Professional Competency
Professional Competency
Speaking with wisdom & knowledge
Here are my key points:
Evangelical Focus: The Church should prioritize evangelism over policy, emphasizing the truth of the Gospel through action.
Professional Competency: Effective pastoral care requires proper training and understanding, not just good intentions.
Science and Faith: Understanding and accurately presenting scientific knowledge is crucial for credible evangelical witness.
Prudence and Knowledge: Christians need both theological and secular knowledge to minister effectively and avoid spreading misinformation.
Let me repeat myself. Because OST is concerned with evangelism rather than policy as such, we need to make winning arguments supported by tangible actions, about the truth of the Gospel. The reason for this is straightforward. The Church’s moral tradition is the fruit of the Gospel. Likewise, the different iterations of Christian culture are all rooted (to some degree at least) in the Gospel. While policy has its place, simply advocating for specific policy positions risks turning the Church into another NGO. We are not called to lobby Congress (though at times we may) but “in season and out” (2 Timothy 4:2) to preach the Gospel “to every creature” the Good News of Jesus Christ risen from the dead (see Mark 16:15, NKJV).
We need to be cautious however that we do not lose sight of the fact that “piety is no substitute for technique.”1 One of the great blessings of the social sciences, is that they can sharpen what we read in fathers by providing us with the practical insights and skills we need to give people “the things which are needed for the body“ (see, James 2:16-17). Church fathers Pope St. Gregory the Great (Pastoral Rule2) and St. Augustine (Literal Meaning of Genesis3 makes several observations that we should take to heart if we wish to craft a social witness that is not only faithful to the Church’s social teaching and the needs of society but is also a credible vehicle for the evangelical mission of the Church. As will become clear in a moment, saints understand that good intentions are not sufficient.
Professional Competency
The saint begins by saying that
No one presumes to teach an art till he has first, with intent meditation, learned it. What rashness is it, then, for the unskillful to assume pastoral authority, since the government of souls is the art of arts!
Of course, as he makes clear, “the unskilled” assuming “pastoral authority” is the situation he is working to correct.
Drawing a parallel between the cure of the body and the cure of souls, the saint tells us that the latter is more demanding since “the sores of the thoughts of men are more occult than the sores of the bowels.” Nevertheless, “how often do men who have no knowledge whatever of spiritual precepts fearlessly profess themselves physicians of the heart, though those who are ignorant of the effect of drugs blush to appear as physicians of the flesh!”
In part this situation comes about because of the high regard many have for the Church. Unscrupulous men seek to “affect the glory of distinction” that goes with the cure of souls.
They desire to appear as teachers, they covet superiority to others, and, as the Truth attests, they seek the first salutations in the market-place, the first rooms at feasts, the first seats in assemblies (Matthew 23:6-7), being all the less able to administer worthily the office they have undertaken of pastoral care, as they have reached the magisterial position of humility out of elation only.
The ill-prepared who take on the office of pastoral care do so to their own condemnation since they “reign of themselves, and not by the Will of the Supreme Ruler.” Such men are “supported by no virtues, and in no way divinely called.” They are “inflamed by their own desire, seize rather than attain supreme rule. But them the Judge ... advances, and yet knows not; for whom by permission he tolerates them surely by the judgment of reprobation he ignores.”
Harmful as they are to themselves, those who lust after pastoral authority bring about not only their own fall from grace but those they presume to guide. Pope Gregory says plainly “those also who follow them ... stumble.”
Hence it is that, in the Gospel, the Truth in person says, “If the blind lead the blind, both fall into the ditch” (Matthew 15:14). Hence the Psalmist (not expressing his own desire, but in his ministry as a prophet) denounces such, when he says, “Let their eyes be blinded that they see not, and ever bow down their back” (Psalm 68:24). For, indeed, those persons are eyes who, placed in the very face of the highest dignity, have undertaken the office of spying out the road; while those who are attached to them and follow them are denominated backs. And so, when the eyes are blinded, the back is bent, because, when those who go before lose the light of knowledge, those who follow are bowed down to carry the burden of their sins.4
The presumption of pastoral authority is deadly to more than just the shepherd and his flock; it also poisons the Church’s evangelical witness.
The Bad Witness of Bad Science
St. Augustine, in one of my favorite passages, argues that another form of presumption, this time intellectual, drives the unbeliever away from the Church. Specifically, he touches on the harm I do when discussing matters about which I am ignorant, but which are well known and understood by the unbeliever with whom I am speaking.
In The Literal Meaning of Genesis (I:19: 39), he describes a situation not at all uncommon today.
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.
With a touch of rhetorical smugness meant to skewer the arrogance of the believer he goes on to say how “it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.”
The “shame” here is not the ignorance of the believer or that he is “derided” by the more knowledgeable pagan. It is "that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers” are as ignorant as the foolish Christian who holds forth with an unearned confidence about matters in which he is laughably ignorant.
When in my pride I speak with a confidence that outstrips my competence to do so, I bring about “the great loss of those for whose salvation” I am working. My ill-informed words cause the unbeliever to criticize “the writers of ... Scripture” leading them to reject both the biblical and patristic witness as the product of “unlearned men.”
Harsh though this seems, it is not unreasonable that unbelievers, finding “a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books,” also doubt the Gospel. After all,
how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books.
This does not happen because of the hardness of the unbeliever’s heart but is caused when the Christians reveal themselves as fools who seek “to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion [1 Timothy 1.7].”
The point here for OST is this. It is not enough to be convinced that the Chruch is right in her teaching. I need to understand why the Church is correct and this, in turn, requires I understand the secular knowledge that informs the teaching. This means as well, however, that when reading magisterial documents such as the Basis or FLOW, we ask whether they get the science right. No matter how well reasoned theologically, no matter how rich in biblical quotations or citations from the fathers, if the science is wrong, the teaching is also wrong.
Getting the science right is not optional. Not getting the science right or being indifferent to the science reveals me to be the presumptuous pastor that Pope St. Gregory the Great (and other fathers) condemn. Not getting the science right also results in my harming the faith of the believer and alienating those who might otherwise give the Gospel a fair hearing on the matter.
As students of the Church’s teaching, we need then to bring not only our faith but also our professional competencies to the texts we are reading. Being a faithful son or daughter of the Church presupposes that we bring to bear all the gifts we have been given. Bishops, theologians, and clergy have no special insight into science or other secular disciplines. This means we cannot and should not defer to them in those areas in which we are competent.
Likewise, I need to be careful when I am relating to others the Church’s social teaching. It is not sufficient that I understand theologically what I read in Basis or FLOW. If, for example, I want to discuss with either parishioners or those outside the Church what the Church teaches about, for example, sexual ethics, I need to educate myself about not only the biblical and patristic teaching but also the relevant science.
About this, let me add I am not speaking about “doing my own research.” Amateur epidemiologists and constitutional lawyers, self-taught theologians, and canonists, sowed division and caused grief in parishes during the Covid pandemic. Not only did we see laity and clergy who having “zeal without knowledge” (see Romans 10:1-3) second guessed public health officials and their own bishops, we had some bishops turning a blind eye to parishes that did not follow health regulations and others while other supported innovation with how we distribute Holy Communion.
Knowing Our Limits
To be sure, most of this was well-meant. But it does highlight the importance of Christians understanding the science—and the limits of science—that touch on contemporary matters of public, moral concern. Besides the reasons St. Gregory and St. Augustine outline this is also the fruit of technological changes.
The easy availability of information via the internet leads people to be overly confident in their knowledge, and many behave as pseudo-experts because they have researched a topic for a few hours on the web. Because they have learned something, they are confident that they understand it. They have no appreciation for the complexity of the subject, which they actually know almost nothing about. Others have devoted their lives to studying a specific subject deeply, but this means little to the amateur who is overconfident in his competency. The dabblers also lack the ability to evaluate the information they do stumble upon. The internet is full of misinformation as well good information.
It is not enough to read something, even something that is correct, online.
Without real training and education, those who rely on the internet for information are unable to critically evaluate what they read. They have no basis for discerning truth or falsehood, no means to evaluate the qualifications of the person who posted the information, and no ability to recognize a bias. Even the fact that internet users endlessly post and repost a great deal of misinformation is often disregarded.5
Competency in OST requires from us more than knowing theology; we need secular knowledge as well so that we can effectively minister to those inside and outside the household of faith. And, as will see next, we also need prudence; we need to know not only what to say but how to speak so our listeners can understand.
Etienne Gilson, “The Intelligence in the Service of Christ the King,” in Christianity and Philosophy, trans. Ralph McDonald (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1939).
“CHURCH FATHERS: Pastoral Rule, Book I (Gregory the Great),” Newadvent.org, 2023, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/36011.htm.
Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, ed. John Hammond Taylor (New York, N.Y.: Newman Press, 1982).
Gregory the Great, Pastoral Rule, chapter 1.
Eugenia Scarvelis Constantinou, Thinking Orthodox: Understanding and Acquiring the Orthodox Christian Mind / Eugenia Scarvelis Constantinou. (Chesterton, In: Ancient Faith Publishing, 2020).
Shucks, I came here this morning intending to comment on your attempted synthesis between Orthodox asceticism and Individualism, but I read this instead! ;)
I was pleasantly surprised at the bishop's collective response during covid. The only "canonical" bishop I am aware of who set up a shallow "Faith vs. Reason {or Reality}" dichotomy was Isaiah of Denver (GOARCH), though others such as the de facto heresiarch (IMO) Peter Heers did as well, and these sorts usually have very strong social media presence and thus influence.
That said IMO there is a real "Crisis of Competency", which is a crises of *authority* both within and without the Church presently. While it has its political consequences obviously, it is mostly centered around two core aspects: 1) the lack of consensus as to what exactly "science" is and is not, itself consequence of the tension/conflict between Baconian methodological materialism and Cartesian individualism (the two legs of modernism). These two rest on non commensurable *metaphysics* (not epistemology as is often asserted), though western intellectual history of the last 500 years is in large part the story of various attempts at a synthesis (Kant as just one example). Indeed, it could be said that western "liberal" modernism is the "ontology" of this tension - the lived "being" of these two dogs and cats trying to lie together :)
For the Church, as well as for modern American politics, this crises of competency/authority is most visible in in the anthropological issues. Many modern medical doctors, psychological and social scientists, and moralizers (political, clerical, etc.) now often tell me that my moral position vis-a-vis my neighbor is now defined by Hegelian/Marxist metaphysical understanding of what a human being is and what is moral in society (i.e. "systemic racism", DEI, LBGQwerty, etc.). I recall at the height of the BLM riots the UOC-USA bishops recommended that I 'search my own heart for my systemic bias' (that's a paraphrase - I'm not going to look up the exact wording of the statement).
More recently my current Metropolitan (SABA, Antioch) has nothing but "questions" to the historic novel ordination of a women to the modern diaconate. He strikes me as a man who is utterly without answers, neither anthropological, theological, or ecclesial. He sheepishly looks to "studies" and "science". To put it bluntly, he is a man without (spiritual) *authority* (which is to say impotent) in my eyes.
In this essay I believe you have competently refuted the "science" of the young earth creationist, the snake handling "Faith Healer" - I was not aware of St. Augustine's and St. Gregory's work on this! However, is not the modern Church and society not characterized by a much deeper and more complex crises of metaphysics, anthropology and thus "competency"?