Saturday, October 20, 2007

Thoughts on the Priesthood

S-P, faithful fan of this blog (also a good man and a friend from when I lived in California), has a very insightful comment in "Parish Life Redux." The whole of what he, wrongly I think, describes as a rant is certainly worth reading and I reproduce it here:

Forgive my upcoming rant here, but my 36 years of experience with clergy of all Christian expressions has been that, while they view themselves as "leaders", they are well defended emotionally and psychologically for all manner of reasons, and all of which amounts to they seek intimacy based on the illusion of connection to parishoners based on intellectual discussion and being perceived as a "guru" purely on the basis of the "grace of the collar" (translate that: authority , strength and honor) and not a true personal transparency and openness which they expect from their constituents in the confessional.
He continues:

It is a rare pastor who truly leads through humility, vulnerability, struggle and a persona of compunction and repentance. This is not ONLY a clerical issue, but a human one. Unfortunately many men enter the priesthood to work out personal issues of "manhood", acceptance, codependence, authority and control issues and these common male issues are magnified through the office of the priesthood. I know this sounds cynical, but it is the reality I've encountered (I must say here, even in myself as a protestant minister when I was a younger man). I do not despise the priests or the priesthood; I truly have a great deal of compassion and sadness for men who are trapped in themselves and for whom the priesthood ends up reinforcing their dysfunctions rather than being an arena for their healing and maturity. A priest who is perceived as vulnerable and humble will have a parish that will struggle WITH [him] as they struggle [together] to mature. If [priests] are merely sacramental dispensers, theological reference manuals, professional homilists, and confessional advisors they will have little compassion from their flock when they show any signs of weakness or failure. End of rant. I now return you to your regularly scheduled blogospherical programming.

Thank you for your observations, these are powerful, and true words. You are in the main correct I think.

Where I might have a slightly different thought is this: Even when men enter the priesthood from an authentic sense of vocation (and this is itself a problematic assumption), there remains the underlying psychological dynamics that you articulate. An indifference or ignorance of these darker, but very real, motivations is irresponsible. It is, I fear, very much the norm for the reasons you offer; we draw our seminary faculty from a group of men in which a fleeing from the self is common, if not the norm.

And you are correct, this is not simply a struggle for priests or clergy of other ranks and traditions. It is rather the common human struggle. "No tree," Jung says, "reaches up to heaven, unless its roots first reach down to hell." Too many people come to the Orthodox Church, and other religious traditions or political movements, to avoid the painful truth of their own lives. And if the priest himself is also so inclined, if he desire to submerge himself in the office of priest, well, he will like not only attract those who wish to do the same, he will actively promote this agenda.

This is certainly something I have seen in a number of parishes. It is so much easier to be "Greek," or "Russian," or "a convert," then to be myself. Looking at the broad expanse of Orthodoxy in America, I can help but see those hyper-ethnic Orthodox Christians and super-correct Orthodox Christians, as simply two sides of the same coin.

We have turned Holy Tradition, and all those small "t" traditions, into ends in themselves.

And S-P you have diagnosed one major reason why we do so: We are fleeing from self-knowledge, and therefore repentance. In place of self-knowledge, we favor a purely formal attachment to Tradition (or traditions).

At the risk of showing my own psychoanalytic leanings, this attachment to externals is where people get all the energy the expend in defending "Holy Orthodoxy" or "How we've always done things." Energy that should go to self-knowledge instead is channeled in defending the self from, well, the self. Puncture this feedback loop, which is often older than the person and represents generations of stagnation, and you risk an explosion.

S-P is correct, the priest must lead by the example of his own "humility, vulnerability, struggle and a persona of compunction and repentance." Doing this will mean a crucifixion for the priest as it would for anyone who takes seriously Christ's command to take up the Cross and follow Him.

For myself, I am troubled by how easy it is to write these words, or say them in a sermon, and how hard it is to actually live them day to day. And I am tempted to say that the crucifixion that these words announce should only be internal or come from the world and not be public and from other Christians.

But this of course is to perpetrate my own fraud.

Christ dies publicly and at the hands of His Own People. There was, and is, simply no one else to make His Cross, or mine, then the People of God. This being the case, I think the priest is called to be not only a man of prayer, but of courage, prudence and discernment. There will be times when the cross he is called to carry, the cross on which he is called to hang, is not one that he must passive acceptance, but rather is one he makes for himself as the result his active confrontation of human sinfulness.

In this confrontation the priest, must be mindful of his own sins and yet not paralyzed by this knowledge. He cannot hold back, he must identify the sins of others knowing full well that he has now joined a battle above all with his own sinfulness. And as he fights dethrone sin in the lives of those he is called to serve, he will find himself tempted to inaction by the memory of his own sinfulness. This is his real cross.

And here, S-P, is the heart of the matter, in the Church (ike the world in which we live and to which we have acquiesced) is held in the grip of false humility. Following from this is a falsification, or maybe more accurately, distortion, of the Christian virtues that ought to flow from humility.

The priest, and the whole Church, would do well to listen to on this issue to G.K. Chesterton in his book Orthodoxy:
But what we suffer from to-day is humility in the wrong place. Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition. Modesty has settled upon the organ of conviction; where it was never meant to be. A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth; this has been exactly reversed. Nowadays the part of a man that a man does assert is exactly the part he ought not to assert himself. The part he doubts is exactly the part he ought not to doubt -- the Divine Reason. Huxley preached a humility content to learn from Nature. But the new sceptic is so humble that he doubts if he can even learn. Thus we should be wrong if we had said hastily that there is no humility typical of our time. The truth is that there is a real humility typical of our time; but it so happens that it is practically a more poisonous humility than the wildest prostrations of the ascetic. The old humility was a spur that prevented a man from stopping; not a nail in his boot that prevented him from going on. For the old humility made a man doubtful about his efforts, which might make him work harder. But the new humility makes a man doubtful about his aims, which will make him stop working altogether.
We have neglected the Truth of the Gospel, we have reduced its proclamation to a mere formality. And so, necessarily, we neglect to love each other in anything other than words. We have become so falsely humble that we can't go forward.

And this leaves all of us, and especially priests, as you say, "trapped in themselves . . . the priesthood [merely] reinforcing their dysfunctions rather than being an arena for their healing and maturity." But it doesn't need to be this way.

Again thank you S-P and everyone who offers comments here.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

5 comments:

  1. Well said! And very insightful!
    S-P's commentary sheds light on my own concern about the tendency to professionalize the office without a concommitant concern for the character of the inhabitant.
    As noted, this is a universal concern. Business has more than its share of bosses whose manner of wielding authority reveals more about their personal issues and needs than it does about the tasks at hand. (A recent best-seller, the "No As*hole Rule" by Robert Sutton is both recognition of this problem and somewhat helpful in its insight.) It is for this reason that I tend to support the canonical "rule" (always honored but rarely observed) about the ordination age of clergy candidates. It takes time, experience -- mileage -- to begin to recognize and then address the issues that drive us. Certainly a small minority of young candidates may be fit for immediate service, but these are the distinct exception. Too often, we are trying to fill a position with anyone who is willing to do so. As the Russian proverb notes, we get what we deserve. Except that we don't; this only perpetuates the problems by magnifying the limits and issues of both the clergy and the congregation. IF you believe as I do that real spiritual work is subtle and deep,
    that it takes a rare combination of humility and courage, intelligence, insight, understanding, honesty, prayerfulness and love (and how many of us, regardless of our age know how to love),
    and that it is THE most important work that can be done in this lifetime or the next,
    WHY is the primary qualification for leaders in this area those who can manage to get through a three-year program with their interest in the area intact?
    With apologies for repetition, imagine how long A.A. would have lasted had Bill W. let anyone who showed interest and bare competence in basic concepts take any kind of leadership role? (And while those who attend certainly have serious issues to work through, they are also generally ready and willing to begin real work - which is as optimal of a state as one could wish to work with). If we do NOT have many genuine spiritual leaders, it is because we have found the enterprise too demanding (of both leadership and congregation) and have settled for what can reasonably be replicated. If so, we have here the reason for reform movements through the Church's history: at some point, someone demands more. (Unfortunately, wishing doesn't make it so, and the lack of humility that often accompanies extraordinary zeal has usually created more problems than solutions.)
    I do not know how the congregations need for adequate leadership should be addressed. In almost any organization, poor leadership is necessarily preferable to no leadership (which is not sustainable). To recognize that only the Holy Spirit can turn unremarkable laborers into remarkable leaders does not exempt us from the need for faithful and fruitful laborers. If "this years" leaders are the fruit of "last years" formation, we will have a lot to answer for "tomorrow."

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you for taking my "rant" in the spirit it was intended. It truly was not aimed outwardly but came from years of personal and intense inner struggle to come to terms with why *I* have felt called to ministry for 49 years of my life and my inmost motives and passions mixed with my godly intentions to serve the Christ's people. At 55 now I see younger (and older) men who are obviously either oblivious or in the midst of their awakenings and I wish there was something I could say or do to help them through it... but alas, I have no collar, no mitre and in their position it is inconcievable to them to confide in a layman. So I watch and pray, and hope they don't crash and burn before they figure it all out. No man is perfect, especially when ordained...the important thing is that he is percieved as desiring, reaching for and even failing at attaining perfection by those he is leading. While I don't need to know my priest's specific sins, I often know more of his sins than he realizes and more often those he does not even recognize. I am willing to cover those sins, and most people are, if they know he is a humble man who strives, fails and repents like all of us. Be a light on the path, not just a sign pointing the direction. May God have mercy on His priesthood!

    ReplyDelete
  3. s-p, I appreciate and respect the element of self-reflection that informs your insight. It is invariably true that our best insights reflect self-discovery. (This would be the individual equivalent of St. Maximos' comment that true theology is born of experience and that theology that is not rooted in experience is the theology of demons. I wonder how much pain could have been spared had counselors and pastors applied the same approach to their own "practices.")
    As I thought further about the issues, I began to wonder if it wasn't asking an awful lot for one individual to "parent" an entire congregation. I believe it is pretty settled science that single parent homes are often subject to the greatest risk. In many ways, those born after the 1960s are a social science experiment unknown in human history: many have grown up without benefit of an extended family. The nuclear family as we know it is a very VERY recent invention. The limited resources and immaturity of the nuclear couple has ALWAYS been supported, complemented and sustained by the extended family of which they were a part. Both my wife's parents and my own parents grew up with aunts and uncles nearby -- who would provide invaluable contributions and (usually) caring guidance that filled in the gaps and provided a more well-rounded upbringing. My generation was the first in history to grow up largely without the benefit of that extended network. Todays generation often grows up without benefit of even two parents. The initial evidence is not promising: teachers report that children increasingly lack the inner resources to negotiate stressful situations or handle disappointment in a productive manner. Distressing as this is (and it may well be the area where the Church can provide the greatest ministry and witness for this generation), I believe the analogy holds for the Church family as well. In generations past, the relational "wealth" of extended family and community support provided the foundation in virtue (referred to in various posts by Fr. Gregory over the past few weeks) that, it seems to me, placed fewer therapeutic demands upon the pastor. As Father has also noted elsewhere, wealth gives us the means to mitigate the consequences of our defects, whereas the poor must suffer them. One of the greatest dangers we face today is that people do not understand that critical forms of wealth exist that have nothing to do with money. In this case, the social capital that supported our forebearers is being rapidly depleted. As with the family of today, this will likely place far too great of a demand on the "single parent" community and, in the same manner, we will not have the formational "wealth" we need to buffer the consequences.

    I do not have a clue as to how this could be addressed. From a business perspective, my initial inclination is to suggest that the pastoral role must be reconfigured to identify and cultivate lay leadership, without which the various (and increasingly demanding) ministries of the Church can not be done. Perhaps this would entail a reinvigorated deaconate by recognizing and then ordaining mature lay leaders. Future priests would (should?) then be drawn from this pool of experienced, seasoned leaders.
    However the need for leadership is to be addressed, it seems to me that the changes in society will demand far to much from the "single parent" priest - especially since that individual is likely to suffer from the very same formational impoverishment he must super-compensate to address.
    In this way, I fear we are in the position of the Church in Laodicea (Revelation 3): though "rich" in resources, we are "poor" spiritually. If this is true, perhaps the judgment of Christ is being revealed initially in the reaction of His people, who "vomit" out the lukewarm Church in their midst - the Church that has grown comfortable in its spiritual poverty.
    If so, may God help us all!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Chrys & S-P, wow! You guys are good.

    Let me address S-P's comments first and then those offered by Chrys.

    To quote our former president, "I feel you pain." Like you I watch priests heading for a crash and burn. And like you, I find I am powerless to help not from a lack of things to offer, but because it is my brother's unwillingness to accept help that is the cause of his fall. For myself I have resolved that, as it has been in my own life, bottoming out, failing, crashing & burning, are simply part of what it takes for most of us to wake up to an appreciation of our own humanity and need for others. Until that happens, offering to help is just spitting in the wind.

    What helps me is something I learned from my wife's work with victims of domestic violence: My goal is to establish the kind of relationship w/people (and not just clergy) that lends itself to their coming to me for help after they crash and burn. I can't prevent the failure of those for whom failure is an agenda item. But I can keep my eye on maintaining a relationship with them based on my clearly articulated trust and respect for their abilities. After the fall, they remember that I was on their side when life was "good" and so, maybe, just maybe, I'll be on their side now that they've hit the skids.

    Winning is about preventing failure in others, but in helping them recover from the inevitable failures they will encounter. It's all about helping 'em up after they fall.

    But with S-P I ask that God have mercy on His priests. It is miserable to live a life that does not admit the reality of failure. I've learned, a little, to accept that about myself, but again, only a little. But oh the cost was great (though less than not learning the lesson).

    Now, Chrys...

    I think the heart of your comment is the way in which, maybe even unintentionally, we have come to imagine the parish as if it were a nuclear family. While ethnicity can help a bit to provide some of the resources for the parish as an "extended family," even when it works well, ethnicity isn't sufficient.

    That's always the great irony when new Orthodox complain about ethnicity. They typically only object when it doesn't work well enough to incorporate them. Why, we often ask, can't I be part of the group? Why can't I bring my ethnic gifts to the table is I think the complaint more than "I do not like ...." fill in the blank with the ethnicity you wish.

    Like every other social group, the family needs to be transfigured--which is what the parish is. I tell people that we find, or at least hope to find, in the Church the family we always wanted, and need, but could never have.

    While both are real, and even praiseworthy, the first of those is often the source of our disappointment with the Church. The second, though is also a source of great suffering as well since, as in a well functioning natural family the Church is their to assist our maturation in Christ and I for one resist growing up. Thus I suffer.

    The relative wealth of the Church, especially in America, is certainly part of how we have the luxury of imitating the failed social experiment of the nuclear family. And yes, if we could get our act together, the parish as an extended family in Christ, not only in name but in truth, would be an amazing witness.

    Based on my experience I think that what we would need is a community that committed to the idea that your gifts enrich me. Let return to ethnicity as the example: Can we imagine a parish in which people really believe and live out the idea that the best way for me to express my Greek identity is to make room for your Russian identity? That the best way to real be a convert to Orthodox, is to make room for you as a cradle Orthodox to offer your gifts to the parish and through the parish to the world?

    Do this in a parish and you've done something.

    Convert/cradle, immature/mature Christians, we all need each other and we all only can come into the fullness of what Christ has given us personally by making it possible for others to discover and embody the gifts Christ has given them.

    Well, forgive me brothers, my wrists are starting to hurt. I hope I have offered at least a bit of what you have each given me.

    In Christ,

    +FrG

    ReplyDelete
  5. Dear Fr. Gregory and Chrys,
    Lest this turn into a mutual admiration society, I appreciate your comments. Chrys has an incisive observation about what I see as the "clericalization" of parish life. Laity are vastly underutilized because they are under-rated and often, if they are not under-rated they are sometimes perceived as a threat to a priest's office. It is a rare priest who creates a community that is "family", and it has to begin with "Father" delegating, teaching, giving responsibilities for the wellbeing of the "family" to others, and permitting his children to grow up, learn, make mistakes, and know they are loved in the whole process. There is a "grace of the priesthood", but there is also to "grace of the priesthood of all believers" we ALL received at our baptism, and that grace is not just given to us to stand in line on Sundays to receive sacraments.

    Fr. Gregory, yes...I've spent decades picking up pieces of other people's lives, and at one time had my life picked up by others. Unfortunately the only way most human beings learn anything is "the hard way". We need to be the kind of people that someone will risk touching the hem of our garment in their fatal illnesses.
    If we do no more than that in our life and ministry it is enough.

    ReplyDelete