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?

I see the most recent post on another site ostensibly devoted to truth reads as follows (formatting as in the original):

Sadly, there is a “need to print,” and that’s why we’re printing this. The Synod has got to wake up and understand what it is doing to the Church. It sat around for years and did nothing about Met. Theodosius’s abuse of office. It did nothing but wring its hands over Met. Herman following in that tradition. When we finally got a primate who was uncorrupt and visionary, though one who needs help mastering the finer points of administration, oh, that’s when they suddenly got vigilant — and now are willing to risk tearing the Church apart to have their way.

The following table shows ordination dates  of the current members of the OCA’s Holy Synod, along with the dates of their enthronement as ruling (i.e., diocesan, not auxiliary) bishops and, as a result, full members of the Holy Synod. (Dates taken from biographies at oca.org and diocesan web sites; this really should be in one place.)

Metropolitan Theodosius served a primate from October 1977 until July 2002, with Metropolitan (then-Archbishop) Herman serving as administrator from September 2001 until September 2002 (during Metropolitan Theodosius’s medical leave of absence and subsequent vacancy of the Metropolitan’s see), and then as primate from September 2002 until his retirement in September 2008.

So, of all the hierarchs currently comprising the Holy Synod, exactly one of them, Archbishop Nathaniel, was on the Holy Synod during Metropolitan Theodosius’s service as primate. Five of the current members of the Holy Synod served there during Metropolitan Herman’s leadership. However, in their case every one of them with the exception of Archbishop Nathaniel were junior members of the Synod, having been enthroned as ruling hierarchs after Metropolitan Herman became primate. In addition to these five, the other diocesan hierarchs on Herman’s Synod included Archbishop Kyrill (Yonchev) of Toledo and Pittsburgh (now departed), Archbishop Dmitri of Dallas (now retired), Archbishop Peter of New York (now departed), Archbishop Seraphim (Storheim) of Ottawa (now suspended), Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) of San Francisco and Los Angeles (now retired), Archbishop Job of Chicago (now departed), and Bishop Nikolai of Sitka (now retired). [UPDATED 8:50pm: Added Archbishops Kyrill and Peter to the list of hierarchs. I regret the omission.]

Apart from Bishop Nikolai, those other bishops had significantly more episcopal experience than the four junior bishops. The political escapades and machinations of Bishops Tikhon (Fitzgerald) and Nikolai are now well-documented. Some questions still remain concerning Archbishop Seraphim’s role in the past scandals. Robert Kondratick’s actions and influence on the Holy Synod, Metropolitan Council, and OCA administrative staff are well known from the report of the OCA Special Investigative Committee (to be uploaded here ASAP; I can’t find it at oca.org at present). Archbishop Job of blessed memory was the only senior hierarch willing to pursue an investigation of the corruption going on at the time.

However, I need to return to the the Ninth Commandment. The quote above says The Holy Synod “sat around for years and did nothing about Met. Theodosius’s abuse of office. It did nothing but wring its hands over Met. Herman following in that tradition.” In terms of Metropolitan Theodosius, it cannot be true for seven of the eight current members of the Holy Synod (including Metropolitan Jonah). With Metropolitan Herman, it cannot be true for three of the eight current members of the Holy Synod, including Bishop Melchisedek, who is repeatedly accused of conspiring against Metropolitan Jonah. And, four of those five bishops that served on the Synod during Metropolitan Herman’s primacy were clearly dominated by those senior bishops who are no longer present.

Accusing the entire current Holy Synod of looking the other way and general hand-wringing with previous metropolitans is just plain false. The Holy Synod in April 2011 is very, very different from the Holy Synod of even 2005. Seven of its eight members have under eight years of service as diocesan bishops, six of its eight members have under six years of service. Four of them (half!), including the Metropolitan, have under three years of service as diocesan bishops.

Thus, the accusation that the Holy Synod is “willing to risk tearing the Church apart” in response to the Metropolitan’s being “uncorrupt and visionary” and his lack of administration skills is just plain false. Half the members of the Holy Synod have similar administrative experience, and three-quarters don’t have much more. The repeated assertion of this as some kind of self-evident axiom is a form of false witness by suggesting that the rest of the Holy Synod is acting only when their (corrupt) interests are threatened.

Leading (even as primate) means casting a vision, not imposing one. If the Holy Synod is balking at the latter, or, more likely, having great difficulty reconciling the stated vision with His Beatitude’s actions and inactions, it’s worth hearing them out. What was being handled as an affair internal to the Holy Synod has now been turned into a circus of suspicion and accusation. One must also ask what real vision is being presented and pursued by His Beatitude? A pro-life Orthodoxy? His predecessors and brethren have both articulated this (and His Beatitude was strangely silent a year ago). An evangelical Orthodoxy? The Metropolitan is not the only one pursuing that. (For example, Bishop Melchisedek has begun a pilot of Natural Church Development in four parishes in his diocese, and I serve a new outreach with his blessing.) An Orthodoxy with pious, monastic bishops? His Beatitude isn’t the only one. What else?

This entry isn’t intended to be critical of His Beatitude, but rather to call the Metropolitan’s supporters, particularly the Anonymous Cowards, to accountability. Accusing bishops of actions they could not have taken is, well, …what would you call it?