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?

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.