In case any of you have a chance to stay in Tokyo, make a point of visiting "Nikolai-do" -- a magnificent Orthodox Cathedral established by Archbishop Nikolai, who came with the first diplomatic mission to Japan in the 1860's. The Japanese Orthodox Church is autonomous and under Moscow's Patriarchate.
The entrance into the courtyard still reads "Slava vo vishnyih Bogu" (Glory or Praise in the Highest to God) in Slavonic. The original atmosphere has been preserved immaculately, and the Japanese flavor is only subtle and in good taste (it is really unbelievable to see a Japanese woman in a tight kimono drop to her knees and bow to the ground before an icon!).
There is at least one Russian clergyman (could be from the Embassy), but the rest are Japanese. One can even see monks, which means there must be at least one Orthodox monastery in Japan!
For inside shots try this link Nikolai-do. You may notice some folding chairs. In addition to the chairs along the walls, these folding chairs are used only at the very end of the Liturgy when the people are kissing the cross and taking the remaining bread, and the lines are long.
But I was so impressed last year during Lent anfd again this year in the Fall to see Japanese Orthodox, many of whom were well into their 80's, standing through the entire service (and my feet were hurting)!
Except for a few verses in Church Slavonic, the entire service is in Japanese, and the choir is of mixed ethnic and racial background but absolutely angelic.
All I am saying is that in a culture that is so opposite of traditional Orthodoxy, ties to the Mother Church are not unreasonable and should not be seen as something subordinate but spiritually necessary. Otherwise cultural pressures will change the nature of Orthodoxy out of simple human desire to "fit in" as Kolo aptly points out.
I agree wholeheartedly with this assessment -- this is why I wrote:
"Would you seriously want to depend on the American church to be able consistently to produce and promote to the episcopacy bishops of the caliber of Bp. Basil and Bp. Tikhon?"
Keep in mind that bishops don't reproduce (unless you are medieval Roman Catholic bishops, who seem to have done so in spades), and thus bishops are produced by the laity. What kind of bishops a country will produce will depend on the kind of laity a country has -- will we raise children devout enough that there will be some who will seek after a monastic life, and will that monastic life be healthy enough to produce someone who is a wise, psychologically balanced, and spiritually insightful bishop? I just can't see that process working very well at all without significant involvement of the old countries. Ask Bp. Basil where he turns for guidance in the monastic life. If what rumors I've been told are true, the good Metropolitan Philip doesn't even believe that bishops should even go through the motions of being tonsured a monk before becoming a bishop!
And the process of who becomes a bishop can be very tainted very quickly by money, political influence, etc... -- and if those who want Orthodoxy in America to become a sort of Eastern rite Episcopalianism have their way, the sort of man chosen to be bishop will not be what I think any of us would want. I know that there is a faction in the OCA who believes that only widowed priests should become bishops, and that the tradition of choosing bishops from amongst the ranks of holy monks should be jettisoned. I think this is a big mistake. If a widowed priest seeks out the monastic life and lives that life for a time -- that's one thing, but what is becoming an American habit of having bishops who have never lived for any period of time as a monastic in a monastic community is not, I think, a healthy one. And since there are few if any healthy monastic institutions in the US, this means that to have the best bishops we can have, they would by definition have spent at least some time abroad living in monasteries in the old countries.
Well, that's my humble opinion, anyway.