worldliness

Recently, on the American Orthodox Institute blog, His Grace Bishop Savas of Troas, the chancellor of that jurisdiction, wrote a blog entry regarding the recent elections. The giddiness of his praise for the President-elect to my mind reflected that of a schoolgirl in full hormonal rush. It almost approached that of Chris Matthews, a man whom I fervently believe is an unrequited homosexual.

Unlike Matthews however, His Grace was not bitter and angry towards Republicans and conservatives, but this was thin gruel indeed. I'll let you read it to decide on your own. My own observations fall into this category:

1. I always thought that clergymen (especially High-church ones) should not be obvious about their politics.

2. Even if they take a stand on a grave moral issue (such as abortion), they should never marginalize those who vote the other way. (Note: excommunication is not marginalization, but correction and it is based on love.)

3. A fellow named Andrew responded to Savas with this trenchant point: why are priests like John Peck silenced for stating eternal truths in a non-political fashion but bishops like Savas allowed to pontificate on things outside their realm?

4. Does His Grace understand the nature of the State and the Church? Does he not realize the differences between the imperium and the sacerdotium? Any perusal of the Church Fathers should set him aright on this matter. What Savas proposed is no less than the merging of both entities into one missionary activity. This is no less than what Muslims believe about their vaunted caliphate. The closest Orthodoxy approached this was during the Romanov period after the "reforms" of Peter the Great, who viewed the Church as a department of state and himself as its supreme head. Peter got his ideas from traveling to the Protestant West where every monarch was the supreme governor of the national churches. Bad move.