Being a pastor is more like being a jazz musician than it is being say an engineer. All three of these occupations require a great deal of technical skill to be sure. But the pastor, like the jazz musician, is often called upon to improvise on a theme more than, like the engineer, apply a theory to a problem. This is all to say that pastoral ministry is more art than science.
Over the last 10 years or so I’ve worked with communities in transition. What I’ve notice is that typically problems arise in the parish when someone—it needn’t be the pastor—takes what we might call an engineering approach to the life of the congregation. They have a theory and they are going to fit the community into its framework.
This is also something I see frequently as a spiritual director and confessor. When I talk with people about the different ways they go off track in their prayer lives, at work or with their family and friends the source of their suffering is that life just isn’t working out according to [their] plan. Problems in living arise when life becomes a project to be completed or a problem to be solved and not the other way around. When I lose a living sense of awe in the face of reality, or when I don’t see my life as a mystery to be lived, this is when life becomes a problem. Continue reading →
Mostly what priests encounter in our flocks is what existential or humanistic psychologists call problems in living. Life just becomes flat. Relationships that once were easy and life giving just aren’t anymore. Saddest of all, what was once a source of joy in life is now merely “blah” if not something much worse.
The first step in responding to those moments when life becomes a problem is the accurate apprehension that this is the case. This is the step of affective intuition—I need to have at least a sense of the contours and content of what is wrong. In the human sciences we use a technical term—verstehen—or the “interpretive or participatory examination” of the situation. Continue reading →
With much thanks to Chrys, I recently read Donald Sheehan lovely and thoughtful essay, “Dostoevksy and Memory Eternal:An Eastern Orthodox Approach to the Brothers Karamazov.” Sheehan offers the reader a concise treatment of Orthodox theological anthropology as it has been articulated systematically by Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) and artistically by Dostoevksy in his “great, final novel, The Brothers Karamazov.” Summarizing Zizioulas’s essay’s “The Contribution of Cappadocia to Christian Thought,” Sheehan writes that there are “three conditions of personhood – foundational freedom, self-emptying love, and absolute uniqueness.” Reflecting, meditating really, on The Brothers Karamazov, he lists what he calls “the three defining aspects of personhood.” These are “the resurrected self; the relational self; and the joyful self.” Continue reading →
The recent comments in response to my admittedly scattered thoughts on antinomianism have been extraordinarily rich and thought provoking–thank you to all who commented here and to me privately. Since, as the saying goes, no good deed goes unpunished, starting tomorrow I will offer a series of posts that lay out the ground work that might help the Church get beyond the problems we have discussed here these last few days. Specifically, and borrowing shameless from the current practice in Roman Catholic seminaries and religious communities, I want to talk about what to my mind is the most glaring lack in Orthodox pastoral practice and seminary education: human formation.
For those who might know the name, the work of the late Fr Adrian van Kaam (that’s him in the picture on the left) will figure prominently in what I present for our discussion