Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may obtain it. And everyone who competes for the prize is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a perishable crown, but we for an imperishable crown. Therefore I run thus: not with uncertainty. Thus I fight: not as one who beats the air. But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified. (NKJV)

The emphasis is, of course, on the spiritual life: characteristics of good athletes, a healthy spiritual diet, perseverance, focusing on the goal, and “the trophy.”

For clergy and parish leaders, however, this “race” always has some particular obstacles.

Obviously, there is the matter of personal spiritual life. The deceiver always lurks in the prayer corner to tell the priest, “You’ve already prayed today. You don’t need to do so now.” The deceiver sits at the desk, murmuring “But you’ve already spent time reading the Scripture when you prepared your sermon. Why not read something more fun?”

Then there’s the family spiritual life: cultivating a healthy prayer discipline in the home, encouraging the reading of Scripture by them, taking family to church (even when the kids don’t want to go, or parish tension awaits), avoiding gossip, cynicism, and negativity, finding joy in little blessings every day, and, above all, loving one another. On that last point, I’m not talking about that sort of “of course I love you” abstract love, but rather the “I love spending time with you, and bearing you up on your tough days, and using nice tone of voice with you” love.

And, finally, there’s the personal self-discipline. At a fundamental level, this is “self-care”. It’s no secret that our clergy are frequently depressed, overweight, excessively sedentary, and burned-out. (See, for example, here, here, and here.) It’s a big deal. It’s hard to find strength to address the preceding obstacles if, for example, one is too tired, physically or mentally, to fight back. Physical laziness often translates into mental and spiritual torpor, which can result in apathy for one’s ministerial duties, to say nothing of hollow preaching and confession (giving or hearing). We really do need to heed actor Matthew McConaughey’s advice: “Break a sweat every day.” I’ve chosen swimming and biking, plus more time outdoors doing things that rejuvenate (like fishing).

The question for you readers: Concerning the above points, what things do you find helpful? What things have been less so? I’m talking about all of them, not just the last paragraph. I know I would love to find greater success in all of these areas.

Like many other clergy in the Orthodox Church in America, I’m attending the 16th All-American Council. Also like many other clergy, I attended the first plenary session (or was it an episode of Oprah?) Monday evening. During the question and answer period that followed Metropolitan Jonah’s address and the responses from some members of the Holy Synod, the Internet came in for some rather negative criticism. (See AFR for the audio; time references below are for that version).

Bishop Benjamin (fairly) derided partisanship on the web:

I think one of the great challenges us to in this age is the Internet. And it is no secret that there are often dueling websites, this site for the metropolitan, this site is against the metropolitan. And it has made our life a living hell. And I would like to say to those who run those websites: just stop it, grow up, and get over yourselves. (applause) The Internet is a great tool, and we need to use it for good, to build up the body of Christ, not to destroy it or to wound its members. (1:20:45ff)

Metropolitan Jonah, in the final response of the Holy Synod to questioners, went further:

If there’s no market, if people aren’t interested in reading it, they’re not going to publish it. Right? You’ve gotta turn off the Internet. It’s fine for email, but I was quite surprised, for example, to find my own personal emails read to me, and even SMS texts. Isn’t this immoral, unethical, and just downright sinful? Brothers and sisters, our first task, we really have to think about how we are acting in regards to one another. As Vladika said, the children, what are they reading? No wonder. So, just remember, if there’s no market, they’re not going to publish. And if they do publish, who cares? Because if we don’t read it and if we don’t allow our minds to be polluted by this kind of verbal pornography. (2:25:58ff)

Time does not allow an extend response, so two brief thoughts:

Uninformed or malicious partisanship is bad for the Church. But what are we to do about the situation of the past year, where the most partisan of the websites (on both sides) were operated with the spiritual and material support of the highest levels of leadership in the Church?

Silence gives cover to the Evil One. In the first few months of this year, the faithful received leaked news from a questionable site, followed by information at OCANews, a video of the Metropolitan speaking from the ambo of his cathedral in DC, and, finally, the minutes of the most recent Holy Synod meeting. Not too long after this, OCATruth was established, and Monomakhos took up arms, anonymous mercenaries in service to then-unknown masters. The barrage of information was contradictory, inflammatory, and disconcerting, and spread all manner of spiritual infection.

In the face of this, the Holy Synod was silent. The Metropolitan Council didn’t say much more, in favor of allowing OCANews to function as its de facto press organization.

All of which leads me to recall the experience of Jesus in the boat with his disciples in Luke 8:22-25:

Now it happened, on a certain day, that He got into a boat with His disciples. And He said to them, “Let us cross over to the other side of the lake.” And they launched out. But as they sailed He fell asleep. And a windstorm came down on the lake, and they were filling with water, and were in jeopardy. And they came to Him and awoke Him, saying, “Master, Master, we are perishing!” Then He arose and rebuked the wind and the raging of the water. And they ceased, and there was a calm. But He said to them, “Where is your faith?” And they were afraid, and marveled, saying to one another, “Who can this be? For He commands even the winds and water, and they obey Him!”

Christ did not allow the storm to rage, keeping silent or murmuring soothing platitudes that “everything will be alright.” Rather, his first act was to stop the waves and the storm. He didn’t teach until after the disciples had no care about the tumult.

It is clear that the faithful of the Orthodox Church in America needed (and still need) someone to rebuke the waves and the wind, to calm the storm, to remove the fearful distractions that steal faith and joy. The same Internet that was the medium for the revelation of the problems (but not, in the main, the problem itself) could have been the medium for stilling the waves and bringing peace to God’s children. It’s time to go beyond silence, finger-pointing, and delegation of the public response. The Internet is not the problem. Our leaders should make it part of the solution, using the medium to dispel the storm of confusion, contradiction, and worry.

In a couple of articles I wrote not too long ago, I took up the five levels of leadership posited by Maxwell in order to discuss them in our own situation. Having done that, I should point out that no definition of leadership was given. There are numerous such definitions, but perhaps the simplest is the equation, “Leadership is influence.” However, this raises the question of whether such leadership (influence) can be had illegitimately. Maxwell’s five levels don’t address it.

On the one hand, there is a common presumption that authentic leadership is legitimate. That is, Christian leadership influence is commonly assumed to be the result of the leader’s demonstrated success with motives that align with the Church/parish/jurisdiction and with methods that meet the Christian moral standard. That presumption works most of the time, but what about the possibility of the leader’s having private motives that do not align with the Church’s, or a willingness to use immoral methods to attain success? Private motives allow for the possibility of acts contrary to the common goal, and immoral methods taint even good results under the principle that the ends don’t justify the means.

If you doubt the possibility of contrary goals or immoral methods, just look at the OCA scandals of the past decade. There is no doubt that Kondratick was a leader. He gave the impression of genuine interest in the people he dealt with, freely handing out his mobile number, and even answering when it was used. Have an urgent need? He could see that it was met. Are things going to pieces? He could pick them up. Yet, according to the best evidence (see the SIC and SC reports), one can see Kondratick’s most significant motive, self-aggrandizement, coupled with a willingness to manipulate and compromise others as needed to pursue private aims. It was leadership in service to self. In an odd perversion of level 4 leadership (“People Development”), how many clergymen owed their own standing to him? In promoting their causes or covering up their scandals, he established himself as a leader on a foundation of uneasy loyalty and the keeping of secrets.

Illegitimate leadership in the Church inevitably leads to spiritual harm. When the illegitimacy and its means become known, they create disillusionment and cynicism among the faithful of God. This might not happen immediately, but such things are very difficult to hide forever. This element of secrecy is key.

Legitimate leaders have faults that are known, and they lead in spite of them. They do so through personal effort, spiritual development and, more importantly, by augmenting their own strengths and weaknesses with complementary ones from those around them. (Brilliant but disorganized pastors are often saved by attentive secretaries.)

In contrast, the illegitimate leader must be seen as having no, or relatively insignificant, weaknesses. Why? If they were known, they would be exploitable by others like him. Of necessity, a certain hagiographic depiction of the illegitimate leader develops, as a means of concealing the sins and weaknesses. A veil of secrecy is established, either through an inner circle of individuals who maintain the facade (and diverting the curious) or through taking ownership of critical tasks personally, with minimal information disclosed to others. Both methods are seen regularly in the individuals mentioned in the SC and SIC reports: the cash transactions (which prevented tracking of funds), stonewalling (“the Metropolitan blessed it,” the hiding of accounts, the refusal to provide essential information), convoluted financial controls, and self-interest that prevented would-be whistle-blowers from saying anything.

What is perhaps worse is that the illegitimacy that masquerades as competence or piety at the top washes downward. The illegitimate leader gains the (unwarranted) trust of others, and that trust extends to his lieutenants. “If the leader trusts him, I should trust him, too.” Trusted lieutenants extend their perception of trustworthiness to others in the same way, establishing a web of compromise and privilege. It can work in reverse, too, with illegitimate leaders in the lower ranks transferring their ill-gotten trust to leaders in positions of greater authority, supporting them and, too often, manipulating them for their own ends. Illegitimate leadership is thus corrosive to the whole, and such rot is quite difficult to eradicate.

I think we’re still battling this in various forms within the Orthodox Church in America, even with the scandals described in the SIC and SC reports fading from memory, and in at least a couple of other jurisdictions in North America. The real questions for us are:

1. How do we spot illegitimate leadership? From a spiritual standpoint, how do we remain vigilant without becoming cynical or excessively suspicious?
2. How do we stamp out illegitimate leadership when it occurs and halt its corrosive spread?
3. How do we end, or prevent, a system a privilege that fosters illegitimacy?

What do you think?

It is not the aim of this article to take up Ayn Rand’s defense, or that of Fr. Sirico, who is a polarizing figure in his own right. Rather, I want to make the point that Christian leaders need to be willing to enter into the world of ideas and to depart what is too often a world of caricatures. I come to Acton not because I agree absolutely with every presenter, but because it affords me the opportunity to hear presentations from those who capably argue their positions and to engage them myself.

In fact, of the talks I’ve attended, the ones I remember most (usually the ones that continue to influence me the most) are the ones I disagreed with. Those were the ones that placed an argument in front of me, along with a basic challenge to respond to them. This has to be done honestly, neither attacking arguments not made nor re-drawing them as faint and flattened copies of the originals. We must endeavor to understand the argument for what it is, not what we desire it to be. When we do so, we find our minds enlightened, whether in the increase of attachment to our own opinions or in some measure of recognition, if not acceptance, of the other.

In the particular matter of sin, I’m not suggesting we accept or make excuses for sin and sinful behavior. However, we can certainly hear of sin and hear those suffering from it, accurately and carefully, and use that in a response to lead others to salvation in the gentle call to repentance. We can remember to talk about Christ before we talk about damnation.

In Christian terms, I can’t see this as anything other than humility, as the setting aside of what we believe to be ours (boy, do we own our opinions) in order to participate in the life of someone else. How easy it is to form our own opinions of what is valuable and worthless, of what is wrong and right, of who is good and bad, especially when the matter is something or someone close to us, something in which we’ve made an investment. Yet one of the greatest acts of love is for someone else to tear down our personal idols in order to show us something we don’t see. We can’t lead if we can’t see, or refuse to.

[Next time I plan to resume discussion on the levels of leadership.]

[UPDATE 1:45pm: The principles above were tested earlier today. I attended a session entitled "The Islamic Case for Liberty," led by Mustafa Akyol.  I won't attempt to recapitulate the session here (although the forthcoming book referenced at the preceding link likely contains most of the argument), but I'll be ruminating on several of his points, and following up on his sources, for weeks. I suspect Mr. Akyol is regarded as heterodox or heretical by many in his own world, but his arguments are cause for at least modest optimism for those coming in contact with Islam. At least someone is envisioning an Islam compatible with freedom and pluralism, for the sake of Christians living in Islamic nations and for the hope of proclaiming the Gospel there. (Consider how many more people encountered the Gospel after Constantine's legalization of the Faith than before.) I look forward to the book.]

Blessings to all on the feast of our Lord’s Ascension.

Returning to leadership matters, I posted last time about Maxwell’s five levels of leadership. I had some questions at the end, but I’m going to ignore those myself for a bit, in order to develop some more thoughts on this topic. At this point, my thinking may diverge from Maxwell’s. Make of that what you will.

Careful reflection reveals that a leader at a particular level always has the option to lead according to a lower level. As a hypothetical example, a leader at level 4 (who owes his stature to the respect garnered by developing other persons’ abilities) can choose to lead as though he were at level 1, for example, in a fit of pique, ordering rather than requesting a subordinate or teammate or church member to do something, “because I say so,” or “because I am the priest.”While this can be done from time to time, it requires those being led to overlook it in a spirit of forbearance. Why? It violates a principle of magnanimity. We naturally expect leaders to be magnanimous, and great leaders to be even more so. We possess an innate desire that our leaders be willing to overlook small insults for the greater good, avoiding any vengeful or resentful spirit. Put another way, great men don’t need to be worried about hecklers. Stepping down to a lower level of leadership means setting aside a higher, godly way of thinking in favor of a lower one built on self-interest to a greater degree.

In fact, this is directly related to what we refer to as the great virtue of humility. We only progress in our spiritual lives to the extent that our pride, our ego, and other personal vanities are set aside or destroyed in favor of seeing ourselves as we really are before Christ. We must recognize ourselves as the greatest of sinners, and, in doing so, we find it so much easier to overlook the sins of others. Humility leads to magnanimity. The greatest Christian leaders are notable for their magnanimity, for their resistance to pettiness and hostility.

Resorting continually to lower levels of leadership, for the sake of passions (like irritation and anger) or impatience or frustration, is to discard humility in favor of pride. It inevitably leads to a leader’s loss of status. That is, the higher level of leadership is traded away for the lower level. In fact, others come to see the original higher level as a fluke, as the exception rather than the norm. The higher levels can be regained, but only with effort and time, and usually only after other damage has been done. Only humility, and the desire to heal the wound, make it possible.

Next time, I’ll be discussing illegitimate acquisition of leadership levels (is that possible? If so, how?) along with a vitally important level that can precede these other 5.

In the meantime, I ask each of you to consider what I’ve said above, and to assess its value. (As the blog title suggests, these are reflections. Like an intimate discussion, we all get sharper as we discuss, even if it means tossing aside something we believed strongly before.) Do you have any examples to share? If so, please use the comments.

(Sorry for the delay since the last post. When you see me again, ask me how the post-exposure rabies shots for the whole family went. I think that sums up the last week pretty well.)

If there is but one absolutely critical need for Orthodox leaders in turbulent times it is for them to see things as they really are, free of illusion and delusion. This is true when leaders examine themselves as part of the life of repentance, but I’m not speaking solely of confession (although every Christian leader should regularly participate in that Mystery). Rather, an individual in leadership must consider his own state—his motives, his wounds, and his sins—in every decision and in every act.

The danger is to be found in the encounter with the sin of prelest. Prelest has no exact English equivalent, being variously translated as “spiritual delusion” or “spiritual deception.” St. Ignatius Brianchaninov (1807-1867) gives the following definition: “Spiritual deception [prelest] is the wounding of human nature by falsehood.”

Rather than commenting further, I’ll provide a couple of helpful paragraphs from St. Ignatius and Unseen Warfare. May we all be delivered from the father of lies and may all our words and deliberations be free of prelest.

In an article translated from the Serbian edition of his writings, found in the highly recommended Orthodox Life, July-August, 1980, St. Ignatius Brianchaninov writes as follows (taken from the full article):

Spiritual deception is the wounding of human nature by falsehood. Spiritual deception is the state of all men without exception, and it has been made possible by the fall of our original parents. All of us are subject to spiritual deception. Awareness of this fact is the greatest protection against it. Likewise, the greatest spiritual deception of all is to consider oneself free from it. We are all deceived, all deluded; we all find ourselves in a condition of falsehood; we all need to be liberated by the Truth. The Truth is our Lord Jesus Christ (John 8:32-14:6). Let us assimilate that Truth by faith in it; Let us cry out in prayer to this Truth, and it will draw us out of the abyss of demonic deception and self-delusion. Bitter is our state! It is that prison from which we beseech that our souls be led out, that we may confess the name of the Lord (Ps. 141:8). It is that gloomy land into which our life has been cast by the enemy that hates and pursues us. It is that carnal-mindedness (Rom. 8:6) and knowledge falsely so-called (I Tim. 6:20) wherewith the entire world is infected, refusing to acknowledge its illness, insisting, rather, that it is in the bloom of health. It is that “flesh and blood” which “cannot inherit the Kingdom of God” (I Cor. 15:50). It is that eternal death which is healed and destroyed by the Lord Jesus, Who is “the Resurrection and the Life” (John 11:25). Such is our state. And the perception thereof is a new reason to weep. With tears let us cry out to the Lord Jesus to bring us out of prison, to draw us Forth from the depths of the earth, and to wrest us from the jaws of death! “For this cause did our Lord Jesus Christ descent to us,” says the venerable Symeon the New Theologian, “because He wanted to rescue us from captivity and from most wicked spiritual deception.”

The means whereby the fallen angel brought ruin upon the human race was falsehood (Gen. 3:13). For this reason did the Lord call the devil “a liar, and the father of lies.., a murderer from the beginning” (John 8:44). We see that the Lord closely associated the notion of falsehood with the notion of murder; for the latter is the inevitable consequence of the former. The words “from the beginning” indicate that from the very start the devil has used falsehood as a weapon in murdering men, for the ruination of men. The beginning of evil is in the false thought.

The source of self-delusion and demonic deception is the false thought. By means of falsehood, the devil infected mankind at its very root, our first parents, with eternal death. For our first parents were deceived, i.e., they acknowledged falsehood as the truth, and having accepted falsehood in the guise of truth, they wounded themselves incurably with mortal sin, as is attested by our ancestor Eve, when she said: “The serpent deceived me, and I ate” (Gen. 3:13). Thenceforth, our nature, infected with the poison of evil, has, voluntarily or involuntarily, inclined toward evil which, to our perverted will, distorted reason, and debauched heart, presents itself as good. I say voluntarily because there still remains within us a remnant of the freedom to choose between good and evil. And I say involuntarily because that remnant of freedom does not function as complete freedom, but rather under the unavoidable influence of the wound of sin. Thus is every human born and cannot be otherwise; and for this reason we all, without exception, find ourselves in a state of self-delusion and demonic deception. From this view of man’s state with regard to good and evil, the state which is necessarily characteristic of each human being, we arrive at the following definition of spiritual deception which explains it satisfactorily: spiritual deception is man’s assimilation of a falsehood which he accepts as truth… [italics mine]

From the time of man’s fall, the devil has had free access to him. The devil is entitled to this access, for, through disobedience to him man has voluntarily submitted to his authority and rejected obedience to God. However, God has redeemed man. To the redeemed man He has given the freedom to submit either to God or to the devil; and that this freedom may manifest itself without any compulsion, the devil has been permitted access to man. It is quite natural that the devil makes every effort to keep man in his former subjection to him, or yet to enslave him even more thoroughly. To achieve this, he implements his primordial and customary weapon–falsehood. He strives to deceive and delude us, counting on our state of self-delusion. He stimulates our passions, our sick inclinations. He invests their pernicious demands with an attractive appearance and strives to entice us to indulge them. However, he that is faithful to the Word of God will not permit himself to do so; he will restrain the passions and thus repulse the enemy’s assaults (see James 4:7); struggling against his own self-deception under the guidance of the Gospel, subduing his passions, and thus gradually destroying the influence of the fallen spirits on himself, he will by stages pass from the state of deception to the realm of truth and freedom (see John 8:32), the fullness of which will be given through the overshadowing of divine grace. He that is not faithful to Christ’s teaching, who follows his own will and knowledge, will submit to the enemy, and will pass from a state of self-deception into a state of demonic deception, will lose the remnant of his freedom, and in the end he will become totally enslaved to the devil…

And from the compilers of Unseen Warfare:

The reason why we have wrong judgment of the things we mentioned earlier is that we do not look deeply into them to see what they are, but conceive a liking for them or a dislike of them from the very first glance, judging by appearances. These likes and dislikes prejudice our mind and darken it; and so it cannot form a right judgment of things as they really are. So, my brother, if you wish to be free of this prelest of your mind, keep strict attention over yourself; and when you see a thing with your eyes, or visualise it in your mind, keep a firm grip on your desires and do not allow yourself at the first glance either to conceive a liking for the thing or a dislike for it, but examine it in a detached way with the mind alone. Unobscured by passion, the mind then remains in a state natural to it, which is free and pure, and has the possibility to know the truth and to penetrate into the depths of a thing, where evil is often concealed under a deceptively attractive exterior and where good is sometimes hidden under a bad appearance.  (p. 91)

The first question that comes up with regard to email is: Is it secure? Most individuals are not really aware of how email systems work. The diagram below shows, in simplified (and ugly) form, how a message is handled from sending to delivery. Working from left to right, the user composes a message, clicks “Send,” which causes the mail client to give the message to the mail server (a Mail Transfer Agent in technical terms) which in turn queues it up to be sent. The sender’s mail server contacts the recipient’s mail server and transmits the message. The recipient’s mail server places it in a store (a “mailbox”) until the recipient uses a mail client to retrieve, or delete the message. If the recipient chooses to forward or reply to the message, he becomes the sender and the process starts anew. If you really want to see all the details of how email systems are put together, this article has a good explanation of all the pieces.

Basics of mail transfer. Network connections are shown in blue. The mail store ("mailbox") is shown in green.

The email infrastructure on the web is old, dating to the early 1980s, when computer networks were rare, email was a novelty, and computer security minimal. What security infrastructure there is in modern email systems is generally in the form of “add-ons” to the mail clients, to include encryption and virus/spam checking. Thus, a sender can encrypt the message (but not the recipient and other “envelope” details), hand it off to the server, and let it travel to the recipient’s email server as a sealed box until decrypted by the recipient, with a password or other form of authentication. In reality, the majority of email is unencrypted, and most users don’t know how to use the encryption features in their mail readers, if present. Further, existing Internet protocols (IPv4 for those of you with propeller beanies) have no built-in encryption. Thus, the entire system is built on sending email “in the clear.” Anyone with access to the network connections can easily read your email as it goes by for the majority of systems. The only thing preventing others from reading your email from the mail store on the receiving server is the strength of the password mechanism.

In other words: it’s not terribly secure in most environments. The newest Internet protocols (IPv6, again for your nerdniks) will make encryption standard for all transmissions (securing the wires, effectively), but, despite lots of pressure from a declining pool of available network addresses, is still a ways away from full deployment. Even then, people don’t like entering passwords or using biometric cards or similar devices regularly, so the system remains vulnerable to unauthorized or unexpected access simply by using a computer that is still “logged in” or has a saved password that automates the process of logging in (i.e., without ever prompting the user, who might not be the actual owner of the email store).

The second question that comes up is: Who owns it? Well, this is thornier. In general, companies employ a simple axiom: corporate business stays on corporate systems. Thus, corporate employees may not store corporate (or customer) data on personally owned systems. Corporate employees use corporate email addresses to transact corporate business (@bigcompany.com), never using a jimbob@yahoo.cxm even if it’s more convenient. Most corporate IT policies also indicate that employees have no expectation of privacy with regard to electronic communication (e.g., email, or instant messaging, if offered) conducted with company systems. Using company systems for personal business is usually discouraged, if not prohibited outright. Additionally, the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation, which is applicable to publicly held corporations, mandates an extensive retention period for electronic communications.

Violation of these policies in a large company can lead to governmental fines or other penalties and can even lead to termination of employment for individuals.

Company ownership of these communications facilitates the handing-off of critical activities in the event that an employee is incapacitated, dies, or leaves the company unexpectedly. Previous discussions are then easily transferred from the old person to the new by system administrators. Company operations are allowed to continue with fewer disruptions.

So, in a secular environment, the company owns the email, the chats, the calendars, and so on, because those things are all related to transacting company business, even if aspects of it are confidential or proprietary. These communications are seen as the property of the company because they represent work undertaken on the  company’s behalf as a result of the employer-employee relationship.

Note that the notion of emails being “on” a computer is an obsolete one, particularly with the increasing use of webmail (i.e., reading email using a web browser) from services like Gmail, Yahoo Mail, Hotmail, and even the Microsoft Exchange/Outlook web interface and smart phones such as the iPhone or BlackBerry. In these cases, the mail is never really “on” the computer used to read the message, in that that computer is only displaying the message without storing it on the device. The message is kept in the mail store. For this reason, many companies will permit a company-provided web interface to be used to read company email, as perhaps the only weak exception to the “company data stays on company systems” rule, since nothing is actually “resident” on the local system.

But in the Church, we have been operating with a different standard. It is by far the norm that every clergyman and church worker has a private email address used to conduct Church-related business. (This is still true when a church-specific email address such as frjohn@somechurch.com simply forwards to a Gmail account, as the mail store is not owned by or contractually provided to the church.) Thus the messages related to the operations of the diocese or parish are diffuse – stored and transmitted on a mix of systems determined, in most cases, by the convenience of the person choosing the email address. Church communications are rarely stored on Church-owned systems, and, as often as not, are entrusted to “free” providers elsewhere.

This is problematic at a couple of levels. First, no one generally knows who has actual custody of the communication. Who is responsible for Gmail, or Yahoo Mail, etc? Are they honest? Have they been background-checked? Is the mail encrypted within the message store? (If not, system intruders can steal it. Many readers have been contacted by companies who have recently seen their email lists compromised in just this fashion. Those lists provide half the information needed to steal from the mail store.) These questions are why companies either host email internally with trusted employees running things or use other companies that provide security protections within the contractual terms of service.

Secondly, the confidentiality of the data is by no means guaranteed. (Encryption would help, but, as mentioned already, few messages are encrypted.) Gmail, in fact, is rather explicit that your email messages will be scanned for keywords that can then be used to present advertising to you. Innocuous? Maybe. But what if someone gets the idea to look for other things, or specific name and email addresses, and to perform specific actions (like forwarding it to another website’s owner) on that basis. How would you ever know?

Third, there is no clear idea of “ownership” of the communications. This is made abundantly clear in the current mess. If a diocesan chancellor or treasurer conducts diocesan business via a Gmail account, is that his personal communication, or does it belong to the diocese? If it’s sensitive information (perhaps relating to pastoral matters), what steps have we taken to safeguard that sensitivity and who is responsible for protecting it? Again: who owns that communication: the parish, the account holder, or the original sender? If a diocesan officer uses a private account to conduct both personal and diocesan business, how does one differentiate church communications from private ones without reading the messages? (As noted previously, use of company systems for personal business is generally discouraged, if not prohibited entirely by larger companies in the secular world.)

Fourth, how are transitions to be handled, especially if they are unexpected? Electronic communications, particularly email, provide a lot of documentation about current planning and policy. If the person responsible for these activities leaves or dies, how is his successor to continue the work without them? For transitions that result in any animosity (such as the forced removal of an officer), how is it possible to secure this critical information against malicious destruction or theft intended to thwart future work? Within the OCA, remember that Kondratick removed boxes of documents from the OCA Chancery following his suspension as chancellor. In a more email-centric culture, mailboxes are just as vital.

Fifth, there is no expectation of recovery in the event of loss. If a free system such as Gmail is used, there are usually no guarantees at all regarding recoverability of emails in the event the mail store is compromised or destroyed. (See paragraphs 14 and 15 in the Google Terms of Service.) The maintenance of the confidentiality of passwords is the sole responsibility of the account owner (Section 6.1 of the preceding link: “You agree and understand that you are responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of passwords associated with any account you use to access the Services.”) Gmail offers no provision to recover communications deleted from an unauthorized access. The other free providers, including Yahoo Mail, Hotmail, AOL, etc., have similar if not identical provisions.

Sixth, there is no assurance that deleted communications are deleted permanently and from all archives. There is no way for a user to know whether digital copies of emails are retained anywhere else. This has significant ramifications for anyone who has conducted extremely sensitive or regrettable exchanges using an email account from a free provider.

None of these questions and concerns has an easy answer, but they do, I think, point to the need for increased use of parish- or diocese-owned systems for handling Church-related communication, if only to provide necessary guarantees of privacy of email conversations and a clear record of “ownership” of them.)

More on this soon. Your comments are encouraged.

Christ is risen! Indeed he is risen! (Lest we forget with the hubbub over the past few days.)

No time for a lengthier article today (or for the next couple of days, in all likelihood). But, since some readers (well, one reader, I guess) have suggested that I have characterized the Truthers unfairly, I’d like to explain that my standard for bearing false witness is that of the Church.

That standard finds its origin in Exodus 20:16, “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour,” a.k.a. the Ninth Commandment. Deuteronomy 19:15-21 goes on further, in establishing that accusations are made only “at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses.”  The point of the witnesses is that known individuals (more than one of them, so someone has to agree on something) in the community, with personal reputations to uphold, stand up and make their accusations. Rumor and innuendo are tossed aside in favor of faithful maturity. If there’s any room for doubt or misunderstanding, it’s better for no accusations to be brought than to risk a loss of credibility face.

Beyond that, the prohibition on bearing false witness achieves its fullness in the light of Christ, as explained  its fullness in the Christian profession given by St. Paul:

For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. –Romans 13:9-10

Thus, “false witness” cannot be reduced to “did what I say, technically, turn out to be a lie?” as the world would have it, but must be understood in terms of that and more. False witness is also found in attributing evil motives to others, in casting aspersions on our enemies’ character absent any proof, in making unsupported statements about others’ beliefs, and in misrepresenting what our adversaries say.  As I’ve written previously, avoiding false witness is central to those in leadership. We must seek to present others in the most honest and charitable light, not the light in which we want them to stand or the light that makes them look as bad as possible.

With that, I’ll close with something I’ve quoted before (see preceding link) because leaders really need to be able to answer righteously to this particular set of questions for self-examination before confession:

Ninth Commandment – You shall not bear false witness.

Have I told lies, or added to or subtracted from the truth? Have I made careless statements or spoken evil of anyone? Have I told any secrets entrusted to me, or betrayed anyone? Have I gossiped about anyone or harmed their reputation? Have I concealed the truth, assisted in carrying out a lie, or pretended to commit a sin of which I was not guilty? Have I tried to see the good in others rather than their shortcomings?

“He that hideth hatred with lying lips, and he that uttereth a slander, is a fool.” -Proverbs 10:18

To elaborate briefly on the post immediately preceding this one, it is hard to overstate the role that anonymity played in the damage inflicted by OCATruth.com. Being anonymous allowed the writers at OCA Truth to receive information without revealing who they were, and to launch attacks with impunity against whomever they chose. The domain name was registered with a proxy, shielding the true registrant-owners of the domain from public visibility, likely requiring a court order to lift the veil of secrecy. Further, OCATruth.com disabled comments, even though the site is a blog. Thus, for anyone to counterattack required any critic either a) to have his own site, or b) to post in other venues. Both options forced respondents to stick their heads up out of the foxhole, becoming ready targets for more attacks from OCATruth.com. The shill names used at sites like monomakhos.com enabled them to lure others into revealing their objections.

In short, OCATruth.com was a nest of snipers drawing out their prey with a steady stream of half-truths, innuendo, unsupported accusations, taunts (“C’mon Fr. Bieberdorff [sic]“), and invective. Worse, having been flushed out, OCA Truth has withdrawn two damaging posts with the excuse that the information disclosed falls under the seal of the confessional.

What kind of leadership is that? Cowardly leadership (whether misguided or malicious), facilitated by anonymity.

But it must be observed that, with regard to anonymity, Jesse Cone (“Parishioner” at OCA Truth) held a different position as recently as December [emphasis mine]:

I fail to see how any of us can responsibly say whether or not Fr. Fester is trying to gloss over anything, and I fail to see how Fr. Fester’s assignment to DC has received any credible objections. Suspicions? Sure. But if you’re not in a place to know, you don’t know. And if you do know for sure, what would give just reason to accuse a member of the priesthood? If you cannot even sign your name to such an accusation, is it really responsible to publically denounce a fellow Christian and stir up suspicion and distrust in others?

Rod Dreher (“Muzhik” at OCA Truth) likewise had a different opinion, back in April 2009 [emphasis and notes mine]:

I would also like to add, for the sake of clarification, that the question of Syosset and the old days is a separate issue. My objection stated here is solely about the gross impropriety, cowardice and destructiveness of the [anonymous] “Humble and Obedient” post. If someone had posted a similar anonymous attack on Fr. John, and had called on the cathedral parish to rise up against him, I promise you I would be equally disgusted.

One of the things that so impressed me about the way many priests and laymen of the OCA handled the mess with Met. Herman is how they were bold enough to sign their names to their criticism. When I was a Catholic, and a journalist writing about the sex abuse scandal, I heard from priests and laymen all the time who had truly shocking and terrible things to report. I believed then, and believe now, that they were telling me the truth. But I couldn’t report any of it unless they were willing to put their name to the criticism of particular bishops, priests, et al. Their views and information, however passionately held and grounded in fact, were useless gossip. And for all I know, they had it wrong. That they wouldn’t say what they felt needed saying in public, with their names attached to it, said a lot about the credibility of their accusations. It is perhaps understandable, to an extent, when a priest or layman whose income depends on not crossing church leaders is hesitant to stand up. But that didn’t stop many OCA priests during the Herman mess. What’s stopping this anonymous attacker of Fr. Joseph from identifying himself or herself now, and letting all of us at the cathedral be the judge of his or her credibility?

No one has the right to do this to our parish and its priests. No one. Whoever you are, you either have no idea what you’re doing, or you don’t care.

In spite of these statements, both men found themselves willing to cast, anonymously, all manner of aspersions against a sizable number of clergy and laity in positions of responsibility in the Orthodox Church in America. The veiled ones chose to malign a cast of people (a.k.a. “the cabal”) who served faithfully, at personal cost to their reputations, under difficult circumstances not all that long ago. The gravity of the temptation to hide, lobbing grenades over the wall, instead of standing up to the slurs and accusations is revealed mightily in the attacks from OCA Truth. It doesn’t cost anything, nor does it require any exposure of one’s self, to work in this fashion.

When I started this blog, I wrote briefly about the value of real names. While the particular policy in that post has been relaxed somewhat, I think my point still holds true. Anonymity does not serve Christ’s Church. If what is being said needs to be said, then it should be said forthrightly and by someone we know. The very idea of apostolic succession is established on the twin pillars of apostolic doctrine (i.e., what is taught) and apostolic connection (i.e., who ordained whom). The latter can’t exist in an anonymous world. The bishops, as those preaching the Gospel, must be named and identifiable, so as to establish the continuity of what is taught. If it’s so for them, shouldn’t it be so for those accusing them? Oh wait. It is. Take your time and read this carefully:

I Constantinople Canon 6
There are many who are bent on confusing and overturning the good order of the church and so fabricate, out of hatred and a wish to slander, certain accusations against orthodox bishops in charge of churches. Their intention is none other than to blacken priests’ reputations and to stir up trouble among peace- loving laity. For this reason the sacred synod of bishops assembled at Constantinople has decided not to admit accusers without prior examination, and not to allow everyone to bring accusations against church administrators — but with- out excluding everyone. So if someone brings a private (that is a personal) complaint against the bishop on the grounds that he has been defrauded or in some other way unjustly dealt with by him, in the case of this kind of accusation neither the character nor the religion of the accuser will be subject to examination. It is wholly essential both that the bishop should have a clear conscience and that the one who alleges that he has been wronged, whatever his religion may be, should get justice.

But if the charge brought against the bishop is of an ecclesiastical kind, then the characters of those making it should be examined, in the first place to stop heretics bringing charges against orthodox bishops in matters of an ecclesiastical kind. (We define “heretics” as those who have been previously banned from the church and also those later anathematised by ourselves: and in addition those who claim to confess a faith that is sound, but who have seceded and hold assemblies in rivalry with the bishops who are in communion with us.) In the second place, persons previously condemned and expelled from the church for whatever reason, or those excommunicated either from the clerical or lay rank, are not to be permitted to accuse a bishop until they have first purged their own crime. Similarly, those who are already accused are not permitted to accuse a bishop or other clerics until they have proved their own innocence of the crimes with which they are charged. But if persons who are neither heretics nor excommunicates, nor such as have been previously condemned or accused of some transgression or other, claim that they have some ecclesiastical charge to make against the bishop, the sacred synod commands that such persons should first lay the accusations before all the bishops of the province and prove before them the crimes committed by the bishop in the case. If it emerges that the bishops of the province are not able to correct the crimes laid at the bishop’s door, then a higher synod of the bishops of that diocese, convoked to hear this case, must be approached, and the accusers are not to lay their accusations before it until they have given a written promise to submit to equal penalties should they be found guilty of making false accusations against the accused bishop, when the matter is investigated.

If anyone shows contempt of the prescriptions regarding the above matters and presumes to bother either the ears of the emperor or the courts of the secular authorities, or to dishonour all the diocesan bishops and trouble an ecumenical synod, there is to be no question whatever of allowing such a person to bring accusations forward, because he has made a mockery of the canons and violated the good order of the church.

Keep in mind that those wronged here were the bishops on the Holy Synod accused of wrongdoing along with several priests and leading laity. The OCA Truth crew has attempted to lead without having a face, and, at this point, we see why that’s a very, very bad idea. We are baptized by name. We partake of the Holy Eucharist by name. We receive Holy Absolution by Name. We are married or tonsured by name. We are buried by name. Why, then, wouldn’t we resolve our Christian differences by name? What holy purpose is served by hiding our identities when we express thoughts and opinions we feel need to be heard?

With that in mind, it seems to me that there’s a one-sidedness in our Orthodox pastoral preparation, similar to what Adams suggests is happening with “B students.” It’s an imbalance that favors the spiritual and intellectual development of pastors at the expense of learning the value of financial sophistication, prudent risk-taking, leadership cultivation, conflict management, and the basket of talents commonly known as “people skills.”

Recent changes in Orthodox seminary curricula (e.g., at St. Vladimir’s) are laudable for being steps in the right direction. The next step is to recognize that Orthodoxy is still a missionary faith in North America, which means that our pastors and lay leaders all need the kinds of skills of which Adams speaks in his essay above.  Adams identifies seven skills for an entrepreneur:

1. Combine skills
2. Fail forward
3. Find the action
4. Attract luck
5. Conquer fear
6. Write simply
7. Learn persuasion

We might balk at #4, with the complaint that “luck” has little to do with the Holy Spirit’s blessings on the Church, but a closer look at what he means by it has absolute applicability in our situation:

To succeed, first you must do something. And if that doesn’t work, which can be 90% of the time, do something else.

Now that sounds like a lot of people we know: Noah, Abraham, Moses, Naomi and Ruth, all the other prophets, the Apostles, and many other saints since.

The Orthodox leaders we need are those who can take risks, and can persuade others to take them too. They must be able to read balance sheets and to develop financial foundations that break free of the small-minded subsistence attitude plaguing so many of our parishes. They must see where to take their communities, beyond the existing Orthodox, into places where Orthodoxy isn’t known, and among men and women who we’ve ignored for too long. In other words, we need entrepreneurs in the Church if we are to carry out the Great Commission (Matthew 28:16-20) instead of hunkering down, dithering and waiting for a “better day” that never comes.

Thus I ask, what is your parish doing to be entrepreneurial? What are you doing to be entrepreneurial in Christ’s Church? What would help you be more entrepreneurial?