Is there a leadership crisis in the Orthodox and Roman Church

By Most Rev. John J. Lehman, S.S.B.

In the nineteen seventies two religious superiors of a well known
roman order of religious nuns, spoke to me of their acute problems
of retaining their dedicated sisters especially the most
intelligent.

Mulling it over in prayer, brought to memory a military nurse who
told this enlightening story.  She said she was in charge of two
floors in a hospital owned by nuns of her order.  She willingly and
voluntarily worked hours of overtime knowing her superiors would be
pleased (as certainly she said from her prayed life God was!)

The Superior General and her staff came on a regular inspection
visit.  Presumably from overwork the ex-nun telling this story was
in a hospital bed with a high fever.  "Father," she said,"they did
not even come in to visit with me, let alone pray with me." So she
said, if they don't care about me I surely don't care about them,
and left her order for a highly successful military service.

Orthodoxy and other Christian churches must never succumb to this
tragic type of disinterested leadership.  With this in mind the
following is offered to the readers of Reunion as a point of
departure from "old world ecclesiastical styles of leadership that
do not conform to American ideals in a democracy."  this has
nothing to do with Christian doctrine which must of course be
retained inviolate.

Leadership models of the nineteen sixties and seventies are used
for this missive because it was the greatest era of upheaval in
Christian churches.

As a young Air Force Chaplain in England, I had the pleasure of
attending the consecration ceremony of a new Bishop who was a
graduate of Rome, Italy.  At the luncheon afterward the newly made
Bishop opened his talk to his fellow priests with these words:
"Like Moses,  I must now ascend the mountain of God, alone".  An
old gray-haired priest sighed as he, beside me, uttered these words
aloud, "The Bloody Fool! What was good for Moses was good for
Moses".

Are syncretistic leadership forms outmoded?  Old forms of a bygone
culture do not necessarily fit a sophisticated people of God who
hopefully have evolved beyond this type of Moses leadership.  A
non-recognition of this fact is pointed up by Oscar Cullmann.  In
his 1968 book Vatican Council II and the New Direction he says:

'Do not quench the Holy Spirit', admonishes the Apostle Paul.  The
Holy Spirit presupposes constant readiness for repentance.  If
renewal shall move forward through the Spirit, the Church must
always be ready for renewal, and I might add: all churches, even
ours.  This conviction stands behind my entire report, even behind
my critical remarks also.  For we must all be constantly renewed by
the Holy Spirit.  Only thus will our expectations for the entire
church of Christ be fulfilled. 1

This is also the writer's theme in this short article.  Doctor
Cullmann ,the great Protestant ecumenical churchman, opened his
chapter "Have Expectations Been Fulfilled," by speaking of Catholic
syncretism.  By this he understands:

The ever-present danger as it has threatened Christianity
intellectually and practically in the form of gnosticism and then
in medieval Catholicism. . . . If there has been grievances in the
Catholic Church in the past, it is because it has secularized
itself instead of subjecting the necessary entering into the world
to the purifying principle of standardization to the Bible.  The
assimilation which Catholicism permits itself in the shaping of
tradition in the earlier centuries is precisely that which makes it
uncontemporary. 2

Is it not possible that we Christians have been guilty of
syncretism in leadership?  Is Divine right monarchy or the pharaoh
autocratic type necessarily and syncretistically exercised by Moses
really fitting today?  Was not the newly consecrated Bishop really
expecting to take as his own an uncontemporary form of even
Biblical leadership? Apparently Cullmann would think so.

Are priests presently speaking the truth in love?  Roman Catholics
should have some idea of the meaning of Federation of Priests
Councils', Statement on the Priesthood 1971, at least as
symptomatic of low morale among some priests.  The Moment of Truth
is its title.

We are men who live in a society in a Church in which 25,000 of our
brother priests around the world have resigned in the past seven
years.  We are men who live in a Church where over one-third of the
priests. . . . has a serious problem with the lack of leadership
from those in authority. . . (and who are) disturbed by the slow
pace of change in view of the call for renewal by the Bishops of
Vatican II.  Most difficulties arise from refusal to share this
responsibility (of leadership). 3

Apparently this statement is supported by the $500,000.00 survey
instituted by the Synod of Roman Catholic Bishops of the United
States. Indeed, it may possibly be indicative of some lack of
leadership that a one-half million dollar survey would be necessary
for Bishops to find out what their close fellowship is really
thinking. 4

What is the supposedly intimate priestly fellowship thinking?

Most priests, even the younger ones prefer to work under a strong
Bishop; but at the same time, the clergymen want to share in the
decision making authority.  More freedom. . . would help priests
overcome problems of loneliness and authority. 5

Is the Church in the U.S. conforming to its image of Vatican II?
The one great gift of America to Vatican II was the Document on
Religious freedom.  Is it not a happy commentary on the American
priesthood that many priests are still holily and happily persuing
their vocation, in a success oriented society, when they do not
feel entirely free to be themselves?  These priests feel so deeply
committed "to conform to the needs of the institution rather than
the individuals that they give up a very great deal of freedom to
serve.  The psychological report states "American priests need a
more genuine freedom in all those areas of. . . life-style and mode
of gospel service. 7

What kind of leadership are Christians looking for?  Bishops who
are generally satisfied with their leadership could be headed for
"serious conflict".  So at this point it might be well to define
leadership according to the modern democratic mode into which
American priests thankfully were born.  Have leading American
Bishops traditionally educated and ordained priests in other
countries lost sight of traditionally American democratic
leadership?  Not, certainly, if they think with Ordway Tead:
"Leadership is the activity of influencing people toward some goal
which they may come to find desirable". 8

Auren Uris divides leadership into three types - Autocratic,
Free-reign and Democratic. 9

So let's describe free reign leadership: 'This type of leader is
more or less an information booth." He plays down his role in the
group's activity.  He exercises a minimum of control.

In direct contrast is the autocrat. This type leader "mainly seeks
obedience from his group.  He determines policy and considers
decision-making a one-man operation - he being the one man".
Apparently this is the type of Episcopal leadership the National
Council of Priests as well as the authoritive study of Greely and
Kennedy are hitting at as they "Speak the truth in love".(Ephesians
4:15)

The American ideal of leadership is a far cry from these types. The
leader is one "who draws ideas and suggestions from the group by
discussion and consultation".  In a democracy  "group members are
encouraged to take part in setting policy.  The leader's job is
largely that of moderator".  the omniscient autocrat who clothes
himself in an ancient theological garb of seemingly shared
infallibility cannot exist comfortably in a democracy and certainly
has no place in the contemporary Christian Church.

Murray G. Ross and Charles H. Hendry describe the contemporary need
for leadership:

Leadership is an interactional phenomenon..... (It) is something
that emerges, that grows, and that is achieved.  It is not enough
to have certain qualities of personality and performance that one
associates with leadership.  Nor is it enough to have experienced
leadership acceptance in one or more groups .... Leadership is a
function of the situation, the culture, context, and customs of a
group or organization, quite as much as it is a function of
personal attributes and group requirements. . . Leadership is a
function of a combination of very dynamic elements the individual,
the group and the situation.10

Today in the United States the leadership situation fortunately is
a democratic one.  For example, even in the Army of a democracy old
soldiers retire before "they just fade away".  Should Christian
soldiers lead onward until "they just fade away".  There is no one
definition of Christian leadership, but divine right once in office
until death, or divine right to command and order has little to do
with Christian leadership in love.

To begin with leadership is a part of one's personality. Burton W.
Kretlow says it is an "extension of your inner self to other
persons and to other groups.  What you are and do is conditioned by
your beliefs, dedication and ideals". 11

Ordway Tead l2 expresses the same idea: Leadership is known by the
personalities it enriches, not by those it dominates or captivates.
Leadership is not a process of exploitation of others for
extraneous ends, such as conforming to the needs of the institution
rather than the individual (in the NORC Report). Leadership is a
process of helping others discover themselves in the achieving of
aims which have become intrinsic to them, (such as the need for
clergymen for self-determination to grow as mature individuals
within the Church (as the NORC points out).

If there is one thing that a study of significant leaders reveals,
it is that out of the heart are the issues of leadership. What is
an episcopal heart like?  Is it democratic, autocratic or something
else?  Are priests leaving the Church because "leadership tends
inevitably to become corrupt"? 13 I definitely think not!

What is the episcopal rating on the following:  Empathy; "A leader
must learn to 'stand in their shoes' if his leadershi p is to be
person centered".14 Authority; "authority is that which influences
under circumstances in which there is no participation in decision
making."15 Motivation; "the moving force of delegation".16
Delegation; "Unless you learn to delegate you will fail to be an
efficient leader" 17 yet when you delegate you don't get rid
responsibility.18  Communication; the reciprocal aspect "is not
complete until a leader has elicited a response from his follower,"
19 and failure to communicate represents one of the major sins of
administrators.20 Apparently a metenoia or change of heart is the
general need of some of the episcopacy in the United States.  The
new situation in a highly developed democracy seems to demand it as
the human as well as the Christian condition in America.

Leadership is not only related to the personage of the leader but
it is also related to the situation in which the leader finds
himself.  "The relationship between the leader and the situation is
essentially circular."21 It is for this reason that a leader needs
to be "flexible, adaptable"22.  Leadership is relative to the
situation - each situation requires a rather different
configuration or pattern of leadership.23

Bishops would do well in responding to their studies become more
expert at being a part of the group.  The Moses type is obviously
obsolete.  "The leader is no longer remote or removed from
followers.  He is a part of and growing with the group of which he
is a part."24 The democratic form of leadership is the best adapted
of all forms for the group situation.  Democratic leadership has
the advantage of encouraging participation in group decisions, "it
tends toward the release of creativity in group members, and
encourages cohesiveness in the group."25

The democratic group situation is ideal for still another reason.
In a democratic group "diffused" is the word for describing
leadership.  By this Ross and Hendry mean "Every member is a leader
whenever he contributes an idea that is needed at a particular
time."26 Leadership harnesses person power as each member
contributes something needed in the process of achieving group
goals.  Unless this style of leadership is adopted little personal
development takes place and few ideas come from the grass roots up.
Everything must come down.  But it is only from God who lives in
unapproachable light from whom every good and perfect gift comes.
Unfortunately, this gift is a divine and not a human quality.

Democratic delegation and accountability are words little known and
little used in a many Churchman's vocabulary De Jure delegation is
well known, however.  "Delegation is the process and authority, the
cement of organization."27 This process is a basic principle of
democratic management Christians could well emulate.  Motivation
which Christians do understand "is the moving force of
delegation."28  But how can motives be properly understood if De
Jure delegation is practiced? A leader "does not succeed as an
effective delegator in that he does not understand what is involved
in the process of delegation."29 Unfortunately, if democratic
delegation is not understood and practiced, leadership becomes the
art of the adroit use of De Jure power, but this is authority and
only one facet of leadership.

Democracy needs leadership.  Autocracies thrive only on authority.
Authority lords it over subjects.  But Christians must not emulate
those who love to lord it over their subjects. Christians are meant
to serve with the new command of the Leader to love. "I have given
you an example that you should do as I have done to you.  Truly I
say unto you the servant is not greater than his lord,.  If you
know these things, happy are you if you do them."(John 13:15-17) "I
call you not servants; for the servant knows not what his lord
does; but I have called you friends, for all things that I have
heard of my Father, I have made known to you. . . . These things I
command you, that you love one another"(John 15: 15-17).

Loneliness and lack of maturity come from a lack of love. Authority
administered without love breeds institutionalism. Institutionalism
takes away responsibility, self-determination and maturity.
Paternalism then substitutes for love and freedom is lost.
Isolation takes over in the institution and loneliness deepens.  A
vicious cycle is thus reinforced.  Are Bishops primarily schooled
in the old world tradition, conditioned by dedication and ideals to
rights in law, really practicing American democratic principles of
leadership in freedom their priests desire and now demand?

If lack of freedom is the major problem facing American priests
today how will that effect ecumenism "the first but not the only
concern" of the Pope John XXIII. 31 A suggestion is in order at
this point.  If like any other appointed leader Bishops must prove
themselves (as reported by all scholars of leadership) and there is
brewing a serious problem over the distribution of power, a less
expensive survey of Bishops (there are probably less than a
thousand legitimate bishops in the United States) seems to be in
order.

This survey could cover the same ground as the NORC areas of
"sociology, psychology, history and theology".  However, added to
the priestly dimension there is demanded of leaders a complete
study of leadership patterns.  The questions to be answered: Do
uncontemporaneous syncretistic forms of leadership prevail in the
Christian Churches in America? Do Biblical themes support the idea
of a cultural democratic leadership for Bishops in the United
States?  Is freedom, the clergy seek, compatible with either form?
Finally, what can be a viable form of leadership according to the
best secular management principles comparable to the church's
mission?

To say the Church has nothing to learn from democracy is tantamount
to saying Christianity cannot communicate with the contemporary
milieu the Church serves.  Americans must remember it was religious
freedom American Churchmen gave to Vatican II.  Is it not then our
obligation as American Christians to show how it works between
people, priests and their episcopal leaders?

Apparently, American priests in "their dignity as persons - that
is, being endowed with reason and free will and therefore
privileged to bear personal responsibility. . . cannot discharge
these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature
unless they enjoy . . . psychological freedom."3l Paragraph 8 of
the Declaration on Religious Freedom of Vatican II calls for
letting men be formed "Who will be lovers of true freedom - men, in
other words, who will come to decisions on their own judgement and
the light of truth, govern their activities with a sense of
responsibility, and strive after what is true and right, willing
always to join with others in Cooperative effort." Cannot these
words be equally applied to the fellowship as well as the
leadership in the Church?

St. James' words cut like a two-edged sword for both bishop and
priest: "so speak and so act as men about to be judged by the law
of liberty" (James 2:12).

ADDENDA

A summer's tour of the biblical cities with whom the writer of the
Book of Revelation corresponded, brought to mind the urgent need
for restructuring the Episcopacy along biblical lines and
historical lines.  To promote communication and especially as a
sharing service the following is put forward for consideration:
Present Bishops should be made Archbishops.  Pastoral Bishops, most
corresponding to rural deans, can be elected and consecrated for
service under administrative Archbishops.  For Roman Catholics,
present cardinals can be given the title of Patriarch; Cardinalates
can then be given to the laity as elected advisors in the Church
(one wonders if they would want to wear the red robes).  An
American patriarchate for orthodox churches is certainly to be
hoped for this age of ecumenism.

One can quickly point out that there is certainly a biblical and
even historical precedent for some of these considerations. Writing
to seven cities (hardly considered large by present standards, but
each with a Bishop serving a small community of Christian) the
sacred writer, calling himself John the Apostle, presides like a
patriarchal pastor who certainly knows his sheep and that know him.
Cities like Ephesus the Apostle wrote to boasted of theatres that
could at best accomodate a combined Christian and pagan audience of
only twenty-four thousand.  Yet each Christian of these cities
could also boast of a Bishop.  In the history of the Church many
Bishops, such as the great St. Ambrose, were elected by lay and
clerical acclamation.

In his book The Early Church, Henry Chadwick reports a hundred
Bishops serving in Italy many years prior to the Fall of Rome.  The
need for multiplying Pastoral Bishops did not seem strange to the
early Church, at least in Italy.  If memory serves correctly, there
was even a thirteen year old cardinal in the history of the Church.
Laymen can be given the Cardinalate as a strictly church order.

Finally, think how Ecumenism would be promoted with the Eastern
Church if throughout the West there was adopted the traditional
title of Patriarch.  This would not even be an embarrassment to the
Roman Catholic Church in Italy for it already has a number of
Patriarchs.

Christian Churchmen must emulate their Divine Leader. Above all the
words of Jesus must again ring like the clarion call of church
bells for all to listen to feel and heed; I do not call you
servants any longer because the servant does not know what the
master is doing; but I have called you friends because I have made
known to you everything... (John 15:15)

1.  Oscar Cullmann, Vatican Council II and The New Direction (New
York: Harpers and Row Publishers, 1968), p. 63.

2.  Ibid.  P. 95-96.

3.  Federation of Priest Councils, Statement on the Priesthood
1971, p. 1 (mimeographed)

4.  The Administrators skill is shown especially in communication.
cf.  C. G. Browne and Thomas H. Cohn, The Study of Leadership
(Danville: The Interstate Publishers, Inc., 1958), pp. 423-438.

5.  E. B. Duarte, "Freedom Lack Major Problem for Priests", Clarion
Herald, Vol.9, no. 9, April 22, 1971, P. 1.

6.  Ibid.

7.  Ibid.

8.  Ordway Tead, The Art of Leadership (New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company, Inc., 1935), p. 20.

9.  Auren Uris, Techniques of Leadership (New York: McGraw-Hill
Book Company, Inc., 1964), p. 30. The quotes in the next two
paragraphs are also his.

10.  Murray G. Ross and Charles H. Hendry, New Understandings of
Leadership (New York: Association Press, 1957), pp.17-29.

11.  Burton W. Krutlow, et al., Leadership for Action in Rural
Communities (Darville, Illinois: The Interstate Printers and
Publishers, Inc., 1960), p. 55.

12.  Tead, op. cit., pp. 81 and 99 for this and the next paragraph.

13.  Charles Hickman Titus, The Processes of Leadership (Dubuque:
Wm. C. Brown Company, 1950), p. 17.

14.  Leroy Ford, "Empathy - A Leader's Most Valuable Quality",
Church Administration, Vol. IV, No. 2(February 1962), p. 4.

15.  Roger Bellows, Creative Leadership (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice
Hall, Inc., 1959) p. 17.

16.  Louis A. Allen, Management and Organization (New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1958), p. 144.

17.  Derek Prime, A Christian Guide to Leadership (Chicago: Moody
Press, 1966), p. 47.

18.  Uris, op. cit., p. 186.

19.  Prime, op. cit., p. 64.

20.  Ray E. Brown, Judgement in Administration (New
York:McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1966), p.106.

21.  Douglas McGregor, et. al., Leadership and Motivation
(Cambridge: The M.I.T. Press, 1966), p. 73.

22.  Auren Uris, Developing Your Executive Skills (New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1955), p.249.

23.  Ross and Hendry, op. cit., p. 125.

24.  William W. Biddle, The Cultivation of Community Leaders (New
York: Harper and Brothers, 1953), p. 9.

25.  Ross and Hendry, op. cit., p. 101.

26.  George M. Beal, et. al., Leadership and Dynamic Group Action
(Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1962), p. 36.

27.  Harold Kuntz and Cyril O'Donnell, Principles of Management
(New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1955), p. 56.

28.  Allen, op. cit., p. 138.

29.  Ibid., p. 144.

30.  cf. Titus Cranny, Pope John and Christian Unity (New York: The
Greymoor Press, 1962) p. 24.

31.  "Declaration on Religious Freedom" Chapter I No. 2 in Walter
M. Abbott, Documents of Vatican II,  (New York: America Press,
1966), p. 679.

Bishop John