Looking Good

Some years ago a close friend informed me that the pastorate of an excellent church had fallen open, so on, and with, his recommendation, I applied for the position. It called someone else. When I asked him why he thought the other chap had been chosen, my ol’ buddy laughed and said, “Because he’s a better man than you are, and the church was smart enough to know it—that’s one of the reasons it’s such a good church.” Such friends everybody should have. 

On reflection, however, I concluded that no reasonable man, confronted with such information from another reasonable man, has reasonable grounds to dispute it. And why should I be surprised at my rejection, since I believe that to avoid hypocrisy and sanctimoniousness one should not try over-hard to look saintly (the great saints rarely do), nor am I being facetious in saying that while we should attempt for the glory and the dread fear of God to be good, we should never try to appear so damn good that anyone who, as a result of coming to know us better, is put in danger of losing his faith. This I say without prejudice to a church that wisely picked the better man.  It would have been irresponsible not to.

Comments

[smh]

Let me add this postscript as the first comment: This piece has reference to what I regard as a great evil: that a man should be forced, as he is in most churches, to put himself forward as a candidate for the ministry, which always constrains him, in ways more and less subtle, to lie about himself.

It is rather the church itself that should, knowing its own sons, judge him worthy, raise him up, and call him--supporting him wholly in his training--so that his task would not be to present himself for a job interview, credentials in hand, but examine and submit himself, thus beginning his time of call engaged in an exercise of cleansing and clarifying truth rather than the burden of what the tender conscience knows to be a degrading falsehood.

[Mrs Spumoni]

"we should never try to appear so damn good that anyone who, as a result of coming to know us better, is put in danger of losing his faith."

Bravo! I want that painted on my mirror.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>It is rather the church itself that should, knowing its own sons, judge him worthy, raise him up, and call him--supporting him wholly in his training--so that his task would not be to present himself for a job interview, credentials in hand, but examine and submit himself, thus beginning his time of call engaged in an exercise of cleansing and clarifying truth rather than the burden of what the tender conscience knows to be a degrading falsehood.<<<

Precisely my view, as well as that of the early Church. Ordained ministry was not seen as a "personal vocation" but rather as an ecclesial action: the local Church would call out from its ranks those whom it deemed worthy to serve at the altar of God. Chrysostom spoke at length in "On the Priesthood" against the increasing tendency of men to put themselves forward for the ministry. The priesthood, he noted, was a charism from which a wise man would flee if he could (Chrysostom himself gave it a try). Another way of putting it is the man who wants badly to be a priest should be the last man to stand at the altar.

[Ethan Cordray]

Like Douglas Adams' Man in the Shack.

For those of you not familiar with The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, the galaxy is supposedly governed by the Galactic President, an elected politician who is usually a complete doofus (Zaphod Beeblebrox being a representative specimen). But the real powers that be realize that no one who wants to be president could ever be qualified to actually rule, so they really rely on the all-ruling counsel of a man who lives alone with his cat in a tiny shack on a desert planet. This man is entirely qualified: he has no interest in the universe because he has no idea whether or not it even exists, being a complete agnostic. He makes whatever decisions it occurs to him to make and is completely impartial. And that's the way the galaxy really runs.

[robert p]

In "An Alien at St. Wilfred's" by Adrian Plass, the friendly space visitor attempts to contact the "most important person in the church". This turns out to be the janitor. I love God's weird upside-down Kingdom! :)

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>This turns out to be the janitor. I love God's weird upside-down Kingdom! :)<<<

If you think about the Gospel, of course it would be.

[DGP]

It needn't be anything so exalted as Gospel judgment that causes the janitor to be the most important. It's just that he fills an institutionally essential role. Preachers come and go, and worshipers scarcely hear them in any case, but everyone notices immediately if the sidewalks are icy or the toilets are clogged and overflowing. (In every church I've served, somebody jams the toilets every week, so they require consistent attention.) This is not so much about the first and the last as it is about keeping masses of people content and oblivious.

I dare say the church secretary is almost as important, for the same reason. Nobody really expects the pastor to accomplish much good, but many expect the secretary to provide whatever service they seek.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>It needn't be anything so exalted as Gospel judgment that causes the janitor to be the most important.<<<

On the contrary: he who would be the leader of all must first become the servant of all. The first shall be last, and the last shall be first. Sounds like the janitor to me.

It's interesting that in the typology of the early Church, it was the deacon who was seen as the typos of Christ--the Son of Man came to serve, not be served. And what is a deacon, but one whose charism is diakonos, or service? Originally, of couse, they were selected to wait on tables--a deacon is a waiter, which is not that far removed from a janitor.

[DGP]

>>On the contrary: he who would be the leader of all must first become the servant of all. The first shall be last, and the last shall be first. Sounds like the janitor to me.<<

I wasn't denying that (not that I have any authority to deny Scripture). I only observed that people can make such a judgment for entirely worldly reasons. I confess I felt it worthwhile to make such an irrelevant observation because I am frequently peeved by folks who romanticize the most mundane things.

[DGP]

>>I confess I felt it worthwhile to make such an irrelevant observation because I am frequently peeved by folks who romanticize the most mundane things.<<

Let me be more explicit: I am peeved by those who romanticize anti-clericalism, with which we are flirting in this conversation. Yes, there are plenty of haughty, sinful clerics. In the U.S., however, we also have plenty of haughty, sinful janitors, and other such lay "servants" of the church. If you're having trouble finding ministers, you might want to avoid scorning the ministry at every opportunity.

[Richard Morton]

At the risk of bringing this thread full circle or perhaps pulling it into a different orbit: Reading with a fellow Christian at prayers today some of St Chyrsostom's homily on 2 Tim 1 (condensed in The Bible & the Fathers, ed. J. Manley), I was so struck by need for the wisdom of Chrysostom (saint--and priest!) that I made a copy and had it before me when I read this thread. The whole is best, but, begging your indulgence, here is a morsel of bread for those hungry to know Christ in his Church-and his pastors and priests:

"He who honors the priest, will honor God also; and he who has learned to despise the priest, will in process of time insult God. 'He who receives you,' He says, 'receives Me.' 'Hold your priests in honor' (Ecclus. 7:31) He says...For when a man is piously disposed towards the priest, he is much more so towards God. And even if the priest is wicked, God seeing that you respect him, though unworth of honor, through reverence to Him, will Himself reward you....
[St Chrys then notes how God may act for the benefit of people through unworthy instruments: even wicked Balaam & his ass, or a Judas my 'prophesy']....
"If we may not judge our brother, much less our teacher...let each attend to his own department. For if he teaches perverted doctrice, though he be an angel, do not obey him; but if he teaches the truth, take heed not to his life, but to his words...you are sheep, do not be curious concerning the shepherd, lest you have to give an account of your accusations against him...It is not he who speaks to you...It is Christ who thus admonishes you...But you say, 'He ought to be better than I.' Why? 'Because he is a priest'..If he is not better, ought you therefore to destroy yourself? These are the words of arrogance...Hear what Christ says, "Every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give an account thereof in the day of judgment' (Mtt 12:36)....He who has a father, whatever faults he has, conceals them all. For it is said, "Do not glory in the dishonor of your father, for your father's dishonor is no glory to you. And if his understanding fails, have patience with him (Ecclus. 3:10ff). And if this is said of our natural fathers, much more of our spiritual fathers...Approach him with pious respect. Do not say he is wicked. What of that? Does one who is wicked of himself bestow great benefits on you? By no means. Everything works according to faith...The priest performs a symbol...The offering is the same, whether a common man, or Paul or Peter offers it. It is the same which Christ gave to his disciples, and which the priests now minister...the same who sanctified the one also sanctifies the other...So the whole is of one faith. The Spirit immediately fell upon Cornelius, because he had fulfilled his part, and contributed his faith."

[Bill R]

Even so, Richard, it seems prudence is necessary. Some clergy must not be respected, but ejected. The horrific recent instances of sexual abuse come immediately to mind. It seems as if Chrysostom's comments apply to unholy priests. But how can they apply to those who do great evil to their church and community? Surely such men forfeit all right to any respect or obedience.

[Mark Butler]

But the question is, "Who is to call the minister evil?" Is it the parishoner? Is it not rather the minister's peers, and supperiors or the civil magistrate as well? We are forced to return to the Fundemental Law which is that no man shall be deprived of his life (to include reputation), liberty, property without due process of law. Chrysostom is quite right, God has called even the wicked to this office, and it is the duty of those holding the keys and the sword to see that he is brought to the bar. Anything else is slander and gossip

[Bill R]

"Anything else is slander and gossip."

Unless, of course, you are the victim or you have witnessed the deed.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Let me be more explicit: I am peeved by those who romanticize anti-clericalism<<<

Clericalism and anti-clericialism are both distortions of the Christian ideal, since both are premised upon a model of the Church as a power-based institution, rather than a Eucharistic society rooted in true koinonia in the Holy Spirit. Both are an example of what Schmemann would call "secularism" defined as a rejection of worship.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>> I confess I felt it worthwhile to make such an irrelevant observation because I am frequently peeved by folks who romanticize the most mundane things.<<<

Even the most mundane things are endowed with sacramental meaning.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Stuart's thoughts that it is the Church's duty to seek out and call and prepare a man for service is an almost utopian idea in the world I grew up in. <<<

It's not Utopian--merely Patristic. It was in fact the rule rather than the exception in many parts of Eastern Europe through the 19th century: a parish would identify a man who would serve well at the altar. He would be "apprenticed" to the local priest, who would teach him the liturgy, the chants, and scripture. When the priest thought the man ready, he would privide him with a certificate, which the man would take to the local bishop. After a thorough examination by the bishop (both on knowledge and character), the man, if worthy, would be admitted to the minor orders, serving in turn as acolyte, lector and subdeacon under the supervision of his parish priest. If and when the priest determined the man was ready, and if the man was so disposed, the bishop could ordain him to the diaconate, and (again, if the man was so inclined) to the presbyterate, This was the model followed in the early Church, and it is remarkable how well it endured almost to this day.

The Old Order Amish, for their part, use an even older method of selection: the people nominate three men to serve as leaders. Three Bibles are taken, and a piece of paper placed in one. The men each take up a Bible at random, and the one that gets the paper becomes the new leader. The elders then lay hands upon him to confirm him in that role. It was thus that the Disciples chose a replacement for Judas Iscariot.

[Bobby Winters]

>>>The men each take up a Bible at random, and the one that gets the paper becomes the new leader. The elders then lay hands upon him to confirm him in that role. It was thus that the Disciples chose a replacement for Judas Iscariot.<<<

Couldn't help but be an improvement over what comes out of the liberal seminaries.

[DGP]

Mr. Koehl:

>>Even the most mundane things are endowed with sacramental meaning.<<

This is sophistry. Looking back on what I wrote, it seems clear to me that "mundane" was not used in the sense of "the created order," but rather in the sense of "worldly judgment" -- that is, something self-centered, an *impediment* to sacramentality.

If you really want to nitpick, consider:

>>Another way of putting it is the man who wants badly to be a priest should be the last man to stand at the altar.<<

Because, of course, that's not simply "another way of putting it." It says more than Chrysostom said, and especially in a different social and ecclesial context it's a serious distortion. I acknowledge your weaselly "badly," but it's too small a qualification. You should be ashamed of yourself for speaking in this way of those who serve as priests. Or perhaps, if you choose to speak this way, you should not be surprised at the poor quality of the priests who serve.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>This is sophistry.<<<

No, it's just simple truth. I recommend Alexander Schmemann's deeply inspirational and enlightening "For the Life of the World", if you want to understand better what I mean.

>>> You should be ashamed of yourself for speaking in this way of those who serve as priests.<<<

I have the deepest respect for those who serve in the sacerdotal ministry. But I'm under no illusions that they are and remain men like you and me, with their own virtues and flaws. And we both know that there are (and have always been) a significant number who entered into that ministry for very wrong reasons. It was so in Chrysostom's time, and it remains true today.

>>>Or perhaps, if you choose to speak this way, you should not be surprised at the poor quality of the priests who serve.<<<

Actually, most of the priests I know within my own Church and other Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Churches are quite good. There are a few duds, to be sure, but I hear surprsingly few bad homilies. On the other hand, I am much less impressed with the Latin priests I have met, an impression also shared by many of the Roman Catholics I know who are in a position to compare.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Couldn't help but be an improvement over what comes out of the liberal seminaries.<<<

Or how our bishops are chosen. My own belief is that any four names chosen out of the Greek Catholic Union directory could do as well, and probably much better.

[DGP]

>>I have the deepest respect for those who serve in the sacerdotal ministry.<<

>>My own belief is that any four names chosen out of the Greek Catholic Union directory could do as well, and probably much better.<<

Uh-huh. Right.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Uh-huh. Right.<<<

If you want to take this off-line, I would be glad to tell you at length about the history of the Metropolia, its problems, and how well we have been served by our bishops over the last 110 years.

[smh]

One of the things that keeps me firmly among the Protestants is my belief that the True Church, being pre-eminently a creature of the Spirit, is a spiritual body: it cannot be seen, captured, or held, any more than the wind. This does not mean it is insubstantial, for it is always manifest in the flesh--materially--but that among its apparent manifestations it must still be spiritually discerned. No visible church can be simply equated with the Catholic Church, which runs in and through the "denominations," but cannot be identified with any of them. (Although I have strongly desired for many years to be convinced otherwise--for this would probably make life a good deal easier--and have heard, I believe, every possible argument to the contrary, hoping to be convinced, my conviction on the point has only become stronger as I grow older.)

This understanding of the Church is, I believe, the one and only Protestant insight, and fundamental to the ecclesiology of Lewis's Mere Christianity. Of course the "this church is The Church" conviction answers, at a certain level, a great many problems, but I believe those answers to be spurious.

This is a governing concept, of course, for an understanding of the ministry that does not make a direct and invariable connection between the official or sacramental priesthood of any church and the true apostolic Succession, which has certain "signs" that may be discerned (one "hears the sound thereof," and see its effects), but is never a matter of what might be called mere genealogy, and never effected ex opere operato any more than is the automatic efficacy of the sacraments or the conversion experience--this is given in answer to hope-ful prayer, either yes or no. The Baptist pastor at Muddy Creek may be as truly in this succession as the Pope; likewise, neither of them may be. This is up to God, the Giver of the Gift. I cannot interpret the reality I have seen in any other way.

It is into this paradigm (and then into numerous others, which may all apply) I must try to fit the "priest and the janitor" question that has arisen in this conversation. The principal issue is, who, in the life of the True Church, are these men? While it is always necessary to give the appropriate honor to what the office of the priest symbolizes (which is how I would wish to read Chrysostom), one must always recall that he may symbolize what the janitor in fact is, and from whom the church receives the ministrations of life, yet without saluting him as a priest, for he does not bear the outward sign of the office. This is the nature of things in the world because we are bound (by God!) to act according to our sight of the external nature of things, but also discern--with more difficulty--what requires spiritual discernment.

The janitor, for all we know, may be an archangel, or perhaps the true Pope--and we may suspect it, and hear him as if he were, the official priest being of some other order, through whom God may work, but not because hands have been laid upon him. But there is also little doubt that many who are priests in the order of the visible church are true priests in the True Order, have been ordained not only by men, but by God as well, and of whom I believe Chrysostom spoke well and truly. God always requires they be honored as fathers, whereas of the others it appears that while they endure as symbols, they are to be honored and saluted as what they appear to be, but that he does not require his people to put up with them forever.

As a postscript here I must add a note about how this bears upon the question of women's ordination, for those who have read my writing on the subject may wonder if by these criteria women could be among the true priests. First I note that all believers, men and women, are part of the priesthood of Christ, so that the ministrations of all Christian women, being the ministry of Christ, are works of his priesthood, and therefore sacramental administrations of his life. The prohibition of the elder's office to women is principally connected with the doctrine of the Church about the person of Christ, including the belief that nothing about his person, including his sex, is arbitrary, but directly expository of the nature of God, of whom he as the Son of the Father is the express image. Standing next to the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers, male and female, as subordinate members of Christ, and not opposing it, is the teaching that the elder's apostolic office reflects the divine order, pre-eminently of the Godhead, expressed in the created world by a male headship derived from Christ in his role as its creator, savior, and consummator. This, as part of Christian doctrine is not disposable. Belief in it, and protection of it against feminist and egalitarian heresies, is one of the signs of the True Church. Thus the appearance of female presbyters among Christians is a sign of its absence, of the loss of Christian faith.

The Church recognizes and jealously guards its understanding of true sacramental and priestly ministry among its women--ministry that brings the Salvation of God (Christ himself) to those who accept it from their hands, while just as jealously guarding the equally true teachings carried by and in the reservation of the presbyterial office to men, regarding its rejection as a sign of apostasy.

Might the woman be "the janitor"--the true priest? In a sense, most certainly, so far as she presents Christ--as our Lord's blessed Mother, the pre-eminent handmaiden of God and sign of the perfection of womanhood, presented him to the world. If, however, she claims to do it as an elder of the church, she denies the Christian faith, destroying her claim to the priestly office to which she has already been admitted.

I must add that in all this I am speaking only for myself. I do not think any of my Touchstone colleagues would agree with me fully, and suspect most of them would find much in this to denounce in the strongest terms. The fellowship is not based, however, upon the lenses through which we read reality, but on the common conclusions we have reached on "the greater matters of the law," which all of us believe leads to a greater, common lens through which, once all are corrected to the required degree, we will all see.

[James A. Altena]

Bravo, Dr. Hutchens!!!

[Will Fr. Reardon and David Mills enter the fray here for a 3-way food fight over whether a visible church can can to be in some sense uniquely the true Church? We need some entertainment to replace the Roman arenas!] :-)

[mairnéalach]

What's so unusual about female bearded ones, eh? I just saw one myself, down in this noisy tent farm which sprung into existence a few days ago out in the pasture behind my house.

[John Peterson]

I'm inclined towards the Baptist pastor at Muddy Creek.

[smh]

Mr. Altena, I would be surprised if Fr. Reardon and Mr. Mills would wish to comment. I put in the postscript to relieve them (they know me of old) of feeling obligated to exert themselves in what is to us all an old and unpleasant dispute in which none would give ground.

Because I have wished to see their churches in their glory, and thus reflexively regard them ad meliorem partem, having tried unsuccessfully for years to be converted to one or the other, I refuse to indulge in any caricatures that would render the Catholic or Orthodox minds, as far as I understand them, anything but logical and coherent--unanswerable if their facts and first principles, all of which resist refutation except by sophistry--are correct. At the end of the day, a day full of the chances of unholy anger with my brother, I would be forced to say to him (if I hadn't succumbed to sophistry myself), "I don't see it, but you could be right."

I am convinced that honest Protestants who know Catholicism and Orthodoxy well, and are willing to understand them through their best representatives rather than seek out their worst, will not only recognize them as Christian churches, but treat them with the highest level of respect.

[James A. Altena]

Quite agreed, Dr. Hutchens. I trust it was clear from my :-) logo that I was speaking with tongue firmly planted in cheek.

[Athanasia]

"I dare say the church secretary is almost as important, for the same reason. Nobody really expects the pastor to accomplish much good, but many expect the secretary to provide whatever service they seek."

Hear! Hear!
Amen! Amen! Amen!

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>"I dare say the church secretary is almost as important, for the same reason. Nobody really expects the pastor to accomplish much good, but many expect the secretary to provide whatever service they seek."<<<

Not in our parish. The secretary is usually (we have had several over the past years) a retired lady of the parish who is a volunteer; her clerical skills are secondary to the fact that she is there. Until her recent death, the long-time parish secretary was a very sweet but ditzy older lady whose filing system nicely matched the name of our Church--Byzantine. When she died, it took us months to find various essential forms, letters, missing checks, etc. We took it for granted that anything we gave her would disappear into a black hole, so when something was important, we gave it to the deacon.

[robert p]

I have pastoral ambitions, but stymied for years. I am at a large pentecostal church, and have been involved with the young adults group for 5 years. For most of that time it has been led by a passionate, outspoken evangelist type. However the flock is being abused by his drive to replicate his evangelical fervour. All in the name of saving souls (whereas I'd prefer to KEEP the ones we have in good order). Unfortunately it is always these loudmouthed types who are recognized. I can only try to try and comfort the lambs around the fringes and encourage them to stick with the Lord; it's His work to develop their gifts and heal their souls. I don't think forcing them to confirm to certain behaviour amounts to a genuine inner reformation.

Matt 25:
34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

[robert p]

To be completely cynical: All too often the church reminds me of a hierarchy of primates, complete with eccentric mating displays.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>To be completely cynical: All too often the church reminds me of a hierarchy of primates, complete with eccentric mating displays.<<<

It's worse if you're in a Church that actually HAS Primates.

[Dale Decker]

Robert P.

I have been in your shoes. I was raised in a pentecostal denomination, but because I didn't fit the mold of the typical pentecostal I was always a quasi-outcast. Once I became convinced that whatever gifts I may have would not be used unless I conformed, I left and began attending an inter-denominational community church. That was nine years ago and today I am the full-time ministerial associate.