I have a question…

and I’m sincerely in search of an answer. Honestly, I’m not interested in snide remarks or personal attacks, just an answer to the following. What is the benefit to the Church of the recent decision of the Holy Synod of Antioch regarding the status of the Archdiocese of North America? If someone has insight or an answer for this question please comment and remember no personal attacks.


3 thoughts on “I have a question…

  1. I’m searching for a voice, a voice that could tell me why this is an objective good for the Archdiocese. I’ve heard the voices about power and corruption but I’m trying to see, as part of my own discernment, if someone has an idea of how this can be a good thing because right now I’m just missing it.

  2. I wonder if a consolidation of power in the North Archdiocese is important leading into a Chambesy endgame. Antioch needs its pawns in the great game around the world and in whatever structures come about in North America. One could argue that different factions within the ‘local Synod’ might opt for courses other than that which the Met and the Patriarch/Holy Synod see as necessary, i.e., some might stand tall for strong ties to Antioch others might rally for full autocephaly.

    I also wouldn’t discount the allure of standardization. Beards, cassocks and prayer ropes really rub some the wrong way, as ‘backwards’. ‘Fuller’ services and changes in ‘Antiochian tradition’ (e.g., subdeacons not intoning the Great Litany) might also have some angst-ridden.

    Finally, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” and “it’s tough to argue with success” are also probably at play. Since miraculous powers of evangelism have been attributed to the Met. and the Archdiocese under him, it is difficult to argue for a change in ‘the way things have always been done’, administratively. This is a common factor in any institution that has grown quickly under the ‘hands on’ leadership of a major personality. ‘Founders’ often can’t adjust their style as their institution grows. They become victims of their own success unable to differentiate between tactics and skills that worked in the past when they were younger, the organization was smaller, etc. and what is needed going forward. The default mode is to clamp down on all dissent and for the leader and his lieutenants to redouble their control (micromanagement). The ‘good’ is seen to be in an implicit guarantee: what has made us successful up till now will make us successful in the future, so do what you’re told since we’re telling you what we always done. This ignores problems of scale (managing small groups is different than managing large, far flung groups), change of situation (richer, poorer, more or less homogeneous), change in personnel (old friends are gone, generational differences), change in technology (email, internet and smartphones add new opportunities and challenges; less is purely private) and the decrease of skill and interest in aging leadership (priorities change, as does mental ability and comittment).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s