The Metropolitan, the Synod, and the Metropolitan Council

The recent reflection of Mark Stokoe reveals an inherent potential conflict between the Synod and the Metropolitan Council that has been forming for at leastthe last half decade. Let's give it a look!

History: Past is prologue

Those who watched the OCA in the 90's through the scandal of 2006 – 2008¹, will have memories of the way things were, and how they came to where we are today. These memories are extremely fresh for some of us. The basic documentation is plain enough in the SIC report, and in the archived on-line controversies.

The basic governing entities of the OCA had failed, the Holy Synod, the Metropolitan Council, and the All American Council had either been subverted or abdicated responsibility. Sometimes, when one of these bodies would rouse itself, a little, it would simply be ignored.

When this fact became public and obvious, there was a deep crisis in the OCA, deeper than the scandal itself. It's hardly a secret that “conciliarity” and “autocephaly” not to mention “canonical” do not mean exactly the same thing to all parties, to say the least! But no matter how you slice it, canonicity, conciliarity and autocephaly did not prevent the paralyzing and embarrassing scandal. It wasn't supposed to work like this.

·         the canonicity of the OCA, not it's “canonical standing in “world Orthodoxy” but its internal adherence to the canons: in having a Synod of bishops who were ruling bishops of properly erected dioceses and as a Synod were the supreme authority.

·         The conciliarity of the OCA, where in the input of all sectors of the OCA had a role in governance, supremely through the All-American Council and in the interim through the Metropolitan Council. This has a long history in the OCA, going way back, involving some of our most beloved Fathers: initiatives of St. Tikhon in holding the first All American Sobor, to Metropolitan Leonty, who fostered the implementation in the statute of ideas from the great All Russian Sobor of 1917 – 1918, at which he was a delegate. Conciliarity in the OCA goes back way before Fr. Alexander Schmemann!!

·         Autocephaly, the crowning achievement, which was supposed to allow the canonical structures mentioned above to function without political interference or agendas from abroad.

The fact that all of these failed to function was deeply demoralizing to the OCA, to say the least. And the disappointment could be felt regardless of one's take on “conciliarity”.

Leadership versus Pinch Hitting

During the turbulent years of the open scandal from 2006 – 2008, it is essential to note that the first of any of these bodies to rouse to action was the Metropolitan Council. The All-American Council obviously was not in session. More importantly, the Metropolitan and the Synod were always slower to act. Metropolitan Herman (Swaiko) seemed unable to ever get ahead of the ball, nor did he lead the Synod to consensus, which was a tall order as two bishops, the then Bishop of the West, Tikhon (Fitzgerald) and the then Bishop of Alaska, Nikolai (Soraich) blamed those who made the allegations and opposed any efforts of cleaning house. With the publication of the SIC report, it became clear that other bishops had direct knowledge of some of the allegations before the scandal was public. Rather than over-rule the minority and consistently move forward, Metropolitan Herman and the Synod under his presidency seemed that it could only take a step forward when pushed. Metropolitan Herman failed to remember the “Nixon lesson” - it's the cover up that will kill you, and paid for it by losing his place as Metropolitan.

Now it is of the very nature of the Episcopate that the Synod is slower, more conservative, and more reflective a body than the Metropolitan Council. But in the years of 2006 – 2008 this imbalance approached dangerous proportions. At the 15^th All-American Council in 2008, there was a certain discomfort amongst some delegates. However praiseworthy and needful the role of the Metropolitan council in the years of trouble, there was a feeling that the Metropolitan Council

·         had become too powerful,

·         had become a sort of co-equal “branch” relative to the Synod,

·         was too “activist”

·         that the accrued power and “activism” of the Council was becoming a permanent feature of the “new order”.

·         Had become somewhat allergic to deferring to the Synod.

·         The “activism” strain was in part symbolized by the election of Mark Stokoe to the Metropolitan Council.

When one reviews the past history, it starts to become clear that it is hardly unexpected that the Metropolitan Council would revert to it's own activism and almost seem, in some of its members explicitly, as if the Metropolitan Council has a veto on the Metropolitan, can call for his dismissal, hold him as “any other member” of the Council to account. However understandable certain of those perspectives are, I do not think they can be approved of.

But with the election of Metropolitan Jonah, and the generally positive tone on which the All American Council ended, it was hoped by many that the balance would be restored: a Synod with good will and cooperation, chaired by a popular Metropolitan, could channel the Metropolitan Council, and if need be check it within appropriate boundaries. Moreover the new Metropolitan had articulated a vision of hierarchical conciliarity that the OCA at large seemed ready to endorse.

The Division

The key thing here is to realize that to most if not all of the bishops on the Holy Synod, this was the goal. For many members of the Metropolitan Council, they are jealous of their new prerogatives and do not wish to abandon them. This is very important, the Metropolitan Council at current and the Synod at current hardly think alike or have identical visions.

Since the last All American Council, this potential conflict has been circumvented in the most unexpected, (in 2008) manner – both bodies find themselves in conflict with Metropolitan Jonah. In fact all the interests of the Synod and her members would indicate that they wanted, desired, and needed the Leave of Absence given Metropolitan Jonah to work – to restore a working unity to the Synod. In no way are their interests served by “allowing” let alone supporting the Metropolitan Council or a faction thereof to force any hierarch out.

Why then did the Synod force the leave of absence, make the limitations it did and so forth at the spring session? The logical conclusion is that when the Chancery Staff, the Metropolitan Council, the Synod – Bishops, Clergy and Laity from all overth OCA, representing many, many different point of views and approaches – are all having the same problems, those problems are in fact real.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

1The years of the scandal are the years when the scandal was the prime issue in the OCA. The allegations were public as of late 2005, but began to consume the attention of the OCA in the beginning of 2006. I am marking the end of this period with the 15^th All American Council in 2008 and the election of Metropolitan Jonah.