Next Steps

In the end, then, we see the various realms of what it is to extend our spiritual leadership, beginning with the recognition that we must not impose a single vision of the “right saint” or the “right spiritual gift” on everyone. We start with ourselves, addressing the clearest examples of our weakness and seeking to bring our own lives under some kind of clear spiritual leadership. We move from there to our families and the intimate web of connections that require us to adjust constantly to the needs therein in order that our wives and our children remain firm in the Christian life. Then on to the parish, and the establishment of trust as the basis for spiritual leadership. Finally, we reach the broader community, that our spiritual leadership bring forth fruit in abundance.

What next? I think it worthwhile for each of us to spend at least a day in prayer and quiet reflection, identifying one goal in each sphere of leadership to undertake over the coming year. Write them down. Give them measurable goals. Record the steps you will take to accomplish it. Then take that list into some time of prayer, and begin that holy work. I pray that God will bless the ministry of each of my brethren here today. Thank you.

This concludes this series of posts.

Community

There’s that last circle of influence: community, the realm of people for whom we desire salvation. It is the place where we really should desire our spiritual leadership to obtain the greatest reach. It is frequently overlooked among our Orthodox people. It is quite intertwined with mission and evangelism, for proclaiming the Gospel to the heterodox and the unbeliever and bringing souls under the protective wing of Christ’s Church is the ultimate extension of spiritual leadership.

“For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, less the cross of Christ should be made of no effect. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” (1 Cor 1:17-18) St. Paul is not arguing against Holy Baptism here, but to say that his primary work was the proclamation of the Gospel in the world.

The basis for our seeking to build our spiritual leadership in our community is found in Christ’s calling of the first apostles:

So it was, as the multitude pressed about Him to hear the word of God, that he stood by the Lake of Gennesaret, and saw two boats standing by the lake; but the fishermen had gone from them and were washing their nets. Then he got into one of the boats, which was Simon’s, and asked him to put out a little from the land. And he sat down and taught the multitudes from the boat. When he had stopped speaking, he said to Simon, ‘Launch out into the deep and let down your nets for a catch.’ But Simon answered and said to him, ‘Master we have toiled all night and caught nothing; nevertheless at your word I will let down the net.’

And when they had done this, they caught a great number of fish, and their net was breaking. So they signaled to their partners in the other boat to come and help them. And they came and filled both the boats, so that they began to sink. When Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus’ knees, saying, ‘Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord!’

For he and all who were with him were astonished at the catch of fish which they had taken; and so also were James and John the sons of Zebedee, who were partners with Simon. And Jesus said to Simon, ‘Do not be afraid. From now on you will catch men.’ So when they had brought their boats to land, they forsook all and followed him. Luke 5:1-10

Fishers of men. Spiritual leadership in our community is nothing less than the casting of Christ’s net. The thing about fish is that simply having the net is not sufficient to catch them. The fisherman must take the net to the fish. Still, some of the fish do not wish to be in the net, but the Gospel of Jesus Christ is powerful, and draws them in anyway.

Extending our spiritual leadership requires us to take our ministry beyond our immediate parish, which is to say, to take our ministry beyond those who come to us for the Mysteries already. As with the parable of the banquet, we must go into the highways and byways (Mt 22:1-14) to invite them to the banquet. The parable of the sower (Luke 8:5-15) speaks of the different kinds of soil, but it is God alone who knows what kind of soil each man is, or what kind of soil each man may become. It is not part of the priest’s vocation to declare a man to be the poor soil.

Our spiritual leadership in the community must become one of engagement—of meeting, talking, knowing—as well as one of intercession—praying for those whom we have engaged.

St. Paul went to the Areopagus to proclaim the Gospel. We have to find our modern version of the Areopagus, never misinterpreting prohibitions on “prayer with heretics” (e.g. Laodicea 33) such that they prevent us from proclaiming the truth.

So what is the Areopagus in our time? What is the Areopagus for those trapped in Protestant communions that are riding a rapid decline into immorality and irrelevance? What is the Areopagus for the neo-evangelical who no longer worships in a way that is identifiably Christian? We have a growing fad called the “emerging church,” which is little more than empty platitudes about a Christ who can be anything we want him to be. What is the Areopagus for them? What is the Areopagus for the unchurched and, more likely, the dechurched?

I don’t think there is a universal answer to this question, inasmuch as the answer here in San Francisco is likely different from the answer in Boise, Denver, Seattle, Sacramento, State College, or Dallas. What is certain is that the Areopagus is not found in our own naves. If we are going to extend our spiritual leadership in the community, we will need to step out. We will need to meet others, and develop those relationships. Relationships build slowly. Some of the best ones start out built around common interests.

At the individual level, meeting the parents of friends of our children, learning more about coworkers if we work in a secular environment, finding other adults who like to bicycle or perform community service are great ways to break the ice, and, over time, to establish those first frail spiritual connections. People are often reluctant to get too close to the “preacher man,” but they’ll get close to the friendly fellow who is willing to labor and socialize with them.

Shared social ministry is also a great way to extend spiritual leadership, for several reasons. First of all, the size of the Orthodox community in the United States makes it difficult for us to carry out some kinds of care for those around us. We can do more by working with others. These “others” are often heterodox Christians. They’re heterodox not because they reject the Orthodox as a deliberate act, but because they’ve never encountered an Orthodox person or viewpoint.  These contacts become profitable ways to tell others what the Church believes, to invite them to pray with us, and to manifest the fullness of Christ’s Church to them.

We should not fail to mention, too, that those involved in such community ministry are often people of influence. Bringing these individuals closer to the Church in the sphere of our leadership can have profound effects on our parish and on the broader community as a whole.

I also emphasize the role of our wives. Women go where men cannot go. They have conversations men cannot have. In the early Church, huge numbers of men became Christians through the efforts of their wives. If you have an extroverted wife, she can be one of the greatest ministerial assets you have, because she will introduce you to individuals you would not necessarily have met otherwise. Every one of those introductions is an opportunity to demonstrate spiritual leadership.

Next time: Part VI, Next Steps.

The web has also become ubiquitous. Most of our readers have access to at least one computer at home or in the office, and ever-growing numbers carry them about on their person, in the form of smartphones. (One immediate consideration, though, is that many church websites look awful when viewed on mobile devices.)  This ubiquity and constant accessibility means that a great many people, myself included, have discarded printed phone directories in favor of search engines. In fact, catering to the dwindling minority of parishioners without web access, such as restricting critical information to printed materials instead of email or website, has a perverse result in an era of electronic communication. Namely, it relegates the parish newsletter to “junk mail,” as “real mail” (bills, bank statements, personal communications) is increasingly delivered electronically.  The newsletter may be a jewel, but it comes in a pile of material destined for the recycle bin. The prospects for it being read aren’t good.

The church website also has the ability to offer a multimedia experience. While deferring the negative aspects of this to a future piece in this series, it is absolutely clear that the web allows parishes to show themselves to the world in a way that isn’t confined to two column-inches of newsprint on yellow paper. We can tell the world about ourselves—what we believe, where we’re located, when we worship, and so on—in a way that goes beyond a slogan and the name of the pastor. We can show pictures of events, of our church, and many other things, and provide articles and other prose  that goes far beyond the tracts of old.

As already mentioned, these things are mostly “free,” and even more so with the rise of various so-called content management system (including the blogging platform WordPress and the more comprehensive packages such as Joomla and Drupal) offered without cost to the adventurous (or at comparatively low fees to those who need help). Suddenly, site content can be delegated to owners of the various sections. The priest doesn’t have to maintain the choir notices section. The webmaster doesn’t have to keep up with the schedule. Typical tasks are no harder than webmail.

In short, there is no question that the parish website should figure prominently in the church’s public face. However, there are limitations, and parish leaders should have proper concerns about several issues. I’ll begin taking up my own concerns next time.

Meanwhile, I ask readers of this blog to visit websites of other parishes (Orthodox and not) in their area. What do you think is valuable? What isn’t?

Christ is risen! Indeed he is risen!

This past Holy Week has given me many points to consider in a topic I’ve been ruminating on for some time: the issue of photos and videos of Orthodox sacramental rites being placed on the internet in an unrestricted fashion. I am encouraged by the growing use of media technology by Orthodox parishes for the sake of proclaiming the Gospel of Christ. Technological advances in the past decade have made this possible, with good-quality digital still and video cameras available at bargain prices. For those eager to share the Orthodox Faith (which should be all of us), this has been turned into a real opportunity to make Orthodox worship more visible to all.

However, I admit to some unease with the way this is being done in practice. I have benefited greatly from the ready availability of photos and videos (particularly on YouTube, to help a young choir learn new settings by hearing others sing them), but I am not sure this justifies the unrestricted disclosure of “family affairs” to the world. Consider some photos easily found online (all open in a new window/tab), available for anyone to view:

Of Holy Communion
Of Baptisms
Of Ordinations

There are many others that can be found, on Google and Bing Images, YouTube, Vimeo, and more.

Why am I uneasy? My concern is that making these images available to all leads to either scorn or indifference to the Holy Mysteries (to include all the sacraments of the Church). The risk of the former is still very real, even from people calling themselves Christians. Consider this greatest hit (admittedly, an extreme example) from Chick Tracts. Does showing someone with a hostile perspective the details of what we do in the Eucharist accomplish anything, or does it just give them more ammunition? (“See! They worship that bread!”)

As for indifference, our entire culture has been desensitized to sexual innuendo and varying degrees of public nudity simply by putting more and more of it into the public sphere. We now hear talk at the office that would have made sailors of another era blush. If the special thing is put out there often enough, its perception as special is bound to decrease. (See what St. Basil has to say about this, below.) What previously required one to visit an Orthodox church to see is now available to anyone at any time.

It seems to me to be a form of spiritual promiscuity. We speak about the intimacy of our participation in the Holy Mysteries, particularly the Eucharist, but then readily display not only the Body and Blood of Christ, but also those who, in piety and faith, draw near to receive them. In most cases, their permission for such photos is never asked, as if attendance at the Divine Liturgy includes an implicit photographic release. Anonymity in unattributed photos will not last, either. It’s only a matter of time until faces are searchable by name, with that technology already available in consumer products like Apple’s iPhoto. I wonder how well that will work out for those who renounce, say, Islam in favor of Christ.

Further, many of our larger services (like the ones from Holy Week and Pascha, plus the liturgies at gatherings such as the OCA All-American Councils) have been transformed into media events, with the audiovisual cacophony of flashes, shutters, beeps, and the paparazzo-style camera-raised-above-the-crowd shooting effect all working against those who would like to pray in peace. We generally discourage, if not prohibit, this behavior at weddings, but it’s tolerated all the time at other big services. I’ve had photographers shooting over my shoulder while I commune the faithful. It’s rude. Not every aspect of every event need be recorded for posterity. [NB: Courtesy calls for most photography undertaken in a religious service to be unobtrusive. Ask permission first. Turn off the flash. Turn off the beeps. Turn off the autofocus assist lamp. Use a camera with a quiet shutter. Remember to pray.]

Lest this sound too cranky (and, please bear with me, for I want your input), I should say that I am not opposed to all church photography. I wonder, though, whether we would be better served by having fewer publicly-available recordings of sacramental services and individuals in intimate moments of participation in the grace of God therein. In place of this, we could make the emphasis of our photo- and videography the salvation available in Christ Jesus. Good relationships begin with introductory discussions, not with full family details. We Orthodox are justifiably enamored of the beauty of our worship, but it seems that photographs of the faithful partaking of the Body and Blood of their Lord, or being immersed in the waters of Holy Baptism, etc. are of minimal evangelistic value, at least for those viewing them on the web. (That is, who would become an Orthodox Christian because he saw a baptism on the internet?) For those images and videos of interest to the communal family, such as baptisms, weddings, and so on, perhaps they could be protected and accessible only to the members of the parish. We could let sermons and material for the unchurched predominate on the public areas of church websites.

So, my questions for you are:

1. What do you think about my concerns? Is there too much or too little being made accessible everywhere? Is what I’ve said much ado about nothing?
2. What, if anything, should be done?
3. What should drive our use of photographs and other media? Is the current use helping or hurting?
4. In many ways, “the horse is already out of the barn” on this issue. Is there a basis for trying to undo this, at least in the future?

In the interest of discussion, I give a couple of other patristic citations. This first one is from St. Cyril of Jerusalem (AD 313-386), in his introductory address to the newly baptized. His lectures introduced these new Christians, most of whom hadn’t even heard the Lord’s Prayer prior to their entry, to the fullness of life in the Church. He cautions them to guard what they learn:

When, therefore, the Lecture is delivered, if a Catechumen ask thee what the teachers have said, tell nothing to him that is without. …  So too the sick ask for wine; but if it be given at a wrong time it causes delirium, and two evils arise; the sick man dies, and the physician is blamed.  Thus is it also with the Catechumen, if he hear anything from the believer:  both the Catechumen becomes delirious (for he understands not what he has heard, and finds fault with the thing, and scoffs at what is said), and the believer is condemned as a traitor. But thou art now standing on the border:  take heed, pray, to tell nothing out; not that the things spoken are not worthy to be told, but because his ear is unworthy to receive. -St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Prologue to the Catechetical Lectures, 12.

Then there’s St. Basil (AD 330-379), who, in defending the divinity and personhood of the Holy Spirit, makes reference to the propriety of speaking of those things maintained in pious silence. Read this carefully:

And whence comes the custom of baptizing thrice? And as to the other customs of baptism from what Scripture do we derive the renunciation of Satan and his angels?  Does not this come from that unpublished and secret teaching which our fathers guarded in a silence out of the reach of curious meddling and inquisitive investigation?  Well had they learnt the lesson that the awful dignity of the mysteries is best preserved by silence.  What the uninitiated are not even allowed to look at was hardly likely to be publicly paraded about in written documents.  What was the meaning of the mighty Moses in not making all the parts of the tabernacle open to every one?  The profane he stationed without the sacred barriers; the first courts he conceded to the purer; the Levites alone he judged worthy of being servants of the Deity; sacrifices and burnt offerings and the rest of the priestly functions he allotted to the priests; one chosen out of all he admitted to the shrine, and even this one not always but on only one day in the year, and of this one day a time was fixed for his entry so that he might gaze on the Holy of Holies amazed at the strangeness and novelty of the sight.  Moses was wise enough to know that contempt stretches to the trite and to the obvious, while a keen interest is naturally associated with the unusual and the unfamiliar.  In the same manner the Apostles and Fathers who laid down laws for the Church from the beginning thus guarded the awful dignity of the mysteries in secrecy and silence, for what is bruited abroad random among the common folk is no mystery at all. -St. Basil, On the Holy Spirit, XXVII.66.

And then there’s always the prayer we pray (or should pray) before our participation in the Eucharist: “Of thy mystical supper, O Son of God, accept me today as a communicant. For I will not speak of thy Mysteries to thine enemies, neither like Judas will I give thee a kiss, but like the thief will I confess thee. Remember me, O Lord, in thy Kingdom.”

These things are distractions because they are all inward-looking. They set up a virtual mirror where we preen and think about our infrastructure and our “stuff” rather than caring for those in our midst and proclaiming the Gospel. (NB: Oftentimes, caring is proclaiming, only with a whisper. Whom do you know that could use a helping hand?) God repeatedly rebukes such introspection. The entire Old Testament account of God’s refusal to sanction the building of a permanent Temple prior to Solomon suggests that the Israelites were to live first as God’s faithful, as the seed of Abraham in which “shall all families of the earth be blessed.” (Gen. 12:3). In short, if we are spending all of our thinking time on something other than being lights to the world, we’re not shining very brightly.

Mark Phinney has noted, in comments on a previous post, that he feels personal spiritual development and formation are the number one leadership issue facing the Orthodox Church in North America. I agree. We would make significant headway against our ills with real spiritual development. The difficulty is that there are a lot of things that masquerade as spiritual development, these distractions being chief among them. It is terribly easy to spend all our time thinking about and working on these side projects while telling ourselves that these efforts are spiritual labors and, worse, beating up those who challenge that thinking. Salvation will not be found in a balance sheet.

True spiritual development, and a fundamental aspect of the business of the Church, not only begins but continues with a real look inward, with repentance. It is time to stop berating those prophets who remind us that our distractions are not the same thing as the Gospel and instead heed them. Repentance is the looking inward that leads outward, for it is with the eyes of repentance that we truly live and share the life in Christ. Such sharing is the true business of the Church.

The money changers and sellers of livestock (for sacrifices) started out with perfectly good and helpful intentions, helping those who were sometimes coming from great distances to visit the Temple to make sacrifice, and, in the process, paying the Temple tax.

The benign enterprise, however, grew into something that no longer existed for the sake of God’s people. It came to exist for its own sake. What started as what could be termed, loosely, as a ministry to people became a profit and loss equation. At that point, the Temple served only as a “house of merchandise.” Such a transformation is perverse, a form of idolatry where the object of interest isn’t God but something else.

I submit that a similar affliction exists among the Orthodox of North America. Fundraisers for specific needs, building programs, church ministries are established, but then things change over time. The fundraiser comes to be used for general needs and even exists as an ongoing venture. (How big is the fundraiser line item in the church budget?) The building program is established for the sake of a beautiful edifice, but, then, how much of the parish’s time, money, and energy is then diverted away from mission as a result? How often are visitors viewed, not as souls, but as contributors to our debt service?  Concerning our ministries, how many of them exist because we dare not cease funding a program, even one that distracts us from what we are supposed to be doing as Church?

For the sake of mission, it’s time to stop looking inward, to end the focus on the profit/loss equation in whatever form, and to start (or restart) looking outward. To depend on fundraisers for parish support is to transfer our personal financial responsibility to other people. These “other people” are often the very ones who should be recipients of our evangelism rather than our secular marketing. To establish a building program (concomitantly incurring large amounts of debt) or an athletic league because doing so “will attract people” or for any reason other than building up the faithful is to see people as numbers rather than individuals made in the image of God.

I realize that, in saying these things, some of my own clergy brethren will take exception to them. What I ask is that some Scriptures be considered: Exodus 3:22, Exodus 25:1-9, Romans 15:22-32, 1 Corinthians 16:1-3. Are these inward- or outward-looking? What is the difference between Exodus 3 and the others? How do we differentiate what we do from what the money changers did?

With that, I’ll end this first installment. I also make a quiet apology for the lack of polish of this installment, which was written in haste. I did, however, wish to have a new post up for the weekend. There will be more early in the week.

In any event, please post your comments, especially if you have more Scriptures to point out. (Approvals may be slow until Saturday afternoon.)