our worship, especially in the Divine Liturgy, we participate in all that Christ has done for us—His incarnation, life, passion, death, burial, resurrection, and ascension—while anticipating His second and glorious coming.

YOU WRITE: What is the purpose of such services?

RESPONSE: The fundamental purpose of the Church services is to worship God, as defined above. Orthodox worship is “God-centered,” rather than “man-centered.” In our worship we strive to please God, not ourselves—and this is a great honor. We offer ourselves, commending ourselves to one another, in recognition of the fact that we have been created in the image and likeness of God. And we offer our worship and adoration of God “on behalf of all, and for all,” joining our voices, minds, hearts, and souls with all of the faithful who “in all ages have been well pleasing unto God.”

YOU WRITE: Is the purpose of such attendance “to get something out of it”
or is it an offering?

RESPONSE: We attend and participate in the sacraments and services in order to worship God, Who gave us life and all that we possess, and Who offers us through worship a foretaste of His heavenly Kingdom. We offer ourselves, as individuals and as a faith community, to God in worship, rather than expecting to “get something” other than communion with God and His People. Hence, worship is not meant to entertain; rather, it inspires—and this word means “in the spirit”—and is conducted in Spirit and Truth, as Scripture commands. While we indeed do bring our cares and concerns, our joys and sorrows to worship, seeking the Lord’s help in our day-to-day lives, the only expectation we must have is the encounter with God and our common expression of this encounter as shared and experienced within the context of the worshipping faith community. We pray that “the Lord will act,” praying that His will, rather than our own demands and wants, is revealed to us and commiting ourselves to discerning and living His will in our lives.

YOU WRITE: I have been told that we attend Church to identify with and help preserve our historical ethnic heritage and traditions. Is this correct?

RESPONSE: Not at all! Those who wish to preserve their historical ethnic heritage and traditions preserve their “old country” languages, foods, dances, and so on; these things have nothing whatsoever to do with the Church, much less the Church’s worship or our journey to “the life of the world to come” in the Kingdom of God. Those who think that the Liturgy is celebrated to preserve our ethnic heritage are sorely mistaken, and I dare say only harm their salvation. The Orthodox Church is not just for certain ethnic groups: Christ Himself said, “Teach all nations,” not “teach your own kind, and don’t share the Kingdom of God with others of a different ethnic background.” This attitude was condemned by the Orthodox Church in the 19th century as a heresy—“phyletism,” the identification of the Orthodox Christian faith with one or another ethnic group, as if it was its personal domain. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is intended for all mankind, not just for certain ethnic groups.

I have no credit cards, no car payment, no cable television, and no retirement fund. I rent a small apartment, support two children who live with me, and pay child support for two others who do not. After I am done paying rent, utilities, student loans, the orthodontist, etc., I am left with far less than 10% of my take home pay, out of which has comes gas, food, and bare essentials for my children. I simply can’t afford to give 10% unless I stop paying rent, paying child support, or buying food, etc.

Yet I have read that I must still give 10%, and that God will take care of the rest, and that if I do not do this, I will always struggle financially and will not be blessed. This does not seem right, yet I feel guilty that I am not able to contribute, even though I know that I have little to give.

Do you have any thoughts on this?

Thank you for your enquiry. I have plenty of thoughts on this; here are a few of them.

1. While tithing—giving 10% of our financial resources, or “treasures”
— is an Old Testament imperative, it certainly is not inappropriate for Christians to set aside a tithe, or percentage of their income, for God’s work. If one can contribute 10%, then let him or her do so; if one can contribute more, then let him or her do so. But if one can only contribute a smaller percentage, then let him or her do so, making no comparisons with others, and as a sign of thanksgiving for the blessings God has bestowed.

2. What is crucial is the fact that God indeed expects us to give of our treasures for His work. Your observation, that “God demands our love and not our offerings,” is not consistent with what is revealed in the New Testament, where it is clearly stated that “where your heart is, there also will be your treasure.” Further, the model for giving to the work of God through HIs Church is found in the story of the widow’s mite. A rich man enters the temple and offers his tithe—10%—which fulfills the Old Testament “law,” with little regard for the spirit behind the law; he gives not out of love, but out of duty and pride, and he could well afford to offer even more, given his means. Meanwhile, a poor widow enters the temple and offers two coins—hardly a great sum of money, but it was the sum total of all that she possessed. Our Lord praised her, rather than the rich man who fulfilled the “law” by offering 10%, for she gave all that she had, expecting nothing in return, and surely not expecting to be praised by others.

3. The principle found herein is that we must recognize that all we have is a gift from God, that we are called to be wise “stewards,” or “managers,” of His gifts, and that ultimately, we must give all that we have to Him. This does not mean that we are to ignore our own needs. To the contrary, we are urged to offer a portion of our treasures to God and to set aside our gift to God through His Church before paying our other expenses. Whether this represents 5%, or 10%, or 20% is a secondary matter; the point is to give the “first portion” of what we have for God’s work, as did Able, who offered the first portion and the best portion of his harvest to God, unlike his brother Cain, who offered God his “leftovers.”

4. You mention that you have read certain things in evangelical Protestant books on tithing. Some things found in some evangelical writings are not exactly consistent with the teaching and practice of the Orthodox Christian faith. I know from personal experience, and from the experiences of many other Orthodox Christians who have commited themselves to “first portion giving,” that God indeed blesses us if we give willingly and joyfully. Yet I also know that some [but not all, certainly] evangelical Protestants preach what is known as the “Gospel of prosperity”—that by giving a tithe, God will bless us with material wealth, and that material wealth is, in fact, a sign of being blessed by God. This is not “THE Gospel,” and Our Lord Himself warns against “laying up treasures here on earth.” Giving of our treasures out of the desire to acquire material goods, rather than out of pure, simple, and innocent love is hardly Christian. Some [but not all] TV preachers who proclaim the “Gospel of prosperity” and live lavish lifestyles, projecting themselves as icons of God’s blessings as evidenced by their wealth, are hardly preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I know of at least two mega-churches that require their members to submit their tax forms in order to calculate the precise 10% tithe that they are then expected to give—a practice that violates the very principle of giving in secret, not letting the right hand know what the left hand is doing.

5. There indeed are a number of Orthodox Christian resources which talk about “first portion giving,” about setting aside a percentage of our income for the Church before tackling the the phone bill, the orthodontist bill, or the car payment. If you click the OCPC link on the OCA web site, you will find resources on Christian stewardship and first-portion giving. The OCA Department of Stewardship page on the web site also has a number of resources that discuss how we are to be stewards/managers of God’s gifts, recognizing that, ultimately, everything we have belongs to God, and that we can only offer back to Him that which He has given us, as we say in the Liturgy: “Thine own of Thine own, we offer unto Thee, in behalf of all and for all.”

6. The bottom line is this: God does expect us to give; it is not an “option” for Christians, any more than prayer and fasting and almsgiving and worship are options or personal preferences. Our Lord says, “when you give,” “when you fast,” “when you pray,” not “if” you give, fast, and pray. He expects us to offer to Him first, not after we have satisfied our personal needs and bills. He does demand our love, as you note, but He expects us to reveal our love in concrete ways—one of which is by returning to Him a portion of the gifts with which He has blessed us. And, I might add, that this does not only involves our treasures, but our time and talents as well, for these are also gifts from God. Hence, in addition to offering of our financial resources, we are expected to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the sick and imprisoned, and minister to “the least of the brethren,” recognizing in others the very image and icon of our Savior HImself. If we are of limited material means, we should still give something, while also giving all the more generously of our time and talents to minister to others through the Church—and I don’t know an Orthodox parish that is not constantly looking for volunteers to do everything from teaching Sunday School to collecting food and clothing for the needy or ministering to the homeless or battered or forgotten or visiting the parish shut-ins, to name just a few essential ministries entrusted to all of God’s people, and not just the clergy. And, as Christ clearly spells out, we are expected to give of our time, our talents, and our treasures joyfully, not worrying about what others may or may not be doing, nor with the intention of being “seen” or “lauded” by others. We are taught that Our Lord is the only one Who needs to see our compassion and charity and generosity, whether they be offering our time, our talents, or our money; it is for His sake, and His sake alone, that we do these things, that in all things “God may be glorified,” as Saint Paul writes.

Is it not possible, despite your limited income, to set aside a portion of your resources for the Church before setting aside money for rent and food and the orthodontist? As Christ challenges us, look at the birds of the air
— do they worry about how they will eat; and to look at the lillies of the field—even Solomon in his finest garb could not compare to the beauty in which they have been clothed by their Creator. So too, setting aside $20, or $40, or even $100 weekly or monthly—or even just two coins, if that is all we have—before setting aside money for other things may at first be a bit difficult or akward, but it is consistent with what we are taught by Jesus Christ. And those who do this find that they still have plenty left over for themselves. In 30 years of priesthood, I have never met anyone who has gone bankrupt because they have given to the Church! And I have met plenty who, in thanksgiving for how God spares us, have made the commitment to give Him more than their “spare change.”

Thank you for your enquiry.

The Orthodox Church does not assume “official positions” or issue “official statements” on such issues. This, however, does not mean that the Church does not offer opinions on such matters.

The Church affirms that which is revealed by God—in this instance, “thou shalt not kill.” In principle, the Church would say that guns are not, in and of themselves, “evil,” even though they can indeed be used for evil purposes, such as willfully shooting one’s classmates in a junior high school or knocking off a rival gang member or murdering one’s spouse because the nagging has pushed one beyond the brink of annoyance.

The bottom line, then, is that one must control how one uses one’s gun, discerning when it is right to use it and when it isn’t.

YOU WRITE: For years I have felt drawn to the priesthood. However, I have one major obstacle to being a priest. I must confess that I am an atheist, or at the very least a very skeptical agnostic. Does this condition absolutely bar me from entering the priesthood?

RESPONSE: Absolutely. The “heart and soul” of the priesthood is found in proclaiming the Good News of Jesus Christ as the “Son of the Living God most High.” If you do not believe in God, how can you proclaim Him in all honesty? If you do not believe in God, how as a priest could you reveal His presence in the lives of the people you are charged to guide spiritually, or proclaim that God loves and forgives them, or proclaim that they will spend eternity in His presence? It would be quite impossible for a non-believer to stand in the midst of believers and encourage them to strengthen their belief in a God that he himself denies.

YOU WRITE: ...or are my own spiritual problems no reason to resist the urge to help the souls of others?

RESPONSE: There is an old saying, “You can’t share what you don’t have.” It would be my opinion that, if you are interested in helping people but you have no religious convictions or belief in God, you might consider becoming a secular social worker, where you would not be expected to offer any sort of spiritual advice, nor to proclaim the existence of God.

Since it is the Orthodox dogmatic and canonical rule that all Orthodox Christians living within the same territory, regardless of their race, national origins or political convictions, must be united into one church body, it is indeed highly irregular to have an autocephalous church in a territory where other ecclesiastical jurisdictions continue to operate.

The new Orthodox Church in America considers it as its Christian duty, nevertheless, not to insist that all of the “jurisdictions” cease to exist and submit themselves to its sole jurisdiction. Such a position would be as presumptuous and unrealistic as it would be uncharitable and unpastoral because of the confusion which has existed for fifty years in Orthodoxy in America.

Thus at its first All-American Council the Orthodox Church in America addressed the other jurisdictions with the formal proclamation of its two main principles of action. The first principle was that its status as autocephalous is firm and unyielding; proper from every dogmatic, canonical, spiritual, pastoral and missionary point of view. Secondly, it stressed the fact that it fully understood the complexity and uniqueness of the American situation and offered its total willingness to work with all jurisdictions for the common good of all, with the ultimate goal being the unity of all, with the ultimate goal being the unity of all into the one American Church.

On this second principle, the Council stressed that it had no idea of the “submission” of others to itself, but called for the voluntary union of all; and it underlined its approval of the preservation and sharing of all ethnic and cultural values which are edifying and enriching to Orthodox Christian faith, life and mission in America.

Thus, the Orthodox Church in America realizes the irregularity of its position in relation to the others. It considers its new status, however, as a positive step to the settlement of this irregularity. And it would insist that the situation now with its new position renders the situation in America as at least “less irregular” than it was previously when no “jurisdiction” could claim legitimate freedom from a non-American national description.

The position of the Metropolia was obviously that it could not wait and had no justifiable or reasonable foundations for doing so.

In the first place, to wait for all of the jurisdictions to agree to be together and to expect all of the so-called “mother churches” in the old world to agree to release them is sadly a utopian expectation.

The American “jurisdictions”—how can we forget it?—are also in confilct among themselves. It is not the case that each old world church has one new world church and is in harmony with it. Everyone knows that this is not the case. Thus, if two groups of the same national origin in America are in disagreement with each other, what could be the reasonable expectation that all would be in agreement with all? We know that we would die waiting for such a happening, especially since there was a complete standstill and nothing was moving at all.

The Standing Conference of Orthodox Bishops in America had been meeting for over a decade and was getting nowhere as far as real Orthodox church unity was concerned. In 1968 it required the Patriarchate of Constantinople to place the question of American Orthodoxy on the agenda of the Pan-Orthodox Meting in Chambesy, Switzerland, asking the gathering of the representatives of the old world churches to discuss the problem of Orthodoxy in America. The request of the Standing Conference was not received and the problem of American Orthodoxy was not place on the agenda for eventual discussion—not to say solution.

Everyone was talking, but on one was doing anything. In the meantime the patience of the Metropolia was wearing thin, not only over the general situation of Orthodoxy in America, but particularly over its own status. Upon his election, Metropolitan Ireney sent letters to the churches explaining the situation in America. He also requested an audience from the Patriarchate of Constantinople but his request met with a refusal.

The 13th All-American Church Council (Sobor) of the Metropolia in 1967 was tempted to declare itself as the Orthodox Church in America, with or without the approval of anyone. The famous “straw vote” at this council is eloquent proof of this.

Divine Providence rewarded the courage as well as the patience of the Metropolia, however, and made possible an unexpected understanding with the Mother Church of Russia.

One can see from the list of the contemporary autocephalous churches that not all of them are national churches. The Patriarchate of Antioch, for example, covers several nations; while the Church of Georgia exists politically within the same state as the Church of Russia.

It can be said generally, however, that in recent times the new autocephalous churches emerged within the territories of the new nations, having boundaries coextensive with those of the nation itself. That is not true of the Orthodox Church in America, of course, which covers more than one country.

In the time of the Roman-Byzantine Empire which was, one might say, “one nation” as far as civil government was concerned, various territories within the empire had their own self-governing churches either because of the political divisions of the empire, or because of “ancient customs,” or because of some special privileges or needs.

In the Early Church, we should notice, that for all practical purposes the church of each city was autocephalous. Of course the word was not used (it is of relatively recent usage), but the documents of the time, including the New Testament itself, show that each church community, headed by its bishop with its priests (presbyters), deacons and faithful people, governed itself and understood itself to be fully the “Catholic Church,” i.e, whole and complete with nothing essential lacking from its fulness of faith and sacramental life.

The unity of the first Christian churches in the various cities was not accomplished by legal authority or juridical power. It was accomplished by the simple fact that each church had exactly the same faith and life sealed by the same Christian mysteries (sacraments). This identity of the Church in space and time was assured by the consecration of the new bishop of each church at the divine liturgy by as many bishops of other churches as possible.

Only as the number of churches increased throughout the empire and became officially connected to the life of the state did such things as metropolitan districts and patriarchates grow up. And then, finally, we have the national churches of modern times after the end of the imperial era.

The autocephalous Orthodox Churches today are the old imperial patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem; the Churches of Russia, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Greece, Cyprus, Poland and Czechoslovakia; the ancient Church of Georgia (Iberia), and the new Orthodox Church in America.

When a church in a given geographical, national or linguistic territory, with conditions of life uniquely proper to itself, has enough bishops to perpetuate its own hierarchy ...

When it has a sufficient number of priests and people to care for its parishes and to carry on its mission ...

When it has sufficient educational and charitable institutions, with money enough to administer itself and to support its projects ...

When it has publications and books suited to its own particular conditions, purposes and needs as a church ...

When, in a word, it is a mature churchly body with full capabilities of maintaining and developing its life without any outside guidance and support—except of course the mutual guidance and support that all sister churches give to each other ...

When finally, there is absolutely no justifiable reason before God and the dogmas and canons of the Holy Church, why it should exist merely as a part of some other church ...

Then this church not only may be an autocephalous church in the family of Orthodoxy, but it must be such a church, recognized and blessed by all others!

We have already mentioned that the Orthodox Church in America considers its position as a positive step. It has many reasons to think that this is so.

In the first place, its own canonical situation, which since 1924 could only be understood as temporary, is finally straightened out. The Metropolia now knows where it stands and where it is going, without question or hesitation. It is at peace with itself, not to speak of its “mother church.”

Before autocephaly there was no clear and canonical action whatsoever relative to the unity and self-government of the Orthodox in America. There was only talk. Now at least, there is a concrete beginning.

Before autocephaly there was not one church which was legally free from its old world “mother” and which could and did define itself without the use of an adjective taken from a foreign church or nation. Now at last there is one.

In addition to this, it has been stressed over and again that the new autocephalous church demands nothing from others but respect for its position and the freedom to go on. It will not force others into anything and will work with all, willing to discuss anything, anytime, anywhere and with anyone. It wans sacramental union with all who are not morally or dogmatically deformed, and even with these it will work for renewal, rectification and ultimate union. It categorically refuses on these grounds to be the object of any insinuations and accusations of destroying rather than serving the unity of the Orthodox in America and in the entire world.

If there is division over autocephaly it can only be because no one now can hide from the question under a cloud of empty words and meaningless actions. In the light of autocephaly, all are seen for what they are, and all are forced to show their true colors. Now each church, and indeed each Christian priest and believer, must show whether he wishes to serve the Orthodox Church of Christ or to serve first of all his own ethnic cause and community.

Thus perhaps what autocephaly has done is to reveal and disclose the true divisions that were always there but previously obscured because of the lack of a concrete action that would make them known. If this is the case, we can welcome autocephaly as a blessing. It is the opinion of the Orthodox Church in America that this is exactly the case.

The only real reason for the distinction is that an autocephalous church is fully mature and fully capable of carrying on its own life, mission and hierarchal succession; whereas an autonomous church is not yet capable of doing so.

The autonomous church, however, even though it does not have the capabilities for full autocephaly, still has such unique conditions—geographic, linguistic, cultural, etc.—that it cannot merely be a “part” of some other church and be fully adequate to its churchly mission.

Thus, for example, the very particular conditions of the churches in Japan and Finland require that these churches have self-government and freedom from direction or control from outside. These churches, however, are not yet ready to be fully autocephalous because, for example, they do not have enough bishops to secure the normal succession of their hierarchies. Thus they are autonomous with a relation to another autocephalous church.

This, by the way, was the exact plan which the bishops in America were already asking for the Church in America at the turn of the century, more than sixty or seventy years ago. Even then it was understood that the conditions of the church in America were so unique that it could not possibly continue on as a diocese of the Russian Church which was thousands of miles away and whose conditions of life were completely different. Thus Archbishop Tikhon (later Patriarch Tikhon) and Father Leonid Turkevich (later Metropolitan Leonty) called for autonomy, and eventually full autocephaly, for America decades ago!

To say that autocephaly was negotiated by the bishops alone without reference to the will of the church in its priests and people is absolutely false. The most superficial examination of the Orthodox press in the months prior to April 10, 1970 will reveal how “secret” the plans for autocephaly were!

First of all, we have seen the position of the Metropolia throughout its history, from its beginning, through the events of 1924, down to the “straw vote” of the All-American Council of 1967. This history in itself would provide the unquestionable mandate of the church to its hierarchy to accept the blessings of Russia upon its self-governing status any time the Russian Church would offer it.

As to the events leading up to the formal proclamation of autocephaly, this is exactly what happened. The first approach of representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate to members of the Metropolia about the possible settlement of the difficulties between the two churches was casual and even accidental. When it was agreed to discuss the whole matter formally and officially, the Metropolia administration assigned Archbishop Kiprian of Philadelphia, and Fathers Joseph Pishtey, Alexander Schmemann, John Skvir and John Meyendorff to represent the American Church. This delegation was in constant contact with the Metropolitan and the Synod of Bishops as well as with the Department of External Affairs of the Metropolia and the Metropolitan Council.

When it appeared that this time, at long last, something might really come of the discussions, the question was opened for the final testing and consensus of the whole church. Letters were sent. Articles were printed in publications, both ecclesiastical and secular. In the Fall of 1969, members of the negotiating team were sent to every diocesan assembly to explain the exact state of the matter. Parishes held their own community discussions on the issue. Anyone with any question was free to write to the church administration directly or to air his view through the open press. In New York the entire Synod of Bishops was gathered together with members of the church administration and the Metropolitan Council with its representatives from every diocese in the church plus those elected directly by the All-American Church Council, both priests and laymen.

The decision for autocephaly was truly that of the whole church acting in traditional Orthodox communal (sobornal) unity. Anyone who would deny this would not only have to deny the facts of a century and a half of Metropolia history, but would have to deny the concrete events of church life from the famous “straw vote” of 1967 to the overwhelming reception of autocephaly by the vote of 301 to 7 (with 2 abstentions) through which the Metropolia became officially the Orthodox Church in America.

Yes, it certainly does. The one firm demand of the Metropolia was that it must be free and self-governing. The decree of autocephaly has fulfilled this demand to the letter. There is no longer any bishop of the Moscow Patriarchate holding title, or claiming jurisdiction over any territory in America.

Because of the complexity of the situation, however, certain practical settlements had to be made of a temporary and non-essential nature. Thus, for example, it was agreed that certain properties of the Moscow Patriarchate would remain in its possession, such as the St. Nicholas Cathedral in New York City, as a residence of a representative of the Russian Church in the priestly rank.

Also it was agreed that parishes of the former Moscow Exarchate would not be transferred en masse to the new Orthodox Church in America, but that those which would apply for membership and would be accepted by the church would be given immediate canonical release by Moscow with no reservations and no questions asked.

This arrangement was made not only to express an understanding attitude to those parishes which were sincerely loyal to the Moscow Patriarchate over the years, but to protect the new autocephalous church from the “forced re-entry” of those parishes which had gone to Moscow for un-christian and un-orthodox reasons. Thus to date a number of parishes of the former Russian Exarchate have applied and have been accepted into the Orthodox Church in America, while other groups have not been forced upon the church in any way but remain isolated in their existing conditions until they are ready to join the American Church with good faith and good will. In such a case, of course, they will be received as brothers.

It is important here to note as well that the autocephaly agreement has stated very clearly that the parishes of the former exarchate will receive canonical releases from Moscow only for their entrance into the Orthodox Church in America. They will not be canonically released into any other ecclesiastical body operating in America. In the meantime they will be governed by one of the bishops of the Russian Church who will have no title or permanent residence in America.

First of all it has to be seen that the Orthodox Church in America has not only Russian-born bishops, but bishops born in America, Poland, Latvia and Romania. The entire episcopate of Archbishop Valerian of Detroit is of Roumanian descent, and virtually every parish in the church has a great number of communicants who have absolutely nothing to do with the Russian nation. Also it may well be the case that as you read these words other people who were originally formed as a national church jurisdiction in this country are now becoming members of the Orthodox Church in America.

On this same point it should be understood that a church is to be judged on its policies and actions and not on the national origin of its members. To identify a church by the nationality of its priests and people is to introduce a racist principle which is totally opposed to Christian faith and life.

This does not mean that language, traditions and customs of other lands have no place in the Orthodox Church in America. Such things certainly do have a role since they are of the very essence of life and have great pastoral and spiritual significance. In a word, these elements of life exist for the Church and its mission; but the Church and its mission do not exist for these things. This is a subtle, but critical and essential distinction.

As to the historical position of the Metropolia, it should be enough to demonstrate, as we have already, that this church never yielded to the temptation either to remain as a diocese of the Moscow Patriarchate or to pretend to be the one true Russian Orthodox Church outside of Russia. Even in those days when Russian Nationalism was at its height in America because of the tragedy of the Bolshevik Revolution in the homeland, the Metropolia did not turn from its essential American destiny. On these points it is best to let history speak for itself.

In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries the Russian American Mission developed liturgical and scriptural texts in both Alaskan and English languages, with bishops and priests using these languages living in Alaska and in the lower forty-eight states.

The early twentieth century already saw bishops and priests of national origins other than Russian living and working within this same church. In 1905-1906 Archbishop Tikhon, the American primate from 1899-1907, and later Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, realized the need for the eventual self-support and self-government of the American Church and officially called for its autonomy, with such adaptations in church life as the use of English in the services and the adoption of the revised calendar for church usage.

In 1913 Father Leonid Turkevich, later Metropolitan Leonty, while affirming the factual Russian character of the Seminary in Minneapolis of which he was rector, wrote the following:

A final consideration which arises as we consider the “naturalization” [i.e. Americanization] of our school is the formation of a specific “American National Orthodox Church” separate from Russian, Greek, Syrian, and other Orthodox Churches. [...] So far, however, Orthodoxy is still represented by those who have come from old Europe. [...] It means [for the present], not rejecting the idea of the “naturalization” of the school and the whole Church, but doing everything possible for the emergence in life of the idea “in its own time” (Russian Orthodox American Messenger, Vol. XVII, Number 19).

This exact same sentiment was formally expressed in 1922 by Meletios IV, Patriarch of Constantinople and in 1944 by Bishop Nicolai Velimirovich of the Serbian Orthodox Church. (See St. Vladimir’s Seminary Quarterly, Vol. 5, No. 1-2 1961 and The Orthodox Church, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1969.)

After the Russian Revolution the church situation in America became chaotic. The separate national, ecclesiastical jurisdictions appeared. The Metropolia declared itself self-governing in 1924. A heavy pressure of Russian Nationalism swept the American Russian Church because of the tragic events in the homeland. Emigres arrived to the country who had no desire to be here but longed for home. Among these were not only simple people, but ranking bishops and priests. In the forties while attempts on the one hand were made to settle the church rupture with Moscow, the so-called Synod in Exile, the Russian Church Outside Russia, wet up its headquarters in the United States. The Metropolia was pressed on every side, with great temptations to lose its churchly self-consciousness and to plunge headlong into national-political activities. At the Eighth All-American Church Council (Sobor) in 1950, Archbishop Leonty, then of Chicago and soon to be Metropolitan, spoke the following words:

We love our homeland, but—in our children and grandchildren and great grandchildren—we love our new homeland as well. We love, we venerate, we respect our Mother Church of Russia, but as the adult daughter we are naturally tied, we love and we give ourselves to those children whom God has given us, just as we love as well, and value, and respect the Grandmother Church of the Greek East…

According to our capabilities; objectively, carefully and without hasty conclusions, but yet emphatically, we will continue our historical line to the very end—the establishment of the administratively-autonomous existence of the Orthodox Church in America.

In the near future our generation and the generation of the new immigrants (i.e., the postwar Russian refugees) will merge together into one Orthodox American Church on the soil of the New World. The Synod in Exile is not in exile for us, they are in America. Whether the new Orthodox Sion will be founded here—this is the question of the future. (The Life and Work of Metropolitan Leonty [in Russian], New York, 1969. Speech opening the Eighth All-American Church Council, p. 33 ff.)

The last twenty years saw the movement for the one Orthodox Church in America grow within the Metropolia. We know how the Thirteenth Council in 1967 was ready to declare itself into this position. Divine Providence saw the Fourteenth Council of this church become, with the full blessing of the Mother Russian Church, the First Council of the Orthodox Church in America.