"Us" and "Them" in the OCA

The process of compiling things for this blog has brought some things to light that I believe have to be addressed outside the stream I am trying to compose.

One of these components of the discussion within the OCA is identification of “parties” within the OCA. A few years ago, it was the Kondratick Party versus the Reform Party. Then it was the Herman Party versus the Reform Party. Then it was the Nikolai Party versus the Reform Party.

Metropolitan Jonah Paffhausen’s speech at the AAC made him the de facto head of the Reform Party within the OCA. Prior to that, the headship rested with Archbishop Job Osacky and Mark Stokoe. Osacky’s death and Stokoe’s internal conflicts have left the Reform headship open for Paffhausen’s taking.

But, as we can see, the Reform movement is stalled out. Why? In large part this is because Stokoe is now a member of the MC thus an insider who can no longer play the outside that he never really was. But Paffhausen also lost that image by taking up counsel from Fester and isolating himself from the rest of the Synod whose cooperation he would need to pass reform measures.

Paffhausen never really tried to push any reforms. His biggest reform proposal was to move the chancery to DC.

That’s in large part because most of the demands for reform were actually implemented under Swaiko and he sank because he could not live by them. The big test is whether the OCA can live by its reformed vision of accountability and transparency.

So when Paffhausen started running into problems, Fester had to create a new two-party system to polarize the OCA. Thus we have a liberal Democrat Fester tapping into the conservative roots of the Diocese of the South and painting the conflict over Paffhausen’s bumbling as a liberal/gay conspiracy against the straight/conservative Metropolitan. This works well with Stokoe’s not so private life. Hand in glove they say. The problem is that this glove does not have enough fingers.

While there are gays in the Church, our concern is not so much about their temptations as their actions. This was the problem with Lazor and the accusation that he was using the Church to cover up his actions. The same with Swaiko’s finances at St. Tikhon’s. Kondratick’s crimes were supposedly about covering up these messes and he even threatened to “tell all” at one point.

Our concern should be about covering up rather than disposition. My charge here is that there is less to worry about with gays than there is to worry about men who are sneaking around trying to cover up their actions. If Fester had publicly stated that he wanted Soraich restored to ministry it would not be a problem. The problem is that the emails indicate that Fester did not even want Paffhausen to know yet. Look at the speech from Santa Fe. He sees Soraich’s lawsuit as a negative.

I do not see the OCA as really divided into parties. What I see is the Fabulous Four seeking ways to divide the hard-won unity of the OCA for their own selfish gains.

Even trying to portray Paffhausen’s critics as representatives of the “old ethnic club” does not work, since most of the bishops are not members of that club. Then the party becomes the “Congregationalists” until it is pointed out that none of the group has questioned the central role of the Holy Synod. Taken too far this argument for an absolute metropolitanate with vassal bishops makes the OCA start looking more like the Lazor-Swaiko years where metropolitans answered to no one. This runs against the “Reform” image and so it has not gained traction either. Thus the divisions are not working.

Some other blogs have taken up the discussion of the Baby Boomer generation and its narcissistic tendencies. These tendencies are evident in the actions of the Fabulous Four. Soraich never stops pouting for himself and yet he also shows no remorse for the intense anger he caused in his former diocese. Kondratick in his appeal never stated how his restoration would be good for the OCA. Their concern was always what was good for them.

I believe that if Paffhausen can truly break loose from the self-centeredness as preached by the Fabulous Four, he will certainly redeem much of the confidence that others have lost in him. He should go back to the Fester-influenced Santa Fe speech and remove the self from it. He has to start talking about the OCA again rather than “his” office.

The "Us versus Them" narrative is weak. The Fabulous Four and their functionaries have underestimated the unity forged from the years of controversy we have already passed through. Creating divisions where there are none is an ultimately pointless exercise un;less they can really trick enough people into believeing them.

The only real division in the OCA right now is between the critics and supporters of Paffhausen. Their judgments stem from his actions. I believe that most are motivated by their care for the OCA and its future. The exception would be Fester and his cohorts' schemes to return to power for their own needs and interests.