Monks are ideal to this. The monastery would provide the sustenance for the bishop and serve as a retreat for parish priests and spiritually attuned laymen.

How to maintain our strength in the midst of such things? You obey the call of God, which includes dealing with things as they really are. Then, as you travel that road, you see you are not alone. God reveals Himself, some Saints draw closer (often in very tangible ways) — in short you learn what it really means to live the life of the Cross. Then, as you persevere and ultimately conquer, you help others along that same road as well.

I am convinced though that the trials are not without purpose. Something is happening in American Orthodoxy. I have sensed it for a long time, years in fact. I believe the time has come to shake off our slumber, our sloth, our self-satisfaction, our smug triumphalism — all the accretions that substitute for authentic encounter with the Risen Christ and the responsibilities it confers. The trials, I believe, serve two purposes: 1) personal cleansing and strengthening, and 2) preparation for the time when our Lord raises the Church to greater prominence for the salvation of others.

I wonder how many of the “miscreants” are the major donors? (Are any?) How often are they just bullies? (Bullies seem to have a knack for finding their target’s weakness – in this case, it seems, the priests real lack of authority.)

I wonder, too, what characteristics or experience made the difference between the bishop who responded productively to the issue and the others who did not?

Perhaps Bishops should be required to do through some kind of leadership/management training. In the corporate world, bosses who abandon his/her employees to more problematic clients retain few employees – or have no experience with problematic clients. (This is not to absolve the employee, since a good manager will want to work through any contributing issues and help the employee improve, but it does recognize that failing to “back up” the employee lets the bully set the rules of the game.)

Ironically, this is one of my key issues with so many public policy positions driven by good intentions: they create moral hazard, “rewarding” offenders and exposing or punishing the innocent. I wonder if it is even possible to speak directly to such unChristian behavior – not that they would want to hear it, but it seems that being gentle with bullies just means that everyone else suffers.

As I said, hearing what you describe is very disheartening, yet it seems to be the lot of far too many priests (except for those who have strong connections with the “power brokers” in their communities; something is systemically wrong with that. How do you maintain the strength of heart you need to be move forward in the midst of such things?

I can not begin to identify all of the forces that led to the reduction of the laity from full, serving, gifted members of the Body to too-often passive (barely present) participants, or the elevation of the clergy to “everything” in the local parish. But when the laity do no fulfill their calling to be the Body, the leadership can not fulfill its calling either – and vice versa. In both cases, it effectively denies the specific gifts and calling of the particular people in our parish – yet these are the very real gifts that God gives to His Church. The result: we burn out our priests and frustrate the laity; no one is well served.

For the same reasons, I completely agree with Michael: a bishop who is not overseeing a particular and manageable community or (small) group of communities is primarily an administrator – or a politician. Maybe we have the bishops we deserve (as the Russian saying goes) because we have created primarily political, not pastoral offices. But when the shepherds (priests) themselves have no meaningful shepherd (pastoral bishop), too much mischief – or distress – results. What manager can effectively manage his personnel when his contact is so incidental? The bishop may have many roles – but, he is above all the elder brother/father. (On the other hand, maybe this does reflect modern life, since more than a few are absentee fathers.)

My key concern here is that we are settling for only a fragment of that to which we were called. It is the whole Body together, each offering its particular gifts in loving service that the whole is built up. A body that doesn’t “exercise” atrophies – and that, it seems to me, is too often where we are.

And think here, how often can clergy REALLY say “No” to an unreasonable request from their bishop or a parish council without penalty?

Not often, or at least not without getting chased or transferred out of his parish.

In my experience, most priests are bound — if not initially then three or four years down the road — by no more than a handful of parishioners for whom the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the furthest thing from their minds. The reasons for their antipathy toward a priest are numerous, but all good priests who encounter this conflict (and I know many good priests who face this), enter a time of profound spiritual struggle, especially when their livelihoods are threatened, and equally as destabilizing but unfortunately all too often true, when their wives or children are attacked.

Conflicts need to be resolved, and Bishops are the ones appointed to resolve them. Most could be resolved by applying the proper discipline to the miscreants, but, again in my experience, this is seldom done. Much of the time the priest gets blamed, and after experiencing the mishandling of problems in this way, the priest learns not to trust his bishop and, either capitulates to the abuse (many good priests are psychologically harmed this way), moves on to the next parish only to learn the dynamic exists there as well, psychologically distances himself from his flock as a means of self-protection, or falls into dysfunctional behaviors of his own as a means of relieving the pressure.

Some of the laity are real Christians. Some are not. If the priest preaches the Gospel and light is brought forward in the parish, those who do not want the light rebel against it. The conflicts often point out who they are, but where there is no vision that the parish exists in order to find Christ, or where that vision is muted by other desires and goals, the abuse of the priest is justified in their minds, particularly if the Bishop fails to reprove them. The priest eventually leaves — either thrown out or moves on his own. Often, the light diminishes even more.

I’ve heard a Bishop tell his priests, “I can’t move a parish, only a priest.” He thinks it is wise, but in reality it is profoundly destabilizing to the priests because it tells them that if a conflict arises, they are out. No long term stability can be achieved with this policy without some kind of grave compromise along the way, usually consisting of capitulation to antagonists (often only a handful). It also indicates that the Bishop’s self-understanding of his role as Chief Shepherd is woefully inadequate.

There are capable Bishops, too. I know of one situation where the conflict was assessed by a Bishop, and the miscreants were told to get with the program or leave. He was not removing the priest. They left and the parish flourished as a result.

I don’t mean wannabe monasticism here. I’m fully aware that there’s a difference between the parish and the monastery. Nor do I mean hyperservices. Perhaps the hours served daily, and vespers in midweek. Hospital visits could place during office hours. Baptisms and memorial services could take place before and after Sat Great Vespers respectively. Weddings after Liturgy on Sunday. What I’m trying to say is that parish life could be ordered around the services of the Church and accomodate the priest’s schedule. Obviously there’s room for flexibility from parish to parish as to how this would be. If the priest has a part-time (or even full-time) job, this should be taken into consideration as well.

It’s important that the laity step up to the plate. Readers, cantors, grown men as altar-servers, etc. is what is called for. Dedicated retirees would be helpful. Mature women working in the church office are essential. By “cadre” I guess I mean laypeople who are willing to run interference for the priest so that he could celebrate the services consistently.

I believe that there would be a transformation of Orthodoxy throughout the land if the majority of parishes were run in this way. It would begin to seep into the mind of the laity that Church is primarily for services which are efficacious vehicles of grace.

I am not a leveler btw, hierarchy is essential to the life of the Church but it has to be a hierachy not modeled after the world’s ideas.

A martyr is at the most basic level a witness to the Truth in the midst of the world. It does take many forms that do not require us to physically die. It can be as simple as abstaining from pre-marital sexual intercourse. However, as the government of the US lurches toward a more totalitarian, anti-Christian form, much more will be required of us. To quote Shakespeare: “If it be now, ’tis not to come; if it is not to come, it will be now; if it be not now, yet it will come; the readiness is all”

I have to ask myself if I am ready. Unfortunately, I get a resounding NO. I weep for myself, my parish, my priest, my bishop and my Church because we are so distracted by things that simply don’t matter. We work so hard to bring order to things out of our own will rather than loving God and allowing that love to create His order.

Thank you for your insightful comment above (#20). I agree with you, I think, that we are not called to the business of culture building as such–rather, and again as you point out–an Orthodox Christian culture in America will arise out of our fidelity to Christ and His Gospel. And yes, I do think that this will require from us a certain martyrdom–though the form this will take is yet to be revealed.

As for our bishops..two things come to mind. From St Augustine to the faithful at Hippo: With you a Christian, for you a bishop. And from St Paul “if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; or if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it.” (1 Cor 12.26) I think some times that we view our bishops (and the lower clergy for that matter) more often then not through the lens of their function for us–a function that will pass away–rather then who they are with us (which is eternal).

In other words what ever might be our theology, our practice is functional and reductionistic. One example comes immediately to mind. The one comment I hear from people when they can say nothing else good about a priest is, he serves Liturgy well. Honestly, I’m not sure what they mean and (more to the point) I’m not sure they know either. But it is illustrative of our tendency to reduce the service of the clergy to function.

This then brings me to George’s comment–thank you for acknowledging what too few lay people wish to admit. It just ain’t the bishop or the priest’s fault. If they are problem–moral or pastoral–that are not being addressed we need to look not simply at the clergy but the laypeople who collude and conspire with the clergy to let the problem continue.

Another quick example, everyone acknowledges clergy sexual misconduct is not acceptable. But how many people want to fund the training need to help clergy understand human sexuality (theirs and their parishioners) or see to it that Father keeps to a reasonable schedule with sufficient time not only for prayer and study but also to be with his family? While not absolute, it has been my experience that people often act out sexually as a means of avoiding stress that they can’t seem to manage any other way. And think here, how often can clergy REALLY say “No” to an unreasonable request from their bishop or a parish council without penalty?

All of this is to say, to get back to where I began this comment, is that we will create for ourselves a culture. That is not something we can choose–it will simply happen. What we can choose, I think, is the relative psychological and spiritual health of the culture.

But before they are our bishops, our priests or our deacons, before they are our fathers in Christ, they are our brothers in Christ and that seems not to be in the equation for most of us.

Here endth the lesson.

In Christ,

+FrG

Of course, our laity are not without fault. Way too many laymen enforce the ethnic stereotypes, especially the ones with the big bucks. Supposedly, there’s $28 million (in pledges) for “Faith and Hellenism,” but couldn’t this money be used for seed capital for medical clinics and soup kitchens?

geo

I just wanted to let you know that someone appreciates your paleo-humor.

best regards,
Dean
(who was always called a paleo-paido by my greek school teacher – loses something in the translation)

The early Christians did not set out to ‘create a culture’ they preached and lived the Gospel: worship, prayer, fasting, alsmgiving, repentance and marytrdom. They worked to live a holy live which put them at odds with the prevailing culture.

I do not for a minute think that nihilism will triumph, but the cost exacted by it on Christians will be greater than we have yet seen. We in the United States will not be exempt. Russia had centuries of genuine faith and thousands of saints that helped her endure. We have
“Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” and only a few native saints who we mostly ignore. It appears that we cannot rely on our bishops (any of them in any jurisdiction especially the Antiochian right now) to be interested in anything other than their own positions as money, friendship and power are more imporatant than truth and love. Except for Met. Jonah, the words of bishops are nothing but warmed over oatmeal and his are still too gentle IMO.

Christianity is radical, it is not nice, it is not accomodating, it is counter-intuitive. To be a faithful Christian takes immense courage. We are fast becoming a nilistic state. Christianity can not cooperate with such a state even when it appears to do good. Likewise, we can no longer cooperate with bishops who are nothing but tyrants–no matter what good they appear to have done. A true and vital hierarchy like a Christian culture is the work of the Holy Spirit in the hearts and minds of the body of believers. Both are natural by-products of living a true and faithful life. We have to hold ourselves to a higher standard of faith and love. Playing the games of the world, won’t cut it. The nihilistic licentiousness is too deeply imbedded in our hearts–renewal will only come after the destruction the nihilists want. Time will tell how many survive as Christians or what state the official Church is in at that time.

Paleocon (#9), I am quite intrigued by your comment that “The Modern state (including America) is far more jealous of its prerogative than was Caesar.” I am curious how you come to this conclusion. It seems to me that there is an unspoken moral argument being made here. What that argument is not clear to me and it would help me if you could flesh out what the argument is you are making? In other words, how do you come to say that America is more jealous than Caesar? And what do you mean by this?

As for the Enlightenment, while I don’t think it is wholly good, I also don’t think it wholly lacking in goodness either. While a mixed bag to be sure, thanks to the Enlightenment separate of person and tradition I am able to be an Orthodox Christian.

Michael (#11) yes, enculturation is dangerous but it is not a myth. Let me make that stronger, if in fact the Church is a visible community it will necessarily generate a culture and do so, at least in part, out of the raw non-Christian cultural material we find around us. To fail to do this doesn’t mean that there is no enculturation only that the enculturation we see is (at best) trivial and at worse a captivity of the Church to the surrounding culture.

Will we transform the whole culture? No of course not. But then I have not wholly transformed myself and I will not be wholly transformed in this life or even, if St Gregory Nyssa is a trustworthy witness, in the life to come. The standard of our personal transformation is Christ. The standard of our communal transformation the Holy Trinity. Yes, the twin work of transformation always and necessarily will remain incomplete, and forgive me for speaking so directly, but I would argue that to sacrifice either the personal or the communal work of transformation is to fundamentally misunderstand the Gospel.

Let me end here.

In Christ,

+FrG

What amazes me is how folks have gotten so used to Christian assumptions that they fail to recognize their presence; I suppose fish do not recognize the water they are in, either. Thus, as Father rightly noted above, while Hitchens and Dalrymple may claim otherwise, the assumptions upon which their values and judgments are based are, in the end, deeply Christian. Their criteria and valuations would hardly have been self-evident to a pagan Roman, ancient Egyptian or most other cultures. Of course, if we really believe that Christ is Truth Incarnate, it must be so. It is not that all roads lead to truth (the road, after all, is wide that leads to destruction), but that all truth leads to Christ.

No individual or culture can long endure without SOME connection to what is true, good or just. (Even on a merely economic level, statist efforts ultimately lead to bankruptcy.) Or, to put it differently, most human evils are perversions of what is good rather than outright evil, the negation of the good. (Even a great evil like Marxism was, in the end, a kind of Christian heresy, an effort to establish the eschatological kingdom without the eschatological king).

Recognizing corruption, failings and sin is very important, yes, but primarily in order to help us to turn our hearts more fully to grace. Focusing solely on sin(s), however, usually indicates some other agenda or a distorted perspective. In the same way, idealizing the past (whether America, Byzantium or even the early Church) can create a fundamentally false image that is then used to denigrate and reject the current culture – which is to say, our neighbor. In my experience, it is more helpful to focus on (and be grateful for) that portion of grace, which is ever present and ever active and ever redeeming. It is the grace evident in the lives of the saints that inspires us, the grace evident in the heroic sacrifices of our fore bearers that has given us the legacy we enjoy and the grace that is working relentlessly – as it always does – in our culture, communities and hearts (corrupt and unworthy though they undoubtedly are) that gives us hope. In the end, grace wins. The end of the story is resurrection, not crucifixion. Thus, while American culture will remain dynamic and changeable – and may even become increasingly corrupt, I can not believe that it is beyond the reach of grace – especially when so much upon which it was founded on assumptions and perspectives that emerged from faith. In the end, our hope for our culture, community or heart is likewise rooted in the fact that uncreated grace is the living foundation of every created thing.

I am not by nature optimistic, but I am hopeful. I agree with Solzhenitsyn that we stand at an anthropological threshold, but I am aware if the step is not taken, it will plunge us into a very dark age, mediated initially through totalitarianism. I do not believe however, cultural devolution is inevitable, or that a complete collapse into nihilistic brutality is determined. I do agree however, that the seeds of renewal are not evident, that they must come from elsewhere, but that word of redemption will echo with what Christendom once knew to be true, hence the need for history and not merely the recitation of cultural and social dynamics as valuable as it might be (my original complaint with the piece).

Regarding private property, I’m not so sure that the American experiment regarded private property solely in the ideological terms. If it did, private property would have been out of reach to most ordinary people over time; we would have seen property amass to a small class of landowners, much of what like still exists in Central and South America — countries that still retain medieval legacies in culture and economics.

Those values are unhinged. They used to reside in social bodies that carried actual authority (the Church, local communities, families/clans, guilds, etc.) but no more. Authority is now allowed only to the State and we have been so shaped that the deeper values you speak of can only exist in the public sphere as opinion, a lifestyle choice, exactly as Deneen was speaking of them. To speak of the old conservatism is to reject the bounds of authority the State has accrued, really to reject the State itself.

The secular order has thrived because the old Christian values were so deeply rooted in our society (as you rightly say) but by its nature it is destructive of those roots because it destroys all authority but its own. We seem to be nearing their exhaustion.

“And I think you dismiss the control of property in reference to the Crown a bit too easily. The ownership of private property as a contributing factor to private and public virtue goes back as far as Aristotle. Even the monasteries, the centers of aesthetic discipline, understand this. They would never turn over their property to the state.

That is not the same thing as the tradition of individuated and absolute right to private property (i.e. not only without reference to the Crown but without any obligation outside the self and private conscience) that began as Enclosure in Britain and emerged as ideology in the American experiment (one of many things, of course; it doesn’t define it). To echo Mr. Bauman, it is the victory of the powerful and ambitious over the restraint that had been imposed on them through centuries of Christian civilization.