Letter to an Orthodox Bishop during a time of change and disruption

October 20, 2022 Bishop Matthew St. Nicholas Patriarchal Cathedral of New York 15 East 97th Street New York, NY 10029 Dear Bishop Matthew, I write as a parishioner (and tonsured Reader) of Saint Michael the Archangel Russian Orthodox Church in the Northern Liberties neighborhood of Philadelphia. I have been a member of the parish for almost a decade now, having come over from Roman Catholicism. The pastor of Saint Michael’s at that time was the Rev. Vincent Saverino (now deceased). The parish at this time was well attended by today’s standards. In 2010, for instance, attendance was nearly 300 on feast days and at least 60 people on a routine Sunday. While the pandemic had a disastrous effect on church attendance, Saint Michael’s never closed its doors but soldiered on with weekly Divine Liturgies. A small but stalwart group of parishioners continued to attend Divine Liturgy at this time, choosing faith over fear thanks mainly to the leadership of the present pastor of the parish, Fr. Luka. Father Luka is to be credited with keeping the church open during the pandemic. His leadership in this regard served as a beacon for those who may have had reservations about attending church. Prior to the pandemic, there were problems at the parish, so allow me touch on a little parish history. After Fr. Vincent Saverino’s death, assistant priest Fr. Gregory Winsky was appointed pastor. Fr. Winsky had an engaging teaching style. His most notable accomplishment was the institution of weekly book and film clubs where parishioners could learn about Orthodoxy and its place in American culture. Fr. Winsky also restored many traditional elements of the liturgy that had been eliminated before he became pastor. But one Sunday something unpleasant occurred at a church council meeting. A council member, quite out of the blue, accused Fr. Winsky of not “participating” in the life of the parish and neglecting to show interest in the lives of parishioners. This council member scolded Fr. Winsky for his “detached and cerebral” pastoral style. Fr. Winsky was accused of not reaching out to parishioners. This was not a gentle criticism but more along the lines of a scathing critique. The council member’s outburst set off a chain reaction. Almost immediately, other council members jumped on the bandwagon and offered their own criticisms. What had been a normal council meeting had turned into a sort of ‘employee review,’ with these council members in the seat of judgment and berating the priest as if they were his bishop. What struck me then—I am also a member of the church council—was the fact that the council members who agreed with Fr. Winsky’s primary accuser were all friends of the accuser. They socialize together at coffee hour, and they have a tendency to make sure that their friends are elected to Council when the time comes to elect new members. (I should note that 3 Council members all belong to the same family.) This led to Fr. Winsky’s decision to retire—I believe he would not have done so had he not been attacked in such a fashion. Once Fr. Winsky announced his retirement, a search was conducted for a new pastor. That’s when Archpriest John Vass of Baltimore brought Fr. Luka to the parish so he could meet parishioners, tell his personal story, and answer questions about his background. That initial ‘get acquainted’ meeting went well, although some voiced concerns about Fr. Luka’s Serbian background and his accent. Some parishioners wanted a “Xerox” copy of Fr. Vincent Saverino, a handful of others had visions of a young priest with a family. Criticism arose concerning Fr. Luka’s accent, the length of his sermons, his seeming aloofness and “inability” to mix and mingle with parishioners at coffee hour. While some of these criticisms might be attributed to cultural differences, a core group of council members exaggerated the importance of these things and began to see them as major negatives. They were already certain that Fr. Luka was not a good fit for the parish. Once again, this was the same core group that had (harshly) critiqued Fr. Winsky and sent him into retirement. Ironically, this core group is composed of people who do not attend church regularly. With a few notable exceptions, this group stays away from church for weeks at a time, sometimes months, but will then attend on a Sunday when a council meeting is scheduled. Sometimes they will show up at Divine Liturgy during or after Communion, after missing several weeks, just to be present at a council meeting when an important vote is to take place. These absences have nothing to do with the pandemic but continue to be an issue. At the last council meeting, a vote was taken—with Fr. Luka present— regarding Fr. Luka’s future at St. Michael’s. Because this group of parishioners voiced their concerns to Archpriest John Vass in Baltimore in such a persistent manner, the council president was told by Archpriest Vass that the meeting could not be adjourned until a vote was taken and a firm decision reached. It is one thing to voice complaints and then seek solutions, but sadly this council meeting metamorphosed into an ugly group stoning as members of the so called core group doubled down on their complaints about Fr. Luka. The various complaints were all highly subjective and personal, and ultimately impossible to verify: You never visited my dying father; you never called my ailing mother; you never went to the hospital; you didn’t seem to show any interest; you didn’t call me up when I needed help, etc. etc. etc. The complaints were what they call a “he said/she said operation. Personal grudge seemed to be at the base of it all. Yet even if true, they were correctable and not fatal errors. This core group has never liked Fr Luka, so of course any slip up he might have made at St. Michael’s was magnified one hundred times. As I understand it, in the council president’s letter to you, it was mentioned that Fr. Luka’s “attitude” drove a deacon away from the parish. Fr. Luka did no such thing. The deacon in question challenged Fr. Luka’s authority and had run-ins with a number of people in the parish, myself included. He was a rather divisive figure who even orchestrated an emotional outburst and walk out at one council meeting when he didn’t get his way. It concerns me how council members, who are supposed to be “role model” Orthodox, can stay away from services week after week and then return to church and have the arrogance to call the shots. If Fr. Luka is replaced with a new pastor, it is my belief that over time this core group will once again express dissatisfaction and begin their ‘pastor critiques’ all over again. Fr. Luka is not the problem. The Church Council is the problem. Respectfully (Yours in Christ), (Reader) Thomas Nickels