Wow, Fr. Gregory, that's a deep post. So can I interpret this to mean it is better to be angry with an unchaste drunk who is untrustworthy with money and children and confidences than to ignore that person?
Fr. Gregory, (Father, bless)
You write the following, "I think we can all agree that Nassif's statement about some Orthodox clergy not having a living relationship with Jesus Christ is shocking....The real question,..: Is he correct? Is it possible to become a priest in the Orthodox Church and NOT have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ?"
My problem with what you write is this: How does Nassif, or you, or anyone, know that someone else does or does not have a living relationship with Jesus Christ? Or a "personal relationship?" What on earth does anyone mean by those words? By what objective criteria does one make such an evaluation? And I stress the word, "objective." The talk of "personal relationship" sounds too much like the typical evangelical who, not having the divine liturgy or holy tradition or the sacraments has nothing more than his or her own subjective experience upon which to base spiritual awareness.
You've alluded to some remarks that Matthew Gallatin made. I hope you've also listened to Matthew's podcast from about the same week as Nassif's "Revolving Door" discussion on the Illumined Heart podcast. Gallatin's remarks on "What It Means to Worship," strike at the very heart of this subjective basis for making decisions about spiritual reality.
I suspect that having a "personal relationship" with Jesus Christ is not a phrase or concept native to Orthodoxy. After all, Jesus did not teach us to pray, "My father, who are in heaven," but rather, "Our father." We're all in this together, and I have difficulty accepting that any lay person or priest can say of any other lay person or priest, "He (or she) does not have a personal relationship with Jesus."
Granted, I can sympathize with the weaknesses we often see in our Orthodox Church--lack of biblical knowledge, lack of understanding of salvation, lack of enthusiasm for the faith. But at such moments, I think, the response should not be, "I have the knowledge and the enthusiasm, and other orthodox people should be more like me, and have my "personal relationship" to Christ." No, the response should be, "I believe...you are the Christ...who came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am first." In other words, if we're going to speak about a "personal relationship with Christ," the only relationship we should be concerned about is our own, and absolutely no one else's.
I would agree that it is extremely problematic to try to assess or judge another’s relationship with God. As St. Paul says, he does not even judge himself.
There is and can be no objective standard for myriad reasons. (Had there been one available, Protestants, having jettisoned any sacramental notion of community, would have grabbed it in a heart-beat.) Talk of a “personal relationship” reflects sloppy spiritual theology since (1) God is the foundation of our very existence and our personhood (whether we “accept” that or not) and (2) if I have a relationship with anyone, I am “personally” involved. The Protestant phrase, however, is meant to convey recognition that Jesus is the preeminent concern, the highest love, in one’s life. While the phrasing reflects an unfortunate set of post-enlightenment assumptions that are not biblical, the idea certainly is – and it is this emphasis that many Protestants were seeking to recapture: we are called to love Him with our whole hearts, minds, souls and bodies (i.e., nothing excluded). We can not presume that membership in the community is sufficient. (As St. Paul says, “were not all baptized . . . yet God was not pleased” (I Cor. 10). We must not turn back or we are not qualified to call ourselves His disciples. We must pick up our cross . . . and so on. I have no fear that we will import a strain of Protestantism into Orthodoxy (at least, any more than we already have) if for no other reason that because these practices tend to rest on solipsistic assumptions that are alien to the Tradition and to produce fruit that are anemic compared to the vital, transforming power of Orthodox spirituality. (I would note, however, that if we make our concern only and “absolutely” for ourselves and not our brother as well, we have backed into the Protestant caricature of “me and Jesus” with Tradition thrown in. As Orthodox, we recognize that we are not saved alone. Indeed, if we think our brother is suffering spiritually, it would be just as wrong to neglect him as to condemn him. Compassion demands at least prayerful support.)
The issue for me is not the spiritual diagnosis of any particular leader, as it appears to be for Robert. I will leave that, as I believe he would, to their own spiritual fathers. No, the fundamental issue here is the abrogation of critical spiritual leadership. As I noted previously, it is tragic that so many Orthodox find local evangelical churches attractive. Had they received the formation and grounding in the faith, they would realize how little the alternatives had to offer. If they respond as they do, it may well be because the pastoral leadership has consistently failed to convey the enormous riches of the faith. Any leadership style has its limits; some portion of any population will always “leave” for a variety of reasons. What is not excusable – and this to me is the real point of Fr. Nassif’s comments – is the widespread absence of vital spiritual leadership. We do not need to be fooled by the all-too-glitzy nature of Protestant spiritual movements to recognize that the local Orthodox community today has not demonstrated the quietly transformative power demonstrated by the early Church. Debating why this is the case may well make for an interesting debate and could lead us down a variety of interesting rabbit trails to hammer out various concerns, but – at the end of the day – the need remains.
In short, humility demands that we dare not judge others nor even ourselves, for judgment belongs to God. At the same time, faithfulness demands that we dare not diminish the high calling to which we were called, lest in our effort to uphold the implications of the faith, we betray the heart of the faith.
When Jesus spoke of the fields being ripe, He was referring to people “in the house.” Farmers know well what happens to ripe fields when there are not enough workers to harvest them. Woe to us if we do not respond.
Chrys, thanks for your thoughts. Let me simply push a little further here. If you say that "talk of a 'personal relationship' reflects sloppy spiritual theology, isn't it just as sloppy to talk about "vital spiritual leadership"¯ as you do later in your comment? So, just as I raised the question about what objective criteria one might use to determine if someone else has a "personal relationship"¯ with Jesus, I also ask what objective criteria would one use to determine if someone has "vital spiritual leadership." I suppose the same goes for "quietly transformative power demonstrated by the early Church." When I hear people talk this way I can't help but wonder what on earth they're talking about? I mean, the words sound good, but what do they mean? Is your priest a "vital spiritual leader?"¯ What does he do that makes him so? If he isn't, what does he need to do to become one?
Chrys, it's far too easy to complain about the leadership when the church doesn't measure up to one's sense of what it should be. But the fact that some Orthodox Christians find the local evangelical churches attractive isn't simply the fault of their priest.
Well, for that matter, the fact that I left my Protestant church to become Orthodox... hmmm, do you suppose someone in that church I left is complaining that "We're losing all these people to the Orthodox church because of a lack of vital spiritual leadership,"¯ or maybe, "those people going to the Orthodox church just don't have a personal relationship with Jesus."¯
So it goes!
Thank you to everyone who has taken a moment to comment.
It might be good to step back a moment and consider that while some may not agree with him, Nassif's work has published in Word magazine and broadcast on AFR. While I would be the first to admit that his language is not what I would hope, he does seem to be on to something significant in the life of the Church in the US.
We need to remember that Nassif is a theologian and not a social scientist. His theological work, however, is based on solid social scientific research. And again, this is work sponsored by the Orthodox Church.
These two fact are important: Nassif is not imposing something on the Church. He is giving voice to something that others in the Church have also noticed.
There is some objective information that I think suggests that we are failing pastorally in some significant ways. For example, a significant number of converts to the Church simply do not stay Orthodox.
If I understand the survey done by Kindrich that Nassif alludes to, upwards of 80% of our faithful are not at Liturgy on Sunday morning.
In a recent presentation Fr Tom Hopko pointed out that if it were not for the sons of priests and recent converts, we would have empty seminaries--that means that men raised in the Church are not interested in seminary.
Like it or not, all of this does suggest that all is not well in our parishes. We do have a problem with the leadership provided by our priests. But Alexander Schmemann was pointing this out over 40 years ago. For example in his seminal series of essays, "Problems of Orthodoxy in America" he writes:
"But what some of the clergy do not seem to realize is that the secular and non-religious attitudes of which they so often accuse the laity, especially when these attitudes concern the parish administration or the "rights" of the priests, are the natural and the inevitable result of a more general secularization, which they themselves by their "reductions" of Orthodoxy help to propagate. If Orthodoxy does not apply to the totality of life, does not judge, challenge, enlighten and help to change and transform all of its aspects, then "life" is inevitably governed by another "philosophy of life," another set of moral and social principles. And this is what has happened to our Church in America. Generation after generation, year after year, our people have been taught that Orthodoxy consists in a regular attendance at services, whose meaning is not disclosed; in keeping a minimum of purely external rules; and, above everything else, in contributing to their Churches. No wonder that they have naturally accepted for everything else in their life that "philosophy of life" which is common to the whole society in which they live and work. That this optimistic, progressive and fundamentally hedonistic world-view might be in conflict with their religion does not even enter their mind because no one has ever mentioned the very possibility of such a conflict to them. On the contrary their religious leaders themselves have fully sanctioned it, provided the above mentioned religious "duties" are fulfilled, provided that nominal Orthodoxy be kept."
(This is quote from the 3rd and final part of the "Problems" series, "The Spiritual Problem," which is available online here:
http://www.jacwell.org/
Fall_Wint...ual_problem.htm
Nassif, albeit in language which many of objectionable, is I think pointing to the same reality. If I may, we can recast Nassif concerns in Schmemman's language: "secularism" or "nominalism."
Bottom line though is whether we like his language or not, whether his analysis applies to our own parish or not, Nassif's views are not eccentric--he is given voice to a dominate concern among Orthodox Christians in the US.
In Christ,
+FrG
Fr. Gregory - spot on.
Robert,
(1) "Personal relationship" is sloppy because it is redundant and refers to a set of questionable assumptions - already described in paragraph two. "Vital spiritual leadership" is not necessarily either. It differs from "anemic spiritual leadership" and I am sure your own experience can make the distinction clear. If a more precise description is needed, how about "active leadership focused on fostering the motivation and disciplines needed to encourage healthy formation." If that doesn't suffice for the purposes of this discussion, I am sure a good faith effort can supply the needed description - unless the purpose is not to get the larger point.
"Quiet transformation" is pretty self-evident. If you need amplification, there is a wonderful article published in Touchstone magazine entitled "A Double Take on Early Christianity" which describes the manner in which the early Church grew. I heartily recommend it since it points out the way in which "regular folk" transformed a society.
As for the comments about complaining about leadership and how your own experience might have been perceived - that was kind of the whole point of the comment that "Any leadership style has its limits; some portion of any population will always “leave” for a variety of reasons."
I am not sure there is much value in clarifying or reiterating points already made. Nor have the points made sought to promote some of the assumptions that seem to be of concern. What matters to me is the fundamental issue that Dr. Nassif has addressed in his own, perhaps inadequate manner. I will reiterate it in my own clearly inadequate manner: the Church has one calling - to live heart and soul for Christ. That love and obedience is to shape and fill everything we do - prayer, liturgy, service, fellowship, etc. Leadership that strives to foster that - regardless of how quietly or loudly, publicly or privately - is always important. Assuming that St. Paul is correct, God has lavished gifts on His people in order to do just that, to build up the Body of Christ.
To reiterate my previous ending point, I am not concerned nor equipped to judge others. I am only concerned that we who are the Church (if you perceive that as complaining, read it as "I, as part of the Church") must do all we can for the building up of the Body and the glory of God.
Fr. Gregory,
What are some of the baby steps that could be taken by non-clergy to get things moving in the right direction?
Schmemann's essay spoke of the necessity of liturgical restoration, education and mission. I know that the jurisdictional problems cannot be solved overnight, but there is no reason why Christians should go on without having read the Gospels or ignorant of the fundamentals of the faith. We can encourage more to attend Saturday Vespers and Sunday Liturgy. Kick out some pews and get some prostrations going, etc.
Good post and comments. Robert (?) has a great observation, most people BECOME Orthodox to deepen their "personal relationship with Christ". Unfortunately, it seems like some people's definition of that is seriously flawed because Orthodoxy is just another pit stop to another "deep experience". It seems the common denominator with those folks and the nominal Orthodox are the same: entrapment in form and veneers of piety that eventually lose their luster or newness. For those who truly engage it is the wellspring of the Spirit. We must allow the clergy the luxury of growing like all of us do, on the other hand if the clergy are nominal, deluded or entrapped in some role playing ego game and the laity see them as "sacrament machines" because we know donatism is a heresy, it is a tough situation. It comes down to a maturity of vision of the Body of Christ, that the laity is as much there for the salvation of the clergy as they are for us. If there is a mutual understanding of this between a priest and his parish all can grow "to the wisdom and stature of the fullness of Christ".
As I have continued to think about and wrestle with the concerns addressed in this, I have sought the help of those who might offer insight and guidance. Amid my readings, I was particularly impressed by a quote from St. Symeon the New Theologian. In many ways and with incredible power, he appears to have been addressing some of these very same issues in his writings. Recognizing the need to spend some time in the "presence" of this amazing saint (but then, all saints are amazing, animated as they are by amazing grace). In my life I have had the great gift of getting to know people who, by living for God, have become the blessings and gifts God has called us all to be. While a text is not an adequate substitute for the presence of the person, I continue to be overwhelmed with gratitude for our fathers in the faith - these gifts to the Church. How wonderfully rewarding it is to sit at the feet of such fathers! St. Symeon speaks with power, insight and authority to so many of the issues we are wrestling with - in the Church in America and in our own hearts. While there is nothing new under the sun and sin exhibits the same destructive effects from generation to generation, yet God's unrelenting love and enduring grace continue to rescue and renew His people.
"It comes down to a maturity of vision of the Body of Christ, that the laity is as much there for the salvation of the clergy as they are for us."
Wow! What an amazing thought. The older I get the more I liken my relationship with my spiritual Father to my relationship with my parents. I am fortunate to have both wonderful, amazing parents, who both exhibit strong faith. My priest, too, is someone who I feel a strong connection with. Never did I think that they needed me like I needed them.
However, now as a parent, I find myself growing stronger in faith. I recognize my role in leading my children to the Way, the Truth, and the Life. The funny thing is, now I find myself needing my children for my salvation, as much as they need me.
I guess I never really thought about this in depth before, but perhaps the best priest, or deacon, or sunday school teacher, or parent, etc. is someone who is on a journey towards salvation with the people they are surrounded by. While they may be the Spiritual Father or the knowledgable parent, and may be full of wisdom and understanding, it is true wisdom when someone realizes that there is always more to learn, and the understanding that one's spiritual journey is an ongoing event.
As I re-read this, it sounds to me like a "no-brainer" - why wouldn't a priest be someone on a journey with his parish? However, I have seen it not work out that way, and many people left the Faith - a very sad thing.
Unfortunately I have not seen it work out that way much either... in fact it took me really blowing it with a priest that I had major conflicts with before I "came to my senses". It is much easier if the priest sees himself as "someone on a journey too" rather than someone who has arrived and "lords it over the flock", but even that has to be addressed in love and confronted in a Christlike way. We often bail out of difficult relationships long before we deal with ourselves and the other people have a chance to come to their senses. Having raised 6 kids, yes, they are still definitely there for my salvation even though I am their father... and they don't get to leave and I don't get to kick them out. (At least ideally... some people do that, of course.) Yeah, that's a major "DUH".
Commenting by HaloScan
