How do Orthodox members understand

[FireDragon76]

@All4Christ, I don't think it happens too often in American Orthodoxy but it does happen among the sort of folks that are seeking after "elders", or that come to the religion with problems with co-dependence or lack of healthy boundaries. And sometimes the Orthodox Church doesn't correct that, because sometimes the clergy themselves don't know what healthy boundaries are.

I've seen some Orthodox at my church that were basically attracted to the "eastern" aspects, and these are the same type of folks that otherwise are attracted to eastern religions where spiritual abuse is rampant. It's a different breed from churchgoers you see typically in the US.

 

[ArmyMatt]

@All4Christ, I don't think it happens too often in American Orthodoxy but it does happen among the sort of folks that are seeking after "elders", or that come to the religion with problems with co-dependence or lack of healthy boundaries. And sometimes the Orthodox Church doesn't correct that, because sometimes the clergy themselves don't know what healthy boundaries are.

I've seen some Orthodox at my church that were basically attracted to the "eastern" aspects, and these are the same type of folks that otherwise are attracted to eastern religions where spiritual abuse is rampant. It's a different breed from churchgoers you see typically in the US.

yeah, but you find that in all denominations. I saw that as an Episcopalian, as an Evangelical, and heard about it from friends of other faiths.

 

[FireDragon76]

Honestly, before I became Orthodox, I saw people put our pastor on a pedestal.

It happens in Protestant churches too, especially among older people or those attracted to more intense religion. But at least in my denomination, the laity have a significant say in church operation and my denomination has taken some steps to try to attack clericalism, including significant lay representation at all levels of church governance.

People would leave the church to follow that pastor, and often it seemed like the church was defined by the pastor.

If the pastor is genuinely good, that's understandable. What I'm talking about is more the expectation that the priest or pastor is exempt from the normal rules that we all tend to have about things like interpersonal trust and boundaries.

 

[archer75]

Without saying anything about the ostensible topic of this thread - this kind of abuse occurs in families, academic departments, lots of places. I don't think it even is restricted to religion.

Edit: Did not mean any dig by "ostensible".

 

[~Anastasia~]

Ah, you are right that's not what I meant by "spiritual father". It is almost a technical term in Orthodoxy. I once read an article discussing the differences between priests, confessors, and spiritual fathers (these describing different relationships, since one man could be all three, but to different people.)

A spiritual father is one who knows a person better than the priest would be expected to do, offers more tailored advice and guidance. It s a common relationship for a monastic to have with someone who oversees their spiritual life, since monastics are dedicated to it as a vocation. It is not something expected of a layperson. (I'm a bit of an oddity for having one - due to running off with spiritual practices in books years ago and tangling up my spiritual path a bit, so I voluntarily have a priest who also voluntarily helps me with his guidance.)

They do tend to have great holiness in that they are very sanctified by the time they learn what can help others, but they also tend to be incredibly humble people. The sort of people that, even if miracles were to happen through their prayers, they would try to be sure no one found out, because they don't even want people thinking of them in that way at all.

I hope that clears it up a bit. It's not a term that will go away in Orthodoxy, and has been in use since very early times (the desert fathers spoke of it), but I do appreciate the heads-up of possible misunderstanding.

I feel I have at least a partial answer now, especially above from post #2 in the distinction of "One" Teacher and One Father. One Leader. The One. This is a crucial part at least, and seems the whole at the moment. Hearing that in churches a 'father' isn't elevated (like Christ) is encouraging, and I'd guess that is general also. A language usage note about 'spiritual father' -- the word 'spiritual' as the modifier is actually the very word I was using only a couple of years ago to try to point out the difference as I wrote it then -- that we "should not consider any of our various fathers a spiritual father" (my language usage at that time, trying to communicate the issue, however poorly, at that time). Of course then I meant 'spiritual' as something like 'holy', a special meaning, not Earthly. Some will take 'spiritual father' by their way of using the word as just that thing we are suppose to avoid, that special elevation of one among us so that we follow him (wherever he goes). But I know that's not likely what you mean! I mention this so that you can be aware of that potential miscommunication.

 

[~Anastasia~]

It seems we do all agree a priest/pastor/father in a church is not to be put on a pedestal, as if our One Leader.

All that's left about this in my concern is not for us that are aware, but rather for those that are not aware.

Whether some in some churches may indeed, unaware of this important teaching from Christ, really be following men, a man, as their One Leader, and that such titles as "Father" can at times for some in some places be a problem, helping them make the error of following a man instead of Christ as their Teacher, as their Leader. I suppose this can be avoided in a number of ways, but from outside a church, it's very concerning to see the elaborate robes and special titles. Of course, a wonderful help in that situation is when that very 'father' himself is kneeling at the altar, or doing such as Francis did when Francis visited a prison and shook the hands of prisoners, a good moment. (of course I know more about what Francis has done than I do about Orthodox, so that's why I at times am mentioning him and contrasting his actions and titles)

Yes, every time we have Liturgy, we see Fr M kneeling before the altar, praying for us. And if you read the prayers of the priest during the Liturgy, he is constantly acknowledging his own unworthiness to minister before God.

We gave a HUGE picnic every year to celebrate the resurrection. Father M is always working the serving line, serving food to people.

And I've watched him comforting my Nouna on her deathbed, sitting with her for hours, praying for her and giving her Communion.

These and many other images of service are what I am reminded of when I think of what a father (priest) does.

 

[FireDragon76]

Without saying anything about the ostensible topic of this thread - this kind of abuse occurs in families, academic departments, lots of places. I don't think it even is restricted to religion.

Of course not, but Orthodoxy, much like Catholicism, often gives the impression that because the Church is holy, that it's institutions and leaders are trustworthy a priori, because the institutions are in some sense, divine. And being steeped in an eastern cultural background, that impression is more than just superficial, in many cases it is how the Church traditionally operated.

Reformed and Lutheran Protestants understand that the Church is made of sinners and is itself effected by sin and in need of repentance, that the "holy" Church we confess in the creed does not apply to the churchly institutions we inhabit here on earth, which are manmade institutions that are not to be confused with the grace of the Gospel.

The Problem with Deification (Essay) - Under the Sun

 

[~Anastasia~]

I remember when I first met my husband, he was attending a large (Protestant) fellowship with a fairly famous pastor. He came with me to my non-denom, and met our pastor. Later we happened to be in Wal-Mary and saw the pastor and greeted him. My husband was shocked, in a way. Maybe it really wouldn't have been so with his famous pastor (who might even have security issues), but he expressed surprise that a pastor "wouldn't have people to do things like that for him". He really had an idea of pastors on a pedestal. I suppose a title is just one more potential temptation, but it's far from the whole scenario.

 

[archer75]

Of course not, but Orthodoxy, much like Catholicism, often gives the impression that because the Church is holy, that it's institutions and leaders are trustworthy a priori, because the institutions are in some sense, divine. And being steeped in an eastern cultural background, that impression is more than just superficial, in many cases it is how the Church traditionally operated.

Reformed and Lutheran Protestants understand that the Church is made of sinners and is itself effected by sin and in need of repentance, that the "holy" Church we confess in the creed does not apply to the churchly institutions we inhabit here on earth, which are manmade institutions that are not to be confused with the grace of the Gospel.

The Problem with Deification (Essay) - Under the Sun

Decent sense says that you are absolutely right. And I have read about horrific abuses within Orthodoxy and of course in the RCC. Just haven't experienced them.

I guess all I really meant to say was that as far as I can tell, it's the same as non-religiously-flavored abuse. But as you say, the appearance of divinity makes it easier in such circumstances. Ugh.

 

[All4Christ]

But at least in my denomination, the laity have a significant say in church operation and my denomination has taken some steps to try to attack clericalism, including significant lay representation at all levels of church governance.

As do most Orthodox parishes. We have a parish council that runs the church, lay representation at councils, laity reception of council decisions, etc.

Clericalism is wrong, yes, and it is a problem to watch out for. Everyone- Orthodox, Catholic, Traditional Protestants, Evangelicals and more - needs to watch out for this.

 

[FireDragon76]

A church is holy inasmuch as it correctly preaches the Gospel and administers the sacraments. But when it comes to a priest giving you advice or telling you what to do, he's just a sinner telling another sinner what is his personal opinion, and it's no reason to suspend the normal rules of ethics, morality, or interpersonal boundaries in the name of being "obedient".

 

[ArmyMatt]

Of course not, but Orthodoxy, much like Catholicism, often gives the impression that because the Church is holy, that it's institutions and leaders are trustworthy a priori, because the institutions are in some sense, divine. And being steeped in an eastern cultural background, that impression is more than just superficial, in many cases it is how the Church traditionally operated.

Reformed and Lutheran Protestants understand that the Church is made of sinners and is itself effected by sin and in need of repentance, that the "holy" Church we confess in the creed does not apply to the churchly institutions we inhabit here on earth, which are manmade institutions that are not to be confused with the grace of the Gospel.

The Problem with Deification (Essay) - Under the Sun

and a quick look at how often the saints took on the institutions would show how false this is in reality and history. also, the heretics were often the men of institutions, not the rightly believing Christians.

and the link you posted doesn't actually quote the Fathers who deal with deification and is very selective about Scripture. so when you straw man deification, it's easy to write something like that.

 

[FireDragon76]

and a quick look at how often the saints took on the institutions would show how false this is in reality and history. also, the heretics were often the men of institutions, not the rightly believing Christians.

Yes, but the romanticism and piety comes in and people are conditioned to believe that St. Maximus was especially holy in a way that your average laity isn't. St. Maximus is praised for his orthodoxy, not his individual initiative.

and the link you posted doesn't actually quote the Fathers who deal with deification and is very selective about Scripture. so when you straw man deification, it's easy to write something like that.

I'd welcome a discussion about theosis all on its own, perhaps in another thread. But how we relate to the Church is often tied to how we view salvation.

 

[FireDragon76]

Yes, every time we have Liturgy, we see Fr M kneeling before the altar, praying for us. And if you read the prayers of the priest during the Liturgy, he is constantly acknowledging his own unworthiness to minister before God.

We gave a HUGE picnic every year to celebrate the resurrection. Father M is always working the serving line, serving food to people.

And I've watched him comforting my Nouna on her deathbed, sitting with her for hours, praying for her and giving her Communion.

These and many other images of service are what I am reminded of when I think of what a father (priest) does.

I'm glad you have positive experiences at your church with your priest. I have no doubt that many Orthodox priests are sincere Christians.

I just don't think the Orthodox way is the only true way to be a Christian. I think that sort of thinking is in fact very dangerous because it can trap people in abusive situations where they get hurt, and where the Gospel is scandalized.

I guess my experience was pretty horrific. I got a concussion once and was told I had bleeding in my brain, the staff of the hospital were very concerned, and my priest didn't bother to come to the hospital (I was in a Seventh Day Adventist place and of course they told me that any chaplain would do, a prospect I did not like). I got used to a steady stream of that sort of treatment, and I felt as lovable as used bubble-gum in the end. Other people got visited in the hospital, but not me. Looking back, I wish I had moved on a long time before then, but I couldn't, because I believed Orthodoxy was the only real church.

I had an experience in a mental hospital once with a Baptist chaplain after a mental breakdown during Holy Week. He was a middle-aged black man who patiently listened to me spill my guts, talking about some very heavy stuff, and he was completely nonjudgmental. But I was sitting there detached from him, because he wasn't even in "the Church". Looking back, he was more of a "spiritual father" to me than my priest ever was, but I couldn't recognize it.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Yes, but the romanticism and piety comes in and people are conditioned to believe that St. Maximus was especially holy in a way that your average laity isn't. St. Maximus is praised for his orthodoxy, not his individual initiative.

no, St Maximos is praised for more than his defense of Orthodoxy. and to say the saints are not holy in a way that the average laity isn't is false. they absolutely are, but not because God offers them anything more than the rest of us, but they are more open to what He offers. romanticism has nothing to do with that.

I'd welcome a discussion about theosis all on its own, perhaps in another thread. But how we relate to the Church is often tied to how we view salvation.

sure, but it would not do well to post stuff that doesn't even reference what those who defend theosis actually say.

 

[Halbhh]

Thinking this way:

Although we do agree a priest/pastor/'father' is not to be put up on a pedestal raised up, as if in place of Christ -- as our consensus already in the first 12 or 15 posts in this thread -- still one wonders if this is enough.

Because of the danger that some in a church (not most, but some) will indeed look up to the Earthly 'father'/priest/pastor in that way they should instead be looking up to Christ.

Because the very title "Father" given to one of us encourages just that. That even though most all such pastors are indeed humble, that even so, still, some in some congregations will wrongly end up idolizing some such titled persons. (I realize is likely more of a problem in another denomination than the (various) Orthodox, but even so the title itself is the subject, no matter which denomination)

And to avoid this, we should simply just do as Christ said more plainly in verse 8, 9, 10 (of Matthew 23), and forgo such titles that are overly honoring.

Paul meant simply that he had brought them the gospel.

 

[FireDragon76]

sure, but it would not do well to post stuff that doesn't even reference what those who defend theosis actually say.

David Wagschal is a former professor at St. Vladimir's, and a former Orthodox Christian. He is quite aware of what theosis is.

 

[ArmyMatt]

David Wagschal is a former professor at St. Vladimir's, and a former Orthodox Christian. He is quite aware of what theosis is.

if he was aware of what theosis is, he probably would have mentioned what the Fathers said, not just made a bad caricature of what theosis is not.

and that's a weak argument. Nestorius was once a bishop. simply having a former Orthodox pedigree doesn't mean they aren't teaching error now.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Thinking this way:

Although we do agree a priest/pastor/'father' is not to be put up on a pedestal raised up, as if in place of Christ -- as our consensus already in the first 12 or 15 posts in this thread -- still one wonders if this is enough.

Because of the danger that some in a church (not most, but some) will indeed look up to the Earthly 'father'/priest/pastor in that way they should instead be looking up to Christ.

Because the very title "Father" given to one of us encourages just that. That even though most all such pastors are indeed humble, that even so, still, some in some congregations will wrongly end up idolizing some such titled persons. (I realize is likely more of a problem in another denomination than the (various) Orthodox, but even so the title itself is the subject, no matter which denomination)

And to avoid this, we should simply just do as Christ said more plainly in verse 8, 9, 10 (of Matthew 23), and forgo such titles that are overly honoring.

Paul meant simply that he had brought them the gospel.

then what do you do with Christ giving Abraham the title of Father in Lazarus and the rich man? if Christ IS the Truth, why would He use an erroneous title in a parable like that? why did He not have Abraham correct such an error in the parable?

 

[Halbhh]

then what do you do with Christ giving Abraham the title of Father in Lazarus and the rich man? if Christ IS the Truth, why would He use an erroneous title in a parable like that? why did He not have Abraham correct such an error in the parable?

But all three instances are the rich man in Hades speaking, the person in so much error. Better yet, see post #7 for a more complete answer (and also there recognizing what we do agree on and the great point in the answer in post #2).