By Michael Conlon
Mon Oct 31,11:26 AM ET
The United Methodist Church’s top court has ordered a lesbian minister defrocked, overturning a lower panel’s ruling that had reversed the penalty, the church announced on Monday.
Elizabeth Stroud “was accorded all fair and due process rights” and an appeals committee that reversed her removal from the ministry in April erred in saying church officials had failed to define what a “practicing homosexual” was in terms of church law, the ruling said.
The decision by the nine-member Judicial Council is final. A church spokeswoman said Stroud could ask the panel to reconsider, but the quest would be heard by the same panel, and only two members dissented.
The ruling is the latest development over an issue that has divided Christian denominations. The ordination of an openly gay man as a bishop in the U.S. Episcopal church continues to strain relations between liberals and conservatives in that body and with the worldwide Anglican community.
The Vatican has been conducting an investigation of U.S. Roman Catholic seminaries to determine if there is a problem with homosexuality.
In December 2004 a lower church court stripped Stroud, 35, of her credentials as a minister at the First United Methodist Church of Germantown, Philadelphia, saying she violated the church’s Book of Discipline, which forbids the ordination and appointment of “self-avowed practicing homosexuals.”
Stroud was allowed to have a lesser role in the church but could not perform ceremonies such as baptisms and weddings.
Stroud told the initial hearing she was in a committed relationship with another woman and had decided to be open about her sexuality because it was the honest, Christian thing to do.
Her stance was backed by many members of her Philadelphia congregation.
more
Now if they would only stop ordaining women they will have come a long way from the brink.
Was this the woman that was profiled on Frontline or some such show a year or so ago?
On a related note, it appears that the Vatican is going to take a more measured, theologically correct and, dare I say practical stance on this issue: if you’ve been celibate at least three years and clearly intend on keeping that vow, they’ll consider you. Those who have shown that they believe in and adhere to Catholic teaching (or at least have been successful within a reasonable period of time) will not be forbidden. This is an approach that can be considered consistent with Catholic doctrine and theology.
If it goes this way, Benedict is proving that he is capable of keeping the Church authentic while refraining from conducting an unnecessary witch hunt.
#2 I believe she is.
She has received a lot of favorable press as a victim. That she was only keeping true to herself and there were “those” in the United Methodist church out to get her.
I saw the program. Yes, she was portrayed as victim. What stood out however was a measured contempt, a soft-spoken arrogance, toward anyone who questioned the morality of lesbian clergy. My impression was that she was most focused on wrestling social sanction for her lesbianism, and her position as minister was her platform.
Olympiada, in sacramental churches (those who believe that Holy Communion does indeed impart the life of Christ), women should not become priests because of the deep symbolic confusion a female priesthood would engender. In non-sacramental churches, the minister is more of an adminstrative figure and the sacramental restriction against female clergy makes no functional difference. Sacramental churches that appoint female priests (the Episcopalians for example), inevitably move towards a neo-paganism because of this symbolic confusion. Jerry is on the mark here.
In places like the Episcopal CHurch and likely the Methodist, people are *so* shocked by “active, avowed” gay clergy. Why should this surprise anyone? For the last 30 years or so any sexaul expression whatever has been allowed and encouraged by these organizations among laity. If it’s OK for them, exactly why isn’t it OK for clergy? When Robinson was made a bishop and people were horrified, it made me wonder why it was OK to be a priest shacked up with his boyfriend but not a bishop? Or a layman and not a priest? That’s way old news; very 20th century.
Note 8 Bob, revolution imposed, for the most part, from above
Bob, you might want to look at this site: Institutue on Religion and Democracy. There were and are a substantial percentage of the UMC laity that did not welcome changes in traditional Christian teaching on sexual conduct. The UMC has experienced the same phenomenon as other “Mainline” churches; those regions and individual churches which have persisted in teaching traditional Christian sexual mores have grown, those regions and individual churches that have embraced the likes of Beth Stroud have lost members. A good deal of the “revolution” was imposed from above by clergy trained in revisionist seminaries and sent out like missionaries to their own congregations.The thinly disguised intellectual condescension of the “new missionaries” was insufferable. I was there as a teenager for the beginning of it. My parents were distinctly unhappy with it, but, they coped by seeking out another Methodist church with a non-revisionist pastor.
Stroud has her own website. http://www.bethstroud.info/ She has posted some of the “sermons” she has preached in the last year. It is not too surprising, most of her sermons are all about HER!!! It is almost laughable. She has recently been quoted as saying that as much as she would like to serve as a pastor in the UMC she is unwilling to renounce the “most important relationship” in her life; that being the relationship with her “partner.” She has, quite literally and expressly, made her choice.
Missourian what Stroud has actually declared is her god. Her god is her sexuality because she is willing to sacrifice everything to retain it.
Several years ago Thomas Reeves (a reporter who is active in the Anglican movement in North America) wrote a book called “The Empty Church: Does Organized Religion Matter Anymore”. He details a lot of what you mention in your post about the mainstream protestant churches. His conclusion is that the leadership in the seven sisters of Protestantism (United Methodist Church, United Church of Christ, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Episcopal Church, Presbyterian Church USA, American Baptist Churches in the USA, the Christian Church — Disciples of Christ) are out of touch with the laity. And that they’ve been imposing “progressive” (read radical, liberal) theology on the churches that the people out of frustration are abandoning these churches in large numbers(it explains why conservative, Evangelical churches are growing).
Note 10 Jerry, you are correct
With sincere respect for the many fine Christians, both lay and clergy, who still call themselves Methodists, UMC is close to devolving into chaos.
UMC is a political whirlwind. Conservative laity and some clergy finally banded together and formed several interest groups aimed at restoring conservative theology. Liberal laity and clergy created their various groups. The entire Church is a roiling political/theological debate. Sexuality is only one issue, here are some others. Swallow your coffee or soda before reading the following list to protect your computer screen.
1)A large segment of the laity does not want to belong to the NCC or the WCC, others can’t get enough of NCC/WCC folk.
2) Some segments of the church are pushing adoption of divestment campaigns with respect to Israel.
3)Some segments of the national church administration are so close to embracing Islam they will be handing out prayers rugs at their next meeting.
4)Several retired Bishops, still active in the Church, are promoting a rejection of Christo-centrism.[Not making that up]
5)The official national organization is INCAPABLE of making a single, intelligible statement about the UMC’s teaching on abortion. Their official statement is something like “gee, we sure understand and emphathize with women who have inconvenient pregnancies BUT on the other hand we have to confirm our respect for the sacredness of human life, and we sure wish that there were some easy approach to this issue which wouldn’t involve making definitive moral statements, so we will just state that we “see both sides” of the issue and love everybody.[This approach provides great guidance for young people who might have to confront this issue in their lives.]
Again, there are many [quite possibly millions]laity and clergy in the UMC who are better Christians that I am or will ever be, but, UMC makes me crazy now. I was raised in what would now be called a conservative branch of the UMC eons ago. I am grateful to the fine pastors that led those churches. I KNOW those pastors would not be “at home” in the UMC today. I noticed things changing in the 60’s, of course. I still thank them for happy childhood memories. I am glad my parents are not alive to see what is happening now.
It’s fine to say that a woman preaching is “against Tradition” of the Orthodox or Catholic Church: you can have whatever rules you want. However, it seems a stretch to insist that it’s “pagan” to allow a woman to do so. From where are we getting this? St. Paul who said that women should not preach? Well, he also said that women should keep their heads covered, never wear makeup and never have authority over a man (which can be taken to mean within secular positions as well), passages which are frequently ignored.
I know women in more conservative services are supposed to step to the side (I think someone here was even outraged that a female touched the Eucharist), but are we appealing to “Tradition” (in the Orthodox sense), “tradition” (in the generic historical sense) or Scripture? If Scripture, it seems a bit insincere to apply one passage while neglecting the immediately surrounding ones, doesn’t it? Of course, most women would not be very satisfied if the only positions they were permitted to hold were in janitorial or food service, so perhaps these restrictions were loosened for practical purposes.
Missourian something that bothers me even more is that in the UCC it is not mandatory to accept the Trinity. It’s an optional teaching.
The ELCA have confused the concept of Holy Communion with their agreements on altar and pulpit fellowhsip with other Protestant churches that they have in essence rejected the Real Presence. Many of these churches they have agreements with deny the efficacy of the Sacraments and have reduced them to nothing more than legalistic ceremony.
Jerry
I don’t want to be disrespectful of the many good folk in UMC but I am at the forehead-slapping, speechless stage. It isn’t good for my stomach lining to dwell on it.
Right now I think it is best for me to cherish happy childhood memories, wish UMC the best and move on. I would be in a state of constant argumentative turmoil if I attended regularly.
New Moniker
I, Missourian, have decided to adopt a more suitable moniker. I know, you are undoubtedly thinking of the John Gielguid line from the movie Arthur:”Shall I alert the media?” The answer is, yes, go ahead and do so if you wish.
Missourian is straightforward but a little staid, it doesn’t really reflect my state of chronic, Rodney Dangerfieldian exasperation with current affairs. So, inspired by the Native American naming custom that gave us “Dances with Wolves” I decided to adopt “Slaps Forehead” as my new identity. Some witty folk suggested I use the name “Learns Slowly” but I thought it lacked the punch of “Slaps.” I may keep “Learns Slowly” in reserve for those days when I manage to raise my level of understanding a notch or two. But most days it will be “Slaps Forehead.”
Note 11. Olympiada, many destructive ideas appeal to people with sensitive hearts because those people respond to the ideas with their feeling but not enough thinking. Human beings have the capacity for both, and both need to be used.
Female priests are a good example. Sure, all the arguments about fairness sound reasonable and appeal to our sense of fair play. It is so ingrained that we react reflexively towards any idea that ostensibly challenges it.
Yet, when we begin to consider those challenges on their own merits, we see that often our objections draw from a different place that has nothing to do with the challenge.
Symbolic confusion means that when a female priestess holds up the Chalice (remember, we are talking about sacramental churches here), there is a confusion created (on a level deeper than rationality and appearance) between the power of Christ to impart new life — represented by the Chalice, and the power of woman to create new life — represented by her body and intrinsic to womanhood.
Males, OTOH, have no creative power to create new life. (Males only contribute one half the genetic code in the creation of another human being.) Our body, our blood, comes solely from the mother — the female.
When a male priest holds up the Chalice — which represents the new life that Christ offers through His body and blood, there is no confusion because the male cannot create new life. It is clear on a deep level of understanding that the life offered by Christ is of a completely different kind than a human being can offer. We don’t confuse the two means of creation: 1) the human ability to create new human beings; and 2) the re-creation by Christ of the human being through His life – His body and blood.
Where these two things are collapsed together, you revert back to paganism (hence neo-paganism). You elevate human drives and powers to godly status by either attributing them to the gods, or by granting divine sanction and status to human desires and passions — different directions but same process. In theological terms it means that god is bound to the same space and time that we are (contrary to Genesis which places God outside of space and time).
This is one reason why there is such preoccupation with sexual matters in these churches. Obscure the transcendent God of Abraham who lives above the heavens — outside of space and time (“the God above all gods”) — with the curtain of passion and desire, and sexual drive will arise as the preeminent and driving force both within the individual and the communities to which he belongs. Note how these churches define themselves almost exclusively by where they stand on sexual matters.
Observation: accepting female clergy can lead to attempts to rewriting Scripture
This is just a laywoman’s comment derived from my experience. I have attended churches that ordained women and in each case there arose an effort to rewrite Scripture to remove male pronouns. If you have accepted female clergy it is difficult to argue against rewriting Scripture in this way. Once you start rewriting Scripture you have elevated your own ideas above Scripture and removed Scripture, IMHO, from its proper place of holy reverence.
I have also observed that ordaining females tends to open the door of the church to pagan ideas. Could a church ordain females and still resist the advance of pagan ideas? Maybe, I don’t know. I am just reporting what I have observed.
Olympiada, what would we be restoring if we â??restored the female diaconateâ??? Was the female diaconate in ancient times an office of holy orders or was it a title to a position? The diaconate as it exists today is looked at largely as a stepping stone to the priesthood and its functions are predominately sacramental in nature. If we ordain women to that diaconate, we are ordaining them to a sacramental office with all of the attendant problems Fr. Hans outlines.
The diaconate described in Holy Scripture does not appear to be sacramental in nature, but rather an office of service to the Christian Community. The deacons saw to the needs of the community, maintained order, prepared catechumens, etc. If we are once again to have female deacons, weâ??d have to restore the whole office of the diaconate as described in Holy Scripture as a non-sacramental diaconate, open to both men and women while the sacramental diaconate still remained open only to men. I think you might find that the duties of the non-sacramental deacon would be very little different than those currently preformed by the dedicated laity in every parish around the world. Do we really need any special laying on of hands for that?
Does the desire for a female diaconate come from a place of wanting to strengthen the Church or does it come from a desire for more power, more authority for women within the Church? IMO opinion what needs to happen is a fundamental recognition of the equality of men and women in the Church in different but complimentary functions. The more we can breakdown the idea that the offices of the deacon, priest, and bishop are offices of power, the better off we will be. The less we seek power, the better off we will be. The way of Christ is the way of the Cross. That applies to all of us equally.
I would much rather see the routine tonsuring of women as readers. Those who fulfill the office of reader ought to be given the dignity of the blessing. I also object to the routine practice of â??deacon for a dayâ?? just so someone can be ordained to the priesthood the next day. Such practice trivializes the diaconate. IMO, the routine practice ought to be for a man ordained to the diaconate to serve as a deacon for at least a year. During that year, he would concentrate on serving the needs of the people in his community in all possible ways as well as learning the liturgics more completely. If we did that, weâ??d have more deacons and better priests.
Maybe someone can clarify this for me. I was under the impression that convents/nuns were the example of the role of woman serving in the church?
To me arguing for a woman diaconate is just one step away from women serving in Word and Sacraments.
How would a female deaconate strengthen women in the Church?
Olympiada, if you read my post carefully, you will see that I said the diaconate as it is regarded today is primarily as a stepping stone to the priesthood. It is also clearly a liturgical and sacramental office.
You may dispute, as do I, that such was the original nature of the office, but such dispute does not change the fact of its character today.
As long as the diacontate is looked at in those terms, ordaining women to it would neither strengthen the women nor the Church. In fact, it might very well weaken the men and the leadership expected from us. Men do not become better men when they are feminized as is the cultural pressure these days. Women do not become better women when they take on male attributes and functions. It is no surprise to me that many of the women ordained by the Espicopal Church have been lesbian as they have already disordered gender identification.
In any case, the plain fact of the matter is that the ordination of women in liturgical churches has been an avenue for the paginzation of those churches. We have many converts who came to the Holy Orthodox Church to escape the on-slaught. As long as those folks are still around, they will not stand by silently and see it happen to them again.
If you want to have any scaramental attribute as part of the office of the female diaconate, I cannot see such a “restoration” occuring (it would not be a restoration at all, but an innovation). If you want female clergy, there are plenty of other places where you can have them. The fundamental theology of the Orthodox Church does not accept them. By pushing for an offical sacredotal role for women, you are asking for a fundamental change in the theology of the Church.
I see no valid reason to make such a change.
Michael,
The diaconate as a stepping stone to the priesthood is not accurate in regards to all jurisdictions. In the Greek Archdiocese, it is currently required that all Deacons have completed the seminary. With few exceptions, men who give up years of their lives in study usually accept the priesthood. Though I have met at least one exception who serves in Dallas at the large Greek Church there.
As I heard the story, this was done because decades ago one bishop or another decided to solve a priest shortage by ordaining deacons to the full priesthood. These deacons had no theological education, and the whole project worked out very badly. So, in a sense, the situation in the Greek Archdiocese is a reaction to a past mistake.
In the OCA, things are completely different. In a parish of only two hundred families, we currently have two tonsured deacons. One is a sub-deacon, and the other a proto-deacon. Both were trained here locally. Neither has the slightest interest in going to the seminary, as they both have secular jobs and are just fine with what they are doing. Their job is to help the priests (we have two), and that is absolutely the extent of their ambitions. This is not a strange situation either. Most OCA parishes that I have visited in my life have at least one deacon, and it is usually the end-of-the-line liturgically for that person. Only once did I see a deacon serve for a long time, and then finally be elevated to the priesthood. However, in that case, the man was a former Catholic monk with a higher Theological degree and 30 years in a monastery.
It is imperative to not generalize about jurisdictions in the U.S., or even about different dioceses. We don’t have one gold standard here, as each bishop has a tendency to ‘go his own way’ on certain things.
As for female deacons, I defer to the hierarchs on this. However, I would say that we need to be extremely clear on their function in the church. I am not sure why, if the did not have a liturgical role, they would even need to exist. Women in our parish do lots of things, and none of them are tonsured. To be honest, I have two ministries in my local parish and I am not tonsured in anyway, nor do I want to be. I have enough trouble with my own soul without attracting any more attention.
Hello!
I just found this blog while i was desperately seeking for new information about FEMINISM and Orthodoy…I really wonder whether there is a thing like that since orthodox women always avoid that term…unfortunately my university provides me with books from the 90s… I hope so much that one of you can help me.
thanks in advance,
Sara
Frederica Mathewes-Green
You might enjoy reading Frederica Matthewes-Green at her site http://www.frederica.com/ She is a wonderful writer. She’s authored several books which can be found on Amazon or in most libraries.
Check out St Nina’s Quarterly:
http://www.stnina.org/home.htm
Note 29 St. Nina’s Quarterly: Feminism Judges the Church and Finds it Wanting
Reads just like United Methodist Church literature in the 1970’s. Essentially what is going on is that the Church is being judged by a system of thought outside of itself, that system of thought is feminism. Feminism always first presents itself as nothing more than the application of equitable principles, but, it is, in fact, a deep rebellion against the family, Western culture, and, in the end, Christianity and the Scriptures.
The proposed changes all seem so simple and so harmless but in the end they open the door for rewriting Scripture. The True Church needs no change. It is perfect as it is. There is nothing more valuable than salvation and women have full access to salvation. This is careerism on that part of some female theologial students who want earthly power and status.
This is EXACTLY how it started in the Mainline churches. Now churches built by faithful Christians are promoting lesbianism and paganism. All in the course of a few decades.
Note, I am an attorney licensed to practice in two states with twenty years experience. I entered law school when only 10% of the entering class were women. Please don’t tell me about the struggle for equal POLITICAL and ECONOMIC rights in this country. I was dealing with the male legal profession years before half of the people posting on St. Nina’s were born.
Salvation Insufficient, Scripture Needs its Mistakes Corrected
If you love God and have a living hope for your salvation what more could you want?
A CAREER!!! You want titles, robes, offices and positions which allow you to BE a full-time intellectual. You need a career. You need a thesis topic. You need a reason to be called to speak at “ground-breaking” conferences on theological issues. You need a theme for your next book which will be ALL THE RAGE among intellectual circles. You need your picture on the cover of TIME with the phrase “Pioneering Orthodox Theologian.” But most of all, you NEED a steady paycheck.
Gosh darn it, the feminists already own the Mainline Prostestant churches, no new ground to break there. They already have conferences claiming that character of Wisdom noted in the Old Testament is a legitimate FEMALE goddess figure that was unjustly abandoned by later generations of ancient Hebrews and that this female goddess figure must be restored to the prominence she deserves. They already have “scholars” telling us that the persons recording the New Testament omitted important information about Mary Magdalene because the writers were misogynists. The “scholars” are telling us we cannot trust the writings of St. Paul because they can supposedly prove that St. Paul was a misogynist. Can’t trust St. Paul, the Lord made a mistake by entrusting so much to St. Paul, luckily we know better because we live in the 21st century. Yes, Scripture needs a lot of help, a lot of corrections. Luckily, the feminist theologians are here to help. The Lord also made a mistake by choosing twelve male apostles, that needs to be corrected as soon as possible.
The Scriputre NEEDS improvement and correction, and female theologians are the ones to do this important work. But remember, it all starts with calls for “equity” and the application of the worthy principle of” “Why not change, it wont’ hurt anything, and it will give female theologians something more important to do.” Psst, whatever you do, don’t look at what happened to the Mainline Protestants when they opened the door for feminist revisionism.
St. Nina’s Goal is Not Hidden
It is clear that the goal of the St. Nina’s website is the admission of women to the priesthood. Please see this excerpt from an interview with a female theologian: Susan Ashbrook Harvey. Here is a quote
START QUOTE:
Iâ??m puzzled that the ordination of women to the diaconate is even a question. The [female] diaconate is in our history. It is canonically part of our history. The Coptic Church right now is showing how lively and vital that ministry can be. I think the question of the ordination to the priesthood is where I would put my sights. It is, of course, my conviction that there will be no ordination of women to the Orthodox priesthood for the next few hundred years. But it is also my conviction that there someday will be. The reason is not because of women and their place in society but because the priesthood is something to which the Holy Spirit calls the individual, and the Holy Spirit calls whom the Holy Spirit will. We cannot tell the Holy Spirit whom to call. Women are called to the priesthoodâ??we know this, we see this. Women leave churches that donâ??t ordain women if they must have that call fulfilled. Women have always had to respond to the call of the Spirit in ways that can be disturbing to society. The stories of women saints are full of such actions.
END QUOTE
This is a lady with an agenda, she states it clearly. Be forewarned. This is EXACTLY how feminism started in the Mainline Protestant Churhces. EXACTLY. The same arguments, the historical references. This is the SAME phenomenon which has come to a Church near you. Underneath it all, is the assertion that the Church has been wrong and misguided for 2000 years and no one discovered that until the 21st century. The Church was wrong on one of the most important matters, the nature of the priesthood.
If the Church has been wrong on such an important point for so long, then surely we need to change the Scriptures. One article on St. Nina’s discusses whether the maleness of Jesus was important. It concludes that the maleness of Jesus was not. Given that, we need to rewrite the Bible. We need to take out references to the Father, Son and Holy Spririt and replace them with the correct Parent, Offspring and Holy Spirit. Of course, the Old Testament needs alot of work also. So much to do. Jesus is referred to as the Bridegroom of the Church, this has to be changed and retranslated as “bridegroom” is exclusively male. Again, so much to change. So much work for “groundbreaking female theologians” who will get their pictures on the cover of TIME magazine. Imagine the POWER, the POWER to sit in judgment on Holy Scripture and the POWER to rewrite it. Why that is Godlike power, isn’t it?
AGAIN, orthodox believers will be supporting this woman whose goal is to CORRECT AND CHANGE THE CHURCH. Please accept these warnings from a former member of the United Methodist Church, this woman is not far from rewriting the Scriptures and arguing for androgyny and all that entails. It only took about 40 years to virtually destroy a Church (UMC) formerly grounded on the authority of Scripture
Missourian is right. Orthodox feminists who want a female priesthood might as well move to a church that the feminist reformation has already disfigured beyond recognition.
Several decades ago, Saul Alinsky (one of Hillary Rodham’s mentors) wrote Rules for Radicals. Two things stuck with me from the book. First, he repeatedly (and I mean repeatedly) encouraged readers to be comfortable with the idea that “the ends justify the means.”
Second, he had a good point about the uses of change. When wholesale change is taking place, even if people approve of it by and large, they will become so disoriented by it that it is easy to slip in additional, more radical changes of which they would not approve if they had their wits about them.
Ever since I became aware of this cynical and subversive use of change, I have taken an aggressively skeptical view of changes that purport to be innocent. I (at long last) have special scorn for the argument that change is a natural part of life, therefore one needs to embrace change to live life properly, and therefore one needs to support this particular (fill in the blank) change to be a good person.
Hillary wrote her senior thesis on Alinsky at Wellesley. It has guided her political career ever since. Alinsky drew from Gramsci. See: Why There is A Culture War for more background.
Print the article and read it in sections.
Imagine the POWER, the POWER to sit in judgment on Holy Scripture and the POWER to rewrite it. Why that is Godlike power, isn’t it
Are you cynical about theologians and their motives generally, or just the female ones? I don’t know that much about the women who produce SNQ – I think the web site is fairly new, though the publication has been around for a while. (At the moment, the site seems to be down.) I thought of it, did a search, and posted the link because someone was specifically asking for information on feminism and Orthodoxy. Mathewes-Green (sp? I am never sure w/out checking) offers one perspective on the subject, and certainly on a personal level provides an example of a strong articulate Orthodox woman with a vocation to serve the church in the world,
Missourian, slapping her forehead, said
I was dealing with the male legal profession years before half of the people posting on St. Nina’s were born.
Maybe, though I suspect that most of those who contribute and post are not all that young.
My biggest question on ordaining women to the priesthood is why?
I see a lot of rhetoric about “calling”, individual rights, etc., but no real attempt to answer why. The Church does not exist to satisfy callings, the Church does not exist to guarantee rights to her members, and as Fr. Alexander Schmemann pointed out in For the Life of the World, the Church does not exist even to help. She exists as the channel for salvation through the grace of the Incarnate, Crucified, Risen, and Ascended Lord, Jesus Christ.
How does not having female priests or deacons hinder anyone’s salvation? Is not the grace of Jesus Christ offered freely to anyone who believes and repents? Are we not all called to live a sacramental life in the Holy Spirit?
Ambition for the priesthood no matter the gender of the person is the surest sign that such a person should not be a priest. Ambition seems to be the central motivation involved in seeking the priesthood for women.
Note 36: “Why?”
I think maybe it is because those advocating the ordination of women are guided to one degree or another by the assumption that social interactions are merely a struggle for power. Institutions such as the church and are merely social constructs built to guarantee power of one group (men) over another (women). The clergy, being a position of leadership reserved for men, is merely a part of that construct. I think “ambition” is a good word, because at the root of it all is a misguided desire for power couched in good democratic terms like “equality.”
Note 37.
I posted too soon. To finish my point: I don’t think proponents of female ordination can adequately answer the “why” questions posed by Michael in #36 because such considerations are not part of their formula.
Note 35 Juli, WARNING: Ignore history at your peril.
Same language, same arguments, same prediction, same goal, same destructive result
The language that I quoted from Susan Ashbrook Harvey is EXACTLY THE SAME LANGUAGE I sat and listened to in the United Methodist Church in the 1970’s. EXACTLY THE SAME LANGUAGE.
The revisionist arguments mentioned by Susan Ashbrook Harvey are EXACTLY THE SAME ARGUMENTS I sat and listened to in the United Methodist Church in the 1970’s. EXACTLY THE SAME ARGUMENTS.
The smug little prediction that the Orthodox Church will ordain women in 400 years, is EXACTLY THE SAME TYPE OF PREDICTIONS that I sat and listened to in the United Methodist Church in the 1970’s. EXACTLY THE SAME TYPE OF PREDICTIONS.
You don’t want to look down the block and see the shambles that is the United Methodist Church. You don’t want to acknowledge that the VERY SAME PEOPLE, with the VERY SAME IDEOLOGY and the VERY SAME GOALS have moved into your Church.
These are FACTS. These FACTS EXIST independently of my personality and your personality. Even if I were the most despicable human being on the planet, it would not change the FACTS. SAME LANGUAGE, SAME ARGUMENTS, SAME PREDICTION, SAME GOAL, SAME DESTRUCTIVE RESULT
Your response to my assertions are to try to find a way to dimiss me as a CYNICAL PERSON. This is called “kill the messenger.” I am not dealing with opinion. I am dealing with FACTS and HISTORY. All you have to do is read the history of the struggles of the UMC and the ECUSA.
You can dismiss me, but, you cannot dismiss history. Ignore it at your peril.
Note 35 Juli, Do you want women ordained in the Orthodox Church?
Juli, do you want women ordained as priests in the Orthodox Church?
#39
I would add PCUSA, UCC, ELCA, American Baptist Churches, and the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).
No, but I also didn’t leave the Episcopal church over that issue (or over any issue, for that matter; I was embracing Orthodoxy but with a sense of gratitude to the Christian traditions and communities that had nourished me).
I do think (as do many others, including not a few priests) that the question of who can serve as acolytes is entirely separate from the question of who can be ordained. (I mention that because the question of female altar servers is one topic of current discussion on the St Nina site.) Certainly women can be (and are) theologians, so that’s also a different issue. Another separate question is the diaconate.
Btw, what makes you think I am ignoring history. I posted a link – a fairly obvious one – in response to a question. I do think that the Orthodox church is having to (and should have to) grapple with these questions.
Augie –
You are right to be skeptical of the leftists who seek to use such a philosophy of the “ends justify the means.”
But you should also be skeptical of those who call themselves conservatives, but have the same philosophy. They may disguise themselves better, but they are leading us down the same path.
An example of this philosophy is that of Michael Ledeen of the AEI who wrote a book called, “Machiavelli on Modern Leadership,” in which Ledeen praises a business leader for correctly understanding Machiavelli: “There are no absolute solutions. It all depends. What is right and what is wrong depends on what needs to be done and how.”
For many ‘conservatives,’ Machiavelli is a guide to proper conduct. What matters is power, not righteousness, and the ends absolutely justify the means. Noble lies are exhalted as a necessity for good governance.
Many ‘rightists’ are, in fact, atheists. Leo Strauss, for example, who has been so influential on the neoconservatives was an atheist. Here is a writer on Frontpage.com addressing Strauss’ religious views: “Strauss believed that the great competitor of philosophy is revealed religion. He believed that reason and revelation cannot refute each other. He believed that religion was the great necessity for ordinary men. For him, religion is in essence revealed law, and he took his native Judaism to be its paradigm. Strauss had an ambivalent attitude towards Christianity. On the one hand, Christianity is the only practicable religion for America. On the other hand, Christianity has troubling strands within it, like St. Aquinasâ??s claim that reason and revelation are compatible, for him the precise opposite of the most important truth. It is a commonplace that Christianity is a synthesis of Greek philosophy with biblical theism; Strauss rejects the idea that such a synthesis is possible. For him, religion is at bottom simply dogmatic and unapologetic about it. It is not quite credo quia absurdum est, but it is a very bright line in the sand. Nietzsche was right: man needs lies. Or, as we saw above, maybe some men donâ??t.”
But that doesn’t stop such ‘conservatives’ from using religion for their own ends. Michael Ledeen wrote also, “Dying for one’s country doesn’t come naturally. Modern armies, raised from the populace, must be inspired, motivated, indoctrinated. Religion is central to the military enterprise, for men are more likely to risk their lives if they believe they will be rewarded forever after for serving their country.”
Some conservatives have junked Christianity altogether, and reverted back to paganism or a commitment to Old Testament Judaism. Writers published in National Review have called for a revival of ‘pagan’ ethos.
Among the ‘born again,’ we have seen a conscious de-emphasis of the teachings of Jesus in exchange for a greater dose of Old Testament fire and sword.
So – congrats on recognizing the moral bankruptcy of the left. Just don’t assume that everyone who calls himself/herself a ‘conservative’ or writes in a ‘conservative’ outlet is actually a true conservative in the mold of Russell Kirk, Robert Nisbet, or C.S. Lewis. They aren’t. The use religion as a tool for their own ends, but they don’t believe in it themselves.
It seems that the opposition to female ordination is less against women preaching from the pulpit or assuming other traditionally male roles (although I’m uncertain as to how public speaking is specifically a masculine endeavor) but rather against the liberal theology that often (but not always) accompanies their ordination.
So I guess the question is if the lady in question maintained opposition to abortion and other hot-button “liberal” social issues, would it be less an issue? Keep in mind that the conservative Southern Baptists and Evangelical Lutheran denominations have about 10,000 female clergy each, and we rarely, if ever, hear of any controversy coming from them.
Now if one is opposed to a woman speaking from the pulpit on Scripture no matter what her interpretation of it is, that is a different story. This does raise the question as to why she should then be permitted to offer any interpretation of Scripture anywhere, though, whether in front of a congregation or a classroom.
James the Southern Baptists reversed themselves at their 2000 conference and passed resolutions that women should not be pastors, i.e. they rejected woman’s ordination.
Also the ELCA is dealing with many of the same problems the ECUSA is dealing with concerning woman’s ordination. One of the major issues is many of the churches have refused to accept woman pastors (it’s resulted in many woman pastors in the ELCA, but no churches). When Bishops have imposed a woman pastor on a congregation, many times the congregation’s membership dramatically declines or outright disappears. There are some exceptions in cities known for their progressive views. But generally in the Synod it doesn’t play in Peoria.
Many ELCA pastors are also leaving the synod. Many are going to the ELS, others have made their way to the LCMS, Rome, or Orthodoxy.
In general the idea of woman’s ordination is still a hot topic among the Lutheran synods.
Why you’re not aware of this controversy among the ELCA, the only answer I can offer that is you’re not looking out for it.
more…
more…
Note 42, Juli, If you don’t support women’s ordination, then why support Susan Ashbrook Harvey
Is there any doubt after reading the quote from Susan Ashbrook Harvey, that Ms. Harvey is an advocate of female priests in the Orthodox Church?
Is there any doubt that the website is providing a safe haven for Ms. Harvey to advance her cause?
Is there any doubt that a website which posts an essay arguing that the “maleness” of Christ was unimportant is beginning its work towards establishing androgeny?
As I said, Juli, Susan Ashbrook Harvey, is using EXACTLY THE SAME APPROACH as was used in the U.M.C. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Somewhat childish but applicable I think.
WARNING, in support of their goal to obtain the positions of priest, bishop, archbishop, many feminist theologians (whether male or female) will EVENTUALLY CHANGE everything in the Church that stands in their way.
They will gleefully change the liturgy, the vestments, the interpretation of Scripture, the translation of Scripture and the theology FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACHIEVING THEIR GOALS: POWER IN THE CHURCH, INFLUENCE, RESPECT AND HONOR in the community and life-long sinecures as intellectuals (indoor work, no heavy lifting).
Will they believe they are doing God’s work? Sure. Will it be God’s work? NO
Missourian what is the Orthodox policy on the NRSV (gender neurtral translation popular with many churches that ordain women)?
If you don’t support women’s ordination, then why support Susan Ashbrook Harvey
?? When did I mention anything about SAH? Why would you assume that if I cite a URL I agree with everything posted on the site?
Note 34: Thanks for the reminder about the article, Father.
Note 43: Glen, thanks for the reminder that people who label themselves “conservative” come in all varieties, may be atheists, may be flying under false colors, may believe the end justifies the means, may be evil. Yes indeed, and it never hurts to be reminded.
Interesting, Glen, that you should mention this right now. Some friends we’ve known for years but see infrequently were visiting us recently. I mentioned I’d been attending church and found comfort and purpose in it. I was surprised at the reaction. I think everyone has been subjected at one time or another to a hard-sell conversion attempt by a zealot of some religion or denomination different from one’s own. This time the hard sell I was getting was from a couple of atheists. Although the conversation was superficially polite, it was surprisingly lengthy and inquisitive. I felt I was being led through an atheist lesson plan, whose answers I gave in a way that was highly disappointing to my guests. They came close to implying that if I was a believer, there was something grossly defective with my moral compass, not to mention my reasoning ability. Nearly as I can tell, my epistemology was as unacceptable as my faith, and was seen as the beginning of all my problems. 8>)
I wasn’t perturbed in the least, but I was surprised. Every time I think I’ve seen it all, I’m reminded that I’m not even close. Live and learn. Best regards, folks.
Note 49 Jerry
Not qualfied to answer, Jerry.
Note 52 Juli,
I stand corrected.
Note 52 Slow Changes
What I observed in the UMC was a series of slow changes that occurred in response to the original decision to ordain women. Slowly, bit by bit, the Church was transformed and changed. Eventually, one day you realize that the changes had effected nearly everything in the Church. Eventually, it dawns on you that there is nothing that will STAND UP THIS CHANGE AGENT. Women’s ordination requires that everything be rewritten, or using their own loathsome term “re-imagined.” Accommodating women’s ordination becomes primary over every other tenent of Church teaching.
Imagine a wooden structure with a circular hole. Now imagine using great force to pound an square iron stake into that circular hole. After a while the wooden structure breaks under the force.
About the NRSV, I suspect there isn’t an official Orthodox policy. I found this comment:
The initial reactions to the NRSV from Orthodox scholars (biblical and otherwise) have ranged from “I can find absolutely nothing good about it – nothing at all,” to “As far as I am concerned, the NRSV is the best translation available.” Most, however, being less zealous, give the NRSV qualified praise or qualified denunciation.
More here:
http://www.holy-trinity.org/liturgics/nrsv.html