First and foremost, I remind readers of this site that the primary goal here is not to report on details of any particular scandal. Rather, the blog exists to discuss matters of leadership in the Orthodox Church. To that end, the recent conflict within the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church in America provides much material for reflection on leadership.

The most recent events in the scandal – primarily the release of confidential emails between Archpriest Joseph Fester, Bishop Nikolai (Soraich), Mr. Rod Dreher, and others – have turned everything upside down. I am not surprised at the names of the principals of OCATruth.com. I had already deduced the identities of two of them solely by their words and actions, prior to the revelations from the ugly emails. What is of greater concern now is that a site devoted to “truth” is, in fact, built upon lies.

Up until this past weekend, OCA Truth has absolutely dominated the narrative about what was going on in the OCA since the site’s inception in early March. OCA Truth provided the “facts” that shaped the discussion of the entire matter. Consider that the following points first appeared at OCA Truth:

• That attempts were being made to depose Metropolitan Jonah,
• That Metropolitan Jonah did not agree to a leave of absence (and that the minutes of the Santa Fe meeting were, at best, inaccurate, and at worst, manipulated),
• That Mark Stokoe’s email was positive proof of a growing coup (with no possibility of being descriptive rather than prescriptive),
• That Metropolitan Jonah was being opposed by a “liberal” cabal of bishops and Metropolitan Council members on the basis of his conservatism,
• That the Metropolitan was being sent to a substance abuse rehab center,
• That the Soviet method of declaring enemies of the state to be “insane” was in play,
• That the Metropolitan was the only real monk on the Holy Synod, and many more.

(If this list is wrong, please send proof using the contact form, and I’ll note corrections here.) Not only were these points promulgated by OCA Truth, OCA Truth was the only source of that information in most cases. It is possible that some of these points are true, but no serious evidence was ever adduced in support of them. Rather, the charges were repeated, and distributed to proxies on other blogs, and, after a while, accepted as axiomatic by many even when the basis was still questionable.

Yet, in the end, we now see that OCA Truth was built on lies:

• The writers lied to protect their anonymity. This is perhaps excusable absent the other lies. On the other hand, OCA Truth would likely have had a different reception had Fr. Fester’s involvement been known. Further, it was anonymity that enabled Mr. Dreher to indulge his journalistic Id, against all academic preparation and professional discipline.
• The writers then lied in order to misrepresent their identities, enabling them to act as shills, as in the case of Mr. Dreher writing pseudonymously (as Muzhik) in order to quote himself under his real name as a reputable authority.  This is fraud. If you do it on eBay, they suspend you. Doing so on a credit card application can earn you a visit to jail.
  • UPDATED 5/4/2011 8:15am: The principals did similar things by posting under real names like “Rod Dreher” and “Jesse Cone” or pseudonyms like “Southern Comfort” in other fora, including monomakhos.com, giving the appearance of different individuals supporting the writers at OCATruth.com.
  • UPDATED 5/4/2011 8:39am: One reader writes to suggest that Mr. Dreher never posted “Dreher” material under the “Muzhik” identity, instead leaving “Parishioner” and “Tovarishch” to do that. I am researching this now, for the sake of accuracy, although I don’t think it changes the basic charge.
  • UPDATE 5/4/2011 8:39am: Further, Mr. Dreher appeared in other fora (notably monomakhos.com) and claimed he knew the people running OCATruth.com, but that he was not one of them.
• The writers lied in order to characterize their opponents and other hierarchs as liberals—pro-gay, pro-abortion, feminist, etc.—even in the face of clear evidence to the contrary. References to the Episcopal wing of the OCA (or “Piscies”—i.e., Episcopalians—elsewhere) were not made to suggest that their opponents had good taste and lots of money, but rather that they supported an Episcopalian-style liberal agenda. A fawning article about the Metropolitan in the Washington Post was shaped by this narrative of conservative-metropolitan-against-liberal-establishment and then employed as a club with which to bludgeon the “liberals.”
• Worst of all, the writers lied in order to bear false witness. This was done when OCA Truth denied having possession of the confidential SMPAC report in order to attribute that possession, falsely, to Mark Stokoe, when exactly the reverse was true. It was done in the case of deliberately misrepresenting an email sent from Faith Skordinski to (attorney) Alexandra Makosky as being instead sent to Archpriest Alexander Garklavs in order to impugn both Skordinski’s and Garklavs’s motives.

I am not interested in waving Mark Stokoe’s banner, one way or the other. (I’ve certainly disagreed with his editorial decisions by private email on several occasions, as he can attest. We have never met in person.) What I am interested in is seeing is the return of leadership that is built on truth, trust, and accountability. If we define leadership as influence, OCA Truth has been a leader without peer over the last two months. Sadly, that leadership was built on lies, and those were built on anonymity and a total lack of accountability. (I wrote previously that OCA Truth’s heated rhetoric was only making the possibility of a reconciliation within the Holy Synod even more remote.) Detractors might respond with, “But Stokoe did it, too!” but he didn’t. At a very minimum, his name was on what he wrote, so that people could evaluate the source and his history in the same way I read or don’t read several columnists in the paper based on my perception of their credibility. I know several members of the alleged cabal, and, despite any disagreements I might have with them, I know them to be honest, upright, and Christian.

In the end, OCA Truth has provided a negative example of leadership, by demonstrating how lies and, really, anonymity ultimately come to ruin. For now, it is time for us to return to prayer for our real leaders, to ask that they be guided by the Holy Spirit and that the divisions of the recent couple of years and the acrimony of the past two months can be healed. We need the concerns of the first cohesive Holy Synod seen in decades to be addressed for the sake of God’s people.

“Lying lips are abomination to the Lord: but they that deal truly are his delight.” -Proverbs 12:22

In the last post, I made reference to the suspicious minds behind the uncharitable motives credited to everyone viewed as enemies of Metropolitan Jonah. Just a couple of hours ago (around 3 p.m. Eastern), the following post was published at OCATruth.com. It was pulled down within the hour. (It may still be available in Google’s feed reader cache.)  [UPDATE: 7:30 pm Eastern: The post is back up, in slightly modified form, here, with new and improved references to "Machiavellians."]

The following e-mail went out to priests of the Southwest Deanery of the Diocese of the South:

To: SW Deanery List
Sent: Thu, Mar 24, 2011 10:18 am
Subject: [Swdeanery] Nominations for Bishop

Brother Concelebrants of the Southwest Deanery,

The nomination committee of the Diocese of the South is being strongly urged by two bishops on the Holy Synod to move ahead on nominating candidates to fill the vacant post of bishop for the DOS.

The committee, which is the Diocesan Council, will have a conference call this coming Monday to discuss the matter.

I trust that we all have been praying for God’s provision of a faithful bishop to shepherd His flock in the DOS.

If any of you wish to discuss this matter with one another on this list, put forward names for consideration by the committee, and so for, now is the time.

May God grant us his wisdom to discern the man He has called for this ministry.

Love in Christ,

Priest Justin Frederick, Dean

This is interesting. While the DOS really needs a bishop, it is striking to me that two bishops on the Synod have a strange new interest in the urgency of filling that post. Wonder why? There has been some wishful speculation lately among the faithful of the DOS that His Beatitude might be willing to leave the primatial role and return to Dallas, where he is loved, to serve as the DOS bishop. Don’t get me wrong, I have heard nothing from my sources indicating that this might even be a possibility. It’s just the thinking of laity who love His Beatitude and want him to live and to work where he is loved and valued.

I told someone just last night that the Synod would never let that happen, because they would see +Jonah in the South as a threat to them. Call me cynical, but I interpret the renewed interest in these two unnamed bishops in getting someone named to the DOS episcopate, especially while HB is sidelined on his retreat, as an attempt to close off the possibility that +Jonah might establish a Southern stronghold. These two bishops — who do you think they are? — are trying hard to outflank +Jonah. Under these suspicious conditions, the episcopate of the South could be a poisoned chalice.

Hmmm. Maybe it’s because the Diocese of the South has been vacant since early in 2009? I can almost imagine the Church Lady writing that last paragraph.

It’s likely superfluous to note this, but when one’s entire worldview is (apparently) predicated on the notion that the entire OCA administration,the entire Holy Synod, and (at a minimum) a solid majority of the Metropolitan Council is out to “get” Your Guy, maybe it’s time to step back, take a deep breath, say “Lord, Have Mercy” a dozen times with prostrations, and reflect on the significance of the word “paranoia.”

Here’s some mood music to help (unfortunately, Sony might insist you watch it on YouTube):

Like many others, I have watched the tumult within the Orthodox Church in America’s Holy Synod unfold over the course of the past month. Also like many others, I have no secret information, or access to the deliberations of the Holy Synod or Metropolitan Council.(*) What has come to concern me most in this affair is the remarkable lack of simple charity.

The sequence of events is well-documented elsewhere, so I won’t rehash them. What I will say is that the following all represent the least amount of charity:

• Interpreting the decisions by the Holy Synod in Santa Fe as giving Metropolitan Jonah the “’Bishop Nikolai’ treatment,” as retired Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) of the West put it.
• Interpreting the alleged “smoking gun” email from Mark Stokoe as evidence of a coup, rather than as a heated and hasty response to a “What is going ON?!” email from another Metropolitan Council member. (And what is the source of the information that “four of the recipients of this e-mail were bishops”? +Tikhon (Fitzgerald) certainly didn’t mention that.)
• Regarding the minutes of the Holy Synod’s Santa Fe meeting as deceptive.
• Understanding the motives of the bishops on the Holy Synod as other than what they claim to be, absent other evidence.

If those are least charitable interpretations, it’s downright malicious to suggest, repeatedly, that the Holy Synod desires to depose—as in “to remove from clerical rank”—Metropolitan Jonah. It’s malicious because it gives cause for alarm without any support whatsoever. The only place this suggestion has appeared, that I can find, is OCATruth.com (see this, for example). I suspect that if we know which of the anonymous cowards first introduced this term into the discussion, we will know who is really behind the tumult.

Worse still are the accusations of active homosexuality by Mark Stokoe and of tolerance of (or support for) it by his priest, Fr. Ted Bobosh. If there’s clear evidence of the former, please send it to Bishop Tikhon (Mollard) of South Canaan, PA, the locum tenens of Mark Stokoe’s diocese. (Charity, not to mention Matthew 18:15, would have you contacting Mark directly about it first.) “Clear evidence” does not include an obituary and an address, nor does it include an accusation seen on another website. Repetition adds nothing to the truth.

This is a leadership blog, not a news blog, nor a “defend someone’s side” blog, which is why I’m not slogging through every point like a lawyer. Other people are doing that. However, a dear friend, early on in this particular scandal, gave me pastoral advice to avoid having a “suspicious mind” (which makes me think of Elvis, but I digress). The suspicious minds at this point are those attributing evil motives to the Holy Synod, Metropolitan Council, and all those who are rightly concerned about Metropolitan Jonah’s actions since his enthronement as primate. The suspicious minds are the ones suggesting actions (e.g., deposition, or forced retirement) that no one is talking about. The suspicious minds are the ones framing this as a “culture war” between liberal/pro-gay/pro-abortion Orthodox from the Northeast and Midwest and conservative/anti-gay/pro-life Orthodox from the South and West.

We would all benefit from recognizing that the bishops on the Holy Synod today, in 2011, have almost nothing in common with the Holy Synod of even three years ago. Each of them received (and, it is hoped, continues to receive) the gifts of the Holy Spirit in the cheirotonia of his office, in no less fashion than Metropolitan Jonah. Contrary to some commentators, His Beatitude is not the only “real” monk among them.

The Holy Synod is clearly concerned about more than leadership style. I can’t believe they care about whether he prefers the telephone to email, or top-down versus bottom-up management. I do think they are concerned about specific acts and failures to act that have only increased scandal, legal exposure, financial liability, and doubts about the future of the OCA. A little bit of charity in understanding their motives and situation and a lot less malice in presenting them would go a long way toward seeing us through our current plight.

(*) In the interest of full disclosure, I’ll note that I work closely with Archpriest John Reeves, a member of the Metropolitan Council, as I am his assistant rector. However, he never breaches confidentiality.

Sadly, though, this legislation is not purely about political matters, for it has provisions for using taxes gathered from individuals, including Christians, to pay for elective abortions in all or part (c.f., here and here). Despite the scandalously equivocal language used by the Ecumenical Patriarch in discussing abortion (c.f., here, here, here, and here),  the Church’s teaching cannot be misunderstood. As a best example, consider St. Basil the Great (AD 330-379), who says absolutely nothing new: “Women also who administer drugs to cause abortion, as well as those who take poisons to destroy unborn children, are murderesses” (Letter 188). Children in the womb are human beings, and their willful destruction is murder. So what about all those who will now find themselves accessories to the crime through the new legal requirement to fund abortion?

In the face of this legislation, this question, and the evil that is elective abortion, the silence from our Orthodox leaders is deafening. Goarch.org? Oca.org? Antiochian.org? ROCOR? The Serbian Church in America? SCOBA? Nothing. We are justified in wailing with grief over more than 250,000 dead in Haiti, yet over 1.2 million elective abortions are performed each year in the United States alone. All is now set to begin funding them with tax dollars, and no official word of protest or exhortation is to be found.

Worse, at least one professor at Holy Cross Seminary is reportedly elated at the passing of this legislation, and I am nearly certain he has company among the faculty at St. Vladimir’s. Is it any wonder, then, that our parishes have so many individuals – often lifelong Orthodox Christians – who think abortion is no big deal? Is it any wonder that many of our parish clergy are indifferent to (if not supportive of) abortion? If the shepherds won’t wield their staves to drive away wolves wearing power suits and lab coats, aided by the Internal Revenue Service, who will? If they won’t, who can reasonably be expected to?

To those bishops (especially those whom I have overlooked) and my brethren who are speaking against the wanton destruction of these little ones by means of tax subsidies in the name of health care, I thank you and pray that your efforts would yield much fruit by strengthening and encouraging the Orthodox faithful to stand firm. To the others, the bigger lambs need someone to feed them (Jn 21:14-19), and the littlest ones need someone to speak in their defense. Who will do it?

[Edited 3/23/10, 4:20pm EDT, to fix a sentence.]