“Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them,

and they that are great exercise authority upon them.

But it shall not be so among you:

but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;

And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:

Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto,

but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.” (Matthew 20:25-28, KJV)


The word the Athenians used for their Assembly was Ekklesia, the same word used in the New Testament for Church
(and it is the greatest philological irony in all of Western history that this word,
which connoted equal participation in all deliberation by all members,
came to designate a kind of self-perpetuating, self-protective Spartan gerousia -
which would have seemed patent nonsense to Greek-speaking Christians of New Testament times,
who believed themselves to be equal members of their Assembly.)

- Thomas Cahill, Sailing the Wine-Dark Sea: Why the Greeks Matter




ΦΙΛΟΤΙΜΟ: THE GREEK SECRET


Thursday, May 24, 2007

Let's Go To The Video Tape...

In case you didn't know, the General Assembly of May 21 was video taped. If you were one of the many who spoke that evening, your words are forever memorialized on tape. Now there isn't anything wrong with a meeting being either video or audio taped. It can certainly add to accuracy when our memories fail or insure that action is taken on items discussed.

It would have certainly been helpful though, had the gathering been told there was a video camera in the room taping the proceedings. It just seems fair and proper to make such an announcement informing those present not only that taping would take place but also the purpose of the taping. Instead, those in attendance who did not know that the meeting was taped are left in the dark and those who saw the taping take place are left to draw their own conclusions as to why.

Consequently conspiracy theories run amok: "It's so the Metropolitan can see what we are doing..." "They want to know who the troublemakers are..." "They are trying to see who else they can excommunicate..." "What are they going to do with the tape?" A simple explanation at the beginning of the meeting letting the assembly know would have gone a long way. Then again, secrecy and clandestine behavior have been the standard so why would anyone expect any kind of courtesy? "Send your stewardship, shut your mouths and don't ask questions, we've got everything under control." How much longer do we sit back and take it?

Wednesday, May 9, 2007

A Brief History for Those Who Would Split Our Community, cont'd....

It is quite CLEAR in the letter imaged in this post, taken in conjunction with the document in our previous post, that our Bishop, now Metropolitan, clearly understood the nature of character of this Greek Orthodox community and ACKNOWLEDGED it in his letter to then-Proistamenos, Fr. John Kaloudis.

A Brief History for Those Who Would Split Our Community...

It was made known to TOCB recently that certain parishioners are actively exploring the possibility of breaking up the Greek Orthodox community in Salt Lake City by attempting to make Prophet Elias its own entity under its own board. To these folks we would like to provide a couple of documents that clearly explain the unquestionable and UNANIMOUS intent of our parents and grandparents when they built Prophet Elias. For those of us who have the names of our parents and grandparents on the windows and cornerstones of the church, this is not negotiable. In the unforgetable words of the Greeks in World War II - OXI!



Monday, May 7, 2007

Does the Proistameno Need to Control Us ?

For the last few months we have been treated to the following bromide in the weekly Sunday bulletin, aka “The Word.”

“Fr. Michael and Fr. Matthew are the only two Clergy who are assigned to the Parish to care for the Spiritual Need of the Parishioners.”
As you all know English is not my native language, so I apologize if I am misreading the emphasis of the bold language above. The Proistameno is correct in saying that “Fr. Michael and Fr. Matthew are the only two Clergy who are assigned [emphasis added] to the Parish .... .” The Proistameno is wrong though to dictate that the two assigned priests are the only priests who can minister to and/or “care for the Spiritual Needs of the Parishioners.” The parishioner who requests spiritual solace and guidance has the right to feel comfortable with the right clergyman of his or her own choice.

The edict that only the two assigned priests can “care for the Spiritual Needs of the Parishioners” is ill-timed, illogical, and divisive. It is not supported by any Canon of our Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. It is not supported by any religious writing of any of the Fathers of our Church. We do not know if it is espoused or supported by the Metropolitan of this Metropolis or by the Archdiocese.

The Proistameno’s arrogance in thinking that the mere fact of his “assignment” to this community by the Metropolitan, invests him with an emperor’s robes is not consistent with principles of humility. Other faiths promote infallibility. Our faith does not. Our clergy wears liturgical vestments and not imperial robes.

What of the four other priests that we presently have in this community? Why are the four other clergy NOT allowed to “care for the Spiritual Needs of the Parishioners?” Why are the parishioners prevented and deprived from an opportunity to have their spiritual needs met by any other duly ordained clergyman? Why are the parishioners discouraged from developing relationships with other duly ordained clergymen in our community? Why do the parishioners of our community need to be dictated to by the Proistameno as to who their spiritual father ought to be? This is a highly personal matter. WHY?

The prohibition does not even make sense when viewed within the framework of the actual practice allowed by this Proistameno. Why then, whenever any one of the below listed clergymen is serving in Church on any given Sunday, is he allowed to offer Communion? And yet, this same clergyman is otherwise prohibited by this same Proistameno “to care for the [other] Spiritual Needs of the Parishioners.” Does this make sense?

Why, prior to this Proistameno’s arrival in our community were all Orthodox Clergyman allowed to “care for the Spiritual Needs of the parishioners?” New Rules? WHY? What changed? What made other spiritual needs besides those administered in church now restricted acts that must fall under the purview of this Proistameno?

For some time now, our community has been fortunate to have available to it four additional clergymen.

Fr. George Politis has been ministering to the parishioners’ spiritual needs for well over 35 years during the most critical times of our community’s existence. Why is he not capable any longer to care for a parishioner’s spiritual needs if asked? Why is he now being pushed aside by this Proistameno? A lot of us have built relationships of trust, confidence, and love with Father George during the last 40 years. Fr. George has ministered and helped innumerable parishioners with issues that faced them. He offered the Sacraments to parishioners according to their needs. Father George has been instrumental in serving, and thus saving, the Greek School program during the period that he served in this community. He has served this community with distinction, humility, and faith. Fr. George is a most cherished clergyman in this community. How does a newcomer decide that Fr. George may not help with the Spiritual Needs of this community? And WHY?

Fr. Makarios also grew up in the community and has been ministering to the community's spiritual needs ever since he came back from his monastic life. Why is he not capable any longer to care for our parishioners’ spiritual needs? WHY is he now being pushed aside by this Proistameno?

Fr. Koucos grew up in this community and has been ministering to our community ever since his ordination. The Metropolitan sends him to other communities to minister for God. He takes care of other parishes’ spiritual needs. Why is he not capable to care for our parishioners’ spiritual needs? WHY is he now being pushed aside by this Proistameno?

Fr. Mario Giannopoulos also grew up in Salt Lake City and has been currently residing in our Parish. Why can he not minister to our parishioners' spiritual needs if asked? WHY is he being pushed aside by this Proistameno?

During this Proistameno’s frequent absences from our Parish, he calls upon the above-named clergy often to “care for the Spiritual Needs of the Parishioners.” Are they only capable “to care of our Spiritual Needs” when a parishioner seeks spiritual solace from one of them specifically, but only when the Proistameno is not in town? WHY does this Proistameno think that these clergymen may not minister to parishioners’ spiritual needs, except only as he sees fit? It just does not make any sense, does it?

What if a parishioner were to ask one of the "non-assigned" clergy to care for his or her spiritual needs? Does this parishioner then commit a sin? Is the parishioner who so acts subject to sanctions? Is the clergyman subject to sanctions? Is the Proistameno’s edict sanctioned by the Metropolitan? Is the Proistameno’s edict provided for under Canon Law?

Why does the Proistameno feel that he needs to be so deeply in control? We do not need a policy that promotes control to this degree. We do not need a policy that fosters fear. We do not need policies that are antithetical to good common sense. The Proistameno should rethink his announced policy and rescind it. If he chooses not to do so, perhaps he should seek another community that wants to take advantage of his many talents.

This community deserves humble priests who WANT to promote good will and who will work cooperatively with all parishioners and clergy. This community needs a bridge builder, a unifying force, as its Proistameno, and not a divider.

If you feel as I do, or if you have other thoughts on the subject, I invite you to submit your thoughts on the comment link below this article.

Thank you.

Nick Colessides

Tuesday, May 1, 2007

An Open Letter to the Greek Orthodox Church of Greater Salt Lake Parishioners

Dear Fellow Parishioners,

I am the Parish Council member whom the Proistamenos recommended to be removed from the Parish Council of the Greek Orthodox Church of Greater Salt Lake.

I received my dismissal letter (dated February 28, 2007) from the Metropolitan on Monday March 5, 2007, via overnight courier. The Proistamenos reported from the pulpit on Sunday March 11, 2007, that the matter of my removal was "between the board member and the Metropolitan." In the interest of full disclosure and fairness the Proistamenos should have informed the Parishioners, and the member being removed, that the Proistameno initiated the removal proceedings. He did not, ... Why? Was it a lapse of memory?

We do not know if the Proistamenos followed the dictates of the applicable UPRs! We do not know if this Proistamenos wrote a letter as per Chapter 2, Article 24, Section 5B of the UPRs!

Did this Proistamenos make a recommendation to the Metropolitan in writing?

What is the date of the written recommendation?

Which of the 5 reasons stated in the UPRs was used by the Proistamenos, in making his recommendations for my dismissal?

Is it fair that the Proistameno did not make the removal recommendation letter available to me, the person whom he was recommending to be removed?

The Metropolitan acting on the Proistamenos' recommendation pronounced me as having exhibited un-Christian behavior. The Metropolitan imposed temporal and ecclesiastical sanctions. Without a hearing.

Is it fair that no hearing was given to me prior to my removal from the Parish Council?

Is it fair that the removal recommendation letter was not made available to the entire Parish?

If the Parishioners, through the election process voted me in, are they not entitled to know the content of the removal recommendation letter?

Transparency and fairness demand that this Proistameno come clean on all of these questions.

I am in total agreement with the author of the article "How to Get Removed From The Parish Council" posted earlier today on this blog.

Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the article cited above are very critical to the thought processes.

We cannot afford to have the voice of the Parishioners extinguished because of this Proistamenos’ erratic thinking. He appears to be acting contrary to the best interests of the Parish to which he was assigned. This Parish’s Proistameno must be a unifying force at all times. Our Parish’s survival dictates it. Our Parish’s survival demands it.

This Proistamenos believes that he can govern with fear. Governance by fear and retribution is not consistent with Christian love. Governance by fear has no place in our 102 year-old Parish.

This Parish needs a Proistameno who can minister to the needs of the entire Parish. Being selective is a non sequitur. All of the Parishioners attending church services at either Holy Trinity or Prophet Elias have the same or similar needs. This Parish does not need an isolationist Proistameno. This Parish needs governance with God's love and reason. This Parish needs a Proistameno who is committed to minister to the Parish’s Christian needs. This Parish needs a Proistameno who can initiate and implement programs to attract and keep within our Orthodox faith, all of our people; and, especially our young people aged 19 through 35.

This Parish does not need to be scared into obedience. This Parish must be motivated by the Proistameno, by his willingness to listen; by his capacity to love; and his ability to act for the betterment of the entire community. This Parish does not need a Proistameno who is punitive. Christ is not punitive. This Parish needs a Proistameno whose only motive is Christian love; who acts with honesty, fairness, and integrity; who is fully transparent for the public good. A Proistameno who is capable of ministering to the entire Parish without equivocation or reservation.

This issue is not about me. This issue is about whom do we have as a Proistameno. What did the Proistameno do to unite this Parish? What can the Proistameno do to unite this Parish? What does this Proistameno do, so that he can be in tune with the needs of the Parish? Is this Proistameno willing to expend the time and effort to heal and improve his relationship with all of the parishioners of this Parish? Only he can provide us with the answer!

Best regards to everybody for a great Protomayia.

Nick J. Colessides

How To Get Removed From The Parish Council

Recently a member of the parish council of the Holy Trinity Church in Dallas was removed from office for "violating his affirmation of office" which, coincidentally was the same charge levied against a member of our own parish council causing his ouster. It would appear on the surface that the responsibility of removing parish council members rests solely with the Metropolitan of each respective Metropolis. Taking a closer look, we can clearly see that the Metropolitan plays a key role but certainly does not act alone.

The Uniform Parish Regulations, or UPR's as they are commonly referred to and frequently quoted when it suits the needs of a particular side, disseminate the process of how one goes about getting oneself removed from a parish council. Chapter 2, Article 24, Section 5A of the 2005 edition we find: "Removal from the Parish Council shall be considered when a member: (1) is not or has ceased to be loyal to the doctrines, canons, worship, disciplines, customs or practices of the Church (2) is in violation of these Regulations or Hierarchical Encyclicals of the Archdiocese (3) does not recognize the duly constituted ecclesiastical authorities of the Metropolis or Archdiocese (4) is guilty of a serious moral transgression or (5) has violated his or her affirmation of office." Should one decide to run for the parish council, be elected and strive to get themselves removed, these are the five ways one can accomplish that goal.

Should a member of the parish council succeed at meeting one of these five requirements, how does the Metropolitan come to the conclusion that removal is necessary? These same UPR's answer that question in Chapter 2, Article 24, Section 5B: "In the event that the Priest believes that the removal of a Parish Council member is required for one of the reasons required in subsections (1) one through (5) listed above, the Priest shall submit his recommendation, in writing, for the removal of the member to the respective Hierarch."

The process listed above is how our Archdiocese has directed its parishes to conduct matters regarding the removal of members of Parish Councils. In the case of the removal of a member of our Parish Council, it would stand to reason that the Metropolitan had help in making his decision. It appears that, if a member of the Parish Council of our community chooses to think for themselves and their thinking isn't in line with the wishes of the Priest their tenure will be short lived. The 'if you don't agree with me, I will see that you get fired' mentality that exists here leaves much to be desired.

Instead of working together for the betterment of our church in this community we have a situation where 'I am in charge and you are here to assist me' rules. There are no common goals and there is no common agenda for the betterment of the community and its members. The Metropolitan makes the final decision but not without the help of the Priest he has assigned. The voice of the people is extinguished and the business as usual thinking reigns.

Our situation here, as well as the situation in Dallas, could have been handled by sitting down with those who have allegedly "violated their affirmation of office" and discussing the issues at hand. It seems that as reasonable adults any discrepancies could have been ironed out for the betterment of the church and those elected by the people could continue to do the people's work. Instead, we make an example of one to keep the others in line.

The Metropolitan made the final decision but he did have help along the way.

Saturday, April 21, 2007

Where Have All the Leaders Gone?

Lee Iacocca recently wrote a book entitled Where Have All the Leaders Gone?. In his book he describes the true characteristics of leaders and leadership. In reading some passages from the book, I found some interesting parallels between the events taking place currently in our Greek Orthodox community in Salt Lake City within the larger issues Mr. Iacocca addresses.

Mr. Iacocca is eloquent in describing the characteristics of leadership in great detail. I would like to offer a synopsis of these. He calls these characteristics the "Nine Cs of Leadership." They are clear, obvious qualities that every true leader ought to exemplify. Here is Mr. Iacocca’s “C” list of Nine, along with some thoughts on how they might relate to some of the issues in our community:

A leader has to show CURIOSITY. He has to listen to people outside of the "Yes, sir" crowd in his inner circle. … If a leader never steps outside his comfort zone to hear different ideas, he grows stale. If he doesn't put his beliefs to the test, how does he know he's right? The inability to listen is a form of arrogance. …

Our leadership seems quite content to cling to the status quo, to be afraid to step out of the box, terrified of upsetting the apple cart, and afraid to ‘go out on a limb’. All too many of them are content to hide behind the screed “we are a hierarchical church”. This phrase ends the discussion for them. This is not leadership. If this is really true, then they are not needed at all. Let the clergy make the decisions. Let them govern as they will. If our elected council members are content to be but ministers to a clerical hierarchy, and not to stand up for the wishes of their constituents, then why have parish council elections at all? Let the clergy appoint its minions and forget the pretense of a having a representative body.

A leader has to be CREATIVE, go out on a limb, be willing to try something different…think outside the box. …

When leading members of our community formulate a highly workable, highly creative plan to better our community, a plan that will ensure that badly needed repairs, maintenance and upgrades will be made and paid for, a plan that will provide for new avenues with which to generate revenues, a plan that 72% of those present at the special general assembly supported, our leadership decided to acquiesce to the veto by the Archdiocese who claimed the plan violated “the spirit” of the Uniform Parish Regulations. That kind of “creativity” we don’t need!

A leader has to COMMUNICATE. I'm not talking about running off at the mouth or spouting sound bites. I'm talking about facing reality and telling the truth. … Communication has to start with telling the truth, even when it's painful. …

Our hierarchs have, sadly, failed in this category over and over again. Whether it is covering up sexual improprieties, transferring priests with known problems to other unsuspecting communities, or simply saying one thing, doing another, communication of the sort that Mr. Iacocca is describing has been sorely lacking.

A leader has to be a person of CHARACTER. That means knowing the difference between right and wrong and having the guts to do the right thing. Abraham Lincoln once said, "If you want to test a man's character, give him power." …

Lord Acton said it best, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” A strong laity is a much needed check to curb excesses from an unfettered hierarchy, just as a strong clergy ought to provide a clear, consistent moral compass to the laity. Each has its role to play. One ought not totally dominate the other. Each needs to “have the guts to do the right thing” no matter the consequences.

A leader must have COURAGE…. Tough talk isn't courage. Courage is a commitment to sit down at the negotiating table and talk. If you're a politician, courage means taking a position even when there is a cost.

Our leaders say one thing in their public appearances and refrain from answering the hard questions. Those who dare ask these questions are threatened with excommunication. When the clergy can remove OUR elected member off a board, because he pointed out inconsistencies and dared to ask the tough questions, we ALL have a problem. When our board is cowed by the threat of removal, and by the threat of excommunication, I submit that the system is deeply flawed, and/or, that we have elected the wrong people. I’m convinced that no one, clergyman or not, would have gotten away with treating our grandparents or parents in this manner when they were the community’s leaders.

To be a leader you've got to have CONVICTION, a fire in your belly. You've got to have passion. You've got to really want to get something done.

I will grant that those who serve in the clergy and those who serve on the Parish Council have this trait. I do not believe that anyone is doing this work without having conviction. I submit that what is not being demonstrated is the courage of those convictions, even if it means displeasing those ostensibly in power. It means standing up for what is right, rather than what is easy.

A leader should have CHARISMA. I'm not talking about being flashy. Charisma is the quality that makes people want to follow you. It's the ability to inspire. People follow a leader because they trust him.

Who wants to follow leadership that dismisses the will of 72% of an assembled gathering’s expressed wishes? What kind of leadership thwarts the will of its constituency? Charisma comes from the Greek word “charis” (grace). Is it gracious to find “alternative” solutions, i.e., a “violation of the spirit” of the UPR when one’s viewpoint is clearly in the minority? Is it gracious to boot off a board member because he points out the duplicitous nature of the “alternative” solution? Is it gracious to attempt to cow your flock by threatening any dissent with excommunication?

A leader has to be COMPETENT. That seems obvious, doesn't it? You've got to know what you're doing. More important than that, you've got to surround yourself with people who know what they're doing, and you defer to their expertise to complement your own.

It is difficult to live up to this leadership component when the hierarchy and clergy seem to be more interested in wielding a draconian power, rather than in competent church governance. Parish councils are comprised mostly of educators, business and professional persons, who ought to complement the clergy’s work in spiritual matters by handling the more secular duties of daily operations, along with the church’s growth and outreach programs. This is the system that used to be in place. It did not always work perfectly; nothing does in this imperfect world. But it was a just, reasonable and practical division of expertise and function that led to reasonable and competent governance.

You can't be a leader if you don't have COMMON SENSE.

Common sense dictates that in addition to a deep yearning for the spiritual, human beings respond favorably to governance that is reasonable, fair and just. Common sense dictates that leveraging your assets in the most efficient way will provide better facilities and revenues for more opportunities. Common sense further dictates that people do not like being threatened, and do not respond well to a system of “pay, pray and obey”.

The Biggest C is CRISIS. Leaders are made, not born. Leadership is forged in times of crisis.

We clearly have a crisis in our church. Our clergy is displaying an unprecedented contempt for its flock when it resorts to threats, expulsions and excommunication. The Body and Blood of the Savior should NOT be used as a weapon. That it is being used as such is not only appalling, it is tragic. It is outrageous, but more, it is sad – sad that our clergy have sunk so low, sad that our leadership does not stand to a man and say, “whatever our differences, this is NOT acceptable.”

And, with all due respect to Mr. Iacocca, I would like to add my two “C’s” worth. Let’s add to this list that leaders should be CONSISTENT and COMPASSIONATE.

Archbishop Isaiah recently sent out a letter and asked that we, Greek Orthodox Christians, embrace compassion and forgive a heretofore respected clergyman of many years who, it was discovered, had engaged in acts of pedophilia with an altar boy. We are asked to look past the victim’s enduring pain, past our revulsion at the act, past our fears for our children, grandchildren, godchildren, nieces, nephews, the children of our friends, and to show COMPASSION.

Yet I ask, not only in the name of COMPASSION, but for the sake of CONSISTENCY, where is the same compassion, where is the consistency in our hierarch’s actions toward our fellow parishioner who, for reasons that are trifling in comparison to those of the clergyman, was removed from the Parish Council and was excommunicated for five years, including being denied the right to Orthodox Christian burial? At the same time, the hierarchy will not defrock this clergyman so that when he dies, he will be buried with the full honors due a priest.

Mr. Iacocca asks: "Where have all the leaders gone? Where are the curious, creative communicators? Where are the people of character, courage, conviction, competence, and common sense?” To which I would add, where are the charismatic, compassionate, consistent and, yet another “C”, Christian ones?

- Barbara Billinis Colessides

Disseminating Information - The Church Family

Much has been said of late regarding the dissemination of information to parishioners. Letters have been received from the"higher ups" regarding the several issues being discussed by members of our parish. Most of the referenced letters from the "higher ups" have not been made public to the parish at large but have been reserved for the eyes of those we elected as our voice. To be fair, some letters from the "higher ups" have been published for the parish at large to read and be informed.

Just as keeping secrets within our personal families erodes trust, so does keeping secrets within our church family. Half truths and innuendo take the place of factual information and division takes the place of unity. How could we possibly move forward as a parish if we are all moving in different directions having only partial information available? Why would we want to keep valuable information from each other if we are all working toward the same goal? Could it be that we are not all working toward the same goal?

The only way we can all be on the same page is if we all have the same information. Not just some of the information available but ALL the information available. Transparency and dissemination of information are essential elements to the health and well being of our parish. Secrecy and clandestine behavior only cause confusion and breed division. Let's publish all correspondence from the "higher ups" so we can all have the same information and discuss the issues openly as a church family.

Where the Mind Is Without Fear...

Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high;
Where knowledge is free;Where the world has not been broken up into fragments by narrow domestic walls;
Where words come out from the depth of truth;
Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection;
Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way into the dreary desert sand of dead habit;
Where the mind is led forward by thee into ever-widening thought and action;
Into that heaven of freedom, my Father, let my country awake.
Rabindranath Tagore– 1913

To that last line, and with all due respect to a Nobel Prize-winning poet, I would add “let my country and my church awake.”

When did it happen, and where is it written, that we Greek Orthodox MUST now suspend logic and reason at the entrance of the narthex when we enter our churches? When did discourse become sin? When did our priests suddenly become all-knowing, all-wise and all-powerful, entitled to treat their flocks as callow children in need of a “father’s” discipline and stricture, without any question of his actions? When did it become dogma that our elected representatives work FOR the priest, and not WITH him, for the good of the community? No one is questioning the priests on ecclesiastical issues, but they, like the rest of us, are certainly not infallible, and most especially in the non-ecclesiastical realm.

“Because I said so, that’s why…” is a phrase that is demonstrably ineffective in good child-rearing; it certainly does not belong in the sphere of mature adult relationships. When did we all start getting browbeaten into the notion that to question the priest or the bishop jeopardizes our standing in our Church? When and why did we jump BACKWARD more than three centuries? Does the example of Galileo, condemned as a heretic because he asserted that the earth revolved around the sun (contrary to Biblical teaching, but something the ancient Greeks knew), not come to mind? Why are our clerics resorting to such tactics at a critical time in our history where a strong, open and transparent Church has so vital a role to play in our moral, physical, emotional and spiritual health in this century?

I recently sent our elected representatives a query – one that has been clearly treated as a “rhetorical question.” I assuredly did not intend that the question be merely rhetorical. It is a question that deserves serious thought by every Greek Orthodox adherent and an honest and reflective answer by the clergy and hierarchy. The current thinking among the hierarchy of this church condones a glaring double standard. This mindset is quick to condemn and excommunicate a layperson for relatively trifling offenses (that might have been resolved with open communication and an admonition). At the same time it allows a cleric, whom the hierarchy itself ACKNOWLEDGES as having committed sexual offenses with CHILDREN, to remain a priest, albeit inactive, and to be buried in the church upon his demise with the full honors due a clergyman. That this discrepancy is not addressed is nothing short of outrageous. It is but a further manifestation of an ongoing, ever-growing clerical and hierarchical arrogance, with the complicity of a cowed laity, fearful of a hierarchy that wields the withholding of the Church’s sacraments – including the right to be buried in the Church – as a highly effective weapon, a weapon wielded, apparently, only against the laity, but not against the clergy, no matter the offense.

I’m further perplexed by the recent communications that were sent out. Apparently, our Parish Council president, a peer and contemporary whom I know, like and respect, objects to e-mails being used as a format for discussion of these issues. He contends he doesn’t like e-mails for “reasons of efficiency and confidentiality”. Along with this mindset, reports have circulated that Parish Council members have been asked to sign confidentiality agreements. I certainly hope that this has not occurred, or if it has, then my question is WHAT among all the things going on in this community, particularly with regard to these recent issues, NEEDS to be kept CONFIDENTIAL? Why the secrecy, gentlemen?

I can understand that in some business activities confidentiality is at times necessary and vital. What does it have to do with what we are trying to accomplish for our church and community? What, in this entire process, has needed to be CONFIDENTIAL? I submit that “confidentiality” is quickly becoming a big part of our problem. The community spoke loudly and clearly; it was the clergy and certain members who did not care for the outcome of that vote who acted in secrecy and who subverted the process in concert with the clergy, who saw that outcome as a threat to their complete domination and control over all aspects of the community.

I can understand part of the assertion, and would agree, that face-to-face communication is almost always preferable, but it isn’t always practical. I disagree with the assertion that e-mail isn’t efficient. To the contrary, the problem may be that it is perhaps too efficient in that it easily distributes a variety of opinions and thought to a wider audience in the face of numerous inconsistencies and injustices. That might get people to start thinking and REASONING independently. Seemingly that has now become a virtue that good Christians are no longer encouraged to practice.

- Barbara Billinis Colessides

The Root of Our Problems

The years following the "resignation" of the late Archbishop Iakovos, Archbishop of North and South America, who was essentially fired by his godson, the Patriarch Bartholomew, will not and should not be remembered kindly. Following this departure of a strong and widely influential leader, who had the ear of numerous Presidents, and other influential politicians, our Patriarch sent Archbishop Spyridon, a native son, to be leader of the Archdiocese that now only consisted of the United States.

It should have been an excellent appointment. But Spyridon for all his talents, a fluent speaker in multiple languages, proved to be a highly divisive leader who quickly managed to make enemies everywhere, among both clergy and laity, Greek and non-Greek speaking faithful. With the recommendation of the regional diocesan bishops to an initially reluctant Patriarch, he was finally reassigned. The bishops were then elevated as Metropolitans, Archbishops in their own regions. The Archdiocese of the United States, ostensibly under the leadership of newly appointed Archbishop Demetrios, was thus further divided and decentralized.

The consequences for the laity under this new arrangement were drastic. Along with the initial division of the former Archdiocese of North and South America, into Canada, the U.S. and Latin America, Patriarch Bartholomew, conscious of efforts by the faithful at greater autonomy, or autocephaly, or a union of all Orthodox in the United States, practiced the classic tactic of "divide and conquer". Although Demetrios was named Archbishop over all the U.S., by naming the bishops as Metropolitans and assigning them as Archbishops over their respective regional archdioceses, he watered down Demetrios' potential influence and strength and provided the Metropolitians their own de facto fiefdoms over which to rule, further dividing Greek Orthodoxy in the United States.

As if these divisions weren't disastrous enough, our Patriarch gave the faithful in this country a new charter, ratified by the Clergy-Laity Congress where dissenting voices were ignored or stifled. New Uniform Parish Regulations were imposed, with stiff penalties for those communities not paying their "fair share" of monies and unquestioning obeisance to their Metropolitans, who advised their parish priests to assert a more draconian authority as well.

Those who dissented began to pay dearly. Entire boards were dismissed in cities in every Metropolis throughout the country. Individuals who objected too strenuously were threatened with excommunication. The clergy at every level adopted a more authoritarian approach and demanded control over every facet of parish life, not contenting themselves as before, with focusing on ministering to their flock's spiritual needs.

The hierarchy began to assert that all properties of individual communities now belonged to the Archdiocese, rather than to the faithful who built them. "Pay, pray and obey" became the order of the day.

In the midst of this struggle, further turmoil is currently brewing with the discovery that the church has paid nearly ten million dollars to settle and/or cover-up cases involving sexual misconduct by the clergy. Particularly distressing are those cases involving our children.

In view of this increasingly untenable situation, the purpose of this blog site is simply to provide a forum for those who want to TAKE OUR CHURCH BACK. The site will allow the expression of diverse opinions - even those in disagreement with our purpose.

Friday, April 13, 2007

Take Our Church Back!

We are currently witnessing a situation that grows more intolerable by the day. Our Priests and Hierarchs demand that we, members of the Greek Orthodox community of Salt Lake City, stifle our voices, suspend our reason, and simply "pay, pray and obey." In response, we have established this blog site to provide a forum for those who want to TAKE OUR CHURCH BACK.

The site will allow the expression of diverse opinions, including those who are in disagreement with our purpose. It is envisioned that the site will be a repository for previous and current opinions expressed regarding events occurring in our community.
______________________

*Note, some ground rules: It is requested that those wishing to post messages sign their name and maintain a reasonable and reasoned attitude. From time to time, in providing commentary or opinion, the moderators will post under their own names. The moderators will not edit anyone's posting, including to correct spelling or grammatical errors. The moderators of this blog reserve the right to delete posts that are not signed or that appear to be signed with a ficitious name. We further reserve the right to remove any posting that is deemed malicious, threatening or profane.

For those unfamiliar with "blogging", please feel free to e-mail us at tocbslc@gmail.com. We will post your comments for you on the blog.

Christos Anesti, to all!