www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Must a leader be holy?

I would not use the term "midgets". I'd rather see our bishops become inspired to be the leaders God is making them to be.

CDL

CDL said:

The saying goes: "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."

Jesus was holy and a true leader, yet only a few listened and truly followed him. Then after the Holy Spirit came at Pentecost, the Church really took off. And it took off through centuries of persecution. Then the persecutions ended and the leaders, like Chrysostom and others, feared for the Church, that it would become complacent. That's why so many went to the desert, and why we have a tradition in the Eastern Churches that bishops--leaders--come from the monasteries.

But how many Eastern monasteries do we have in the U.S.? Are they turning out the leadership we need? These are not rhetorical questions. I do not know enought about what monasteries exist and whether they are doing their part in formation.

But we can't blame the shrinking entirely on the quality of leadership we have. First, our leaders are formed in our families and parishes before they enter monastery or seminary. And, second, we have a problem ourselves. To paraphrase the gospel: "There are none so deaf as those who will not hear."

Sophia

The church is dwindling because of a number of factors, some of which could have been controlled and some of which could not. The ethnic base (with its combined stereotypes, language barriers, economic strength, and more), the movement of immigrants out of the inner-city places to the suburbs and mainstreamed culture, the aging of the immigrant population and the fact that grandchildren are far removed from the lives and struggles of two generations before, the requirements placed on the church from the west which were against her traditions and practices, the ability of the Orthodox and RC churches to absorb those who feel less than enamored with any aspect of the church, the concentration of the church in one corner of the country making it a difficult choice for a younger crowd which is likely to move or might not ever live near an EC church in their lifetimes, the extremely low tithes Catholics are notorious for, the in-fighting between EC and Orthodox, EC and RCs, ECs and other ECs which causes divisions and a lack of unity, the historical pulling away from all mainstream religions in America over the last several decades (which is now in a reverse trend), and so much more plays into such a question. To focus on whether our current leaders are holy is rather short-sighted, and you are correct, not the answer. They DO need to be good leaders to successfully address this situation they've inherited, but they cannot be good leaders if they aren't first holy. What should they be leading us to but the Lord? And how can they lead us if they can't lead themselves? Holiness is a necessity. Leadership skills are a good idea.

I see much hope for the future of the church because of the passion of people like you and your pastor. There are many in my own life who have such zeal for the faith they were born into or have since embraced. I believe the church has two possible paths before it: one of dwindling into ruin, or one of renewed passion and growth. I am seeing the second happening. Perhaps your focus is too narrow being in the "thick of it" there in Chicago, but the church is growing! It could be doing better, I agree. Ideally, it would be growing more than it was dying off. But we can't stop the dying off, so the question becomes what is causing this growth and what can be done to encourage and magnify it? I don't know much of anything about what the people in the eparchy offices are doing, but I do know what my priest and my parish are doing, and I am seeing a church which is coming to life.

What do I think is the number one reason? The holiness of the people. It is a witness in itself which draws others in. I don't worry much about what some guy in Chicago is doing, but focus on doing MY job well. It seems to have a contagious effect, wouldn't you say? An inspiring ability to draw others in when the leaders of the local church are holy men and women? Perhaps I live in a microcosm, but the cantor, the reader, the deacon, the Bible Study leader, the greeter, the altar boys, the hospitality coordinator, and the priest seem to have an inordinate amount of power in the world of evangelization compared to the bishops, whom most will not encounter in their daily lives. Yes, the holiness should trickle down. But there is no reason it cannot move up, either. If the people are holy, so the church will be as well.

Like I mentioned before, I am much more prone to look at the log in my own eye before trying to remove the speck in another's, so my focus isn't on the bishops of the church, but on what I and my parish can be doing. Is a visitor warmly welcomed? Are regulars called when they are missed? Are opportunities for fellowship and spiritual growth provided? Are children welcomed? Are elderly welcomed? Are the people holy and good natured? These are the things people will be looking at when deciding between one church and another. They won't care if humanity is said instead of mankind. They will care if the people they and their families are coming into contact with on a regular basis are leading them to holiness. It starts with us.

I am sure there are those who are in a different position and are called to look to the church as a whole. Priests and religious, who must answer to the bishop, certainly have much more stock in his decisions. I am not saying we should ignore what the bishops do, but pointing out that much of the church's growth or lack thereof has nothing to do with the bishops and everything to do with us. Wouldn't you say that your parish is a wonderful example of that fact?

Carson,

I think that this passage in St. John 15 is appropriate:

And there are many other passages in the other books of the Gospel which Our Lord talks about those trees, vines, bushes, etc. that don't bear good fruit will be pruned away, cut down, etc. and thrown into the fire.

Basically, the good parishes and Eparchies will blossom, flourish, be fruitful and multiply 30, 60, 100 fold. Those who don't will wither on the vine and die off.

It's just like in the Roman Church, the new, orthodox, and hardcore orders are thriving and exploding with new members, ie. the Missionaries of Charity, the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal, and the Fathers of Mercy. While others who have sold out, like some of the radical feminist women's religious orders are dying out fast.

The Pope Formerly Known as Cardinal Ratzinger (any Prince fans on the Forum?) said that the Church will probably have to undergo a downsizing to consist of only members who are 100% Catholic and are on fire with Holy Zeal to spread the Gospel once more like in the "good ol' days."

Possibly the Eastern Catholic Churches will have to be downsized to only those Eparchies and parishes who follow their special charism the way God has intended for them to worship and live their lives.

Do you think we can do this without the bishops' overt leadership?

CDL

I think, if there is no overt leadership, then we must.

What that means to me is this:
1. We are each called to holiness in our own station in life.
2. If others are failing, it becomes even more incumbent upon us to shine the light of Christ.
3. I am making no judgment on if the bishops are leading or not, and give them the benefit of the doubt that they are.
4. Obedience has its place, and I believe it is necessary to be obedient to authorities (except when they ask us to sin).
5. There are many things each of us can be doing, while remaining obedient and holy, that are not affected by the revised liturgy or the bishops' actions, and these things are of great importance to the growth of the church.

So, I again reiterate, if there is not a path before us, then we must cut it ourselves. All this while remaining obedient and holy. Not an easy job, but it has been the struggle of Christians for centuries.

The short answer to the original question is, NO!

It would be nice to know that the leader was like the rest of us working on becoming holy.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I think the thread has moved somewhat off topic (or perhaps I wanted it to move in a certain direction that it wasn't meant to go).

That said, perhaps we can leave aside for the moment the current state of leadership in our Church -- I think we are all aware that there are problems. Let's instead use CDL's original question as an invitation to build a vision of true leadership. Would it not be useful for us as Orthodox Christians, both in and outside of communion with the see of Rome, to have an open discussion about what authentic leadership is? What kind of men do we need to lead our Church as priests and bishops? What kind of men do we need to be to lead our "little churches," i.e., our families? What kind of men (and women) do we need to be in the world with a view to reforming and transfiguring it? Moreover, would not such an exercise also help us understand better the challenges of leading and perhaps encourage in us a greater humility in identifying the many failures of ecclesiastical leadership?

The original question was whether a leader of the Church needs to be holy. My sense is that he should be. By this I do not mean that he ought to have acheived full participation in the divine energies; rather, I mean that he needs to have made significant -- or at least "extra-ordinary" -- progress toward the life of holiness and virtue, such that he is able to live the faith and "model" it for others.

(Indeed, as the Nyssan suggests in his "Life of Moses," holiness is not a static end, but a dynamic, never-ending process -- so I feel as though I am on firm footing in asserting such a definition of holiness. Also, lest I be accused of Donatism, I am not suggesting here that the validity of the sacraments is in any way affected by their being administered by a less-than-holy priest or bishop. That's a whole different story.)

As I see it, the very concept of leadership implies some kind of separation between those who lead and those who are led. It implies that the leader is closer to a given goal than the led. One cannot lead, properly speaking, if he remains among the many.

The overarching goal of the Christian life is union with God. Consequently, one who seeks to lead others must be closer to that goal than they. Only if he is closer to his ordained destination, will he be able to navigate the path for others. He must be "holier."

To the extent that he is not, he is not a true leader, but a mere simulacrum. (Of course, God may use impersonators if he wishes -- but that does not make the impersonator a true leader.)

CDL wrote:

I don't follow the logic here. Perhaps the Church did not simply "cease to exist" because there was a sufficient number of holy leaders? Perhaps it would be flourishing to a greater extent today if more leaders had been holy?

Indeed, perhaps the Byzantine Catholic Church in America has not died out completely BECAUSE there have been some authentically holy leaders? At the same time, perhaps it is where it is because there have not been enough?

In Christ,
Theophilos

Dan,

I think Bishop John, of the Byzantine Catholic Church�s Eparchy of Parma, is a good leader. He has shepherded this Eparchy through restoring the Eastern Tradition. He is also, to the best of my knowledge, the only Eastern Catholic bishop in the United States to have ordained a married man to the priesthood, again to restore the Eastern Tradition. He even participated in the conference, of a year ago, on what needs to be further done to restore and revitalize this eparchy. And, he has allowed your parish, in Homer Glen, to try its forthright re-establishment of all Eastern Tradition. That's a lot of leadership -- and a lot of risk-- which Bishop John has undertaken.

As for your original question --"Must a leader be holy?"-- I would pause and reflect on the Gospel passage of the Rich Young Man. When the Rich Young Man approached Jesus, he addressed Jesus as "Good Teacher." And Jesus corrected Him by saying, "Why are you calling Me good? Only God is good." The lesson to draw (in my opinion) is that God makes man good by His presence (indwelling) within man and through man. So, a leader (like anyone else) needs to allow God into their heart and into their life in order to become good or holy.

In other words, I think the answer to the question is "No, but holiness helps and perfects the natural gifts which God has given us." Some leaders, God have mercy, can lead well without being holy or even trying to be holy. Others, though, do try to be holy. Or, more accurately, they try to make room for God and His holiness to dwell within them and through them. They still make mistakes --look at St. Peter and the Council of Jerusalem as recorded in Acts and Galatians-- but they are better able to overcome their mistakes because they accept God's grace. And that makes them potentially even better leaders than before.

just my two cents' worth,

-- John

"I don't follow the logic here. Perhaps the Church did not simply "cease to exist" because there was a sufficient number of holy leaders? Perhaps it would be flourishing to a greater extent today if more leaders had been holy?

Indeed, perhaps the Byzantine Catholic Church in America has not died out completely BECAUSE there have been some authentically holy leaders? At the same time, perhaps it is where it is because there have not been enough?"

To much fuss made of the leaders here I suspect. What about the authentic holy followers who did all the work and kept it all together in the bad times. The world is full of titular bishops who have sees that once had laity, and clergy and today have no one. Generals with no army.

Well, the original question was about the leaders, not the followers. Hence the focus on leadership...

Perhaps, since you argued that leaders need not be holy, you would be willing to address the central argument I made in my previous post?

In Christ,
Theophilos

It was not for example the Bishops of England that kept Catholicism alive after they had left the Church on the orders of their king, it was everyone else who did that. Discussions about leaders that dont mention and acknowledge the followers is a bit a strange discussion indeed. Follwers of Jesus are required to try to be holy whatever their role in the Church. So if the leaders are serious they will be trying in their own way to be holy. Of course by leaders I am referring to the fullness of all ministry as found in the bishops. That of course makes the rest of us followers and as such hopefully supporters in faith to each other and those who lead.

My comment above was not aimed at the particular posting or it's author I had lifted the quote from but to the whole thread. Seems to me to be like talking about 'left' without mentioning a 'right' to be left of.

Sophia,

This quote from St. John Chrysostom is excellent!

Based on my own study of leadership, I would only say that charism of leadership can be exercised by a variety of people in a number of roles (some in the exercise of the common priesthood and others in the exercise of the ministerial priesthood). Leaders are individuals called to be animators and catalysts of the charisms of the faithful, while providing appropriate levels of guidance and support. They are servant leaders in the sense that they serve both the needs and mission of the whole People of God. The faithful are thus not merely objects of pastoral care, but collaborators and partners with them in the mission to "make disciples of all nations". (For a good read, see Vatican II's Lumen Gentium, Gaudium et Spes and Apostolicam Actuositatem - the Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity. Also, Pope John Paul II's Christifideles Laici - The Lay Members of Christ's Faithful People.)

As to the question of holiness, I think holiness of life is intrinsic to the charism of church leadership. I think one can hold the office of leadership within the church and yet never fully realize its charism. Ultimately, as St. John points out, all must answer to God for how they have fulfilled the duties of their state in life...all are called to holiness.

I like to think about the movie "Braveheart" as a great study in leadership. William Wallace, a commoner, inspires and leads a great rebellion against their British oppressors. At one point he meets with the heir apparent to the Scottish throne, Robert the Bruce. Wallace tells the Bruce that he and his men will follow him if he will lead them and unite the clans against England. To me, in these two figures you have examples of charismatic and hierarchical leadership. Towards the end of the movie, Wallace is betrayed by the Robert's leperous father and the Scottish lords...he is captured, tortured and murdered by the British. Robert the Bruce is so inspired by the witness of Wallace, that he leads a surprise attack against the British crown and wins the freedom of the Scots. (Of course, this is just a movie and not entirely accurate as history...but nevertheless, the story is quite interesting!)Robert the Bruce comes to realize the charism of his office as a leader, inspired by the "prophet/warrior saint" embodied in William Wallace.

Anyway, those are just a few thoughts.

Gordo

(PS: For those who plan to watch "Braveheart" for the first time, be forewarned: there is quite a bit of violence and some nudity. You might consider watching it with someone who has seen it before if you have concerns about this.)

Those cheeky boys are the extras borrowed from the Irish Army.

Pavel:

Glory to Jesus Christ!

To some extent, yes. Leadership and discipleship are intimately related. But that does not mean that one cannot define or identify the qualities or characteristics proper to each.

I'd go so far as to say that those followers who exhibit the characteristics of a leader are, in fact, leaders, even if they do not officially possess such a title -- not unlike the Hellenistic and Greek patristic argument that one who governs himself is a king, even if he does not wear the diadem or a purple cloak. This assumes, however, that there are certain qualities or characteristics proper to authentic leadership.

I think you are avoiding the central question, which was whether leaders need to be holy. As you noted,

I believe you are wrong, and have sought to give you the reasons why. I'd appreciate knowing where you think I've gone wrong.

In Christ,
Theophilos