As you no doubt have noticed, there are now comments available on the right hand side of the blog. These are thanks to Intense Debate, a blog comment service. These kind people will moderate comments for spam–as part of this process, the first two of your comments will need to be approved. After the first two comments, you can post freely.
Please let me know if the service has any bugs in it.
Thanks!
In Christ,
+Fr Gregory
We need more than statistics. In a day when millions of people are walking out of church and more churches are closing their doors than opening them, we need to discover what is really happening. Spencer Burke, creator of TheOoze.com, brings you face-to-face with pastors and elders, committed attendees, back-pew sitters, and people who have walked out of the church looking for something more. Their unlikely love letters give you an opportunity to hear firsthand from the whole body of Christ. You can download excerpts from the book on the NavPress’s site for the book or by clicking here: Excerpt from Out of the Oooze. Besides the fact this is always fun to see my name in print, what is exciting for me about this book is that it is directed toward the same people as The Ooze.com. In their own words:
This week Navigator Press has published a collection of essays entitled Out of the Ooze. It so happens that there is included in the book a have short piece that I wrote entitled “God-Pleasing Evangelism.” On their web page, NavPress describes the book this way:
Out of the Ooze marks the beginning of an annual series publishing the best of each year’s articles exploring the themes of faith, social justice, art, and ministry.
TheOOZE is a website dedicated to the emerging Church culture, and organizes the premiere annual event for this audience, called Soularize. Over the past six years TheOOZE has developed a community that captures the ethos of the emerging Church movement. Our site and events hold the tensions between creativity and information, theologians and artists, traditional and new voices.
For better or worse, there are increasing numbers of young, and not so young, usually unchurched or post-churched (lapsed in other words) men and women who are attracted to the Emergent Church movement.
As the inclusion of my own essay suggests, there is an interest and openness to Orthodoxy among those who identify with the Emergent Church movement. But this movement has got my attention not simply as a group of potential Orthodox Christians. One of the things that I have learned from my conversations with folks in this movement is to temper not my convictions about the Orthodox Church, but my way of expressing that conviction.
In addition, as I look at The Ooze, and the people who post and comment there, I ask myself: What might I, as Orthodox Christian, learn from this movement? My own view is that there is a great potential here to could help the Church reach our own lapsed members. Depending on how one defines a lapsed Orthodox Christian that number can reach 50%, 60%, 70% and even 80% (or more) of the men and women who were baptized in the Orthodox Church.
Orthodoxy in America has a unique opportunity to escape the triumphalism that has plagued us especially in recent. A lively conversation that takes seriously the concerns and criticisms of the Emergent Church movement might be helpful for us as we try and move beyond an approach to missions, evangelism, parish ministry and renewal, that is based not in polemics, but a gentle openness to the Holy Trinity in the lives of the men and women (Orthodox or not) who we serve. It was a rational for this openness to the presence of God in the lives of others that I tried to give expression to in my own essay.
Anyway, if you have the opportunity and the money, do consider picking up a copy of Out of the Oooze. Autographs are free!
In Christ,
+Fr Gregory
And behold, there came a man named Jairus, and he was a ruler of the synagogue. And he fell down at Jesus’ feet and begged Him to come to his house, for he had an only daughter about twelve years of age, and she was dying. But as He went, the multitudes thronged Him. Now a woman, having a flow of blood for twelve years, who had spent all her livelihood on physicians and could not be healed by any, came from behind and touched the border of His garment. And immediately her flow of blood stopped. And Jesus said, “Who touched Me?” When all denied it, Peter and those with him said, “Master, the multitudes throng and press You, and You say, ‘Who touched Me?’” But Jesus said, “Somebody touched Me, for I perceived power going out from Me.” Now when the woman saw that she was not hidden, she came trembling; and falling down before Him, she declared to Him in the presence of all the people the reason she had touched Him and how she was healed immediately. And He said to her, “Daughter, be of good cheer; your faith has made you well. Go in peace.” While He was still speaking, someone came from the ruler of the synagogue’s house, saying to him, “Your daughter is dead. Do not trouble the Teacher.” But when Jesus heard it, He answered him, saying, “Do not be afraid; only believe, and she will be made well.” When He came into the house, He permitted no one to go in except Peter, James, and John, and the father and mother of the girl. Now all wept and mourned for her; but He said, “Do not weep; she is not dead, but sleeping.” And they ridiculed Him, knowing that she was dead. But He put them all outside, took her by the hand and called, saying, “Little girl, arise.” Then her spirit returned, and she arose immediately. And He commanded that she be given something to eat. And her parents were astonished, but He charged them to tell no one what had happened (Lk 8:41-56). In his commentary of Luke’s Gospel (Homily 46), St Cyril of Alexandria says that when Jesus turns to Jairus and says, “Do not be afraid; only believe, and she will be made well” (v. 52), He does so to comfort the man. Why? Because, in St Cyril’s words, Jesus “saw the man oppressed with the weight of sorrow, fainting, stunned, and all but despairing of the possibility of his daughter being rescued from death.” He continues: Misfortunes are able to disturb even an apparently well constituted mind and to estrange it from its settled convictions. To help him, [Jesus] gives [Jairus] a kind and saving word that is able to sustain him in his fainting state and work in him an unwavering faith: “fear not, only believe, and she shall live.” Sadly however, Jairus, his wife and most extraordinarily of all, Peter, James and John, are unable to believe what Jesus is telling them. Instead, “they ridiculed Him.” Why? Because they knew that the little girl was dead (v. 53-54). Cyril is to the point here: Jairus and the others are correct; the girl is dead and by “their laughing at [Jesus], they . . . give a clear and manifest acknowledgement that the daughter is dead.” This is important, it is necessary St Cyril says, for there to be no doubt in anyone’s mind that the girl is really and truly dead, otherwise those in the “group who . . . resist His glory . . . would reject the divine miracle and say that the damsel was not yet dead.” To make manifest His divinity, to reveal His glory, to proclaim the Good News that He is “God With Us,” Jesus willingly subjects Himself to the scorn not only of the Pharisees, the Sadducees and the Roman authorities, but to the dead girl’s parents and His closest companions. The Gospel it seems is always entrusted to the weak. Not simply to those who are ontologically weak (creatures) or morally weak (sinners), but to those who not but to outcasts to those who even the weak despise and see as weak. God entrusts the Gospel to those who are lonely and marginalized, those who society (even the “Christian” society of the Church) forget. In St Luke’s Gospel we read that God announces His incarnation to those who the Church of the Old Israel forgot: the childless couple, Zechariah and Elizabeth; the young Virgin, Mary; to Joseph who would all his life bear the unjust scorn of others who thought him a fool and cuckold; the Astrologers, wise men to be sure, but pagans nevertheless and so outside the Covenant between God and the Jewish people; finally, the shepherds, who, even though they were formally part of the Chosen People, lived on the outskirts of Jewish society. To all of these, and to us, God not only reveals the Gospel, but He calls each of them in his or her own way to be evangelists, heralds of the Good News that “God is With Us!” There is probably no more poignant biblical voice on God’s willingness to entrust Himself to outcasts then the prophet Hosea. Hosea told by God: When the LORD began to speak by Hosea, the LORD said to Hosea:
“Go, take yourself a wife of harlotry
And children of harlotry,
For the land has committed great.” (Hos 1:2)
And so the prophet does. Hosea shames himself among his people by not only marrying a harlot, but by adopting her children as his own (vv. 3-8). He marries Gomer because he has been called by God to be a tangible sign to Israel’s apostasy, their whoring after other gods and the powers of this world. Obedient to God’s call Hosea willingly joins himself to an adulterous woman and willingly become unclean. Obedient to God’s call Hosea makes his wife’s sin his own and thus separates himself from the Chosen People of God. Hosea becomes an outcast so that he can reveal to the People of God that they have departed from their God. Throughout all his trails, Hosea also remains faithful to his faithless wife, even as God remains faithful to apostate Israel. In the end, though Israel, like Gomer, must pass through a period of divine judgment. And it is on the other side of judgment that both discover there is mercy and hope:
O Israel, return to the LORD your God,
For you have stumbled because of your iniquity;
Take words with you,
And return to the LORD.
Say to Him,“Take away all iniquity;
(14:1-9).
Receive us graciously,
For we will offer the sacrifices of our lips.
Assyria shall not save us,
We will not ride on horses,
Nor will we say anymore to the work of our hands, ‘You are our gods.’
For in You the fatherless finds mercy.”
“I will heal their backsliding,
I will love them freely,
For My anger has turned away from him.
I will be like the dew to Israel;
He shall grow like the lily,
And lengthen his roots like Lebanon.
His branches shall spread;
His beauty shall be like an olive tree,
And his fragrance like Lebanon.
Those who dwell under his shadow shall return;
They shall be revived like grain,
And grow like a vine.
Their scent shall be like the wine of Lebanon.
“Ephraim shall say, ‘What have I to do anymore with idols?’
I have heard and observed him.
I am like a green cypress tree;
Your fruit is found in Me.”
Who is wise?
Let him understand these things.
Who is prudent?
Let him know them.
For the ways of the LORD are right;
The righteous walk in them,
But transgressors stumble in them
Restoration only comes when Israel is willing to respond to God in faith. This means she must cast aside her alliances with not only false gods, but the false hope of military power. Mercy is to be found only by casting aside the powers of this world. Imitating the Christ Who is to come, Israel is able to enter into the mercy of God only by accepting her own status as an outcast among the nations and instead rely wholly on God. Returning to the Gospel, Jesus suffers the shame and ridicule of those who are closest to Him, of those who He has come to serve, to help, to heal and to forgive. For us who follow Jesus this means we too must accept the ridicule and shame of this world and instead be willing outcasts, men and women who are forgotten and abused by those who account themselves mighty according to the standards of this world. There is, I am afraid, no other way to proclaim the Gospel except through our own weakness. While we may not be called to a life of material poverty or monastic obedience, if we hold fast to the Gospel we will always find ourselves, at this moment or that, rejected precisely because we are a sign of contradiction to this world and its standards. This rejection will often come from those who are closest to us, from those who we have been called to serve, and even from those who themselves carry the Name above every other name. This it seems is inescapable; it is simply the Gospel. In all of this I would do well to remember, not only the example of Jesus Christ in whose Name I suffer, but also Jairus, his wife and the Apostles. You see I am not only persecuted and ridiculed; like Jairus, his wife and like Peter, James and John I too ridicule Christ and those who carry His Name. In Christ, +Fr Gregory
Needless to say, the picture below is the icon of St John Chrysostom, not your servant. Those of you who live in the greater Youngstown area are of course most welcome to attend my talk and, as alway, your comments are most welcome.
In Christ,
+Fr Gregory
PRESENTS “WHAT’S WRONG WITH US? THOUGHTS ON WHY EAST/WEST CHRISTIAN RELATIONSIPS ARE DIFFICULT” TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2007, 7 P.M. ST. MARY BYZANTINE CATHOLIC CHURCH 7782 GLENWOOD AVENUE BOARDMAN, OHIO SPEAKER: FATHER GREGORY JENSEN, ORTHODOX PRIEST AND PSYCHOLOGIST FREE AND PUBLIC WELCOME THE SOCIETY OF ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM IS AN ECUMENICAL ORGANIZATION OF CATHOLIC AND ORTHODOX CLERGY AND LAITY, WORKING TO MAKE KNOWN THE HISTORY, WORSHIP, SPIRITUALITY, DISCIPLINE AND THEOLOGY OF EASTERN CHRISTENDOM, AND FOR THE FULLNESS OF UNITY DESIRED BY JESUS CHRIST. (FOR INFORMATION CALL: 330-755-5635)
With a hat tip to Dean Abbott of Inspired by a True Story, two offerings from teacher and slam poet Taylor Mali. The first asks us to, “Like, you know,” learn to speak with conviction. Together with the second piece, “What Teachers Make” Mali’s poetry has inspires me (in a positive way) to reflect on my own priorities as a Christian and as a priest (I should warn those of you with tender sensibilities, the second of the two videos uses some very graphic language that some might find offensive.)
As always, your comments are welcome.
In Christ,
+Fr Gregory
Like, You Know
What Teachers Make
First of all the good news, Koinonia has received over 8,000 hits and has some 70 subscribers. Thank you!
Now the not so good news. Ours being a fallen world means there are no unambiguous successes. If this is true anywhere, it is certainly true online. For those who receive comments via email may have noticed a few spam comments. For the sake of everyone’s privacy and security I have chosen to moderate all future comments. Basically this means that I will approve the comments before they are distributed. This is not done to limit conversation–only to block spam. Everyone’s comments will be distributed but there will be a slight delay.
I apologize for any inconvenience for the delay in our increasingly lively and productive conversations.
In Christ,
+Fr Gregory
Bad days, we all have them. Though substantial the same I made several grammatical and spelling corrections to this essay. My apologizes for sloppiness.
In Christ,
+FrG
Christian theological reflection begins by looking backwards. Our concern is always to meditate on the Word of God, the Holy Scriptures. Because we are members of the One Body of Christ and “surrounded by a great cloud of witness,” our mediation necessarily includes the reflections of those who have gone before us “marked with the sign of faith.” This above all means the we are called to think about the lives and work of the saints and Fathers.
The temptation of this approach, however, is to stay in the past. There is a certain romantic glow when we imagine ourselves to live no longer in our own time but (by a series of curious intellectual and emotional twists and turns) in some bygone “Golden Age.” Well, “bygone,” to everyone but us that is. While we must learn from the past we cannot be limited to it. As Thomas Merton somewhere said that we value the “old answers” not because they are old but because they are true.
I offer this by way of a caution about my earlier reflections on the role of the priest in the early Church. As much as I find helpful for my own ministry meditating on the office of the priest during the patristic era, I also know that we cannot return to the 2nd century. Not only can we not do this, we ought not to try or even allow ourselves the self-indulgent luxury of imaging that such a return is desirable. Thomas Wolfe is correct, “You can’t go home again.”
That said though, what can the past teach us about the ministry of the parish priest in the contemporary situation?
Right at the start the way I’ve phrased the question betrays my conviction that not all priests need to be, or should be, parish priests. Besides the need for priestly service in monasteries, I think there is something valuable in leaving in reserve priest, married or monastic, for the classical work of presbyter: counseling, governing and teaching on the diocesan level (or even outside the formal boundaries of the Church, but that is for another day). This has been the work of presbyters from very early on and, if the needs of the Church have changed and the work of the priest with it, this does not absolve the Church, much less the order of presbyters, from these earliest obligations.
As the Church has grown, the ancient practice of the Church being coterminous with faithful of a given geographical area gathering around the Holy Altar together with the bishop, the presbyterial senate, the deacons, the minor orders, the order of virgins and the whole People of God, is no longer the practice. I will leave to better theological minds then mine whether or not the ancient or contemporary should be the norm. For myself all I can say is, that even if we should return to the ancient practice of smaller dioceses and more bishops, we can only do so by invigorating the Church within its current limits.
And so to the parish priest.
The work of the late Baptist theology A.J. Conyers, The Listening Heart: Vocation And the Crisis of Modern Culture is helpful in understanding the parish priesthood. Mike Aqualia on the blog Fathers of the Church, offers us some selections (and a very positive review) from Conyers’ work. Reading through them with our concern for the parochial ministry of the priest, I am struck by this passage regarding St Justin Martyr
who came to the Christian faith by way of Stoicism and Platonism. For him Christian faith is the “touchstone” of truth. He believed that the identification of Christ as logos in Scripture opened the way to understanding even pre-Christian philosophies as bearing a measure of truth. Explains the historian Henry Chadwick, “Christ is for Justin the principle of unity and the criterion by which we may judge the truth, scattered like divided seeds among the different schools of philosophy in so far as they have dealt with religion and morals.”
As with Justin, the parish priest finds himself in a community in which, through creation and the sacraments, God the Father through the Holy Spirit has scattered the seeds of Christ. In each person that he encounters in the parish the priest finds Christ seminally present. It is the priest’s task and great privilege to discern and nurture the seminal presence of Christ in his parishioners, uniquely for the person and corporately for the parish.
The ability, the authority (exousia), to do this is central to the promise made to the priest at his ordination. The bishop prays that God will send down on the candidate “divine grace which always heals what is infirm and completes what is lacking” so that filled
with the gift of your Holy Spirit this man, whom you have been well-pleased to let enter the rank of Presbyter, that he may become worthy to stand without blemish before your Altar, to proclaim the Gospel of your Kingdom, to minister the word of your truth, to offer gifts and spiritual sacrifices, to renew your People through the washing of rebirth, so that, when he meets the second coming of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ, your only-begotten Son, he may in your great goodness receive the reward of his good stewardship of his own order.
The presbyter is no merely liturgical functionary–the priest is the steward of the gifts God has given His Church. And these gifts are above all those personal and shared charismata given to each believer to strengthen the Church and make possible the fulfilling of the commandments given to her by Christ.
The ministry of the parish priest then is this:
To help the members of the community Christ, through the bishop, has entrusted to his care discover and develop their own charismata for the sake of the whole Church and for themselves.
This is the direct application of the priest’s more general ministry to the diocese as counselor, governor and teacher. And as with the priest, it is important to note here, that the parish (and so the parishioners) only fulfills its own ministry in so far as the parish serve not simply its own needs, but the needs of the whole Church (that is, the diocese).
Strictly speaking the priest does not serve the parish. He serves the local Church (diocese). The parish is that part of the diocese that has been entrusted to his stewardship. But his aim is not the parish as such, but the diocese. His work in the parish finds its justification and completion only as part of the work of the whole Church.
In this service he will, invariable, discover that the riches poured out by Christ through the Holy Spirit on the members of the parish have a curiously incomplete character. This doesn’t mean that Christ gives only partial gifts. Rather the gifts that are given to each are only fulfilled in and through the personal integration, the personal incorporation if you will, of each member of the faithful into the larger community of the parish. Even as the gifts given to each are fulfilled by incorporation into the parish, so to the gifts given to the parish as whole only find their fulfillment though the parish’s incorporation into the diocese.
Conyer’s meditation on the Church fathers’ understanding of tolerance highlights for us the challenge that the parish priest faces in fulfilling his own office. In addition to human sinfulness, the priest leads a congregation that is very much formed by the modern world.
Modern times … lost the earlier understanding of a higher connection among different ways of thinking and believing. Thus modern people tended to know no way of tolerating alien thought other than to say that all opinions are of equal value since they merely illuminate the mind of the individual doing the thinking. Or, to put it less starkly, they confined certain kinds of thought, religious and moral thought specifically, to the realm of the private.
When, as will inevitably be the case, parishioners try to absolutize their own gifts, the priest is called to counsel tolerance. This is not done as the world does this, by privatizing the differences in our gifts so as to allow us to live separate lives on parallel tracks. Rather it is the priest’s task to demonstrate to the individual parishioner how his or her gifts are essential for the completion the gifts given to others. The more challenge task, however, is to help people see that they too are in need of the gifts that Christ has given to the other members of the Body of Christ and that without their gifts, my gifts remain incomplete.
The more richly we are blessed, it seems to me, the more we need to realize that our gifts are only fulfilled by the gifts God has given to others.
As when Clement of Alexandria looked at Greek philosophy, the parish priest needs to cultivate in himself and his community a living sense of the parish as a “chorus of truth” Again, Conyers;
This multiple source did not replace Scripture, but it illuminated its pages. All philosophy, if it was true philosophy, was of divine origin, even though what we receive through philosophy is broken and almost unintelligible. All truth, Clement would argue, is God’s truth. In his Stromata (Miscellanies) he wrote, “They may say that it is mere chance that the Greeks have expressed something of the true philosophy. But that chance is subject to divine providence. . . . Or in the next place it may be said that the Greeks possessed an idea of truth implanted by nature. But we know that the Creator of nature is one only…”
The parish priest, in concert with the bishop and the faithful, is called to help see how the different gifts given to each illumines not only the Scriptures, but the lives of each and the work of the whole Church.
While it is understandable that we might find ourselves longing for a return the “Golden Age” of the Fathers, or at least the more proximate “good ol’ days” of the parish, a return to the past in either case is impossible. But possible or not, it is “now,” not “yesterday,” that is the acceptable hour to serve God as He has called us to serve Him.
In the use of their gifts the priest and his parishioners need to follow the example of Christ:
So He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up. And as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read. And He was handed the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when He had opened the book, He found the place where it was written:
” The Spirit of the LORD is upon Me,
Because He has anointed Me
To preach the gospel to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,
To proclaim liberty to the captives
And recovery of sight to the blind,
To set at liberty those who are oppressed;
To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD.”Then He closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all who were in the synagogue were fixed on Him. And He began to say to them, “Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.” So all bore witness to Him, and marveled at the gracious words which proceeded out of His mouth. And they said, “Is this not Joseph’s son?” (Luke 4: 16-22)
Today, here and now, among these peoples with all their gifts and limitations, the Scriptures are fulfilled.
While the past may guide our understanding, the past cannot be substituted for the present. The parish priest is set aside to counsel, govern and teach and his specific area of concern is the parish. Dependent upon the Holy Spirit it is in the lives of his parishioners that he is called to discern the will of God the Father and the presence of Christ not simply for the sake of the parish, but the whole of the Church.
In Christ,
+Fr Gregory
Reading through the most excellent comments on an earlier post on “closed source” and “open source” models of ministry I note, not all together happily I hasten to add, the prominence of the priest and his role in making or breaking the parish. I do not wish to minimize the importance of the priest–far from it in fact. But I do have a few thoughts that might help us, or at least me, come to a bit of clarity about the relationship between the priest and the parish.
First, and both Chrys and S-P have alluded to this, there is the question of the priest’s character. In the usual order of things, which is to say how we do things today, we trust the man because he is a priest. It is the fact of his ordination to priesthood that causes us to think and speak about the priest as trustworthy and a leader.
But this I think is exactly backwards.
We do not, or at least ought not, trust a man because he is a priest. Rather he is a priest because we trust him. Likewise the priest’s leadership role in the worship of God is his precisely because he has, or should have, demonstrated his able to lead the parish in the other areas of the Christian life. Let me explain.
Historically men were ordained to the priesthood not to serve parishes, but to counsel the bishop. It was the bishop’s responsibility to stand at the head of the community and lead the People of God in offering praise and sacrifice to God. When the Church gathered, all the orders of the Church, laity, deacons and priests, each in their own place (thus “orders”) stood together with the bishop around the Holy Altar. The priests stood closer to the Holy Altar and the bishop during the Liturgy as a reflection of his unique role in the Church.
This role was three-fold: First, in the early Church priests were the wise elders (presbyter, is Greek for elder) who served as counselors to the bishop. Second, by virtue of their demonstrated wisdom and mature counsel, presbyters assisted the bishop as governors of the Holy Church of Christ (the diocese). Third and finally, these wise counselors and experienced governors were also teachers who expounded the Word of God with power and authority (it is noteworthy that St John Chrysostom came to prominence as a preacher will still a priest in Antioch.
Before all else the ministry of the presbyter is to counsel, govern and teach. It is only as a consequence of his fulfilling these obligation that a man would be entrusted to lead the Church of Christ in offering praise and sacrifice to God the Father in the absence of the bishop.
While I am not in anyway opposed to the professionalizing of the clergy, it is important to keep in mind that the office as priest is first and foremost about character and virtue and not professional skills (no matter how important). This means that the priest must demonstrate that he is to be trusted not simply in a general sense, but specifically in his ability to serve as counselor, governor and teacher for the Church. The witness of a priest is first and foremost a personal witness and then, only secondarily, a reflection of skills.
This means that, to borrow a phrase from my young ministry days, the priest must “earn the right to be heard.’ Usually factors such as seminary education and subsequent ordination will get the man the benefit of the doubt since most of us respect education and the office of the priest. But these factors while important, and in the case of ordination essential, they are nevertheless external to the man and so external to his character and his personal relationship to the Church.
In our conversations about the priesthood we (laity and clergy alike) tend reduce the office to liturgy, so closely do we identify the priest with his parochial liturgical duties. For many priests and parishes this reduction of the priest to his liturgical duties is the preferred state of affairs.
Doing this however is harmful both for the priest and the parish.
Even when the model is not priest/spiritual, on the one hand, and laity/business, on the other, is a bad idea. The narrow identification of the parish priest with his liturgical role does not encourage the priest to grow and develop pastorally and professionally, much less personally. If all that I’m expected to do as the priest, if all I want to do as the priest, is to celebrate the services, then I will very quickly stagnate. Whether I find myself serving a parish with an active or minimal liturgical life doesn’t really matter. In either case I am left with a rather large void in my life that I will try and fill with something other than the development of the non-liturgical gifts God has given me.
For some that means more services. One real consequence, or at least temptation, is that the priest begins to confuse his liturgical function with who is really is. In this case the goal of the priest is to be confirmed in his liturgically based identity. When this happens the priest is likely to ignore, or worse, resent, anyone or anything that distracts him from his liturgical obligations.
Or, if liturgy isn’t all that important to the parish and no one has much non-liturgical use for priest, he’ll try and find other interests, typically social, to fill the void. Whether these social interests are ecclesiastical or secular doesn’t matter. With his social life becomes more and more important, as committee work and dinners become evermore fill his day, the priest is subject to petty vanities.
In either case the priest suffers. And with the priest, the whole Church, the diocese and the parish, also suffer; we suffer because we lose the gifts that the man brought to the priesthood. And we lose as well because, following the example of the priest, we begin to identify our own spiritual life with either an extensive cycle of liturgical services, or an unending round of social activities. And this assume that, unlike the vast majority of Orthodox Christians, we simply don’t walk away limiting our participation in the Church to baptisms, weddings and funerals.
So what is the way out?
It is a return to the primacy of character. Not simply the character of the priest, but of each and every single person in the parish. The problems, the temptations, and failures facing the priest are not his alone. They are common to the whole human family and especially to the Church.
To overcome all this, requires leadership and providing this is the first challenge of the priest. His character is tested by how well he is willing to place the riches of the Tradition, and the real power of his office, to the work of transforming lives.
For good or ill, the priest leads by example. Either he leads the parish to salvation or leaves them in stagnation. To lead them to salvation however requires that he place himself on the line, that he understand that his office buys him only a polite “hello” and a moment of time.
After that, what he does is dependent on divine grace and his own creativity.
But that I will leave for another time.
In Christ,
+Fr Gregory
The following is the final report of the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church that recently met in Ravenna, Italy. While long, it is certainly well worth reading. I have included only the Introduction with a link to the remainder of the report. Though I have not studied the report in depth, what I have read impresses me and encourages me for the future of Catholic/Orthodox relations and reconciliation (and if God so wills, let this be in my life time).
In Christ,
+Fr Gregory
Ecclesiological and Canonical Consequences of the Sacramental Nature of the Church. Ecclesial Communion, Conciliarity and Authority
Ravenna, 13 October 2007
Introduction
1. "That they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be one in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me" (Jn 17, 21). We give thanks to the triune God who has gathered us – members of the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church - so that we might respond together in obedience to this prayer of Jesus. We are conscious that our dialogue is restarting in a world that has changed profoundly in recent times. The processes of secularization and globalization, and the challenge posed by new encounters between Christians and believers of other religions, require that the disciples of Christ give witness to their faith, love and hope with a new urgency. May the Spirit of the risen Lord empower our hearts and minds to bear the fruits of unity in the relationship between our Churches, so that together we may serve the unity and peace of the whole human family. May the same Spirit lead us to the full expression of the mystery of ecclesial communion, that we gratefully acknowledge as a wonderful gift of God to the world, a mystery whose beauty radiates especially in the holiness of the saints, to which all are called.
2. Following the plan adopted at its first meeting in Rhodes in 1980, the Joint Commission began by addressing the mystery of ecclesial koinônia in the light of the mystery of the Holy Trinity and of the Eucharist. This enabled a deeper understanding of ecclesial communion, both at the level of the local community around its bishop, and at the level of relations between bishops and between the local Churches over which each presides in communion with the One Church of God extending across the universe (Munich Document, 1982). In order to clarify the nature of communion, the Joint Commission underlined the relationship which exists between faith, the sacraments – especially the three sacraments of Christian initiation – and the unity of the Church (Bari Document, 1987). Then by studying the sacrament of Order in the sacramental structure of the Church, the Commission indicated clearly the role of apostolic succession as the guarantee of the koinônia of the whole Church and of its continuity with the Apostles in every time and place (Valamo Document, 1988). From 1990 until 2000, the main subject discussed by the Commission was that of "uniatism" (Balamand Document, 1993; Baltimore, 2000), a subject to which we shall give further consideration in the near future. Now we take up the theme raised at the end of the Valamo Document, and reflect upon ecclesial communion, conciliarity and authority.
3. On the basis of these common affirmations of our faith, we must now draw the ecclesiological and canonical consequences which flow from the sacramental nature of the Church. Since the Eucharist, in the light of the Trinitarian mystery, constitutes the criterion of ecclesial life as a whole, how do institutional structures visibly reflect the mystery of this koinônia? Since the one and holy Church is realised both in each local Church celebrating the Eucharist and at the same time in the koinônia of all the Churches, how does the life of the Churches manifest this sacramental structure?
4. Unity and multiplicity, the relationship between the one Church and the many local Churches, that constitutive relationship of the Church, also poses the question of the relationship between the authority inherent in every ecclesial institution and the conciliarity which flows from the mystery of the Church as communion. As the terms "authority" and "conciliarity" cover a very wide area, we shall begin by defining the way we understand them.*
*Orthodox participants felt it important to emphasize that the use of the terms "the Church", "the universal Church", "the indivisible Church" and "the Body of Christ" in this document and in similar documents produced by the Joint Commission in no way undermines the self-understanding of the Orthodox Church as the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, of which the Nicene Creed speaks. From the Catholic point of view, the same self-awareness applies: the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church ’subsists in the Catholic Church’ (Lumen Gentium, 8); this does not exclude acknowledgement that elements of the true Church are present outside the Catholic communion.
Read more: Ecclesial Communion, Conciliarity and Authority.
After Liturgy this morning I had a conversation with one of the men in the parish about different approaches or models of pastoral ministry. For many ministry in the parish, whether by the clergy or the laity, is very much a “closed source” reality.
“Closed source,” you ask, “what is that?” I’ll tell you.
Without getting lost in the technical details “closed source” refers to a computer software in which the end user or consumer is does not have access to the source code or the actual program that makes the software work. In many cases this isn’t really a problem. Most of us, myself included, are not particularly interested in the source code of say, Microsoft Word. We don’t care how it works, only that it works. The technical details of the program, much like the technical details of automobiles, or electricity, or cell phones, don’t matter to us.
Except of course when the program, or automobile, or electricity, or cell phone, doesn’t work. Then we ask, pointlessly in my own case, “What’s wrong, why isn’t this stupid thing working?” The reality of course is I don’t really care why my cell phone isn’t working, at least not in any technical detail. I only care that I’m not able to make a phone call when I want to.
The typically parish I think largely runs on a closed source model. As with our computers, or our automobiles, or electricity or our cell phones, we don’t care how the parish works, only that it is there and working when we want something. While it is not all together true, the work of parish is kind of like making sausage or law, most people think it is better if they don’t really goes in to them.
But again, this is only the case while things are working. When things go wrong, or probably somewhat more cynically, if not inaccurately, we get upset and we want answers. Unfortunately, as with our computers or our automobiles, most of us really don’t have the knowledge basis to understand what went wrong. So again what most of us look for is not for an accurate appraisal of is wrong (and right) in our community, but an answer (and it is almost always a singular explanation we are searching for) we can understand and that makes sense (justifies really) our discomfort, disappointment, or anger.
While this is certainly understandable, and I am as prone to this as anyone, it is not reasonable to expect to have a satisfying answer to a complex question without putting in the necessary time beforehand. Without a sufficient knowledge base, any explanation I can understand is likely to distort the situation. Worse it is likely to play to and re-enforce my ignorance or bias or active prejudice.
My brother priests will often tell me that because I’m a psychologist I’m less biased in evaluating parishes. I’m not, I am simply differently biased then they are. The fact that my different bias, my different perspective on a parish, the people in the parish and their relationship with one another, is useful doesn’t mean that it is “objective” with any mathematical purity. Like everyone else I see what I see from my own vantage point in terms of my own life experiences and with my own very real blind spots.
So since none of us have time to master all the information necessary to run a parish, much less to diagnosis its illness, what are we to do? This is where the “open source” model of computer programing might come in handy. If Microsoft is closed source, open source software give the user access to the code that makes the program work. Why? Because in the open source model the conviction is that the best programs are developed incrementally, step-by-step, in an active and intentional collaborative process. In this process, those who design the software and those who use it are seen as partners in the development of the final product.
In the social realm blogs are very much an application of the open source model to the writing process. As the author of the blog, I invite you not only to read what I write, but to comment on it. These comments are especially valuable to me since they help focus my own thoughts, tell me where my thought is not being communicated effective, and are a source for me of new themes of inquiry and reflection.
So what might an open source approach to parish ministry look like?
I don’t know–that’s why I’ve written this post. Let me ask those of you who read this: What would an open source model parish look like? Have I even given you enough information to answer, or even understand, the question? As a suggestion, think of the times when your own parish has not been functioning properly, what (and not “who”) need to be different do you think to avoid, or at least minimize, the dysfunction? Looking back, what might have been done differently to strengthen the parish? And what does strengthen mean anyway?
Just some grist for the mill:
There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift. Therefore He says:
” When He ascended on high,
He led captivity captive,
And gave gifts to men.”(Now this, “He ascended”—what does it mean but that He also first[c] descended into the lower parts of the earth? He who descended is also the One who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.)
And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, or the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ—from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love (Eph 4:4-16).
In Christ,
+Fr Gregory
