The false gospel of self-love is becoming increasingly vogue at clerical gatherings.
The catechism of the church of the boosted self-esteem sounds so reasonable - how can you love others if you neglect to love yourself? Did not Jesus say: 'Love your neighbour as yourself'? Do you understand that unless you convert to our creed, you will burn out or go bonkers?
The catechists of self-love are able to exploit an opening for their message in the fact that the pastoral calling is manifestly becoming more stressful. Here are some suggested reasons why:
* Not knowing whether you will be replaced when you leave due to financial pressures in the denomination
* Having responsibility for several churches due to cost-saving amalgamations
* For Anglican clergy, the increased significance of ministry reviews under the new clergy terms of service
* A diminishing culture of commitment and volunteerism
* Growing moral disorder in the congregations and communities we serve
* Postmodern philosophical distrust of leaders.
It is both unwise and ungodly to try to counter such pressures by over-working and to fail to rest. But the biblical gospel of eternal salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone rather than the religion of self-love provides the only secure basis for our spiritual defence.
There have been deplorable cases of good Bible-believing clergy suffering breakdowns in their physical or mental health through minimal or no fault of their own - in these cases congregational or denominational persecution has been the major factor. But is it not also the case that what can make clergy go under is not so much the inevitable stresses of the calling but unwise and ungodly ways of dealing with them, such as resorting to sinful forms of escapism?
One unfortunate result of some clergy adopting the self-love creed is that they are enabled to carry on being spiritually unfruitful for longer when it would be better for the Kingdom of God and indeed for them personally if they stepped out of front-line pastoral ministry.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I find this a very sad commentary on the reality - which acknowledges the truth of the Gospel injunction to: "Love your neighbour as yourself".
ReplyDeleteSurely this implies that - especially if one is expected by the Christian ethic to also love even one's enemies - a proper self-love is basic to any understanding of how to love one's neighbour?
Of course, this requires an understanding of the word 'agape' - the highest form of love, which is the love with which God loves us. And unless one has experienced God's love in their lives, this may be a very difficult concept to come to grips with.
I can imagine that a person who has been brought up in the concept of God as Judge, rather than agape Lover, one is always prone to judeg other people, rather than love them - outrageously, as God has loved us in Jesus Christ, the Son.
I would submit that a proper love of one's-self - as the child of a loving God - might be basic to any understanding of the Christian Life. so sadly, though, many hot-gospellers have never experienced God's love for them, so they might not be ready to outrageously love other people.
So many 'Christians' today are so concerned about 'eros', that they are blinded to the fact that eros is just a part of God's provision which is enclosed within the compass of agape.
"There have been deplorable cases of good Bible-believing clergy suffering breakdowns in their physical or mental health"
ReplyDeleteThese experiences are commonplace, not only within the Anglican church, but also in so called Non-conformity. I suggest the issue is not so much one of "self-love", but rather that of being part of an ecclesiastical system which places almost exclusive pastoral care, preaching, ministry & etc upon one man - or collectively "the clergy". In doing so it places also an impossible burden upon sincere well intentioned men needlessly.
This is bound to produce inevitable stress, and in many sad cases eventual physical and spiritual breakdown.
Unless and until the false dichotomy of the long established tradition of confining ministry to a separate class called "clergy", (as opposed to the "laity") such problems will continue.
The answer? To reform the existing system. Many N.T scholars have recognised and articulated the problem, including Dr Jon Zens, and the well known James. D.G. Dunn.
It is time to re-visit the Pauline doctrine of the priesthood of ALL believers in reality rather than in mere theory.
The N.T pattern of mutual ministries in the body of Christ is clearly set out in 1 Corinthians 12-14, in Ephesians and many other NT passages.
Why are these ignored in respect of the exercise of ministry in our churches?
Zens, for example summarises some of Dunn's findings:
"But because of the traditional ideas connected to clergy functions, the mind-set persists that there are "holy" (sacred) and "ordinary" (profane) professions... thus:
1. The clergy/laity distinction which developed in the post-apostolic tradition is unknown in the N.T.
2.In the N.T ministry and grace belong to the whole people of God, with great diversity among the parts for the common good of all.
3.There is no overriding focus in the N.T. on a special class of ministry.
4.The clergy-tradition, along with the attendant host of pactices built upon it, has probably done more to undermine the N.T. than most heresies.
5. The various ministries intended for all believers have been stifled by the creation of, and almost exclusive focus on, the special caste of the "ordained." Whether "priest" in Catholicism, or "pastor" in Protestantism, the result is the same: significant and necessary ministry is perceived as limited to those who fill the historically defined role expectations of "the minister"
(New Testament Theology In Dialogue - J.D.G. Dunn)
Reasons for the present malaise therefore are not hard to find - but it will take courage to step outside the entrenched tradition and return to the simplicity of the N.T. pattern.
Graham Wood
I fully agree with Graham's analysis as above. Having had pastoral responsibility for five rural churches and being Rural Dean at the same time, I am aware of the pressures involved. The Vicar / Rector is NOT omni-competent although the Canons of the C of E presume that s/he is. Chairing 5 separate PCCs plus the Deanery Synod and Chapter and haring round the countryside to take a multiplicity of Services cannot be good for anyone's 'soul'. And yet the structure of so many 'multi-parish' benefices presume that it can be done. The only answer is to ignore the 'rules' and delegate!
ReplyDeleteBlessings
Terry
Yes, delegate - but delegate what?
ReplyDeleteHas anyone failed to notice that most of what goes on in PCC meetings (and obviously various committees in between) is overwhelmingly *diaconal* business?
Why then should the vicar, who is supposed to be the chief local presbyter, have to preside over such basically diaconal meetings five times a year - or 25 in TT's example?
We can all think of plenty more examples of how presbyters are being loaded up with work which ought to be delegated out to competent deacon-equivalent helpers. Were this to be widely done, the problem of burnout would melt away dramatically.
Instead, what is being deliberately encouraged by officialdom is the proliferation of a caste of permanent lay preachers. Now, fair enough when there are several little churches in a rural area with one vicar between them - it's likely he'll have to call for lay help sometimes. But the fact of the matter is that lay preaching is being pushed even in situations where it absolutely shouldn't be needed at all. I think of my rector's former parish - just one town church to care for. It has a vicar, and a curate - which ought to be enough as long as they make sure they don't book holidays at the same time. But then this church also has three lay preachers. What on earth are they there for?
Can anyone imagine the apostles in ch. 6 deciding to farm out say a third of their preaching/teaching work to a coterie of spare-time preachers so that they themselves could attend endless planning meetings on distributing bread to widows? They did precisely the opposite: so should modern clergy.
Dan
Hi Father Julian, this gospel of self-love was all the rage when I was at university. It seems to become trendy every couple of decades.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to be based on a false premise - the Bible nowhere says or hints that we should love ourselves more. Rather, it says that we DO love ourselves already, and often at the expense of others. Hence Jesus'admonition that we are to love our neighbours as ourselves is not an admonition to love ourselves more, but to love our neighbours more.
Professor Glynn Harrison (Emeritus Professor of Psychiatry at Bristol Univ) has just written a book (IVP) about the "self esteem/love" gospel from an evangelical perspective. I haven't read it yet as I only bought it yesterday but anticipate it will be excellent,
ReplyDeleteDan Leafe
Sorry, should have said it is called "The Big Ego Trip", Dan
ReplyDeleteSorry, Mr Wood, but your analyses fall down as soon as you read the Didache (quite possibly contemporaneous with the later NT writings) and Ignatius of Antioch, not to mention Clement of Rome. Unless one maintains the bizarre notion that anyone writing between the book of Revelation and the Reformation is a traitor to original Christianity, we have to take seriously the fact that they inherited (not invented) at the very least a two-fold hierarchy of bishops and deacons.
ReplyDeleteEven if we refer to the NT itself, we find that Jesus did indeed set the apostles over the rest of His followers on several occasions: many of His injunctions were addressed to them alone, not least the command to 'do this in memory of me' (i.e. offer the Eucharist) and absolve sins.
The fanciful idea of an authentic 'biblical' Christianity predating the Church will never cease to amaze me at its sheer disregard for history.
1. Hi Father Tom, I agree with the general thrust of your argument, although not necessarily with all of your reasoning:
ReplyDelete(a) The Didache refers to "bishops and deacons", but not to priests. The author appears to be using 'bishop' in the sense that Paul appears to use it in 1 Timothy 3 - the leader of a congregation, equivalent to a presbyter or priest.
(b) Clement of Rome also appears to use "bishop" interchangeably with "presbyters" (elders or priests), and may imply that several elders led the congregations in Corinth and Rome, which has echoes of the five-fold eldership of the apostolic church in Antioch (Acts 13:1).
(c) Ignatius of Antioch is the first of the Church Fathers to refer to the idea of a bishop leading a council of presbyters (elders or priests). That indicates that the practice had begun in at least part of the church, but it is a long time (decades if not centuries) before we have clear evidence that it is a universal practice in the European church.
2. However, I do not agree with Graham Wood who writes above: "There is no overriding focus in the N.T. on a special class of ministry."
In fact the scriptures have a great deal to say about different ministries, and they spend a lot of time warning the church on the importance of the ministries of leadership - the bishop, the elder or "priest" and the deacon, and the dangers that loom if the church take those ministries lightly.
The scriptures don't clearly mandate that churches must be governed episcopally, but nor do they forbid it. In fact, what the apostles do tell us in scripture about church governance means that episcopal government will be one of the best (if not THE best) way of fulfilling the apostolic teaching.
Furthermore, we are Anglican - we follow the system of doctrine and governance worked out by some very godly men in the 16th century, and these men were outstanding bible and patristics scholars. Few of those who dare to criticise them today can hold a candle to them intellectually or spiritually.
The Anglican reformers (men like Cranmer, Bucer and Ridley, to name a few) determined that episcopal government is a godly system and thoroughly consistent with scripture, and with such of the practice of the church through the ages as is consistent with scripture. If we want to call ourselves Anglican, then we should endorse and practice episcopal government.
3. "Episcopal government" is actually very flexible. It should not lead to clergy burnout. The norm is that a bishop leads many parishes, each of which supports one or more parish elders (priests) or deacons, and makes a contribution to the upkeep of the bishop and staff as well. The Arch-diocese I live in (Sydney, Australia) tends to be like this: Each area bishop is responsible for about 40 congregations, and these tend to have an Average Sunday Attendance of 300 (which is also close to the median - we tend not to have super-large or super-small congregatons). But in some places a bishop might have oversight of small missions, or of a priest who covers several small congregations - but our aim is always for a congregation to grow to the point where it can support its own rector.