Statement Regarding Matthew Heimbach
On Saturday, April 12, 2014, I received Matthew Heimbach into the Orthodox communion through the sacrament of Chrismation. I did not understand at that time that he held nationalistic, segregationist views. Immediately upon learning of the scope and development of Matthew’s views, I responded to his decisions quickly and decisively, meeting with him in person and by phone on multiple occasions, and conferring with our bishop.
Typically pastoral issues are best handled confidentially between priest and penitent in order to protect the privacy of those coming for counsel. If, however, a person makes inflammatory public statements in the name of the Orthodox Faith, as in the present case of Matthew Heinbach, a public statement is most certainly warranted.
Though Matthew has made progress in coming to understand the teachings of Christ, he has not formally renounced his views promoting a separationist ideology. Orthodoxy rejects the teaching that churches or countries should be divided along racial lines. For, “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28). And again, “They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one Shepherd” (Jn. 10:16).
Matthew must cease and desist all activities, both online, in print, and in person, promoting racist and separationist ideologies, effective immediately. He must formally reject violence, hate speech, and the heresy of Phyletism. Finally, he must submit to period of formal penance in order to be received back into the Orthodox communion.
– Father Peter Jon Gillquist
Over the last 48 hours a serious contretemps broke out among the USA Orthodox over statements made by Matthew Heimbach who is a co-founder of the Traditionalist Youth Network. I, myself, wrote a blog post on the controversy yesterday. I wish to be clear that the issue was not that Mr. Heimbach had a white nationalist background before being chrismated Eastern Orthodox. We need to be clear that any who repent and believe are joyfully brought into the faith, regardless of their past background. One need think only of Saint Paul, Saint Mary of Egypt, St. Moses the Black, the thief on the cross and various others to see how murder, sexual sin, robbery, etc. do not prevent you from being received in the Church immediately upon your repentance. Note that this does not mean immediate baptism. But, it does mean that becoming a catechumen happens immediately upon your repentance and your belief, regardless of your background.
No, the problem comes in if, and only if, the person continues with certain types of public sin, or shows evidence of a lack of repentance in certain areas. Such was the case that triggered the outpouring of concern among the Orthodox. Sample incidents were detailed in my blog post of yesterday. The priest involved was blind-sided by the statements. I would suspect that later he was aghast that his personal reputation was also being assailed by all too many of the bloggers. As those reading this post can see, the priest consulted with his bishop, and spoke with Mr. Heimbach. The result of those consultations was the discipline announced and explained in the statement issued just a few hours ago and quoted above. The main reason for the discipline was making, “inflammatory public statements in the name of the Orthodox Faith … .” These statements brought the Church into disrepute over the last 48 hours, leaving no choice for bishop or priest but to issue public discipline and to clarify that the views held by Mr. Heimbach were not those of the Church.
I suspect that the most difficult part of the decision was in how to phrase it so that it was clear to both Mr. Heimbach, and to the public at large, that the door is open for his future return to full communion. It would have been all too easy to issue a blanket condemnation, separate out the offending person, and nail the door shut behind them. But, that is not the Church’s calling. The Church’s calling is that of the father of the Prodigal Son. It is ours to be ready so that when the Prodigal returns, the doors will be found to be open. I think the statement by Bishop Anthony and Fr. Peter Gillquist is very properly phrased and reflects the loving nature of church discipline, which is a hard means to a desired end. The desired end is to see Mr. Heimbach a full member of the Church.
Now, I need to address various bloggers and other people who have been quick to condemn the priest. More than one blogger and/or commenter have said that they cannot believe that Fr. Peter was not aware of Mr. Heimbach’s background. More than one intimated that Fr. Peter must have leanings in a white nationalist direction. This is where I think that various people crossed a line. There has never been any evidence that Fr. Peter shared any of Mr. Heimbach’s views. That set of assumptions participates in the popular American sport of “conspiracy theories,” and character assassination. I have no doubt that Fr. Peter was not fully aware of Mr. Heimbach’s views. In a worst case situation, Fr. Peter was naught but a naïve innocent. (And, he will probably be upset with me for saying that about him.) Those who were not innocent are those who engaged in inappropriate speculation.
Let me give you a personal example that may help you understand Fr. Peter. About fifteen years ago, I had to deal with a pedophile in the parish I was in. I had worked with him for seven years. When we began an orphanage, I appointed him as the first Director. The worst day of my life was when a teenage girl came to me and told me that she had been abused by this man since she was 12. I notified my bishop. He interviewed the girl by phone. Then, he promptly sent an investigative team from the city in which he lived. No local people were allowed on that team. They found four girls from the orphanage had also been abused. And all were around 12 years old. I knew nothing and had suspected nothing. But, the bishop was right to send in an outside investigative team. I am sure that there would have been people back then who would have said that I needed to be removed simply on the basis that I had not clearly seen the pedophile right away. How could I not have noticed? For a couple of years afterward, I asked myself the same question, nay I tortured myself with the same question.
Priests are not prophets. They cannot see into the hearts of men. I did not see into the heart of that pedophile. So, if bloggers had been as common back then as they are today, I am sure I would have been torn apart and there would have been calls on my bishop to defrock me. But, they would have been wrong. They would have been every bit as wrong as the bloggers today who have assumed that Fr. Peter must have been some type of fellow-traveler with Mr. Heimbach. Fr. Peter is a sound Orthodox priest. He is not a white nationalist. To condemn him, you who read me must also condemn me. He is nothing more than a priest who was fooled, just like I was. And, he is better than I, because he caught on less than a month after receiving Mr. Heimbach whereas I never caught on for seven years. So, to put it bluntly, leave the priest alone! He is doing what is right and needful.
God bless, Father Ernesto. Very brave of you to share your story. This is a typical example of how the Internet distorts reality and amplifies distortion. Like you said, one can just imagine if it was your story today. Defrocking might have been the least of you worries!
Father Peter and the Orthodox Church have my full sympathy here: I am sure the right word is “blind-sided.” I teach college English at a community college, and I was astonished this year by the content of students’ research papers. One wrote in praise of Hitler, another advocated euthanasia of the “unfit,” and yet another wrote a paper supporting Fascism for the USA. I was not prepared for the suddenness of the backlash and open praise for policies of Nazi Germany.
Why only Heimbach? There are quite a few other Orthodox bloggers that write blogs and newspaper articles condoning avd even championing other sins. But nothing is said. Does racism just trump all?
Without impugning anything about Fr. Peter Jon, it should be noted there are still questions to be answered, both in terms of this incident (for example, apparently there are two other young men who attend this parish and who have a similar mindset; it seems they have been doing so for some time: what is not clear at this point is whether or not they have been chrismated) and also, questions about American Orthodoxy in general.
The latter, obviously, is probably the more important at this point. For example, to what extent are catechumens across the U.S. exposed to “Orthodox Social Teaching” if at all? Are they told that the heresy of phyletism also applies to the question of race? Is the meaning of the catholicity of the Church adequately explained to them?
And, as seems to be the case, if Orthodoxy at this point is attracting people who think and act like Matthew and his friends – and not for the purpose of repentance – why is this? How is the rich treasure of the Orthodox Christian Faith, that “pearl of great price” – being misrepresented such that people wrongly believe that their opinions on race and culture are congenial with that of Orthodoxy?
Someone has suggested that the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops should issue a “strongly-worded” statement and also, establish a pan-Orthodox trans-jurisdictional working group to deal with this. This sounds like a good idea to me, looking in from the outside. This is clearly an urgent issue, and its resolution, or lack thereof, will have a great deal to do with how Orthodoxy moves forward on these shores.
My prayers remain with Fr. Peter Jon, Matthew, et. al., Father’s parish, his (and your) jurisdiction, and chalcedonian Orthodoxy across the United States, the Western Hemisphere, and the world.
With respect, Fr. Ernesto, your parallel between your own experience and Fr. Peter Jon’s is flawed. There is a significant difference between being a pedophile (an essentially secret activity) and being a visible public advocate for white supremacy and separatism. Matthew Heinbach’s views and actions were on display for all to see, and while Fr. Peter Jon may have been naive, his lack of due diligence was at best careless.
I realize that there are differences of opinion on how much priests should be online, but more than one priest of my acquaintance has described to me how they have avoided precisely this kind of situation by googling everyone who comes to them for reception into the Church. If nothing else, that can bring to light issues that would have to be dealt with before the catechumenate can proceed.
I knew nothing and had suspected nothing. But, the bishop was right to send in an outside investigative team. I am sure that there would have been people back then who would have said that I needed to be removed simply on the basis that I had not clearly seen the pedophile right away. How could I not have noticed?
You got blindsided. Thing about successful pedophiles (and successful serial rapists, and successful serial killers, and successful sociopaths of any sort) is they are masters at camouflaging what they are; while they’re luring in and grooming their prey, they’re grooming third parties (especially those in authority who could expose them) as supporters and allies.
If they weren’t so successful at Transforming Themselves into Angels of Light, they’d have been exposed and caught long ago. We only hear about the DUMB ones who slipped up and got caught.
I appreciate your intelligent and nuanced stand here, Fr. Ernesto, and agree with you as far as it goes. I think it is still reasonable, though, to have serious concerns about the reports, which come from reilable, local sources, that several people warned Fr. Peter Jon about this man numerous times as early as a year before the chrismation, and Fr. Peter Jon ignored these warnings. Furthermore, I’m troubled by the reports that anyone on campus would have recognized Matthew H. and his organization and known what they stand for, so that further reflects badly on the priest.. I am troubled that a priest of a mostly convert parish in a university town would be so disengaged from the university campus, seeming not to bother to get familiar with that community, which is so central to the town’s very existence. Finally, it’s very disturbing to know that there are more members of this racist group who belong to this parish. What’s happening with them? Will the clergy deal only with the most publicly visible figure, since his presence blew up in their face in such a spectacularly public way?
One can ask these questions without implying that Fr. Peter Jon sympathizes with Heimbach’s views. The problem seems to be disengagement, refusal (through what, laziness? some kind of denial?) to heed the warnings from others, and frankly, questionable competence. I’m not worried about this priest being a racist at all. I’m worried about him being a slacker. In this regard, this case is quite different from your story of the pedophile. Heimbach was locally and nationally recognized for his views and actions, and he sought that fame.
Forgive the harsh language, but these worries won’t just go away because the priest and bishop have dealt with the immediate problem. I would like to be proven wrong, but I’m afraid that what I’ve outlined is the charitable interpretation of events. Other interpretations are worse, if there’s any truth to the reports that Fr. Peter Jon was warned.
Therefore, I would really hope to see a more energetic effort on the part of the hierarchs to address the systemic problems in American Orthodoxy that can telegraph to racists and fascists that Orthodoxy might be a welcoming home for them.
Thank you, Stella, for your views here. Fr Peter Jon clearly, in my experience, ignores grave sins and his ego permeates that church
Sorry, but I am baffled by the statement above.
Why should Matthew Heimbach renounce violence? Even Matt’s enemies at the SPLC acknowledge that Matt has no track record of initiating violence against anyone. On the contrary, it was Matt who was violently assaulted by a group of militant anti-Christian homosexual atheists in Bloomington at the “Slut Walk” event.
Why is Matt the one being condemned here? Why not an event that calls itself “Slut Walk”? Why not the vehemently anti-Christian homosexual atheists who spit on Matt, violently attacked him, and tore about his cross apart while chanting vulgar anti-Christian epithets?
Is this what Orthodoxy represents? Is Orthodoxy on the side of 1.) homosexuality, 2.) atheism, 3.) slut empowerment, 3.) and anti-Christians who initiate violence against Orthodox Christians peacefully holding a sign that says, “Jesus loves you.”
Is a sign that says, “Jesus loves you” overly provocative?
Full disclosure: I am a Lutheran who has been baffled by Matt’s embrace of Orthodoxy. I know that Matt is demoralized to see that his fellow Orthodox Christians denouncing him while publicly embracing violent homosexual atheist street thugs who hate Christianity.
You had better go find out what the Slut Walks are really about. Hint: it’s not some glorification of sluttiness. Then maybe you can come back and be taken seriously. But I think I’ve seen you post the same thought on another site today, and you have apparently ignored the correction addressed to you about the Slut Walks. I think you won’t acknowledge a truth that doesn’t fit your agenda. And what is this “while publicly embracing violent homosexual atheist street thugs who hate Christianity” hyperbole? Nobody in all the reams and reams of commentary I’ve read in the past couple of days embraced any violence that may have been committed against Heimbach. But Heimbach bragged online about his violence in return, which he committed with a cross in hand, and may have used that cross to beat someone.
Presumably, about a week prior to that, he was in church venerating the icon of Christ of Extreme Humility at Bridegroom Matins.
Matt is demoralized because Orthodox Christians reject his racist, fascist, hateful ideology? Cry me a river. But seriously, if he’s surprised, this further highlights the major pastoral failure surrounding his reception.
Brad Griffin is absolutely correct. Matt Heimbach doesn’t initiate violence. Quite the reverse, actually. He’s been attacked, apparently on numerous occasions. He’s had urine and other vile substances thrown on him. He’s been punched and kicked. He has shown remarkable bravery and dedication to stand up to the abuse that has been heaped upon him.
And who is doing the attacking? Anti-christians, just for starters.
Yet you people want the church to side with…wait for it…the anti-christians. The abusers. And to condemn Matt because he dares to speak up for whites. Apparently, people of European descent do not deserve a voice, and have no future to look forward to, but various non-white groups do.
Matt is not a hateful man, and he does not seek to deny non-whites the same continuity and sovereignty that he seeks for his own people.
Well said, Fr Ernesto.
Silence is consent. When leftists were throwing bags of urine at Heimbach, the Orthodox were very, very silent. None of these self-righteous Orthodox Pharisee “fathers” here is on record condemning the violence against Heimbach.
The violence against Heimbach has been documented on video, so there is no point in playing the usual denial games, “fathers.”
This tacit endorsement of heretical liberalism/communism/progressivism over traditional Christianity has at last overtaken Orthodoxy in addition to all other mainstream “Christian” institutions. The “church,” such as it is, has defected. Mammon is served.
The church has abandoned Christ for the world’s opinion. We all know Prince of this World. He is the one that Frs. Ernesto and Simeon pray to, despite Christ’s admonition about serving two masters.
Last time I checked, bearing false witness was a mortal sin. You “fathers” might want to remove the beam from your own eye first.
What a shabby disgrace institutional Chrisitanity is these days. Whore of Babylon indeed.
It’s reassuring that someone on the far right is now railing at Orthodox Christianity.
The scuffle while holding the Cross is not what he’s been condemned for; it’s what he was noticed for. He’s been excommunicated for the heresy of phyletism. It has nothing inherently to do with any other political opinion, or who he likes or dislikes or who likes or dislikes him, though those do make nice distractions for those who want to avoid the essential point: the Orthodox Church condemns Phyletism.
A hard means to a desired end. This end:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=l-zttPCDqYU
Selective moral outrage is the hallmark of hypocrisy.
Next up from Apuleius:
Sales pitch for The Turner Diaries.
I’ve had some experience with racists, and I that they are very slippery when asked questions, that they hear what they want, and that they are often all out liars. I have no problem believing that Heimbach deceived Fr. Peter.
Perhaps Fr. Peter Jon may have been deceived, or stuck his head in the sand. No matter. What bothers me more than anything is the very obvious lack of pastoral confidentiality. For that reason alone Fr. Peter Jon should receive some discipline himself. There is absolutely no reason at all that anything should be posted on his parish website or anywhere else about how this is being handled.
Fr, Peter Jon indeed tried to invoke pastoral confidentiality initially. However, many of us pointed out to him, and presumably to this bishop as well, that while we certainly were not asking him to violate the seal of the confessional, Mr Heimbach forfeited much of the expectation of pastoral confidentiality by the very public nature of his words and actions. The sin was public; therefore, the repentance and renunciation must be public as well.
Christ is Risen! Fr. Greg, while it may have been Mr. Heimbach who forfeited the expectation of pastoral confidentiality, that doesn’t mean that Fr. Peter Jon needed to follow his example and publicly announce what his pastoral guidelines for Mr. Heimbach were/are. But thank you for your thoughts.
I’m afraid the priest did know about this in advance. http://www.tradyouth.org/2014/05/re-to-my-white-nationalist-brothers/
Not surprised.
Wait, wait …
Am I to understand that being a “white nationalist” is a sin?
What sin is it? What passages in Scripture would one turn to find this sin condemned? Are there other political theories a person may not hold while a member of the orthodox church?
I had never heard of “Phyletism” before so I looked it up. Here is what the priest says – “He must formally reject violence, hate speech, and the heresy of Phyletism.”.
It seems that Phyletism is only there because there is no biblical or doctrinal problems with the former two. And Phyletism doesn’t even apply since that is not what Heimbach was doing. How ludicrous.