Gentleness, Not Violence
Gentleness, Not Violence
Among the mistakes into which some members of the clergy fall is violence.
Thus the priest deals with his congregation violently. This violence may be physical, such as beating and insulting—there are a very few who behave in this way. Or it may be violence in the manner of speech, using harsh or severe words. He may clothe his violence in the garment of extreme strictness, which in truth is violence, as happened with the scribes and Pharisees who were “binding heavy burdens, hard to bear, and laying them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves are not willing to move them with one of their fingers” (Matthew 23:4).
But because the priest does not want to be described as violent, he describes his violence as a defense of the truth, or a defense of values, or a form of strictness!
And through his violence he loses many of those with whom he deals in this way.
Our Lord Jesus Christ was not violent, but dealt with gentleness.
- He was not violent in leading the Samaritan woman to repentance, but gently drew her to confession, saying to her: “You have well said, ‘I have no husband’… this you have said truly” (John 4:17–18). The woman believed in Him and repented.
- He was not violent in His dealings with Nicodemus, who came to Him by night for fear of the Jews (John 3:1–2); He did not rebuke him for his fear.
- The Lord Christ was not violent with His disciples who could not watch with Him for one hour in the Garden of Gethsemane, but said to them gently: “The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak… Sleep on now, and take your rest” (Matthew 26:41, 45).
- He was not violent with His disciple Thomas who doubted His resurrection, but showed him His wounds and said to him: “Do not be unbelieving, but believing” (John 20:27).
- He was not violent in His rebuke of His disciple Peter who denied Him three times, but said to him gently: “Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me more than these? Feed My lambs… Tend My sheep” (John 21:15–17).
- It was also said of the Lord, in His gentleness and lack of violence, that:
“He will not quarrel nor cry out, nor will anyone hear His voice in the streets. A bruised reed He will not break, and smoking flax He will not quench” (Matthew 12:19–20).
Unfortunately, how many clergy break the bruised reed and do not care for the smoking flax, but extinguish it! And they justify this by holy zeal and defense of God’s commandment! Zeal is good, but the manner of implementation here is wrong.
Violence is repulsive. Therefore, Scripture calls to gentleness.
Thus Scripture says: “Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave you” (Ephesians 4:32), and it placed gentleness among the fruits of the Spirit (Galatians 5:23).
God—blessed be His Name—was described as gentle.
The Apostle said: “But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us…” (Titus 3:4–5). He also said: “Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?” (Romans 2:4). God did not resort to severity except after all means of gentleness and calm had been exhausted.
Gentleness and non-violence fall under the virtues of meekness and humility.
Whoever is meek and humble is not violent.
So the priest who expels a girl from Communion because of lipstick on her lips is violent in his behavior, regardless of his justification by the dignity of the Holy Mysteries. Indeed, the Mysteries have their sanctity, but the means of preserving their sanctity should not be violent.
Perhaps the priest calls his behavior firmness and decisiveness. But it is violence.
In this regard, I would like to point to the Apostle’s saying:
“Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted. Bear one another’s burdens” (Galatians 6:1–2).
This is the Apostle Paul who said to his disciple Timothy the bishop: “Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching” (2 Timothy 4:2). Some mention the first part of this verse and forget the phrase “with all longsuffering and teaching,” and forget how the Apostle said to the elders of Ephesus: “For three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears” (Acts 20:31). He warned with tears, not with violence.
Here I must draw your holy attention to a phrase that some violent people may cite, namely that the Lord Christ was severe in His saying:
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Blind guides” (Matthew 23:13–16).
We respond that He acted with all gentleness toward the scribes and Pharisees in persuading them of the truth and in enduring their insults and accusations, but finally, in the last week, He said to them: “Woe to you.” He also rebuked the Jewish priests and likened them to wicked vinedressers (Matthew 21), and also rebuked the Sadducees, saying to them: “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures” (Matthew 22:29). Why did He act thus?
That was in the final week. The Lord wanted to save those who believed in Him from these Jewish leaders before founding the Church with its new leadership.
He did this after years of calm dialogue with those leaders who wanted to destroy His mission and who said of Him that He “casts out demons by Beelzebub” (Matthew 12:24), “He does not keep the Sabbath… this Man is a sinner” (John 9:16, 24), and even said to Him: “You have a demon” (John 7:20), “Do we not say rightly that You are a Samaritan and have a demon?” (John 8:48). It was therefore necessary to take a firm stand against them by exposing them.
The priest ought to keep away from violence so as not to cause the Church to stumble.
If an ordinary person is violent, he harms himself. But if a priest behaves violently, he harms the Church, and perhaps the Orthodox Church as well. By this he may scatter the people away from the Church. Perhaps what servants and visitors gather with much effort is squandered by one priest in an outburst of anger and violence.
If he says that he is correcting an error, that must be done without violence.
Violence must be avoided in dealing with everyone, especially children, who love to look at the priest with reverence as representing tender fatherhood, and also in dealing with the poor and the needy, who are often rebuked by fathers or by those working in social service. They suspect them as frauds and pretenders and deal with them harshly. Violence causes them to stumble away from the Church and its workers, at a time when they seek compassion and love.
Violence against the weak, who cannot respond in kind or do not have the courage to do so, is violence of greater responsibility.
The Desire for Domination
Many see the priesthood as a form of authority, and so they love to dominate.
The desire to dominate is a branch of self-centeredness, seeing that he has a position, authority, and rights, and imposing this on the people, on the servants, or even on his fellow servant in ministry.
Through the use of authority, his commands and prohibitions increase, his decisions, punishments, excommunications, and threats multiply. In all this he loses the spirit of fatherhood and turns into a ruler and an administrator.
In domination, the priest seeks control over all church activities—not mere supervision, but exclusive authority. He manages everything himself and paralyzes the movement of workers, so that none of them does anything except by his command or permission.
He clashes, for example, with Sunday School servants or with members of the church council. The clash continues, and the result is:
• Either a state of division that spreads to the people as well.
• Or he forces them to submit to his opinion, whether they agree or not.
• Or some of them tire of this struggle and leave the service to preserve the peace of their hearts, leaving the field clear for him to exercise his authority.
• Or he removes the servants (who do not submit to him), leaving only the obedient ones, and appoints other servants whom he controls by remote control.
If the result of authority is a clash with his fellow priest, the matter becomes a serious stumbling block among the people. Some side with Paul and others with Apollos (1 Corinthians 3). This happens when one of them monopolizes authority and does whatever he wishes without consulting his colleague, having a group that supports him and carries out his will. The other complains to the people, the circle of division widens, and it turns into hostility.
The hostility then spreads into homes through visitation and visits!
Each claims that he wants to work and that his colleague stands against him. The people become confused as to which of the two fathers is the oppressor and which is oppressed. Instead of priests solving the people’s problems, the people volunteer to solve the priests’ problems! Debate, noise, and partisanship increase.
As a result of domination, the priest may turn to stubbornness and rigidity of opinion.
Especially if he has a particular direction in ministry that some did not approve and discussed with him, and he did not accept discussion, insisting on his opinion. Then he begins to attack all those who oppose him: How do they oppose “Abouna”?! How do they stand against the priesthood?! How do they stand against the Church?! They did not stand against the priesthood nor against the Church, but they have their own thought which they present. It may even be the more correct thought! But the priest clings to his opinion, not yielding from it or from part of it, feeling that this is against his dignity!
The domineering priest does not respect the minds of others nor their will.
He does not even assume their existence except as executors of what he demands. How easy it is for him to use the phrase “On the children of obedience comes the blessing,” while obedience in his understanding means that they do not think and do not exchange opinions with him.
The priest has the right to guide, not to dominate.
In his guidance, he offers his advice and works to persuade others of it. In persuasion, he accepts the other opinion with a broad chest. If it is sound, he accepts it. He does not force people to accept a matter of which they are not convinced.
Otherwise, he will force people to distance themselves from him.
They will turn away from the Church and take a negative stance, attending only to participate in prayer, without participating in any work in which they would lose their thought and will. Thus the priest loses enlightened minds and surrounds himself only with the obedient or the flatterers.
Here the priest loses his position as a father and becomes merely a harsh leader.
He replaces fatherhood with authority. God did not prevent fathers from having authority, but alongside the phrase “Children, obey your parents in the Lord” (Ephesians 6:1), He also said: “Fathers, do not provoke your children, lest they become discouraged” (Colossians 3:21). The phrase “in the Lord” means in what agrees with God’s good will, not merely the will of the priest.
Sometimes, if the priest cannot reach persuasion, he reaches violence and irritability to enforce his authority.
Thus he adds to the error of domination many other errors. Violence may include a set of contradictions that do not accord with what people expect of an ideal befitting the priesthood.
God did not grant clergy authority by which they exalt themselves over people. Authority is merely a tool to carry out responsibility, used with spiritual restraints so that it does not become an instrument of honor and elevation.
Authority is pressure from the outside, whereas persuasion causes response from the inside. Therefore, it is more effective than authority.
The priest who persuades you, and you obey him with a restful heart, leads you to respect him and respect his pastoral approach. But the one who forces you—by authority—to obey him, you may obey while grumbling within yourself, feeling that you are compelled!
I remember that in the pledge we set for the bishop and the priest, we said: “And I do not command them beyond what they are able.”
The domineering priest wants to be first in authority. Worse than that is the one who wants to be the only one.
For better translation support, please contact the center.
