The Orthodox Leader

This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. (1 Tim. 3:1-7, NKJV)

If we are going to talk about leadership issues, one of the first things we should talk about are the leaders themselves, particularly how they are selected and formed. The passage above sets out clearly the list of qualifications for bishops (which can be equated with priests for our purposes). Every candidate for priestly orders should examine himself  with them in mind. More importantly, every candidate should be examined according to this list, because self-examination is insufficient.

Stated another way, these qualifications require external validation. The man’s own regard for himself, his family, and his motivations are interesting, but, ultimately, he must be deemed worthy according to the fruit he produces. A man can’t make a fully accurate self-assessment of these qualifications any more than he can declare himself to be “ridiculously good-looking” (with a nod to Zoolander). Not only does such an assessment take time, certainly more than a few months, it must be allowed to happen in the first place. Existing clergy and lay leaders need the opportunity to discover the men with the needed qualities for themselves, and to guide them to tonsured and ordained service within the Church in accordance with the measure of their gifts (consider Ephesians 4:11).

In sharp contrast, we Orthodox in North America are in the situation where most of our seminarians (i.e., clergy candidates) are self-selected. The would-be pastor thinks he would like to go to seminary, perhaps chats with his own priest, contacts the seminary, and then sets out to make seminary and ordination a reality, short-circuiting the entire discernment process. Think about it: the candidate obtains a blessing from a bishop (who may know the candidate barely, if at all) and recommendations from priests and coworkers because these things are required by the seminary application. In other words, the seminary does the evaluation of these credentials. Not only does this reveal the lack of in-depth familiarity with the man, it outsources the selection and approval process entirely!

The local church (diocese and parish) must make this inquiry first. How is the man’s participation in the parish and diocese, apart from attendance at services? Has he led other ministries in the parish? Has he worked closely with or on the parish council? Does he have a well-balanced family life? Is he exhibiting leadership, responsibility, and accountability in his employment or business?  (The Church can hardly expect a weak employee to be a strong pastor.) Is he known and respected in his community? The Church cannot make such determinations quickly, nor should she.

I’m not blaming the candidates, many of whom rightly judge their own qualifications and abilities, for this situation. Rather, we must look at the systemic structural weakness that delegates clergy selection to the individual (acting in concert with a seminary) and affirms candidates for the priesthood without due diligence and close acquaintance.  In an ideal world, pastors and parish leaders would be the ones to discover the pastoral qualities in a man and then to develop and encourage him to pursue ordination. This isn’t (or shouldn’t be) a casual, fast process. The very idea of “presbyter” (the technical term for a priest) implies that one is older, inasmuch as the word itself means “elder.” What’s the rush in most situations? (Actually, there are reasons for the rush, to be discussed as I go on.)

Taking a cue from our Lord himself (along with St. John the Baptist), canon XI from Neocaesarea (AD 315) sets an important standard: “Let not a presbyter be ordained before he is thirty years of age, even though he be in all respects a worthy man, but let him be made to wait. For our Lord Jesus Christ was baptized and began to teach in his thirtieth year.” Considering that adolescence often reaches well into the 20s in our time, I’d suggest that a slight upward revision of this requirement in practice (to perhaps 35 years of age) would serve the Church well.

Selecting a man of that age has some real benefits. It means that he will have had the opportunity to grow within his secular career, gaining both leadership and practical experience. It will attest that he is not pursuing work in the Church simply because there is nothing else he is willing or competent to do. He will have cultivated and demonstrated a stable marriage and home life, so that he enters the priesthood without the complication of recent nuptials and with the affirmation of a durable marriage. (This affirmation is underappreciated. The divorce rate among Orthodox clergy is embarrassingly high, raising numerous moral, spiritual, canonical, and leadership concerns.) All of which supports the image of the presbyter as put forth by the New Testament and the canons of the Church: that he serves only after being well-established in Faith and life.

Such a man, though, confronts a system that is neither prepared for nor readily accepting of him.

I invite your comments on these thoughts so far. More next time….

Read the next segment>>

[Revised slightly 15Jan10 10:21AM EST]

To continue the previous post on the “business” of the Church, I begin by saying that the emphasis of this particular reflection is not on tithing. Rather, the interest is on the perils of distractions within the Church corporate, at the parish, diocesan, and jurisdictional levels.  It is a distraction when we, with the complicity of our leaders (clergy and lay), have a Church life dominated by festivals, building programs, hall rentals, and semi-annual golf tournaments.

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.

And the Jews’ passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables; And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise. And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up. John 2:13-17

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.)

The Eli’s Road post has perhaps given some the impression that this blog exists to call out clergy malfeasance. It’s not. The goal is to talk about the leadership issues we’re facing as Orthodox Christians in North America. This is also not just about the hierarchs, councillors, and administrators leading from “on high.” It’s about what goes on at the parish level, too. Every parish has leaders. What challenges are they facing, and how can they lead more effectively?

Off the top of my head, some of the topics I plan to take up include (in no particular order):

1. Goal-setting
2. Financial leadership (budgeting, obligations, stewardship)
3. Developing a sense of evangelism among both clergy and lay leaders
4. Priorities (evangelism, programs, church building, missions, etc.)
5. Antagonism and lay abuse of clergy
6. Clergy compensation and its effect on leadership

(Having said that, it would seem that a leadership issue we should all be able to agree upon, is that clergy who are unfaithful or who are guilty of sexual abuse should be removed as clergy, rather than left in a position of leadership.)

I’ll ask you, the readers of this forum, a simple question: What topics would YOU like to see discussed and reflected on here? Use the comment section or the contact form .

Reminder: Please use real names (including last names) in the comment section. This is a leadership forum, so we can stand in the light. If you want to share something privately, use the contact form.

In light of the interest that the Eli’s Road post is getting, I really should point out that Fr Aris Metrakos made many similar points over two years ago.

And all sexual misconduct deserves the maximum penalty. When persons on the bench, in the bar, or with a badge undermine the legal system they get locked up for a long time; they are held to a higher standard. Priests who are pedophiles, homosexual predators, and adulterers need to be defrocked — not only to send a message but to protect the Church and her members. Some of them need jail time too.

I even managed, quite inadvertently, to pick up his closing statement: “Sexual sin among the clergy must stop.”

The only point at which I would disagree with Fr Aris is on the second chance for adulterers. I think even one time should lead to defrocking.

However, Fr Aris deserves praise for speaking out very clearly concerning this issue. Now to get everyone else speaking and, more importantly, acting just as firmly.

Then the LORD said to Samuel: “Behold, I will do something in Israel at which both ears of everyone who hears it will tingle. In that day I will perform against Eli all that I have spoken concerning his house, from beginning to end. For I have told him that I will judge his house forever for the iniquity which he knows, because his sons made themselves vile, and he did not restrain them. And therefore I have sworn to the house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli’s house shall not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever.” 1 Samuel (1 Kings, LXX) 3:11-14

This passage has a backstory. Young Samuel was placed into the guardianship of the priest Eli, who had two sons of his own, Hophni and Phineas. Like their father, they were priests. Unlike Eli, they were evil, stealing from the offerings brought by the faithful of Israel. (The Scriptures do not give many further details of their sins, but one can surmise that a priest willing to steal from offerings to God would have other moral failings as well.) Eli admonished his sons, but they would not stop (1 Sam 2:22-24). Eli had already been told his evil sons would perish in the same day (1 Sam 2:34). His sons continued in the evil with no interference from their father and, indeed, they died as promised (1 Sam 4:10). However, it is even more significant that Eli himself was to be punished for failing to go beyond a warning, for failing to stop his sons’ actions. Eli knew of the iniquity, “and he did not restrain them.” For this refusal to act, God ended Eli’s familial priesthood, even though Eli was not guilty in the same manner as his sons.

We have a problem in Orthodox North America. Worse than matters of theft and malfeasance, we have sexual sin among some of the clergy – fornication, adultery, homosexuality, and, dare I say it, pedophilia – that is all too often being passed over by hierarchs and church administrators. Some priests, deacons, and bishops who should be serving, caring, and interceding for their flocks are instead  “making themselves vile,” and, in some cases, ravaging the flock for their own base appetites. It is clear that these offenders will stand, like Hophni and Phineas, before God. But what of our leaders? What of those who should be restraining these men? Are they taking firm action, or are they taking the path of Eli?

Are the rumors being pursued with vigor? Are the accusers heard, with their testimony validated or refuted, or is their silence purchased with mammon or the threat of public embarrassment? Are the offending clergy removed, or just shuffled around from parish to parish and diocese to diocese in the hopes that the problem will disappear, maybe with a little “counseling”? Are the offending clergy excused with pious wishes that they be rehabilitated, lest we be perceived as judgmental? Which factors have weighed more heavily in our reactions: the legal risks or the the souls of the faithful? Sadly, the answers to these questions are not the ones we should be hoping for.

The result is that these men end up not only repeating the same sins and harming the men, women, boys, and girls entrusted to them yet again, but they destroy themselves by daring to stand before Christ’s Holy Table in such a state. Too many of our Orthodox leaders are allowing this to happen. They are admonishing, but not restraining. Our leaders are taking Eli’s road far too frequently.

It must stop. If we are to have any Christian integrity, if we are to demonstrate Christian leadership, if we are to show the barest shred of concern for the preaching of Christ’s Gospel, the aiding and abetting of such evil through a refusal to restrain it must come to an end.

As a priest myself, I am concerned that these unchecked evils cast a shadow over all of my brethren. How many times are devoted, pious clergy having their integrity silently questioned: Is he gay? Is he faithful to his wife? Can I trust him around my children? The vast majority of my brother clergy are absolutely principled on all these points. The sorry reactions that have been given to the few transgressors, though, make it perfectly reasonable for the faithful to have these questions.

This article is a plea for our leaders in the Church – hierarchs, chancellors, deans, and officials – to restrain evil rather than simply tolerating it. Suspension from clerical duties is insufficient. If a clergyman is not faithful to his wife or his celibacy, he should be deposed. If he has molested a child or seduced an adolescent, he should be deposed. If he has responded to a penitent’s confession with a sexual advance, he should be deposed. The action should be taken quickly and publicly, not with the intent to humiliate or to deny repentance and forgiveness to the guilty, but to proclaim that Christ’s Church stands against evil in all its forms. It must be done with regard solely for the care of the injured parties and the integrity of the Church, not with any regard for the reputation of the guilty or the legal consequences that might result.

It must stop. We can no longer tolerate such manifest evil, nor should we deceive ourselves that warning the erring brothers in these circumstances is sufficient. No, we must restrain the evil. We must exit Eli’s road and do it now.