I read an interesting article a week ago about a wealthy clubbin’ hemophiliac Episcopal priest (a particular area of interest for me). The article reported that this minister makes trips to New York City (where he also receives medical treatments) to frequent clubs where he spends tens of thousands of dollars on drinks and even tips very generously.
While the story is very interesting in and of itself, what fascinated me most was the response of his Bishop who temporarily removed him from all active ministries. In an another article, the Bishop said that if the accusations were true,
Such actions “portray an unacceptable idea of Christian stewardship.” The money reportedly spent in one night “would build and equip an African school or totally underwrite the homeless shelter we are building in
All feelings for
In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus makes qualitative as opposed to quantitative judgments about doing wrong. In other words, your actions either measure up or they do not, there is no in between. Whether its murder vs. anger, adultery vs. lust, or retaliation vs. giving, Jesus says that they are both wrong and liable for punishment. He does not give any leeway. This understanding of our actions, thankfully, drives us to the fact that we are in desperate need of death and resurrection (qualitative change) as opposed to need of improvement (quantitative change).
Following the qualitative line of thought, the Bishop should actually remove everyone from his ministry! Whether it is eating out versus brown bagging your lunch or buying too nice of a car that crosses the line (Toyota Camry is ok but the Avalon is unnaceptable!), all of us fall desperately short at some point.
Fortunately for us there is a different way, “we have and Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous,” (1 John 2:1).
COMMENTS
20 responses to “Crossing The Line”
Leave a Reply
Love it Alex! The distinction between a qualitative and quantitative judgment is extremely helpful. No one likes to admit that it all boils down to our actual “quality”. We prefer to think of ourselves as just needing a little bit more love or a little more help or the ability to do something a little less or whatever. It’s total casuistry (compromise on the height of the law).
I’m grateful because I never could see myself in a Toyota:)
sorry for the deletion;I was trying to edit. Anyway, Great post Alex!
Interesting post. It got me thinking about the relationship between “qualitative” and “quantitative” change. Indeed, I am loathe to reduce God as a cosmic Santa Clause who rewards for good behavior and gives out coal for bad. Equally so, I find much of the Christian preaching today to miss the point of the Good News of Jesus by over emphasizing the moral imperative.
However, I do believe that the resurrection leads to change for the better; qualitative change leads to quantitative change. That is, the death and resurrection of Jesus brings about our own death and resurrection. Because “I no longer live, but Christ lives in me” and “live by faith” (Gal. 2:20), I die to the old ways, both big and small (camry vs. avalon), and by faith, I live a new life in which I do what is right (act morally) because it is who I am. I no longer do what is right to prove myself or to earn favor, or do whatever I want whenever I want.
I’m struck how the Apostle Paul’s exhortations to live the new life of faith is always, always predicated on the good news of Jesus Christ, on what Jesus has done and accomplished for us. As the hymnist William Cowper penned: “To see the Law by Christ fulfilled/To hear His pardoning voice/Changes a slave into a child/And duty into choice.” At the same time, the Apostle Paul is realistic about the tension between the old ways and the new ways, and how we still do what we do no not want to do. Thankfully, Jesus’ actions assure me over and over again that my constant failures can not and will not exhaust the love of God. Amazing grace, indeed…
Thoughts?
Hey Alex. Thanks for the helpful post.
I’m a big Mockingbird booster, so as you can imagine I agree with everything you say — in one sense. Luther said much the same thing in his Heidelberg Disputation and especially in his withering critique of the medieval distinction between venial and mortal sins.
So I am all on board regarding that.
In another sense, however, I think you and the bishop may be talking past each other. I don’t think the bishop is making claims about sin in general. He’s not saying that some people are only small sinners (and therefore need only small amounts of repentence and antibiotic shots of Holy Spirit holiness) and others are huge sinners and need to work a lot harder (or need a lot more infusions and injections or whatever).
I think he is saying something much simpler. He’s not talking about the soteriological need of the Partying Priest as such (sorry, but I love the tabloids’ name for the guy), he’s just talking about the job description of being a priest. I wonder if the following analogy would help.
Suppose we weren’t talking about priests. Suppose we were talking about a different job in the church. Like being a janitor. The parish janitor’s job description involves cleaning the toilets. If he is doing a manifestly awful job at that, it doesn’t mean that good toilet scrubbers are less in need of a savior, or more beloved of Jesus, or whatever. It just means that he’s not doing a good job. And at some point, if he is just doing such a bad job, you are gonna have to take him off the job. Now there’s kind ways to do that, and less kind ways, and certainly we hope we’ll make clear to him that we do love him and he is very welcome to participate 100% in parish life and maybe we can find him something else to do, etc. but the bottom line is that at some point eventually we are going to have to start getting some minimally clean toilets.
The same for a gazillion jobs at the church. The parish accountant, the parish cook, etc. Even jobs like the parish youth director or choir director, which have job descriptions that include “don’t molest the young boys.” Now it becomes potentially confusing, because when the last two fellows are “bad at their job” in this sense it sounds like we are accusing them of being wicked — and wicked to a degree that we are not. But actually that’s not so. All we are doing by removing them from their job is saying that they are bad at cleaning the toilets.
Now what I have heard the bishop say so far in his public comments has been a critique of the PP primarily in terms of his job description. Basically he feels like a priest has a job description too. And that part of it (like so many jobs) is behavioral. He thinks there is some kind of ball park of behavior that a priest is supposed to remain inside. A typical example is marriage. So for example, if a priest wanted to have flagrant affairs with multiple women, while married to his wife, and couldn’t seem to stop, it would mean that the priest would have to be removed from that office. NOT because he’s bad and we’re not, but because the job description calls for a “wholesome example.” If the cook is making horrible food and can’t improve, then we gotta take him out of the kitchen — but not because he’s a sinner and we’re not.
It’s certainly fine to have a debate about what kinds of behavior should be included in the job description of priest — what makes sense and what doesn’t. But to criticize the bishop on general soteriological grounds, if valid, would lead to the conclusion that there should be no “wholesome example” standards at all. If a priest delivers good sermons, but is part of a Big Love plural marriage, well I guess it would be wrong to say anything, since we are all sinners. If the priest owns a shop next to the church where he is advertising hard core pornography? — we shouldn’t say anything since we are all sinners.
In the PP’s case, I think the bishop’s logic is that it’s hard for a priest to do an effective job for his parishioners when they know he is buying $30,000 bottles of champagne and giving $7000 tips. Especially in this economy — part of the job of the priest should be to have some minimal level of restraint in conspicuous spending so that he can minister effectively to those of his flock who have nothing.
Hope all that makes sense. Thanks again for bringing this up on the Mockingbird radar!
Just for the record, I think partying priests are GREAT. I assume that means going to parties, bars, whatever — hanging out with all kinds of people, having a great time with them, and drinking alcohol (if they feel like it). Woo-hoo! Bring it on.
There is an entirely separate question about the 30k bottles of booze (etc.), but there’s no question in my mind that it’s great for priests to hang out with lots of people and have fun.
Alex,
I agree with you that In the sight of God, we are all qualitatively the same in terms of our sin natures. i.e. Romans 1-3. Therefore I quite agree that we should not make judgments about the “levels” of sin when we are relating to our Justification or Acceptance with God. However, at the same time, there is a quantitative difference between sinful actions “IN THIS WORLD” and in terms of consequences that God dishes out for such actions.
For example, the case of Kaylee Anthony, the young woman who is being accused of killing her 2 year old daughter. Now, it would be wrong, pharisaical and self-righteous to look at her and say, “what a wicked person she is, how could she do something like that, I just don’t understand some people!” Now, this is actually what makes for good TV ratings, that people watch her story and get all self-righteous. But we know better. We know that if not for the Grace of God and our not being in the same circumstances, we would be facing the same charges. In other words, we have the same heart a her, HItler, Dahmer, Bin Laden, etc…
However, if she indeed murdered her daughter, we would expect (I hope) that she should be disciplined in proportion to her crime. In regards to Church discipline, Paul in 1 Corinthians clearly had a standard of behavior that he would not tolerate within the membership of his Church, i.e. the guy who was sleeping with his mother in law.
Hey Choi,
I totally agree with what you said that “qualitative change leads to quantitative change.” That is indeed what the whole fruits of the Spirit are about… quantitative resulting from the qualitative.
And you raise a good point that the exhortations that St. PAul uses are predicated on the gospel… not a separate argument. They flow from the root of the gospel.
It is SO easy to take scripture like that out of context and just focus on the exhortation. And then that just brings us back to the Old Testament.
Hey John,
It is probably very likely that the Bishop and I are talking past each other. I was not really upset about what the Bishop did in removing him from ministry. There are some other serious allegations as well about the PP and you cant blame the bishop for being careful.
Obviously there are many PRACTICAL reasons for removing someone from ministry. And you mentioned a few.
My argument is with the MORAL reasoning he used. It just reminded me of things I hear all the time (outside just as much of inside the church) about ‘balance’ and ‘moderation’.
Humanity seems to think that we ourselves are great judges of how far is too far. And because we may have better self control in one particular area (say substance abuse or shopping) its easy for us to criticize the other person who is not in control.
Again I would probably have taken the same action if I was in the bishops shoes. But people go out and drink and party all the time (myself included… ok well maybe I liked to think I did before I had a kid) and we don’t pull the “that money could have been used to go green or build a well in Africa.”
For me this whole thing was a reminder of how easy it is to judge others as opposed to looking inward… which is exactly what Jesus criticized the pharisees of doing.
Alex
Hey David! Do you really own all the dogs in that picture? And you have two kids!
Anywho, I think my last two comments answered your statement about things in this world vs justification before God. I’m critiquing the moral judgements as opposed to the practical steps taken by the Bishop.
You are right on when you say we are one step away from the horrible acts committed by the people you mentioned.
Unfortunately, as you know Dave, most people do not believe that. They think they are better precisely because their bad decisions “aren’t THAT bad.” But of course a Holy God begs to differ.
Alex,
No, I merely have 3 dogs, 2 cats, a wife and 2 kids. That picture is of one of my current dogs when it was a puppy.
Yes, I think you did answer my comment. You were talking about the logic of the Bishop in terms of what the standard of spending money should be. And I highly doubt that this Bishop is as self-sacrificial as he is demanding his priest to be.
I was just hoping you weren’t saying that ministers should never be disciplined because we are all sinners after all. And I don’t think you are saying that at all.
Alex,
I like the way you expressed yourself (and nice visual supports too)! You bring up such important and true points. Once things get brought to the press, how much more nervous and punitive people can become… Maybe the money spending was merely a symptom of something greater. Is the issue really even his spending as much as where it communicates his priorities are?
Anyways, I hope we will be seeing more and more qualitative growth – but regardless, it’s so relieving to know that God is the one who does great works and we have only to relinquish to Him!
I will agree that sin either “is” or “is not,” and the good Bishop can spare me the sanctimonious claptrap about the poor, but surely we can realize that are some behaviors that are inappropriate for Christian leaders. Molesting children and watching a dirty Cinemax flick are both sin, but I think we all know which is a fireable offense.
Hello all. I’ll admit to still being puzzled as to all the bishop bashing (grin) going on in this thread.
Alex has pulled back a bit and clarified that Pauline / Lutheran soteriology as such doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be behavior boundaries for church employees — and that further he thinks the bishop probably did the right thing by suspending the priest and expressing concern. But Alex still is very critical somehow of the bishop’s “moral reasoning.”
Other folks on the thread are less restrained: Bishop Marshall is sanctimonious, his comments are claptrap, and he probably is a hypocrite who himself doesn’t obey reasonable restraint in spending.
Whoa guys! Let’s chill. Doesn’t that seem a little harsh?
But aside from the general tone, I admit to being puzzled about the general agreement in the thread that there is something wrong or mistaken in the bishop’s reasoning.
At this point it sounds like we are all agreed that it’s legitimate for there to be behavior boundaries for church employees, and that furthermore some of these boundaries are moral boundaries. We are now all agreed (if I have read the thread right) that, for example, if a priest were suspended for widespread adultery in his parish, the act of suspension wouldn’t imply that we weren’t all sexual sinners in our hearts (cf. the Sermon on the Mount). We are agreed (everyone on the thread plus, we assume, the bishop) that in God’s eyes we are all adulterers, but in terms of the boundaries of the job description we are entitled to make behavioral distinctions.
If all this is so… what exactly is mistaken in the bishop’s reasoning? If in principle it is legitimate to do this for sexual behavior, why is it suddenly illegitimate for other kinds of ethical/moral behavior?
In the case of sexual ethics, you say: of course, in God’s eyes, we are all lustful adulterers – but purely for the purpose of the job description of priest, we are going to make distinctions based on some kinds of sexual sin being more flagrant than others.
Likewise we agree that, in God’s eyes, we are all murderers; but in for the purpose of the job description, we are going to make a decision between a priest merely have a moment of private anger and actually assaulting or killing people.
So what exactly is wrong with making these kinds of distinctions in case of the moral issue of Christian stewardship? Of course we are (in God’s eyes) ALL greedy and profligate and cruel and uncaring for those in need. But in the same sense as the examples above, we need to engage in a kind of “moral reasoning” that distinguishes a priest who is living comparatively humbly from (say) one who fills his swimming pool with Perrier, lives in a mansion, owns a fleet of $100,000 cars and yachts, etc. (I imagine the priest who has made the news doesn’t do all that, but the principle is the same.) If such a moral calculus is forbidden, purely for establishing behavior boundaries for a specific job, then we are back to saying that there should be no boundaries of any kind – because you only figure what the boundaries should be by doing the kind of reasoning above.
On a private and personal note, let me say that I have made a decision not to pursue ordained ministry precisely because I do feel like it’s reasonable to have moral behavior boundaries as part of the job description – and part of the cross I carry is a particular “thorn in my flesh” that involves recidivistic violation of clear Christian teaching on the public standards historically expected of a Christian pastor. There’s other ways I hope God may be able to work in my life and for the advancement of his Gospel – but I have come to accept that the affliction I carry precludes me from this particular kind of office.
Just for the record, below is the full context of the bishop’s reasoning regarding Christian stewardship and his concern about Rev Malia.
He made this statement as a result of asked by the press to explain his concern in detai. It appears that some news stories have plucked one or two phrases from this.
=============
If what is being reported about Fr. Malia is true we would have a problem: Along with our vigorous evangelism program, I have called the entire Diocese of Bethlehem (14 counties in NE PA) to adopt a lifestyle significantly lower than that of our peers so that together we can make significant changes in the life of our partner diocese in Southern Sudan and among the poor of NE PA. I have tried to set an example in this matter, living in a very small house, and giving 20% of my own (public information) salary to various church charities. A few years ago our small (15k people) diocese, many of them poor people in depressed ex-mining towns, undertook what has become a 4.1 million dollar campaign for the poor locally and in our African partner diocese. What Fr. Malia is reported to have spent on a single evening would build and equip an African school or totally underwrite the homeless shelter we are building in Scranton–this is the technical meaning of “scandal,” that which alienates people from the core convictions of their faith. Thus it is a matter of the gravest concern for the church and its witness to the world. Our present project notwithstanding, the facts as reported would be a remarkable departure from normal standards of modest living to which the Gospel calls us. I am acquainted with a billionaire who would not behave in the way that is alleged in the Daily News, so again, we have a potential departure from the standard of the Church.
John,
As always, great to “see” you on here!
IMHO–I think that it is completely appropriate for a Bishop to set behavioral guidelines for the members of his diocese–but the problem, as I see it, is that in lieu of clearly stated canons or laws, and rather than resort to a judgment based on his “right” and office to make said judgment, he spiritualized the whole affair–thus elevating a human/horizontal judgment (albeit one based on his conception of ministry and subsequent required morality) to the level of a clearly transgressed moral norm.
In this case, $30,000 bottles of Krystal (throw ’em up) are bad—one wonders if 2 $15,000 would be ok? etc. . .
From a variety of socio-economic perspectives and in different places around the world, the lifestyle of any Episcopal minister–probably without exception–could be seen as a luxurious and poorly stewarded one.
I think that the general unease with the Bishop’s decision has more to do with his rationale than with what he did.
Granted, the definition of what constitutes “good behavior” is certainly up for debate, and were there a poverty clause of some sort in this diocese, then this would be a clear cut case of ecclesiological infraction; however, as far as the stated facts go, this guy may be flamboyant–but unfit for ministry? I’m not sure this warrants that.
well, my comment came up right after you posted the “background,” as it were—and I think that this makes a lot more sense—
I didn’t realize the phrase “sanctimonious claptrap” was overly harsh, nor did I find it to be in contrast with the spirit of the original post. Nevertheless, I shall try to restrain myself in the future.
However, I do tend to agree with the bishop on principle. Ministers bear the public face of the church (or Church), and thus should be expected, within reason, to be approve reproach in certain obvious cases.
Hey JDK… thanks for the kind reminder that you like seeing me around. Made me feel good.
Sounds like we are now a lot closer to being on the same page. Interestingly, it was me posting the full context of the bishop’s comments which made the difference for you.
That’s interesting for me… because while I can definitely see how that could change your perspective, I still in principle would have accepted what the bishop was likely saying even without all that background.
For example, when you said:
“In this case, $30,000 bottles of Krystal (throw ’em up) are bad—one wonders if 2 $15,000 would be ok? etc. . . “
… to me that line of argument would invalidate almost all reasoning of any kind where there is a spectrum of data or behavior.
Martin Gardner surely coined a helpful and in this case relevant epigram when he said:
“Day fades gradually into night — but that doesn’t mean that there is no difference between day and night.”
There’s no doubt that there is a huge gray area in almost any area of debate. There’s a big gray area between a parent who is loving and gentle and one who is beating the daylights out of his kid — one can imagine situations of very slight gradations that almost imperceptively moved from one to the other. Just because one can imagine such a very slow chain of imperceptible gradations, that doesn’t mean sending your kid to the hospital with broken bones shouldn’t result in one being “suspended” as a parent. It just means that there’s a big gray area that is gonna be hard to deal with. What it doesn’t mean is that you do nothing about the far end of the spectrum.
The same thing could be said about arguments in public health or in biology or any number of things. Often the evidence forms a spectrum, and sometimes it is not extreme enough to warrant a definite conclusion.
So I admit that at some point, with the Partying Priest’s (alleged) bottles of booze, it would eventually move into a gray area. A $30k bottle, a 20k bottle, a 10k bottle, …, an $800 bottle, a $650 bottle, …. Obviously there’s a sense where if a priest once in a great while buys a $200 bottle of wine, that’s probably within the bounds of acceptable behavior. It doesn’t make him not a sinner, of course! It doesn’t mean that ALL of us, as outrageously consuming Americans, aren’t in gross violation of Biblical standards. But unless we want to drop all standards of “wholesome example” entirely, we have to face that there will always be a huge gray area that the bishop doesn’t try to police himself but instead pray that the Holy Spirit will fill us all so that we spontaenously want to do the chaste or loving or courageous or gentle act.
Again, though, delighted to hear your thoughts and Matt’s. Fondly… J
Dear John,
Good points, and I agree with you regarding the existence (hopefully only this side of heaven) of the need for standards of ethical/moral behavior against which we are judged, and in this case the actions of the partying priest certainly seem to warrant an investigation.
That being said, my point is that in the absence of a clearly defined “ethic or vow of restrained consumerism”–which, admittedly, could be argued as a desired norm for all Christians but–then the actions of this priest were not self-evidently damning.
So, when you write: “
… to me that line of argument would invalidate almost all reasoning of any kind where there is a spectrum of data or behavior.”
I would say that my caution would not invalidate the reasoning but, on the contrary, necessitate the reasoning–reasoning which, in the absence of the background “stated financial commitment” of the Bp for his diocese, was IMHO lacking.
Appealing, as it seemed, to a general sense of christian stewardship in defense of a concrete and specific disciplinary charge, without a discussion or warning, seemed to me a little hasty. . .
While his spending may be offensive and unwise (like M.J buying the Monkeys) I, for one, am not ready to elevate selfish consumption to the level of “offense worthy of summary deposal.”
Please bear with the above typos–I also should add that I’m not sure it was “selfish consumption,” when he was buying drinks for the whole bar!