Toils of the Rev. Mr. Bozo

Last week I was in a situation where I was forced to witness, as I have numerous times in the past, the painful spectacle of a minister debasing his person and his office. It was not by some gross indecency or, indeed, anything that would be condemned by the world at large or even by the church. Many pastors, however, will recognize it immediately when I describe it in terms of putting on the mask of forced conviviality, of salesman-like bonhomie, of—well, let us put it in more sanctified language—the “joy in Christ” that is supposed to be his stock in trade.

This man (not someone I knew), was, in his pastoral capacity, “working a room,” smiling broadly, back-patting, congratulating, shooting off little bullets of joy in all directions, in what seemed to me to be in almost frenzied way—in the manner of a pitiful chap who, desperately wanting friends, or under considerable pressure from his authorities to keep his job by “growing the church,” does his best to look like the very best of company to everyone.

Watching him at work I remembered my own days as a pastor and the hardest task I had to perform—to go after the service to my study, remove my robe, don my mask, trudge down to coffee in the undercroft, and do what felt, at least to me, just like what that minister I saw last week was doing.  I hated it. While I am a melancholic who felt he was expected to play the sanguine (a nearly universal expectation), and thus uncomfortably out of character, I’m not a misanthropist, nor do most people find me unpleasant company. The problem is that what I was doing—what I was expected to do, and faithfully did, to the best of my acting ability—was, in all the joy-spreading, to treat people and the world lightly, assuring them in an indirect way that all the seriousness about God and man they heard in my teaching was a duty and something like play-acting, whereas in the downstairs “recovery from church,” an invention of the Church Ladies I would without hesitation ban, what they saw in my social appearance represented my friendly, happy young self in the real world.  It was required of me, and I knew it.  There were numerous remarks on this. I seemed to be such a pleasant man: why was my pulpit work so deadly serious? I never told them. It was because my preaching was earnest exposition of holy scripture, and my role as master of religious ceremonies was pure hypocrisy.

Here I will rebuke in advance, and in the strongest terms, those whose comments I expect to hear scolding me in ignorance about my inability or unsuitability or unwillingness for the Christian duty of showing forth the joy of the Lord--not to mention those who persist in misunderstanding the sort of person I am referring to when I attack the "Church Ladies"--something wholly different than "Christian women"--who are at constant pains to make pastors into lap dogs.  There is a peculiarly masculine gravity that is proper to the incumbents of the presbyterial office, especially when it is a preaching and teaching office, against which certain common expectations militate, and contrary to which many of us act. There is room in the ministry for every personality type, and some of these will be more universally attractive than others. But when those who are not markedly sanguine must feign it for the sake of the gospel, then something has gone wrong with the gospel we preach. When the church becomes a circus where people with religious tastes come to be entertained—and this, I think, is at the heart of it—the pastor is obliged to play the clown.

Comments

[Nate]

There is room in the ministry for every personality type, and some of these will be more universally attractive than others. But when those who are not markedly sanguine must feign it for the sake of the gospel, then something has gone wrong with the gospel we preach.

But what if a minister has shown himself to be absolutely unable to fellowship (and I mean TRULY fellowship) with his parishioners? Is it OK for a minister to avoid all relationships? I ask because this is becoming a major issue in our church.

[Terry Bohannon]

Would a non-acting pastor in that scene, then, be marked as a black sheep and ostracized? That may not always be the case, but it would come down to the judgment of the Church Ladies.

[Terry Bohannon]

Nate, have his parishioners tried reaching out to him?

[The Waffling Anglican]

Sinful man that I am, if I had to suffer a happy clappy pastor on a regular basis, I would probably shoot him. (Ours tends to avoid coffee hour, unless he has something to discuss with someone or the food is particularly good. More power to him.)

[Patrick]

I'm curious if this is a phenomena that is mostly found in Evangelical sorts of churches? My experience has been that being a salesman personality is basically the only acceptable kind in getting a position in such churches. This is curious, as saleman personalities tend to be the most friendly, and yet the least deep.

You note that he had a frenzied, 'trying to keep his job' aspect, which sadly is entirely the case for many churches. As a seminary graduate who applied for positions it was made quite clear to me that my lack of such a personality was the primary reason for not getting jobs, even if I excelled in other aspects of ministry.

I ask if this is limited to Evangelical traditions because they have such an overarching emphasis on evangelism and church growth that a salesman type will be the only kind to make what the elders and such consider measurable achievement. Other traditions have more balance, or different emphases, and may allow for the more inward focused.

[Paul T. McCain]

I can identify with these comments. I am by nature shy and reserved, so, yes, I have to work at being "social." Chit-chat and small talk are not great strengths of mine. But, I actually always enjoyed the time to greet and chat with folks in my congregation. But you are right. We are not used car salesmen. We are representatives of Christ Jesus. I believe that means reflecting in our persons the joy of salvation which is ours in Him, though certainly not in a forced or artificial way. I like the comments about the gravitas appropriate to a pastor. Pastors who feel the need to be perceived as "one of the boys" will simply not be respected in their office.

[Bob]

I understand what you are saying. I pastor a small church while in seminary and do so after years of being in business specializing in sales and marketing. I like preaching inclusive of the reason you listed, but also like working the room. I hope in a much more personal way than you describe of Mr. Bozo.

Reviewing my memory of church going years I have see many more pastors as untouchable characters than Mr. Bozo's.

I loved your comments, will read again, but not right now. I have a room to work and Hebrew to study. By the way, didn't Jesus work a room? How about a field?

[Patrick]

Bob, it seems that Jesus did work a room, but different than a salesman would. He told what he told, and engaged people but was also quite okay with alienating others who wouldn't accept his stark reality. He was personable but never at the expense of who he was. Indeed, as he was crucified his sales technique clearly didn't depend on getting a lot of people to like him.

But, there is a definite balance. A person shouldn't have to be the always happy salesman. Nor can a minister, by definition I think, be forever aloof and untouchable. If a pastor cannot relate to people he is simply not a pastor, no matter if is being paid for such a position. The best pastors relate genuinely to people, with the picture of what that "genuine' looks like different for each minister. A person with gifts as a salesman shouldn't have to become a dour, morose fellow, and a person who relates to people less socially active, but maybe more personally, shouldn't have to become a silly fellow. Sadly, some think that to be a pastor they have to become some other sort of person rather than be who the Holy Spirit has made them to be.

[Gene Godbold]

I'm glad Patrick separated evangelism and church growth in his posting, because they are not the same things. Evangelism (which I take to mean discipling people--educating and fostering their maturation in allegiance to Jesus Christ) is the Biblically-mandated priority. Church growth must always be secondary to it.

As most posters have noted, pastors can have very different personality types. (If someone really just can't stand the emotional drain of interacting with people, he should probably go into academia and spread the gospel through the written word.) Those pastors who tend to introversion might find their place in more intimate gatherings: counseling and visiting one-on-one. I'm a deacon who is balanced (according to the Myers-Briggs classification) at the midpoint between extroversion and introversion. I have attempted to put on a "happy face" during coffee hour, especially when I'm uncomfortable, and it has always been a disaster; I end up putting so much energy into the "act" that I can't pay attention to the person with which I'm talking.

[cantemir]

Another area of friction in parish life is meetings and parish councils. Well, in most Orthodox parishes these occur once a year, after a Sunday Liturgy, during Lent. And yet I have heard of some convert groups constantly meeting, once a month or even more, discussing the same old things.

Personally I find it weird that parishioners want to hang out socially with their priest - what's the point? Do you hang out with your doctor, your dentist, your professors (or students mutatis mutandis,) your gardener, your boss?

If you want to hang out with priests all the time, you should probably become a monk. Otherwise, stop kidding yourself.

[dilys]

There is such a mishmash of motivations among church-goers, often lonely, angry, isolated, ambitious, bored, sadistic, needy, habitually-tuned-out -- the list could go on, including moi many days.

This all in addition to when not in contradiction of "working out our salvation."

Most parishes sadly are not grown-up and flexible enough to look anew at social traditions with each pastor to see what works. A pastor who hates coffee hour or meetings should be able to show up seldom or depart almost immediately. In general, the job description for a modern American pastor is wildly incoherent and self-contradictory. But, I don't care what the Bishop or consultant says, all he really has to do, ever, outside the church service, is stand there and breathe, and pray inwardly for charity and guidance. Nobody can make anyone play the fool, and if he's afraid for his job for not "growing the church," the prescription is Matthew 6:19-34.

By the time I leave the coffee hour I've forgotten the sermon and lost the vibratory frequency of the arc of sung prayer. Lots of the "best" people rarely show up, and I may do less of it. But the genius of the Church is its scope. I wouldn't want to spoil the fun of those, including assorted church ladies, who would wander around bereft without it, including many who exhibit no bent ever to look happy :-)

[cantemir]

From the same link:

And the same goes for your relationship with the priest. You may have something in common in personality. But perhaps not. Perhaps you find him 'not monastic enough' or perhaps you find him 'too liberal', or perhaps just plain boring. Well, going to church is not about having a close relationship with the priest and buying the same breakfast cereal as he does. Frankly, if you know what he eats for breakfast, you probably know him too well.

[Patrick]

Cantemir, I wonder what kind of church you go to that the priest should be afforded more privacy and respect than Jesus himself?

This makes me consider Philippians 2:6. Jesus did not consider equality with God something to be grasped. Yet, in my estimation that is precisely what many pastors and priests are looking for, and being given by their parishioners. There are two ways of expressing supposed godhood. One is by the way expressed in the post, by extreme gregariousness. They are a social god for their community, tying everyone together, without weakness. The other is the kind mentioned in the quote above. The priest supposes godhood by being vested with some curious form of aloofness, only to be trotted out during times of religious devotion or extreme piety, only able to be known by those who have dedicated themselves especially to a life of holiness.

The perspective as I see it in the Scriptures is somewhere in the middle. Jesus, as our high priest, certainly shared breakfast with his disciples, and had to make special efforts to find times in which people couldn't approach him, and get to know him. He also was real in his emotions, honest in his views of people, and fully whole in his social interactions.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>But what if a minister has shown himself to be absolutely unable to fellowship (and I mean TRULY fellowship) with his parishioners? <<<

Make him a bishop.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Personally I find it weird that parishioners want to hang out socially with their priest <<<

That's only because, in the Western tradition (small "t"), the priest is set apart from the people--the mandatory celibacy of the Latin Church ensures that this is the case. Living alone (or with other priests, or with a housekeeper), the Western priest is someone who walks in, does his thing, and walks out. His presence among the people creates discomfort on both sides. This seems to carry over into the Episcopacy, since bishops in the Western Church appear most loathe to "mingle" with the people whose pastoral care is supposed to be his primary duty. Yet, having spent his entire career alienated from the life of ordinary people, how can he be expected to be anything other than self-conscious in the presence of the laity?

On the other hand, in Orthodox parishes (and increasingly in Eastern Catholic parishes), the priest is a married man, who lives in the midst of his congregation and who takes an active part in the TOTAL life of the parish--both the sacramental and its social. With the priest's wife sharing in his ministry, with especial focus on the women and children of the parish, the priest and his family are tightly drawn to the people, to their mode of life, and to their daily concerns. That so many children of Eastern priests follow their fathers into the sacerdotal ministry (and often end up serving as acolytes, lectors and subdeacons in their parishes) further diminishes the distance between priest and people.

This could create the problem of overfamiliarity, but usually it doesn't--and I really don't have any answer why, unless it is because the awesome majesty of the Liturgy reinforces both the priest's dignitas and the people's respect for the office.

There is one problem that the Eastern Orthodox Churches in this country do share with the Protestants--rampant congregationalism. Since Orthodox parishes are essentially under lay stewardship (the parish council does not appoint the priest, but has a huge say in his salary and living conditions, and can make his life hell, if it wants), the councils usually want to meddle more than is warranted in how the priest ministers to his flock--and it takes a strong man to resist. As one Orthodox bishop remarked to a new bishop coming from Europe to take up a diocese here, "In America, every priest acts like a bishop, but every parish council acts like a patriarch".

[James Altena]

Stuart Koehl, your post is a unfair caricature of "Latin" clergy. During two decades of adult Christian bachelordom (happily concluded last summer by matrimony), I have been blessed to enjoy not just social contacts, but even deep friendships, with celibate Roman, Orthodox, and Anglican clergy. Together we have dined, attended the symphony and opera and art museums, debated theological differences in charity, and prayed. Whether introverts or extroverts, melacholic or sanguine, all of them have been warm, wonderful persons, with none conforming to your unjust sterotype. (And, no, I was not a "sacristy rat" -- I knew quite well how to respect their sacred office, space and privacy.)

And Cantemir, I hope you will reconsider your outlook. It almost seems as if you have a Docetic view of clergy, instead of regarding them as flesh and blood mortals. Even Jesus called his disciples "friends" and had a circle of three intimates among them, including a particuarly "beloved disciple." Certainly the clergy I have known have all rejoiced to have parishioners who were their close friends. Clergy not only like, but need, to have friends other than just fellow clergy.

I feel sorrow for what Dr. Hutchens and others in his position endured. Tt bespeaks the problem in a culture in which breezy, superficial familiarity has increasingly supplanted true intimacy, whether intellectual, emotional, or spiritual. I am thankful to have a parish priest (married, with family) whose great personal reserve (reminiscent of George Washington and Robert E. Lee) is respected and honored by one and all in the congregation.

[cantemir]

I can see I've struck some nerves.

Stuart, I am Orthodox, so criticism of the Latins on this matter seems awfully like a matter of 'any stigma is good enough to beat a dogma,' as the wit said. Believe me, for detachment, it's hard to beat some Orthodox priests in Eastern Europe, particularly those who serve immense urban parishes full of the deracinated victims of Communism. I've worshipped in churches where the priests do not know their parishioners' names.

I wonder what kind of church you go to that the priest should be afforded more privacy and respect than Jesus himself?

Patrick, that has nothing to do with anything. It's not that the priest is too sacred to touch or that he should not be involved in pastoral issues. On the contrary, I think that excessive social entanglements obstruct the performance of one's pastoral duties. It's hard to tell your bowling buddy that he has to marry the girl he's living with or that he drinks too much beer.

I think you're reading nonexistent and inappropriate theological issues into my post.

James, I don't really mind being friends with a priest. On the other hand, I don't think that people should impose themselves on someone whose office requires him to put up with them. That you admit the existence of 'sacristy rats' really just makes my point for me.

That you call me 'Docetic' on such a flimsy basis, though, makes me think that you really ought to get out more. Honestly, what have we come to when anything I have posted warrants the suggestion that I am unsound on the matter of Christ's humanity? Do you really think that it is proper to make such an immense leap from a three-line post that was more than 50% quoted text from an Orthodox priest?

[Terry Bohannon]

I think that excessive social entanglements obstruct the performance of one's pastoral duties.

Indeed, Nathan, but what do you mean by excessive? Couldn't there be a balance between being a friend and pastor? The best teachers gain respect by having high expectations and empowering their students to reach them. A pastor, being friends, does not need to neglect holding his flock accountable for friends' sake. If a priest holds his flock accountable through love (agape) while being social because he enjoys their company, what's wrong with that?

[cantemir]

Terry,

Out of curiousity, how do you know my given name? Not that my identity is in any way secret, of course!

Couldn't there be a balance between being a friend and pastor?

While I don't disagree in principle, the article to which these comments are attached would seem to demonstrate that many pastors are not allowed not to be friends - and that they suffer from having to feign friendship with people whom they find wearisome. Being a priest doesn't mean that you have to like people, only to love them, and enforced sociability seems to me to be foreign to the spirit of Christian fellowship.

In any case, the office of the priest is to offer the services and celebrate the Eucharist (or, I suppose, to proclaim the Gospel or something, for Protestant ministers.) In all honesty, I would rather seek spiritual advice from a monk than a priest, because the monk is not beholden to earthly attachments.

[Tony Esolen]

A string of thoughtful comments, following a touching and incisive post by Dr. Hutchens....

I number many priests among my friends, including my closest friends. They do not include my wholly admirable pastor; they do include my confessor, who in that capacity is a sort of spiritual director vested with the authority to tell me what to do and where to get off the train. But he is a rare sort, a straight shooter whose friendship is not based on sentiment or on personal need. There's a strict hierarchy between us on that score: I look to him for counsel, and I do what he says, and haven't regretted it.

The pastor needs to act as a kind of father to his flock, or as an abbot to the monks in his charge. That requires something beyond gregariousness and affability (though some people are served well by these; see Saint Andrew, who as Fr. Reardon has pointed out in Touchstone, bothered to notice what a small boy had packed for his lunch). Sometimes it requires a certain aloofness -- maybe that is the wrong word for it; maybe rather a fatherly reserve, or a character and bearing that command reverence before they invite familiarity.

What's lost in our view of the church is that arrow of command. We all want to be liked, and there is nothing wrong with being liked, but we also need to be loved, and sometimes we need to be loved by being commanded to dig that trench or swab that deck. The pastor who -- often for his own personal needs -- allows himself to be a "pal" to his flock will find it difficult to play the father or the commander when the need arises. And the need will arise.

I want very much that my children should love me, but, if it were a choice between that love and their growing into upright adults, I can do without the love. My wife would miss it terribly, but she has her place, an essential place of surpassing beauty, and I have mine, and mine is the lonelier of the two. My kids do love me, but they will never love me as deeply as they love my wife, and that is exactly as I would have it, both for her and for me. The reward for me comes when they follow in the faith that I walk, with my wife at my side.

It's not for nothing that they call the leader of a monastery an "abbot," a papa. Pastors should take heed.

[Terry Bohannon]

Ah, your name is inexorably linked to your e-mail address in a Google search. Sorry if it made you uncomfortable, I thought it would be more personable than the pseudonym.

[smh]

I think, Dr. Esolen, you have hit the nail on the head.

[GL]

Re Tony's comments: I recall reading a biography of Theodore Roosevelt in which the author describe the relationship TR and his second wife, Edith, had with their children. Edith (I believe) had told the children that she would like to be loved, but that she insisted on being respected. It has probably been 25 years since I read that, but I never forgot it. When my own children protest discipline by declaring that I am not their friend, I agree and assert that I am their father.

That does not mean that their is no place for a gregarious and affable personality in parenthood or the ministry. My grandfather was a Baptist minister and a very outgoing person. But that is how God made him; it wasn't manufactured. As a result, he could still be firm when he needed to be because he wasn't forcing his friendliness at other times and did not have an exaggerated need to be liked. I am more the reserved type; if I tried to relate to others as my grandfather did it would be forced and I could not command respect when I needed to be firm. One must be what God has made him to be.

[Jenna]

What about pastors who initiate and actively pursue and participate in friendships with parishoners? I don't mean post-worship, superficial interaction or merely at church events. I talking about gifts exchanged, dinners out, work together on projects around the house, confidences shared. Is it wrong? Should it be discouraged?

[Gene Godbold]

Hey Jenna,
I can't see how having friends among your parishioners can be a bad thing. The pastor shouldn't have "favorites" though.

I remember seeing a sort of census of the Church at Rome in the early third century. In addition to the Bishop (the Pope), there were scores of presbyters (~80) and hundreds of deacons. I think the diaconate is a neglected office nowadays (I may be biased) and it would be great to revive it. If you have just one guy carrying the burden of ministry, you have a fair bit of potential for favoritism. If you have lots of ministers, it can lessen the chance for the appearance of "cliques" that can be destructive of good order and fellowship.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>tuart Koehl, your post is a unfair caricature of "Latin" clergy. <<<

Is it now? Well, all "caricatures" have a basis in truth, otherwise they don't work. My remarks were based on my observations of Latin, Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox clergy in parish and social environments, as well as my discussions with members of all three Churches. As a member of a lay ecumenical groups that holds meetings bringing Catholics and Orthodox together for discussions, worship and fellowship, I get to see them all in action, and I call them as I see them. My remarks apply in spades to Latin bishops, who never seem to show up unless accompanied by a hoard of chancery hangers-on, and who then hide in a corner hoping they don't have to make small talk with the riff-raff. One might almost think the laity have cooties. I compare, for instance, the relative behavior and attitudes of Cardinal McCarrick and Patriarch Gregorios of the Melkite Church at one recent event. The good Cardinal breezed in with his lackies, established himself in a corner, and "received" a handful of well-wishers. He is, after all, a "Prince of the Church". The Patriarch (who stands above the Cardinal in precedence), on the other hand, was eminently approachable through the whole evening, accompanied only by the local parish priest, who introduced him to everyone. Throughout the evening, His Beattiude was mobbed by men, women and especially children, who wanted to see him, touch him, speak to him and listen to him. He was the shepherd, they were his sheep.

>>>Believe me, for detachment, it's hard to beat some Orthodox priests in Eastern Europe, particularly those who serve immense urban parishes full of the deracinated victims of Communism. I've worshipped in churches where the priests do not know their parishioners' names.>>>

That's unfortunate, and I do not doubt that it is true. But I believe it is also rare, based again on my own observations and experiences. Out in my neck of the woods, all Eastern parishes are small, whether Orthodox or Catholic. My own is one of the largest, with about 450 members. Our priest knows the names and histories of those who show up more than at Nativity and Pascha. Most parishes are much smaller, and the priest would be hard pressed not to know them. In larger urban areas with transient immigrant populations, I can believe that there are priests who are somewhat cut off. And Eastern European priests, dealing with the aftermath of Communism and the challange of adapting to a new country with a new language, might have more trouble than most at integrating themselves into the parish situation. On the other hand, immigrant priests have proven to be some of the best and most spiritually atuned pastors I have seen. So it's an individual thing, but taking the averages, I go with my original observation, which again, holds in the aggregate.

With regard to the Episcopalian clergy, most of my contact with them has been through the chaplains at my daughters' day school--and as these have invariably been women, enough said. The Episcipal clergy I have admired most are now either Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox.

[Terry Bohannon]

Oh, favoritism is a little hard to avoid. It is not always a bad thing for a priest to have a deacon or secretary whom he had a friendship with before. Just depends on the qualifications and dispositions of those friends.

I would be comfortable with a humble and full-hearted deacon with whom the pastor was (and remains) very good friends. But then, personally at least, I would call into question the election if the friend was neither humble nor full-hearted. If the friend was bitter and mean-spirited I'd think there would be another parishioner more qualified for the position.

A "clique" is not inherently evil, I think. It depends on the type of bond between the group. If it's a selfish bond, then it's self-destructive. But if it's an other-centered and agape linked bond, it's wondrous.

Terry

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I think the diaconate is a neglected office nowadays (I may be biased) and it would be great to revive it. <<<

It has been revived (as an ordained ministry in its own right, and not merely as an intermediate step towards ordination to the presbyterate) in the Latin Church, and it never died out in the Eastern Churches. Moreover, the Eastern Orthodox Churches have maintained the "minor orders" of acolyte, lector and subdeacon as "permanent" orders as well, and many of the Eastern Catholic Churches have begun to restore them, too.

[Jim Pemberton]

Good discussion. I've noticed in more hierarchical churches that the pastor or priest is viewed as the minister where the parishoners the ones to whom he ministers. In congregational churches the pattern tends to be different. While the pastor has less of a denominational structure to protect him from his congregation, his ministry is viewed as one (albeit an important one) among many in the church. Often the view is that all the members of the congregation are required to be ministers according to their gifts. Someone has a ministry with children while another has a ministry to be a teacher. Someone may be called to missions and another to administration. There may still be some pressure on the pastor to show up to some events, but he generally won't be expected to take charge or make a particular show of it when someone else is leading the event.

>>>But what if a minister has shown himself to be absolutely unable to fellowship (and I mean TRULY fellowship) with his parishioners? <<<

I suggest that one truly called by God to be a pastor would want to get out and fellowship with the members of his congregation from time to time. I also expect that he would need to get away sometimes also. As one recognized as a man called by God to study, teach, exhort and develop Biblical vision for a church his very personality will serve to focus the other ministries of the church. If his teaching strays from the Bible, then the church leadership must act to replace him. I expect to see people irritated with him from time to time if he is teaching from the Bible. That's not a bad sign. An even better sign is if the same people are convicted to conform to sound Biblical teaching after their initial irritation. Then you know have a good pastor.

[cantemir]

Stuart:

But I believe it [clerical detachment in Orthodoxy is also rare, based again on my own observations and experiences. Out in my neck of the woods, all Eastern parishes are small, whether Orthodox or Catholic. My own is one of the largest, with about 450 members. Our priest knows the names and histories of those who show up more than at Nativity and Pascha.

Have you spent much time in Eastern Europe? Bear in mind you're comparing immigrant and mission parishes comprising 0.5% to 1.5% of the total population of the USA to parishes in countries in which 85% or more of the population in nominally Orthodox. Believe me, the situation you are describing has nothing to do with Russia, Romania, Bulgaria, you know, countries where 90% of the world's Orthodox live.

I'm a convert to Orthodoxy and I fully believe in it, but let's not kid ourselves here.

[Gina]

Ah, the curse of the introvert in ministry... I was on staff with a campus ministry for 9 years that celebrates the most extraverted form of ministry. I still feel guilty over how happy I am to now have a desk job.

[Gina]

My remarks apply in spades to Latin bishops, who never seem to show up unless accompanied by a hoard of chancery hangers-on, and who then hide in a corner hoping they don't have to make small talk with the riff-raff. One might almost think the laity have cooties.

I have had a nearly identical experience as you describe with an Orthodox bishop and his entourage at a monastery. It may have been my own awe as a new convert that kept me from speaking to His Holiness, though the seminarians with him barely looked at and never spoke with me even though I sat next to and across from them at a meal. I wasn't sure if I should put it down to being a woman, a layperson, or because it's bad etiquette to focus on someone else but a bishop when at table with him and others. The parish priest at the other end of the table did make cheerful conversation with all present, however. Maybe he gets more practice?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Have you spent much time in Eastern Europe? Bear in mind you're comparing immigrant and mission parishes comprising 0.5% to 1.5% of the total population of the USA to parishes in countries in which 85% or more of the population in nominally Orthodox. Believe me, the situation you are describing has nothing to do with Russia, Romania, Bulgaria, you know, countries where 90% of the world's Orthodox live.<<<

I haven't spent all that much time in Eastern Europe, but I would point out that Bulgaria, Russia and Romania are not the heart of Eastern Orthodoxy. I do know quite a lot about the Churches in Ukraine, which, by the way, always provided the bulk of the clergy and the active faithful in the Russian Orthodox Church (which is why they threw a fit when the Greek Catholics came out of the catacombs, taking a huge swath of the Orthodox clergy along with it). Ukraine, like Russia, like all the former Communist countries, is suffering greatly from a spiritual void resulting from decades of enforced atheism. As a result, there are many who have abandoned God, or never knew Him (the complicity of many within the clergy of the Orthodox Church with the Communist authorities also contributes to a general air of cynicism). But at the same time, there is a vast spiritual renewal there,led mainly by the young. Seminaries are full to overflowing, many have long waiting lists. Monasteries are filling up, and new ones are being founded--both Catholic and Orthodox. More people are returning to the Church, or entering the Church for the first time. I saw this in Kyiv, I saw this in Uzhorod. I know that similar revivals are happening also in Romania. And though I can't speak personally of Russia, I believe that many of the wounds inflicted on the Church by the Communists continue to fester, but will gradually be healed as the older generation of clergy, many of whom are compromised by their collaboration (and more so by their refusal to confess and repent) die or retire and are replaced by a new and more idealistic generation of priests, deacons, monks and nuns. Even in Russia, one finds deeply holy men and women who continue to bear witness to the faith, just as millions of others did during the years of persecution.

I do not delude myself that there are a great many problems within the Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches, and that the challenges faced by our Churches in Eastern Europe are grave indeed. Too many of the clergy there have not shaken off the attitude of entitlement that goes back into the Tsarist era. In my own Eastern Catholic Church, clericalism is rife among the older (and more latinized) of the priests and bishops. The same is probably true in Russia--but then, for all their complaints about Rome, the Church of Moscow has been for centuries the most latinized of all the Orthodox Churches.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I have had a nearly identical experience as you describe with an Orthodox bishop and his entourage at a monastery.<<<

I don't doubt it. However, for every dud there are a lot of bishops who live up (or at least seriously aspire) to the ideal. Remember that the situation in the U.S. (or in Western Europe and Australia) is very different than the situation in the Old Country. Our bishops are few and far between, and their dioceses and eparchies cover territories greater than that of most European states (my own Eparchy covers a territory that runs from Maine to Florida, from the Atlantic to the Appalachian Mountains)--so it is not surprising that the bishop is sometimes rather remote. This undoubtedly gives those who have no desire to exericse their ministry as shepherds the opportunity to duck out. For all that, it is surprising how many do not, and are deeply beloved by their people.

At the same time, we can all be very open-eyed about our leaders and their shortcomings, and even joke about it (as one bishop himself did when he relayed to me this one):

A man in a village had a beautiful voice, the most beautiful that anyone had ever heard. What to do with such a man? Aha! They said, "Let us make him a deacon!" And so the man became a deacon and led the people in prayer for many years.

Then one day, tragedy struck--the man lost his voice. What to do with the deacon who has lost his voice? "Aha!" they said, "Let us make him a priest." And so the man was ordained a priest, and served the village for many years as a wise and holy pastor.

Then one day, tragedy struck again--the man lost his mind. "What shall we do with a priest who has lost his mind?", the people asked. "Aha!", they said. . . .

[Christopher]

""What shall we do with a priest who has lost his mind?", the people asked. "Aha!", they said. . . ."

lol. The Greeks have a saying "The road to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops". I suppose it puts me in the "Orthodox Congregationalist" camp, but of the half dozen or so Orthodox bishops I have laid my eyes on in America, none could be described as "approachable". Indeed, they seem to have little to contribute to the life of the parishes I have been a part of. Part of this is of course due to the unique situation of Orthodoxy in American. Still, as the recent situation/crises of the OCA seems to indicate there might be a fundamental "quality" problem with our bishops.

[Patrick]

How different your descriptions are from the stories told of St. John, who was as highly exalted as any in Church History (he knew what Jesus had for breakfast and was part of his clique). Yet, Eusebius and others say how immensely pastoral he was, chastising those beneath him for ignoring pastoral duties.

For all the other reasons we can come up with, and many good reasons, I wonder if this topic is itself the real source of much church decline around the world. Pastors and priests who need to either perform in service or personality, and lose sight that their primary calling is always the care of their specific part of the flock. Some who resist this have even built up theological reasosn for their aloofness as excuses for their lack of pastoral influence. We can find out what St. John would have said about this, and what he would have said about any theology which had some ceremony rather than people becoming a primary duty.

In my estimation the best and most spiritual writers/leaders throughout history had this emphasis spot on and their influence echoes to our day.

It's curious why others would want to pursue a path that has no similar effect. Is there a longing for mediocrity at the heart of our ecclesial leadership?

[Terry Bohannon]

Is there a longing for mediocrity at the heart of our ecclesial leadership?

Is it so new a thing for man, historically?

[Mari]

Your discussion is very interesting. My thoughts on the matter are "to walk" with Jesus and follow his path. Yes, he took some time away to rest up & get away from everyone. However, much time was spent visiting with the people (I call it "coming down to the people's level.") He sat & ate with the tax collector. He turned water into wine when he dined at the celebration of a wedding he must have been invited to. How many people did he preach to & later sup/fellowship with over the few loaves & fishes? Often times Jesus spoke to them on the hillsides or in normal homes, not just in the synagogues. The heart of Jesus should be reflected in EVERY follower(disciple) of God. Therefore as a Minister of the Word only to speak of the "Joy of the Lord" during the church service, to me would seem a disservice to His calling. Sort of like when a normal laborer punches the time clock...OK, now I can come home & forget about that for awhile. God's ministry is not for the "faint-hearted." It in a certain sense is like parenting, a 24/7 job. Yes, one gets tired, and we all fail at times...but to speak a word of kindness or caring, or to share a bit of laughter or compassion in common everyday fellowship ways would seem to be a natural extension of putting God's message to work in the "field." "Be not weary in well-doing, for in due season ye shall reap."

[Patrick]

"Is it so new a thing for man, historically?"
Sadly no. But it seems the Holy Spirit should make a difference in our lives. As Paul suggests in Colossians, and other letters, we need to really become who it is Christ has freed us to become. We wallow in the ways of mediocrity because we do not have faith to step into the fullness that Christ offers. God, who raised Jesus from the dead, surely can also inspire each of us, and especially our ministers, to reach out to people in genuine ways.

Thank you for your thoughts Mari. They were a beautiful call to the Church.

cantemir, you accuse me of making what you said inappropriately theological. However, it is my understanding that everything is theological, and especially everything in a church. Even architecture is considered a theological statement in the Catholic and Orthodox church, and architecture is not nearly as influential to most people as the priest they encounter each week. The priest, who is always a man because he represents Christ, is representing Christ not only in certain specific ceremonies, but is a symbol of Christ to all those who enter into a church. If a priest was not a theological statement, in himself, then there would be significantly less standards for who can become a priest.

Since a priest is certainly theological in that very role, regard simply must be taken for the statements that are being made in every interaction. And sometimes, as noted, very bad theology can be expressed in the ways priests present themselves. Everything that happens in a church is theological, because everything, hopefully, is intended to speak of or respond to God. And as Paul notes in 1 Corinthians, this extends not only to how we view the bread and wine, but more importantly to how we treat each other. Dismiss or disregard or ignore and we face God's own wrath.

[holmegm]

>Being a priest doesn't mean that you have to like people, only to
>love them, and enforced sociability seems to me to be foreign to the
>spirit of Christian fellowship.

Now this is an interesting perspective. Can you really love people without liking them?

[cantemir]

Patrick,

I can't say that I mind seeing ordinary things from a spiritual perspective. That's very sensible. On the other hand, what I wrote was: I think you're reading nonexistent and inappropriate theological issues into my post... Inappropriate because they're nonexistent, you know? You had written: Cantemir, I wonder what kind of church you go to that the priest should be afforded more privacy and respect than Jesus himself? That has nothing to do with anything I said and would be actually offensive if it weren't so silly.

[V]ery bad theology can be expressed in the ways priests present themselves: I agree, if a priest were to somehow get it into his head that he was of too great a dignity to deign to speak to a parishioner. But this is not what's under discussion, at least not by me.

Holmegm,

Love is action and belief. Liking is a feeling. You can't possibly like everyone but you are called to love everyone and to perform acts of humble love on their behalves.

[Patrick]

Well, if that's the level of discussion we're going for then I'll join in.

Cantemir. Are too theological issues. And if there are, then they must be appropriate. And it has everything to do with what you said, and so isn't silly.

[cantemir]

Patrick,

For heaven's sake. I never said priests were too holy to touch. Why must you insist on putting such a ridiculous position in my mouth?

[Patrick]

Ah, so I say priests shouldn't be more aloof than Jesus was, as you suggest they should be in your earlier posts. Then you respond by saying priests are not in fact too holy to touch. Now you ask me to stop insisting you said that. Well, okay, as I never insisted on that to begin with I'm more than happy to stop insisting on it now.

The point, going back, was that you paint a picture of an aloof priest, who if someone knows what they have for breakfast they are too close. I suggested Jesus was significantly close to his disciples, and they surely knew what he had for breakfast. The other disciples in the epistles and in tradition suggest similar closeness. Therefore, it seems a peculiar claim that priests should in our era not be close, relationally or spiritually, and it suggests they are assuming an honor and importance which neither Jesus nor his immediate followers assumed.

How anyone touches each other I suppose is up to them.

[C. Wingate]

Now this is an interesting perspective. Can you really love people without liking them?

You'ld better be able to do this!

[Bobby Winters]

Would I be accused of being lukewarm if I suggested the priest/minister must walk a middle way? It is necessary for him to maintain an otherness lest he just be one of the guys. Why should I listen to someone who is exactly like me. It is pointless. On the other hand, if we are to approach God through His servants who are emissaries of Christ, they must be somehow approachable.

If one must put up with the Church ladies (the Sisters of the Golden Cockleburr, as I call them), that is the Cross to be borne.

[Theo]

We have been discussing this post and comments on The Highway, which is a Reformed site. One of the guys, "Paul S.", quotes 1 Thessalonians 2:7-12:

1 Thess. 2: 7 But we were gentle among you, like a nursing mother taking care of her own children. 8 So, being affectionately desirous of you, we were ready to share with you not only the gospel of God but also our own selves, because you had become very dear to us. 9 For you remember, brothers, our labor and toil: we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you, while we proclaimed to you the gospel of God. 10 You are witnesses, and God also, how holy and righteous and blameless was our conduct toward you believers. 11 For you know how, like a father with his children, 12 we exhorted each one of you and encouraged you and charged you to walk in a manner worthy of God, who calls you into his own kingdom and glory. (ESV)

He then writes, "Not only is it difficult for a non-involved pastor to know the needs of his flock to better serve them, he will also be much less accountable to his flock, which not only makes it more likely for him to fall further into sin than if he were more visible, it also removes him from being a positive example to his flock when bearing up under temptations, trials and persecutions. I will always be grateful for the accessibility of my 2 pastors to our church, because it ornaments their sound preaching and faithful administration of the sacraments. I could get decent preaching online and the sacraments in a mega-church, but I, prone to wander or despair, and it not good my being alone, also need the comforting hand on the shoulder after prayer meeting, the exhortation on the sidewalk in front of the bodega, the raised eyebrow and rebuke when I have been overhead being harsh to my family, the continuing conversation about life events, the borrowing of the jumper cables, the lending of the weed-whacker.

And wonderfully, such involvement tends to be multiplied among the members of the congregation."

Personally, I think he is correct.

[Luthien the nasty den mother]

"The Greeks have a saying "The road to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops". I suppose it puts me in the "Orthodox Congregationalist" camp, but of the half dozen or so Orthodox bishops I have laid my eyes on in America, none could be described as "approachable"."

Teeheehee...you've hit the nail on the head there, Christopher. Our Metropolitan, who shall remain nameless lest he excommunicate me, is definitely of the sort whose visits are visitations and who thinks that he is God's mouthpiece and therefore not to be questioned. He's also not nice to the altarboys, scares the rest of us, and never explains actions like his recent game of "musical priests." On the other hand, the local Antiochian bishop, Bishop THOMAS, is very approachable and everything a bishop ought to be.(and he's very funny, too:)