A Cult of Personality

Last weekend, I had the opportunity to visit a priest friend of mine. During our visit, he remarked that he is doing everything possible to prevent himself from becoming the central feature of the parish. At the time, I reflected on how mature this is and how this should be encouraged in every formation program. This is a great risk in the Autocephalous Catholic movement and once that will completely decimate a parish.

In our movement, the priest often has to start the parish. This means that there is a risk from the very beginning of making the parish about the identity of the priest. Maybe the priest is considered the venerable founder or maybe he came from another denomination and took people with him who view their activity in the movement as centered around the priest's establishment in the parish. From there, the risk can amplify. Maybe the parish priest is not willing to share duties (either because they are a workaholic, or they like doing it, or maybe they don't want to give up control) which sometimes can lead to the perception that "we would be lost without Father X." Or, maybe the priest is unwilling to get committees involved to help with certain processes. This is not in a "death by committee" situation, but where involving people would be really beneficial to the parish. Or, perhaps the priest makes all decisions come through him which makes everyone dependent on his instructions. 

The logical conclusion in these situations is that when the priest leaves or dies, the parish does as well. They have either entrenched themselves with the priest since the beginning and find it is time to move on when he does, they cannot imagine being there without him, or they have never been accustomed to doing the hard work ("father's always done that") and aren't interested in starting.

While this is directed at an Autocephalous Catholic audience, it is not exclusive to our movement. I have seen it time and time again. A Protestant church had a pastor who was there for decades and, after he left, the church endured a half-dozen interim clergy for about a decade. Other churches where the people just did not like the preaching of the new minister and left, almost closing the church. This is not a new phenomenon.

The reality is that people will always prefer a certain cleric. Maybe they prefer the pastoral style, preaching, or liturgical acumen of one individual cleric. This is unavoidable. I also realize that this does not mean that everything needs to be done without a central leader. The new model of governance seems to be the "leadership circle" where both everyone and no one is accountable. This can be truly the stuff of nightmares. A central leader is often necessary and advisable, establishing that "the buck stops here" while not being dictatorial. 

There are positive steps both clergy and laity can take in churches to prevent this from happening. Empower members of the church to take on ministries and share ownership. Let them make decisions. Establish checks and balances, such as financial oversight and regulatory oversight, to prevent scandal. Share the liturgical rota even if people prefer one cleric or you, in your estimation, "do it better." Remind people that everyone is necessary for the success of the church. Don't try to control the Spirit but trust in other people. Often times the results are "pressed down, shaken together and running over." This can be difficult. We all want to be in charge, especially in this movement. But what you build today may be gone tomorrow without incorporating at least some of these steps.

"Too many of us are lonely ministers practicing a lonely ministry." - Henry Nouwen