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
Juli, RE note 42: “I do think that the Orthodox church is having to (and should have to) grapple with these questions.” Obviously, we are having to contend with the same questions that have riven Protestant denominations, but the question I still have is why should we? Anyone who seriously considers the implications of ordination of women within the Orthodox framework can see clearly the destruction such a move would cause. I cannot help but believe that there are those among the proponents of women’s ordination who want exactly that or they would simply go eleswhere. IMO serious belief in a woman’s “right” to ordination and all of the theological baggage that comes with such a belief means that the people are no longer Orthodox anyway and therefore should have no right to publish as Orthodox or to effect Orthodox theology in any way, shape, or form. The fact that women’s ordination and paganism go hand in hand–as Missourian rightly points out–can be evidentially shown by the experience of the denominations who have instituted it.
We do have a responsibility to articulate the revealed truth of the Church. There are good and cogent reasons for a male only priesthood, we must know them and stand on them without rancor or defensiveness–but to “grapple” with the issue implies that there is credibility to the position and all of the associated heresy and apostasy.
Worldy equity and the equality of holy personhood demonstrated by Jesus and confirmed for all by the grace of the Incarnation regardless of gender are vastly different. Equality does not mean identity. To assert the opposite, as the proponents of women’s ordination do, is both a logical and a theological fallacy. We must affirm the absolutely free and equal offering of salvation by our Lord through the Church regarless of gender or any other condition without falling into the fallacy. We must do all that we can to promote the dignity of women and prevent the oppression of women within and outside the Church. We must do more to change the sexual mores of our culture that make sexual hedonism acceptable, that devalue both men and women, destroy the family and make the womb subject to violence and death. Exactly the opposite has taken place in many denominations that have accepted female ordination.
Mary said of herself, “My soul doth magnify the Lord.” By extension such is the role of all women–to take the spiritual reality in the Church and give it a form, a substance and a functional reality that men are not as equipped to do. When St. Paul equates marriage with both the Church and Christ’s sacrifice for us, he is calling men to live kenotically within marriage, not to subject women to mindless slavery. Most men, including me, fail miserably, but the goal is still there. The Church should hold men to that task. The holy acceptance demonstrated by Mary is largely foreign to men. The Church requires it, men do also. That function is largely forgotten when the goal of women is the priesthood. Likewise the masculine leadership is diminished if not destroyed. All suffer in such a community.
The going up before God, presenting the sins of the people in direct imitation of Christ in the Garden is masculine in nature–even though the Apostles did not do a very good job of it in the Garden. The Bible does not report any women disiciples in the Garden, they are at the Cross.
In this time of Advent in the icon of the Holy Nativity and the Gospel story, the Church clearly shows us the differing functions of men and women in the persons of Mary and Joseph, what they do and how they act. I contemplate that frequently.
I am probably not making myself very clear, but I pray to God that at least a glimmer of the truth can be seen in my awkward words.
If it were not for Jesus Christ, women would not have the political and social freedom they have today. Clearly we need to do much more to strengthen both the dignity of women and the essential equality that exists between men and women without distorting or destroying the functioning differences which are essential to understanding ourselves in Christ and maintaining a faithful witness to His salvific grace, the need for repentance and virtue–to proclaim the Kingdom of Heaven not to give into the world.
Note 56 Feminism has no right to challenge the Church, it is the Church that should challenge feminism.
I have stated that feminism asserts the right to judge the Church by feminism’s standards. Feminism seeks to act as an accuser and drag the Church to Court to sit as a defendant to the charge of injustice against women. But what is the nature of the feminist worldview that seeks to intrude in the life of the Church and to judge the Church?
It is a worldview that actually holds femininity in contempt. Only people who hold the life-giving and life-nurturing function of the female in contempt could promote abortion. Michael is right. Many in the feminist movement make a point of expressing disrespect for the Virgin Mary, counting her as a non-entity unworthy of emulation or respect. I am sure that no feminist theologian addressing any Orthodox group would do so, but, that is what their secular mentors are doing back at the University at which these feminist theologians received their training.
Given that there is so much in the modern feminist worldview that is directly contradictory to and hostile to the teachings of the Church on marriage and family, why would any reasonable person think that Church leaders should have to stop, invite these people in and respond to their critiques and demand for change?
There is no need for the Church to “grapple” with these questions. Feminists have no right to challenge the Church. They have no right to drag Her into Court and point fingers and make accusations. The Church’s teaching on marriage, family and gender does not require review or reconsideration. Far from that, it is the Church that should challenge 21st century radical feminism for the failure it clearly is.
There is no need for the Church to “grapple” with these questions.
I know Orthodox priests who believe we (in the church today) are not doing very well at articulating an Orthodox theology of the priesthood. Incidentally, I’ve heard that said by Orthodox priests who are firmly in support of the male priesthood but also believe that many of the standard “arguments” advanced in its defense miss the mark entirely. Being relatively new to Orthodox Christianity myself, I tend to trust them on this point.
But yes, the Church does need to engage the world and its arguments honestly, which sometimes does mean “grappling” – why ever not?
So the answer to why women should never be ordained is not that their accompanying theology is often silly or errant, but simply that it is not a role ordained by God for them. That is an answer. So, the following (and logical) question to this answer is why this view should not extend towards secular life as well. If roles are ordained not specifically due to the very real physical limitations of women (which I do acknowledge) but simply due to the symbolic element these roles have, why would God ordain a woman to take any position in life (religious or secular) that denies her intrinsic “femaleness”?
I’m assuming we believe that God has some interest in our secular positions, no? So why would a female ever become a Prime Minister, since this requires a great deal of authority? Why would a man become a chef or a grief counselor, since these require sensitivity and domestic skills, both recognized as feminine qualities? I hope this doesn’t sound silly.
It is a worldview that actually holds femininity in contempt. Only people who hold the life-giving and life-nurturing function of the female in contempt could promote abortion.
Your view of feminism is a bit stereotyped. For one thing, not all feminists favor abortion (to wit: Feminists for Life).
Besides which, even if you assume that the feminists are all outside the Church (and they’re not), since when does the Church not address and respond to secular arguments? And why would those raising questions about or even critizing the Church from the outside think they had no right tp do so? That might make some sense, but I hear evangelical Protestants carrying on about “cafeteria Catholics,” for example, as if they had a right to make judgments about who is and who is not a Catholic – so I think it’s pretty hard to tell people outside the Church (esp when you are trying to evangelize) that they have no business to ask questions.
Michael writes: “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.”
I think the reason is that many people simply do not understand the world in terms of sexist roles, and saying that women cannot do this-or-that comes across as arbitrary and groundless.
I mean, look at the history of the situation. Until recent decades, women were forced into particular roles for no other reason than that they were women. My “eyes were opened” in the time period from 1969 to 1977. In 1970 I was 17 years old and worked night shift at a local fruit cannery. I remember that there were men’s job and women’s jobs. What the women did was to pick rotten fruit off of the conveyor belts. That was it. Period. And that particular job, not surprisingly, was the lowest-paid job in the plant.
Now cut to 1977. The distinction between men’s and women’s jobs had been eliminated, and anyone could do any job that he or she could in fact perform. We had female machine operators, forklift drivers, scale attendants, and so on. And the amazing thing was that everything worked just fine. Looking upon the situation in 1977 it was easy to see that the split in earlier years between men’s and women’s jobs was completely unnecessary and groundless.
And we’ve see that kind of change almost everywhere else. Occupations that were once virtually the exclusive domain of males are no longer that way. We’re no longer surprised by the presence of women in these positions. For example, the other day I met a female criminologist from the police department. When I met her I was very surprised. But what surprised me wasn’t her gender, but the fact that criminologists have different uniforms. What didn’t surprise me was seeing a woman walking around with a large-frame Glock on her belt.
Now Michael asks the question of why women should be ordained. The flip side is to ask “why not?” And frankly, the arguments that I’ve heard on the topic are pretty thin. The priest has to be male because Jesus was male. . . . Well, maybe the priest has to be middle eastern too. Maybe the priest has to speak Aramaic. Maybe the priest has to be of Jewish descent. Out of all the possible qualifications and requirements, it turns out that — drumroll please — maleness is the key factor.
The other argument I’ve heard is Fr. Han’s view that having a female priest causes some kind of peturbation in the priestly symbology. It was a clever argument, but a very obscure argument, and one that I simply could not grasp.
What’s interesting to me is that even conservative protestant churches, without any priestly role or ministry, ALSO do not ordain women. So even in conservative churches where the priestly symbology doesn’t exist, there’s still an argument against women. And then in very conservative Jewish groups, without any Christian considerations, we still see the same prohibition against female clergy. And then we look at Islam, without the Jewish or Christian Bible, and there’s STILL the same prohibition. What’s going on here?
In religious groups where strong social conservatism is in operation, we don’t see female clergy — whether Orthodox, Catholic, protestant, Jewish, or Muslim. As far as I can tell, that is the actual factor in operation against female clergy, and the factor from which all these other pretextual arguments are generated.
So the problem with not having female clergy is that it forces people to accept explanations that are, to some extent, dishonest. It forces people to find justifications or excuses for a situation that is essentially unjustifiable and inexcusable. And that fact that these excuses are expressed in religious language is all the more disturbing.
Augie wrote:
“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.”
That is an ongoing topic of debate. The current thinking is that modern, secular morality is superior to the religiously based variety. There was a study recently that puported that secular societies were healthier than the United States in a whole host of criteria. This was supposed to show that non-religious people were better adjusted than religious.
Reviewing the results, I got the impression that countries with a strong Anglican, Catholic, Orthodox, or Lutheran heritage are doing better than the U.S. with its strong evangelical tradition. But, the atheists among us seized upon this differently.
Reading a lot of progressive writers who are liberal Christians, along with atheists, I can easily see how the current religious climate can be manipulated to paint religion in a bad light. Every time you turn on talk radio, you hear people who claim to be Christians foaming at the mouth,angrily calling for someone’s head. During various points in the Iraqi campaign, you get writers associated with Christian organizations calling for the complete destruction of various cities to teach the insurgents a lesson.
For the non-believer, the face of Christianity in the United States is Pat Robertson – calling for the assassination of a foreign leader who was democratically elected. And we, the Orthodox and Catholic believers in the United States, are doing practically nothing to counter this fact. Nothing. Zippo.
The atheists are feeling morally superior to us. To a certain extent, they are right to – provided that Pat Robertson and not Pope Benedict XVI or Metropolitan Herman is your standard of holiness. I have met many secular athiests and agnostics that had a much better sense of right and wrong than most evangelicals with whom I am either acquainted or even related. Most of my secular humanist friends could ever actually defend torture, for example. (I’m not defending secular humanism, just making a point that not all secular humanists are personally bad.)
This is one reason why I am constantly warning the pro-Bush side (I consider myself a traditional conservative, but since Bush isn’t, I don’t consider him to be on my side) to watch the pro-war, pro-death penalty, and other strident rhetoric, particularly on the war. Since we are trying to win the lost, it doesn’t help our case to say ‘God is love’ and then advocate large-scale bombing of foreign cities.
All this just makes it more incumbent upon us who do represent the authentic Christian tradition to make the case more boldly and forcefully. It the athiests want to engage, then they need to engage the entire body of Christian faith and teaching, and not the sad, depleted, confused psuedo-religion that is American evangelicalism.
How about “We prefer it that way.”
If you look through this thread, you’ll see a number of “why we should ordain women” and “why we should not ordain women” arguments, all the ones on one side trying to trump the ones on the other. The one I don’t see for either side is, “because we prefer it that way.”
This is a position that will not satisfy people with strongly held beliefs on either side, even when used to “argue” for their side. At least it won’t satisfy them when used openly. It seems both weak and arbitrary at the same time. When used seriously and effectively, it stops debate rather early in the game (and one might wonder why debate is the purpose, anyway).
However this position is probably the most honest for many people with strong feelings and is a big component for most others. To denigrate it is to deny the right of someone to live according to his or her preferences, in a way that I would think is no one else’s business. It is certainly natural for someone to look for reasons beyond personal preference to justify a position. But it is important not to be ashamed of personal preference, or to feel that one needs to justify it.
I would not have thought of this had it not been for the discussion I had with atheist friends that I mentioned earlier. Just because someone says my preferences or beliefs are logically unconvincing does not mean I need to abandon those preferences or beliefs.
If those wishing to live in a community that ordains women would just do so, I be more than happy to agree with you Augie. Goodness knows there are plenty of them out there, but the feminist idealoges won’t leave it at that, they feel compelled to wage war against the Church. For those who wish to force female priests on the Orthodox Church to say they like everything else about the Church if we would just ordain women is patent nonesense because as has been seen elsewhere, the ordination of women is the step that causes a cascade of changes that are not within any reasonable definition of traditional Christianity.
So if they prefer the syncretic, heretical brand of faith that comes with ordaining women, let them go practice it elsewhere. Don’t continue the pretence of being Orthodox. Leave me and the Church alone. If they are willing to do that, then I’ll actually believe they simply prefer that course. As long as they are trying to make mischief in the Church, that is their main goal–to make mischief in the Church. They don’t really care at all about women, faith, or anything else but their own selfish agenda, their quest for power and frankly the destruction of traditional Christianity wherever they find it.
Note 60 Juli, Stereotyped?
Well, Juli, here you need to get into some intellectual history AND some effort at definition. The feminism I was referring to is that of Catherine McKinnon. I chose her because she remains at the head of the intellectual arm of feminism. She has supplied and continues to supply a great deal of the ideology that guides the feminist movement. McKinnon is a legal scholar and she has had a very large impact on Canadian law and a great deal of influence on American legal thinkers.
So, if one looks at the changes made to American’s society in the last thirty years, you will see that legal changes have very much lead the way in the feminist movement. Catherine McKinnon has been in the lead in those legal changes.
Can we find people who call themselves “Feminists for Life?” Sure and, since this is a free country, they have every right to call themselves whatever they like. However, they are very much a minority and at least until recently, they have NOT been at the vanguard of change. There is no denying the fact that the largest feminist organization in America, NOW, has made the preservation of legal abortion its most cherished role. Numbers, political organization, influence in political parties matter. NOW has much more of the foregoing than “Feminists for Life” ever had.
PERSONAL HISTORY: DON’T INSTRUCT ME ABOUT FEMIMISM UNLESS YOU HAVE TRIED AS MANY CASES AS I HAVE
tI return to some tedious explanations of my background. I graduated from law school in 1979 and proceeded to practice law as a litigator for several decades. This means that I specialized in handling cases in Court. I began practicing law at a time when females represented less than 10% of the profession. When I started there were very few female lawyers and there were VIRTUALLY NO FEMALE LITAGATORS. Litigation is, frankly, the highest stress and toughest legal specialty. I was litigating at the time when I was virtually the only female lawyer showing up at the courthouse for trial on any given day. I had to deal with law professors, lawyers and judges who were encountering a female professional for the first time. Unless you have argued a case in front of a judge who has openly stated that he opposed female lawyers than you cannot say you have encountered the resistance that I have had to fight against, virtually on a daily basis during the 1970’s and the 1980’s. PULEEEEZE, don’t instruct me about feminism. Females now represent more than 35% of the profession and the female share is growing fast. It is a very different world out there now, happily.
INTELLECTUAL BACKGROUND
The history of the feminist movement in the United States is primarily a LEGAL HISTORY. I am quite familiar with the critical legislation and court rulings which have advanced the feminist agenda. Frankly, Juli, it simply isn’t true that I hold a “stereotypical” view of feminism because I have either been directly involved with it for more than 30 years. By directly involved, I mean in the very thick of where the changes where occurring.
Note 64.Michael, Just like Gene Robinson who is now lecturing Pope Benedict XVI
No, Michael, I don’t think they will leave you alone and go on down the street to a church that is agreeable to them. These “change agents” want in to every church.
“Bishop” Gene Robinson, the first openly gay bishop of the Episcopal Church of the United States, is now lecturing Pope Benedict XVI on matters concerning teachings of the Roman Catholic Church on homosexual activity. Robinson has taking a very presumptous instructional tone with Pope Benedict XVI.
Not content with winning the battle inside his ECUSA he is taking his cause “on the road.”
Note 61. “What’s interesting to me is that even conservative protestant churches, without any priestly role or ministry, ALSO do not ordain women. So even in conservative churches where the priestly symbology doesn’t exist, there’s still an argument against women. And then in very conservative Jewish groups, without any Christian considerations, we still see the same prohibition against female clergy. And then we look at Islam, without the Jewish or Christian Bible, and there’s STILL the same prohibition. What’s going on here?”
Maybe they all sense that female clerical “symbology” and monotheism are incompatible.
Jim, first of all the priesthood is more than what I expect you mean by a symbology, much more. Second, part of the reason you don’t get the reasons is because you are not part of the communion. In the early Church, little or no cathechsis was done until after baptism and Christmation because there could be no genuine understanding until one made the commitment of faith to Jesus Christ and His Church. That is a reality that still exists today.
The priesthood is symbolic in content the same way an icon is symbolic, they both act as a specific connection to the Kingdom of Heaven. They are not just representative of something else. They are living channels of the Holy Spirit and integral parts of the witness of the Church to the salvific transformation offered by Jesus Christ in the Church.
Gender is a cosmic reality that is part of the very fabric of Creation unlike race, nationality or language. Gender cannot be ignored or set aside in spiritual areas. If you don’t get it all I can say is “There are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamed of in your philosophy.”
Michael writes: “Gender is a cosmic reality that is part of the very fabric of Creation unlike race, nationality or language. Gender cannot be ignored or set aside in spiritual areas.”
I’m not a Bible scholar, but it seems to me that’s exactly what the apostle Paul does:
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” — Gal. 3:28
I don’t mean to use that as a “proof text,” but in that passage the Apostle mentions gender in the same context as nationality and social status, in order to make a spiritual point. I think that Apostle says in effect that these are distinctions that are important to us, but from the perspective of the kingdom of God they do not exist. I’m not saying that the Orthodox church is “bad,” or that they “oppress women,” or anything like that. But I think there is perhaps a much deeper understanding here, and when the doctrine of a church enshrines such distinctions that deeper understanding is lost.
There is a distinction between the free offer of salvation to all without regard to any other characteristic than simple repentent humanity and function within creation. To quote Philip Sherrard in The Sacred in Life and Art. “Many Christian writers have been persuaded by this account of the creation of Adam and Eve in the Book of Genesis to regard woman as a being who is secondary and subordinate to man…Such a conception of the ideal human state has always haunted man, not least of all within the Christian world; and many are those who have set out to attain, or regain, a mastery of what they suppose to be their orginal bisexual nature, lost through the catastophe that has tragically cut this nature into two and left each half of it in an abnormal state of destitution and self-exile {yet}…When God ‘saw that it was beautiful’, this seeing was an act of self-recognition by means of which He verified that what He saw was a true and faithful image of His own inner and non-manifest life.
Bearing this in mind, it is surely of great pertinence that the Genesis account of the actual creation of Eve begins with the recognition on the part of God that the presence of the single figure of Adam in Paradise was ou kalon, ‘not beautiful’, ‘not good’; ‘And God said: the man alone is not beautiful.’ up to this point, God had seen that all was beautiful, all was good, all was in accordance with the inner harmony of His being. But at this point something was out of joint and unfitting. Creation was still a distorted or inadequate image of the divine archetype. It was still in a state of disparity and incompletion, it was still truncated, requiring a further state of articulation if it was to reflect as fully as possible the divine archetype. And this further state of articulation is accomplished in the creation of Eve.
If this reading of the Genesis narrative is taken into account then it can be seen that there is nothing whatsoever merely adventitious or second best in the creation of woman. Just as much as man she is the consequence of God’s desire to see His glory displayed on the plane of creation as fully as possible. The bifurcation of God’s androgynous nature into to distinct male and female beings is not therefore a tragedy of a fall from an ideal human state into a state that is more imperfect. On the contrary, it is the necessary and only way which God can put as it were the finishing touch to the divine work of art in which He is engaged…Only subsequent to the creation of woman could God confirm that the showing forth of the plenitude and reichness of humand nature in the figures of Adam and Eve was in accord with the inner harmony of His nature and so was beautiful and good.”
Here among other things Sherrard echos and amplifies Fr. Hans’ statement in #67 “that female clerical ‘symbology’ and monotheism are incompatible” because it is a misguided attempt (at best) to reinstitute an androgynous approach to God. We need the offering and the acceptance the giving and receiving the ideal and the concrete.
NOte 71 What others can learn from ECUSA’s sad history
After the New Hampshire branch of the ECUSA elevated an openly gay priest to the status of bishop, a convocation of world-wide Anglican bishops met and asked the American ECUSA clergy and the New Hampshire ECUSA clergy in particular to produce a document defending their action and SETTING OUT ITS THEOLOGICAL FOUDNATIONS.
The document they produced was about 60 pages long. It was breaktaking. It literally attacked Scripture and portrayed Scripture as a instigator of hatred against homosexuals. Yes, it was couched in scholarly and even courtly language, but, it was breathtaking. I will try to see if I can find an extant reference to the document. I think it is important for people who defend Orthodoxy to be familiar with the arguments, language and debating techniques found in this sorry document. It helps to be able to recognize the approach when it lifts its ugly head in other situations.
Susan Ashbrook Harvey uses some of the same language. Essentially the gay bishop of ECUSA, Gene Robinson, will state that “the Holy Spirit is doing a new thing.” By this he means that the Holy Spirit is contradicting previous revelations. So, if true, the elevation of Gene Robinson to Bishop in ECUSA would be a monumental event on the order of Mt. Sinai or the birth of the Lord. This has got to be the highest form of narcissim a human being can achieve.
#69
You’re not and it’s evident. Your interpretation of the text has more to do with modernism than actual Biblical scholarship.
The text deals with unity in Christ that transcends any ethnic, social and sexual distinctions. This idea by Paul is also reflected in other passages such as:
For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. (Romans 10:12, ESV)
For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body–Jews or Greeks, slaves or free–and all were made to drink of one Spirit. (1 Cor 12:13, ESV)
by abolishing the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. (Ephesians 2:15-16, ESV)
These passages do not support a modern concept of equality to opening up the priesthood to women. Again it is the concept of being one in Christ, the church being His body, it is not a passage opening the responsibilities to any person.
Also keep in mind that many passages in the Old Testament make mention of the Hebrews being a nation of priests. But Scripture is also quite clear that not any one could offer sacrifices in the temple. The best example of this is shown by King Uzziah’s affliction of leprosy after trying to offer incense in the temple.
Also other issues to consider are the practice, or tradition, of Scripture. No woman is called to serve as priest in the temple.
Christ calls no women to be a disciple. Nor is any women commissioned by Christ to forgive or retain sins.
And Paul also defines who is part of the priesthood in his first letter to Timothy (third chapter). This passage also indicates that not everyone who is male is also qualified to serve. The telling statement that the priesthood is male comes by Paul’s comment about a bishop/deacon being HUSBAND to one wife.
There is no deeper meaning being lost nor is there any nuanced equal statement being revealed.
Missourian I would have used hubris rather than narcissim.
I don’t know if you were familiar with the comments, but many of the Conservative churches made statements to the effect that Robinson’s elevation was found in the arguments to ordain women.
When the ordination of women were allowed to happen in the ECUSA, it only opened the door to its internal destruction.
Jerry, Note 73 O.K. Hubris will do just fine.
Hubris is a good word, I’ll go with it. {Warming, it is late, I’m tired and my typing is lousy.)
I can’t address the theological specifics, so, all I can report is what I observed. After a church accepts women’s ordination, it appears to strengthen the hand of those who are promoting the legitimization of homosexual activity. There is a Roman Catholic (formerly Anglican) theologian by the name of Al Kimel, who posts as “The Pontificator” who discussed the theological aspects of this issue is some depth. Just Google for Pontificator and you will find him, look in his archives for a discussion of this point.
Again, just as a layperson observing what occurred, I can tell you that I naively didn’t appreciate what would happen after UMC accepted women as pastors. Few laypeople did. The best way to describe it was a chain reaction. First, we had to change some official titles, then we have to change some terms in some official creeds, or established prayers. (Nothing much, mind you, according to the progressive clergy.) Then we had to convene a group to study how the teaching of the New Testament had to change to reflect women’s roles. Then we had to investigate Mary Magdalene and give her more prominence in Christian teaching. Then we had to investigate St. Paul, because, “Let’s be honest, here” St. Paul had some shortcomings that we can see now in the 21st century, that others coming before us could not. Given St. Paul’s shortcomings, we really need to put many of his teachings “in context.” I remember being corrected by a women pastor, as I called St. Paul a Saint. I was told to call him a “theologian.” There were seminars about the figure of Wisdom appearing in Psalms with discussion of whether this figure was really some kind of female proto-goddess. Let’s just say that within 10 years, absolutely NOTHING WAS UNTOUCHED. So they started to unteach Methodists everything that Methodists had been taught for over 150 years. It was Orwellian.
When I read the words of Susan Ashbrook Harvey, they are a complete duplication of what I was told before in the UMC. I develop a sinking feeling and a desire to run out of the room, but, to where?
STANDARD DISCLAIMER:
As I try to say everytime I mention UMC. There remain many fine clergy and laypeople in UMC who are trying to regain lost ground and re-establish the original theology of John Wesley, but, I think the church structure is so thoroughly riddled with heretics (what else can I call them?) that it is hopeless. I wish them the best and as I have said many times. I remain grateful for the people of the UMC that provided happy childhood memories. There is a very great deal that was good and true in the UMC of my childhood, that UMC just doesn’t exist anymore. I still like to sing some of the hymns in the old hymnbook, before they changed the language of the great hymns that inspired and comforted so many. ARGH.
Would anyone here be interested in contributing to an encyclopedia article on feminism in the Orthodox Church?
Missourian: “Again, just as a layperson observing what occurred, I can tell you that I naively didn’t appreciate what would happen after UMC accepted women as pastors. Few laypeople did. The best way to describe it was a chain reaction.
Augie: “Second, he [Alinsky] 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.
Fr. Hans: “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.”
So what is the Orthodox position on women in the secular workplace? It seems that if we’re arguing for strict gender roles in religious life because of the belief that God endows both genders with very distinctly defined properties for the purposes of carrying out very specific roles, this should apply to non-religious vocations as well.
Are we not saying this because this is not the Orthodox belief or because saying this might offend and alienate otherwise conservative female Orthodox believers?
In my own experience, female managers have generally been as capable (if not sometimes more so) than their male counterparts as to how to run an office. However, I can’t help thinking when I see a female in a high-level government role “Hey, she’s got a man’s job!”. However, I usually reject such thoughts as just my chauvinist side poking its ugly head out.
Hmmm … what’s the Orthodox Christian position on paying priests enough to support a family, w/out help from a second income?
JamesK: #77. While such sentiments have been used from time to time they are not in fact supportable and are not linked to the male priesthood. While a priest may indeed be a manager in some parishes and fulfill a variety of other secular roles, that is really distinct from his priesthood which is fundamentally sacramental in nature.
The lack of appreciation for and understanding of the sacramental office is, IMO, the root of the entire problem.
There are many wives of priests who either from necessity or choice work outside the home. In many small missions, both the priest and his wife work at secluar jobs to help the mission get on its feet, none of which has any bearing at all on the office of the priesthood.
The lack of appreciation for and understanding of the sacramental office is, IMO, the root of the entire problem.
That is the understanding I am most familiar with, but as others have pointed out on this blog, some conservative Protestants without a sacramental priesthood forbid women to hold positions of administrative or teaching authority within their churches, and even some conservative Christians in sacramental churches approach the question with the defense of male headship and leadership, not just in the church and the home but in society as a whole. Some men are very prickly indeed on this issue, and this sensitivity/defensiveness seems to fuel much of the emotional response to the subject of homosexuality as well. (Please pay attention to my words; I’m not saying there aren’t other ways to defend and honor the Church’s teachings on sexuality and marriage, but the other ways involve a degree of humility.)
NOte 81, Juli
People wishing to preserve an Orthodox or orthodox approach to the priesthood (or clergy in general, because what happens in one Christian church tends to have some indirect effect on others over time) need to be able to be able to offer a defense of the traditional teaching in terms that laypeople can readily understand. The case has to be couched in positive terms. It has to assure a modern audience that the case is NOT based on disrespect for the gifts and value of women within the religious world or a desire to restrict political and social rights in the secular world.
After 50 years of feminist activism, there is enough of a track record in many areas of life to evaluate the consequences of the policies they advanced. Radical feminists (by which I mean those who what to fundamentally redefine masculinity and feminity) need to be held accountable for the negative consequences of many of the policies they have promoted.
Juli, cynicism and female theologians
At one point you asked me why I was cynical of female theologians. Well, it is because they are a subset of academics in general. I have spent 12 years of my adult life “on campus” with academics. I don’t see myself as cynical I see myself as realistic. Academics in general do not overawe me, they do not cast any special spell over my respect. They are people, doing a job. Some academics I came to respect as genuine scholars, most are just jobholders in a particular line of work. There are many, many academics who genuinely believe that they are the “natural elite” who should be leading the world and making policy. I see that as a disaster. I tend to see academics are overaged children who have been overprotected from the realities of life. Only people who have held real responsibility outside of academia should make policy or lead. A life spent in academia is a life spent in a strange, little hothouse. Again, twelve adult years in academia, three degrees, just my opinion, but it isn’t based on any lack of familiarity with academics.
Everything SAH said was an exact duplicate of what I heard at the UMC. Her sisters at UMC have been given authority and have changed many policies, traditions and teachings for exactly the same reasons SAH propounded. If you will look at the quote I conveyed from SAH, she spoke about how she thought the Holy Spirit was calling women to the Orthodox priesthood. She stated she was sure that this was occurring. We need to ask her WHY we should give her opinion of what the Holy Spirit is doing any special weight. Does studying ancient languages guarantee that you have an inside track on what the Holy Spirit is doing? Isn’t she really prophesying? Is so, how can a legitimate prophet of today contradict a legitimate prophet, apostle or saint of previous centuries. They can’t unless they undermine the standing of previous prophets, apostles and saints. Theologians like SAH always maintain a calm and superficially reasonable demeanor, but, they are chipping away at the authority of St. Paul in most cases. They know they have to, to make their case. As I mentioned, undermining the authority of St. Paul is JUST THE BEGINNING (as if that wasn’t bad enough.) Don’t say I didn’t warn you.
Missourian,
Your overuse of the fallacy of Slippery Slope is just annoying.
Prof. Harvey is expressing an opinion. She is not advocating or pushing for any present change. Neither is St. Nina’s. Prof. Harvey is simply stating what her present academic research is telling her. It is entirely necessary for everyone to interact with this on a real, very real, way, and then, and only then, see how that relates to Tradition.
I, for one, believe that Tradition far over weighs the ordination of women to the priesthood or episcopate. However, many struggle to understand the Tradition and grapple with its implications. What the church needs to do is better define the teaching on this issue in a way which is logical. Yes, most of the current arguments that come out of the Orthodox church on why women can not be priests are inconclusive at best and illogical at worst, do you honestly expect orthodox women to be stupid and gullible enough to buy them? And then there are things like C.S. Lewis that use unorthodox theology, like in persona Christi, we never believed it before, why believe it now just for this issue?
And, for the record, may I point out that the situation of the UMC is NOT exactly the same as the Orthodox church. The Orthodox church is a sacramental church which invests in its priest and episcopate sacramental power, the UMC does not. The UMC wants its “priests” to do social work and give a self-help sermon every Sunday, obviously women can do that just as well as men, sheesh, they can do the same thing in the Orthodox church, so, by all means, let them be “ordained” if they want.
It has been my observation that the more the Orthodox church drags its feet on ordaining women to their rightful ministries in the church, Reader, Sub-Deacon, Deacon, the more women will start demanding ordination to the priesthood. It is a reverse psychology, the more deserved rights are witheld, the more underserved rights will be demanded as a form of “compensation” to make “victory” complete. THIS is EXACTLY what happened in the UMC.
Xaira: Correct, UMC different from Orthodoxy
Yes, I strongly agree that UMC and Orthodoxy are different in very important ways. Consequently, I agree that the debate about female ordination in the UMC and in Orthodoxy will involve different issues. However, there are some important commonalities. Mark my words, a feminist revolution in the Orthodox Church will REQUIRE a diminution of the authority of Scripture. I understand that Scripture is viewed differently in Orthodoxy and the UMC, but, in both churches it traditionally was held to possess sacred authority. Again, you cannot, in my opinion, advance the ordination of women without, at the same time, reduce the sacred authority of Scripture.
I am convinced that the warning that I am offering Orthodox is valid. The comments found in your note 83 make clear that you just don’t want to stop and think about what I have to say. You have made up your mind as to what is right in Orthodoxy and you want to push it forward. You have found one legitimate way to distinguish UMC from Orthodoxy and that is your “ticket” for disposing of what I say.
You may easily dispose of me, Xaira, I am of little consequence, but, I have have seen people EXACTLY like SAH and they have used the SAME LANGUAGE, the SAME ARGUMENTS and urged the SAME RESULTS. This is not a co-incidence. It is a FACT that deserves your considered attention.
Let me put it this way. Given that I have already heard everything SAH has to say in ANOTHER VENUE and I have observed the sorry consequences of the policies SAH advocates, I am not willing to “bet my soul” on her.
Best wishes to you.
Xaira: Naivete is dangerous.
Prof. Harvey certainly has captured your mind. Her is a quote from your Not 83.
BEGIN XAIRA QUOTE:
Prof. Harvey is expressing an opinion. She is not advocating or pushing for any present change. Neither is St. Nina’s. Prof. Harvey is simply stating what her present academic research is telling her. It is entirely necessary for everyone to interact with this on a real, very real, way, and then, and only then, see how that relates to Tradition.
BEGIN XAIRA QUOTE:
HERE IS THE PROF. HARVEY QUOTE IN QUESTION:
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
First, you are naive in the extreme if you think that Prof. Harvey is not an advocate. She is a change agent and she is using every opporutunity to persuade and to PREPARE people to accept fully-ordained, female Orthodox priests. She is a wise propagandist and she is willing to draw people in step by step, all the while telling them that “this isn’t really that big a change.” Pleaes note this language from Prof. Harvey ” it is my conviction that there someday will be.” It is her conviction (and her private holy cause) to promote female ordination.
Second, your naivete is proven by the fact that you assert “she is simply stating what her present academic reseach is telling her.” Quite the contrary, Prof. Harvey is assuming the office of PROPHET, someone who informs others what the Holy Spirit tells her. Please look at this language:
PROF. HARVEY TELLING US WHAT THE HOLY SPIRIT WANTS:
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.
END PROF. HARVEY QUOTE:
This is clearly an instance of prophyesying. This is not based on her evaluation of some ancient text. This is an instance of prophesying. Prophesy is nothing more than communicating to people what the Holy Spirit wants us to know. This is quite different from scholarship. She is asserting that the Holy Spirit wants women priests and that the HOLY SPIRIT has been TWARTED BY MAN for 2,000 years.
Your refusal to properly acknowledge what “Prof. Harvey” is REALLY DOING is a sad thing. This is NOT SCHOLARSHIP, this is the SUPREME ARROGANCE, bordering on blasphemy, for it requires us to believe either that A)that Prof. Harvey knows something that no one else has known for 2,000 years or B) that has been intentionally hidden for 2,000 years by a long series of corrupt church people.
No, Dear Xaira, annoying as I may be, it is YOU have have swallowed Prof. Harvey’s song and dance, hook, line and sinker. The bottom is this well is very, very deep.
Xaira: Somebody has been very wrong for a long time according to SAH
Questions:
My favoriate quote from SAH:
HERE IS THE PROF. HARVEY QUOTE IN QUESTION:
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
A) If SAH’s appraoach is based on scholarship along (that is she does not claim any special inspriation from the Holy Spirit) why haven’t PREVIOUS SCHOLARS discovered the SAME THINGS she claims to have found in the literature?
B) If you answer to question A is that SAH is relying on scholarship and that previous scholars MISSED the information that SAH found BECAUSE they were MEN, then, you have ask to ask why we should give CREDENCEk to previous MALE SCHOLARS IF they could have been so wrong, so long about so important a topic as the identity of a person qualified to administer the holy sacraments? Why should we give credence to these male scholars on other topics? As you can see, this vastly undercuts scholarship and consequently Holy Tradition. It reopens, NOT JUST ONE ISSUE, but many. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED IN UMC. This is what I am trying to warn you about. But you don’t want to hear me.
C) If SAH’s approach is based on INSPIRATION then she is claiming a special communcation from the Holy Spirit. This makes her a prophet. How can a legitimate prophet of today CONTRADICT prophets of the past?
D) Was God wrong? God chose the males of the Levi tribe to serve as his priests in the Old Testament. Jesus did not announce a change in this command/direction from God. Was God wrong? When did God STOP wanting male priests?
Answers eagerly awaited. By the way, I am just a layperson, my academic degrees are in economics, law and electrical engineering, but, you should be able to explain this to me. (Note, the details of my academic background have been provided to Fr. Jacobse. They remain private however as I wish to post anonymously)
Pope John Paul II, while maintaining his stance against female ordination, did make some interesting changes in the role of women within the Church:
“Women took over pastoral and administrative duties in priestless parishes, they were appointed chancellors of dioceses around the world, and they began swelling the ranks of “experts” at Vatican synods and symposiums. In 2004, for the first time, the pope appointed two women theologians to the prestigious International Theological Commission and named a Harvard University law professor, Mary Ann Glendon, to be president of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences.”
Perhaps the issue is that since women can a) interpret Scripture and b) carry on administrative duties with authority within various churches, it seems illogical to suggest that they can do so in one venue but not in another, to say that “you can interpret Scripture to the laypeople from behind a desk, but not from behind a pulpit”. In essence, the argument becomes “if they’ve become priests without the collars, why not just give them the collar”?
I realize there’s more to being a priest than just exegesis and “admin”. However, as these roles and duties become (often out of necessity) executed by females more frequently, the need for a male-only priesthood becomes less and less visibly apparent.
Xaira: Word to the Wise
Here is a quote from a conservative Episcopalian about the acceptance of women clergy in 1976: http://mcj.bloghorn.com/2134#Comments
START QUOTE
Orthodox Anglicanism’s last chance in the US was back in 1976. The events of the past 29 years have borne that out – the descent from simple effrontery into commonplace heresy, with open communion, unrestricted baptism, druid clergy, and expulsion of dissenters “in the name of inclusiveness” giving more than adequate proofs. …..
When the histories are written, it won’t be the 2006 convention that is noted as the watershed moment, or the election of “I Am Gene”. It goes all the way back to the acceptance of women clergy and the revision of the BCP [Book of Common Prayer]- changes of such a magnitude, and with such secular motivations, that they opened the door to anything and everything.
END QUOTE:
First, I certainly agree that the American Episcopal Church is very different from Orthodoxy in many extremely important ways. Second, the comment that I quoted it not a theological argument, it is just an observation from a layperson. However, it DOES shed LIGHT on what I call the “progress of institutional rot” brought about by the likes of SAH.
Anyone who doesn’t think that SAH has literally dedicated her life to the acceptance of female clergy in Orthodoxy is living in a dream world. It is her cause, and she values that cause above all else, it is an IDOL.
No one is “suffering” because they don’t take Eucharist from a female priest. There IS NO “female spirituality,” there is only spirituality, genuine or fake. The “gifts” of females have NOT BEEN NEGLECTED or WASTED by the Orthodox Church. People whose goal it is to serve God will lack no opportunity.
People whose goal it is to share in the prestige and honor of the priesthood need to work to change Godly institutions to allow them to attain their goals: a job at the head of a congregation. It doesn’t hurt that these “trailblazers” will be featured on the cover of secular magazines as the leading theological lights of the current century. They will get alot of publicity and lead alot of seminars. They will get their articles and books published and they will find teaching positions in seminaries. Really quite a career boost, actually.
Even though a Church building, a temple, is much more than just another building, it is susciptible to the same ills that can befall any other building: fire, termites, erosion of foundation. Thus, we use our common sense to preserve and protect church buildings the same way we do any other buildings in our care. All the more, really, because our temples are so important to us.
I would think it is the same with the culture — the mores, folkways, institutions, beliefs, authority, and roles — of the Church. The Church culture, if you will, is certainly more than any other culture. But (in analogy to the Church temple) the Church culture is subject to the same ills that can damage other cultures.
Think about how exquisitely sensitive we are about preserving many cultures that are in danger of extinction, how trendy it is to want them to be bolstered in their ways and tampered with as little as possible. So it defies belief that so many believers are so intent on being “agents of change” within their own churches.
JamesK, If what you say in post #87 had any validity we would not have folks like St. Nina of Georgia, Equal to the Apostles. Teaching and administrative authority have never been an exclusively male perogative.
The sacramental nature of the priesthood is a delegated authority. Only the Bishops hold the authority by virtue of their office alone. In fact, a Bishop can limit the authority of a priest to administer one or more of the sacraments at any time. The Sacraments especially the Holy Euchrist are the heart of the Church. To change them is to change the Church. The folks who desire ordination want to change the Church in ways that are frankly heretical.
No offense, Michael, but this comment in #36 stikes me as so odd, and I have heard others say this as well:
“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. ”
Many priests and pastors I have ever known or talked to had an “ambition” to their position. I have also heard more than one Orthodox priest say that in order to enter the priesthood someone need not have a special calling (or vision from God).
If we got rid of all the priests that are in their position because of ambition, we would eliminate many. If it is not good to have an ambition to serve the Lord, what makes for a good ambition?
In Christ,
Renee
Rene, there is no higher hubristic ambition than to rewrite Church history and doctrine
The short answer, Rene, is that is takes a very special form of “ambition” to seek to change a 3,500+ year religious tradition. This very special type of “ambition, really “hubris.” is what male aspirants to the priesthood lack. Male aspirants do not seek to change Tradition, SAH most definitely does and she has announced herself as a “change agent.”
Let us look once again at the quote from SAH
START QUOTE:
I’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 priesthoodÃ?¢??we know this, we see this. Women leave churches that donÃ?¢??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:
First, let us distinguish between scholarship and prophesy. Scholarship is an ordinary human activity. Someone undertakes to learn the ancient languages and proceeds to study the foundational texts. Prophesy is the act of communicating a message from God.
SCHOLARSHIP. SAH claims to have reached conclusions based on her scholarship that are DIFFERENT from classical Christianity. If so, how could so many theologians and scholars have been so wrong for so long. If the other theologians have been so wrong for so long about such an important topic, how can we trust them on other topics? Logically, using SAH as a guide, we can’t. Hence the door is now opened for all forms of revisionism. Now, SAH, will stroke your shoulder and tell you very soothingly to your face, that the changes she is advocating are really “so very small.” They are not, they are revolutionary, SAH is a “change agent,” and the femal priesthood is her idol. She wants it to be our idol and she wants to bulldoze everything standing it isway. SAH is using the same language, same approach and same arguments used by Gene Robinson.
PROPHESY. If SAH claims communication from the Holy Spirit on the matter of whom the Holy Spirit wishes to call to the priesthood, I need more details before I buy into SAH’s proclamations. My first question is how can a legitimate prophet of today contradict the Tradition, Scripture and prophets of old? My second question is Did God make a mistake when he chose the male members of the tribe of Levi for the priestly function? My last question is when did God stop wanting males for the priesthood? When did the Holy Spirit START calling women? Does SAH claim that the wishes of the Holy Spirit has been thwarted by mere humans? Apparently so. This assertion by itself is blasphemous and heretical in my opinion.
ACADEMIC SUPERSTARS: I have spent more than a decade on University campuses. I know the academic world well and I know what drives it. SAH’s ideas provide her a potentially stellar academic career. If SAH convinces people to follow her, her will have a theme for a book and a series of articles. Her books will get published and read in seminaries. Her articles will be described as “groundbreaking.” Now remember, SAH has also been trying to massage away your objection that she is a revisionist heretic by telling you that she really isn’t proposing much of a change. However, to the rest of the world she will be featured as the “revolutionary, groundbreaking theologian of the Orthodox Church.” In secular terms, she will achieve here “picture on the cover of TIME.”
So, Rene, yes, it is take a BREATHTAKING amount of hubris to speak as SAH has spoken.
The real question is why does the fact that someone has a degree in ancient languages INSULATE them from ambition, hubris, pride and a lust for power and recognition. Remember sometimes the wolf wears sheeps clothing.
Renee,
Because we live in a fallen state, ambition is part of everything we do, achieve, or wish to attain. However, there are different levels of ambition, different reasons for ambition, and different ends in mind.
Since I find that the result in other Christian traditions that have ordained women has resulted in chaos, apostasy, and outright paganism I see every reason to reject outright any consideration of the introduction of such into the Holy Orthodox Faith. IMO there should not even need to be a detailed discussion of womenâ??s ordination to the priesthood because it has no merit whatsoever.
What we do need is a better understanding of the role of lay people in the life and work of the Church, better support and appreciation of that role, and a willingness of lay people to do it.
I find the attitude of those who insist on the value of discussing womenâ??s ordination to be focused on an ambition for worldly power and acclaim, a selfishness to remake the Church in their own image and will rather than a desire to submit to the Church herself and learn from her through the Holy Spirit. The Church does not exist to fulfill vocations in a personal specific sense. What we do for a career or work in this world matters little if we have our eye centered on Jesus Christ as we do it.
I have, unfortunately, known many men who sought after the priesthood for the wrong reasons. When they have attained their goal they have routinely been dangerous, hurtful priests. They are the type of priest whose skulls St. John Chrysostom said paved the road to hell.
The priesthood is part of the mysteries that are the life of the Church. I do not fully understand why men alone are meant to fulfill that part any more than I fully understand the nature and extent of the Divine Liturgy. I know it to be the truth nonetheless. To insert women into the priesthood would unalterably change the nature of the Church and depart from the revealed life She has always demonstrated. I will oppose women in the priesthood with every fiber of my being and with every energy and resource I have. If you think this makes me a misogynist, you are incorrect.
I value both the nature of women and the difference between men and women. Women in the world today have an enormous, unecessary fight just to be people that men donâ??t usually have to put up with. I am disgusted with men for the ridiculous assumptions and attacks perpetrated on women just because they are women. The Church needs to witness to the truth of the equality of women as people in society and before God. Ordination to the priesthood is not part of that. God separated us into two genders for a reason. The separation was not part of the fall, but part of the prefection He had in mind that He wants us to grow into. We compliment each other in ways we seldom understand or even consider. All too often even the attempt to examine how we compliment each other is met with anger and accusation. We must get beyond such anger, accusation and fraudulent attempts to promote equality by destroying the Church.
Michael, in #36 you also posed this question:
“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?”
I think proponents of women’s ordination might ask the converse question: How does having female priests or deacons hinder anyone’s salvation? Isn’t the grace of Jesus Christ still offered freely. . . .
From Scripture, secular historians, and Church history we know that there were women deacons, and we do have some of the services used to ordain them (See “Women Deacons in the Orthodox Church” by Dr. Kyriaki Fitzgerald.) Are you of the opinion that the Orthodox Church was in error when it ordained women deacons for several hundred years? Do you think that the Orthodox Church of Greece in now also in error for reinstating the womens diaconate?
We also know that there have always been women apostles and missionaries that have gone out and preached the Gospel and started churches. Although I am not sure, lets assume that these women did not administer the sacraments. So is that what should be reserved for males alone–administering the sacraments?
Renee
Renee there were no recorded women Apostles in Scripture.
Note 94, Renee. How having female priests hinders salvation
WHO HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF?
In NOte 94, Renee first attempts to shift the burden of proof. The proper analysis of the issue is that of Michael. People PROPOSING CHANGE HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROOF, particularly when they seek to change something touching on the sacred and something held true for more than 3,500 years. When the topic is the Church, the goal is the salvation of the world. Michael quite properly put the burden on proof on Renee and Susan A. Harvey and asked “How does not having female priests or deacons hinder anyone’s salvation.” Renee does not answer this question because we all know the answer. The absence of female priests does not hinder anyone’s salvation. The Church does not need improving, no one lacks opportunity for service to God in a myriad of ways.
THE CHURCH NEED NOT ANSWER TO THE CHARGES OF THE SECULAR WORLD
If Renee succeeds in shifting the burden of proof, we are left with the outrageous situation in which Renee stands as prosecutor making claims against the Church and demanding answers. Who are you to demand answers? Renee? The Church does not conform to this world, its mission is to change the World. We know that feminism long ago accomplished its legitimate goals and since that time has turned into a facistic movement suppressing free speech, promoting the death of infants, promoting the break-up of the family, promoting the legitimization of homosexual conduct and many other evil goals. We have every good reason to be suspicious of that which springs from feminism. No reasonable person accepts feminist ideas without close scrutiny given its track record.
SUSAN A. HARVEY USES THE ARGUMENTS OF GENE ROBINSON
Neither Juli, nor Xaira or Renee want to confront the massive damage done to the Episcopalian Church or the Methodist Church or the Presbyterian Church by the ordination of females. These policies were promoted by persons who took IDENTICAL positions to those of Susan A. Harvey. You may dismiss these Churches as mere Prostestants, but I tell you that Susan A. Harvey USES THE WORDS AND ARGUMENTS OF GENE ROBINSON. This is significant and no one wants to hear about it, or think about it. The unchurched are unable to distinguish Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism and Protestantism with any accuracy, the unchurched see the chaos in the Mainline churches and attribute it to Christianity, not to heretical ideas, not to the anti-Christianity preached in those churches. This undoubtedly has lead many to dismiss Christianity as a circus full of contentious people rather than person setting an example of holiness and love.
SUSAN A. HARVEY THREATENED ORTHODOXY
In the quote that I have repeated many times on this Board, SAH takes a lecturing tone towards Orthodoxy and informs Orthodoxy that women seeking ordination will leave Orthodoxy for churches that are willing to ordain them. My response is “I am available to give them a ride to the nearest Episcopal Church.” The Piskies (as they call themselves) attend a church which has lost 40% of its members over the last 40 years; a church with shockingly few children and young people.
YES, RENEE SOMEONE IS VERY WRONG
It is clear that someone has been very wrong. Renee has not answered my question about whether GOD made a mistake when he chose to be served by the male priests of the tribe of Levi? Neither Renee, nor Juli, nor Xaira has answered this question. None of the above have told me when God changed his mind and decided that he wanted the priestly service of women. No one has answered my question about Susan A. Harvey’s conviction that women will be ordained in the Orthodox Church in the future? Why have so many scholars studying the same material that SAH has studied but none have reached the same conclusion? If those scholars were wrong on this important point, what else, pray tell, were they wrong about? EVERYTHING WILL HAVE TO BE CHANGED TO ACCOMDMODATE THE NEW ORDER. Just give Susan A. Harvey a few concessions and she’ll start on her next change project and the one after that.
A great deal is at stake, someone is very wrong. Feminists arriving on the scene from the secular world, attempt to drag the Church into Court and act the prosecutor demanding answers. The people of the Church should put today’s feminism on trial, but, it supports a long list of anti-Christian policies at home and the oppression of women abroad. (Germaine Greer now argues that Third World women have a right to FGM (female genital mutilation.)) Germaine Greer was one of the leaders of modern Western feminism and she is morally bankrupt. She is one leader and a one contributor to the feminism that Renee puts in the position of prosecutor of the Church.
I wonder if some of the confusion is created by our misunderstanding of the word “diaconate”, “deacon”, “deaconess”.
We are told from tradition that there were several women who would also follow Christ and be “deaconesses”. What does this mean?
In Monasteries, all monks and nuns have their “diakonima”. What does this mean?
Simply, in greek “diakono” (a verb) is to serve. Serve not as a slave, rather because you want to.
So the deaconesses tended to their teacher’s needs (please keep the cultural perspective in mind as well)
In the Monasteries the “diakonima” is the “ergo” the work of the hands that every nun has assigned to her. It is a means to keep the hands busy, to serve the sisters (serving food, cooking, cleaning), the needs of the Monastery (gardens, structural work!, fields, communications, etc) or the guests (show arround, see that the rooms are prepared..) and sometimes make money by selling their “ergoxeiro”=(literally the work of their hands), it being komboschini (prayer rope), Icons, books or other handmade things like clothing, some agricultural products etc.
Indeed it is a blessing for us women to be able to serve in all ways we can as we are not serving only our brothers and sisters but God Himself, if we are doing everything for HIS GLORY (and thus VERY humbly, since he allows us to serve though He really could even make the rocks serve the needs of the Church), not for our “personal fulfillement”.
So we all lay men and women alike can “deacon” (verb).
By cleaning the Church because it is God’s dwelling and we love to keep it at its best, by helping teach the kids in Sunday School, by helping in the fellowship and philanthropic opportunities, by washing the dishes at the Monastery during a visit, by always humbly getting a blessing from the parish priest on whatever diakonima you want to take up and do it not your way but the way Father asks, because ultimately his soul is the one accountable!
I mean come on, what about the lay men who are chanters? Are we to start ordaining them? It is not a title to be “ordained” for God’s shake! it is not a recognition either!
It is the very heavy cross of being responsible to stand between God and the faithful, to ask for the HOLY SPIRIT HIMSELF to transform Holy Communion, to be the one responsible to hear confessions which puts a priest’s soul into very many dangers, as they are certainly not guaranteed salvation (quite the opposite)!
These have always been responsibilities always assigned to men ordained as bishops and priests. I do not know when the word “deacon” started meaning the lower scale of “priest” appart from “server” but I do know that women deaconesses were just for “diakonimata”=helpful work because of their love, not for sacraments. A common “diakonima” in the first years of the Church were to serve in the Agapes=Common tables. I believe this was the “diakonima” of the protomartyr (first-Martyr) Stephen (Dec. 27). I am not even sure if women served in those. I do know that widowed women were of the main beneficieries of the philanthropic contributions of the time. Also all the words for “teacher” and “elder/priest” in the Greek text are in the male form.
Priesthood is not a vocation either, and going through seminary may be a requirement, but only one of the least required for a person to get the blessing of His Spiritual Father to join the priesthood. It is a matter of lifelong preparation, painful prayer, watchfulness, great discernment and humility. “How can I the unworthy servant, a wretched sinner serve You Lord? TOUCH your most pure Body, in every Liturgy be ready to consume your Blood?”. It certainly is not a “calling” that since one has, he is entitled to. It is a “calling” one tests and usually doubts but prays about and goes through long spiritual preparation with guidance. It is a voluntary but very heave Cross! It endagers the soul very much!
Also our Church in Greece, has not assigned sacramental duties to any woman. All they have done, is with great reluctance and discerment to allow nuns of the higher order (megaloschimes) to transport communion to remote places (NOT TO PERFORM THE SACRAMENT, the bread and wine have already been transubstantiated).
” How does having female priests or deacons hinder anyone’s salvation?”
Uhhhh.. through being a heresy, therefore not of the Church.
Little rant: Look at all this! Here are the men, assigned to teach the truth or loose their souls, administer sacraments and maybe loose their sould, serve the widows and the single orphanned women (unprotected) and youth with their posessions and life, lead holy lives and be examples, teach and father by example in great love and humility, love their spouses as Christ loved the Church (and died for Her) and we cannot “put up with it”? WHY?
(I am starting to get angry about how all these feminists her eunuched men. Where did it lead to? We are much worse off. Men and women alike and totaly confused over how to act) grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Jerry– Mary Magdalene, found in Scripture, is called by the Church, “Equal to the Apostles,” or perhaps even more appropriately, Apostle to the Apostles.
At its basis, apostle means one who is sent, or messenger. This means that many women and men missionaries sent out and commissioned by the Church to spread the Gospel in Scripture and since the inception of the Church could and are also termed “apostles.”
For example, A well-known tradition outside the Bible tells us of another another woman termed “Equal to the Apostles,” St Thecla, who, we are told, travelled with St Paul to Spain as a teacher and evangelist.
Renee
Renee, in the tradition “Equal to the Apostles” is not the same as “Apostle.” The term “Apostle” refers only to the twelve and seventy of scripture. “Equal to the Apostles” is an honorific, indicating work or effort that contributed to the spread of Christianity into non-Christian lands (the Emperor Constantine for example), but does not indicate an apostleship in any scriptural sense.
The scripture reveals the apostle as one who received their gospel from God. That is why the tradition sets the apostle apart from everyone else — even from the greatest teachers like Chrysostom or Basil, etc. It’s why the Nicene Creed says “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.
Yes, we too are called to evangelize, heal the sick, even raise the dead. But the gospel we preach is the gospel of the apostle (which is to say scripture), because only the apostle can claim he got his gospel directly from God.
Note 96. Missourian writes:
Missourian is absolutely correct. If women seeling ordination threaten to leave Orthodoxy because it won’t ordain women, let them leave. Harvey needs to explain why her ideas ought even to be considered when they have failed horribly in other places — the Episcopal Church for example.
Does Scripture tells us if the seventy were male or female or both?
Renee
Dear Missourian,
Please forgive me, but I am choosing not to interact with you on this subject material. I am familiar with your style on this blog, and I do not care for it. Once before you disagreed with some postings I made, and I invited you to a private dialogue. You did not respond to that. My feelings, right or wrong, are that you are more interested in impressing an audience than you are with actually listening to what others have to say. If you have your mind made up about certain, issues, that is your perogative. Others of us might still be exploring, which is the category in which I place myself.
Go ahead, as you did before and accuse me of whatever you want. This is your style. I will not be responding to you, but you do have my prayers. And I mean this in all kindness.
Renee
Rather than defend Susan A. Harvey you choose to withdraw, your choice
This is the second time that you have WITHDRAWN rather than respond to my legitimate questions about your IDEAS. The readers may draw their own conclusions from that.
If you venture into the public realm and act as an advocate for ideas you are required to defend them and respond to legitimate questions about those ideas if you want to be taken seriously. You are willing to propound your ideas but you are not willing to engage those who challenge them. So be it.
My debating style is no different than the debating style of Jim Holman, JamesK, Dean Scourtes, Glen and others.The fact remains that I have critiqued the quote taken from St. Nina’s from Susan A. Harvey. I haven’t addressed you other than to respond to the ideas and arguments you have advanced. In no way, have I accused you of anything, I have only challenged your ideas.
My questions remain, they include but are not limited to:
A) By what authority does Susan A. Harvey claim to be a prophet who can communicate the message of the Holy Spirit?
B) Can a legitimate modern prophet CONTRADICT the ancient prophets?
C) Did God may a mistake by choosing the males of the Levi Tribe for his priests in the temple?
D) When did God change His mind about choosing male priests?
E) Why shouldn’t laypeople be alarmed when the theology of Gene Robinson makes its appearance in yet another Church.(using the quotidian meaning of the term “Church” not the deeper spiritual meaning)
These questions are quite ordinary and they are questions that spring to people’s mind when listening to Susan A. Harvey. These are questions that the laypeople of the UMC had in the back of their minds in the 1970’s but they were intimidated away from asking them. Susan A. Harvey is a radical change agent and she has announced her intentions. She approves of women who will leave their Church to find a Church that will ordain them. Again, I will be driving past a number of UMC churches and I have happy to give them a free ride to one.
Intimidating the Pew Potatoes
Back in the 1970’s faithful members of the UMC where confronted with their own Susan A. Harvey’s. These women came to the local churches fresh from the seminaries. They were presented to the congregation as learned and wise people.
Members of the congregation had strong questions about the ideas these people brought to local congregations, but, many were too intimidated to raise the questions they had. Their questions were appropriate, the questions were vital to the life of their church but they didn’t ask them. Parishioners thought “who am I to question someone who has studied the ancient languages and manuscripts?” So we sat there and watched our Church crumble bit by bit.
The early Methodists were known for their love of their hymns. The hymns used powerful melodies and simple moving language from the King James Version of the Bible. The hymns were a great source of joy and spiritual sustenance for Methodists. Most had hymn books in their homes, many people sang hymns at home from their own hymn books.
By the time that the feminist transformation was over, the Church had begun to “rewrite” the powerful language of the hymns, which was, of course, the language of the King James Bible, a great literary and spiritual treasure. They dumbed it down and smoothed it out. Back in the Episcopal Church they have done the same, the revisionists have LITERALLY dumbed down and smoothed out and revised the Book of Common Prayer, a work of great spiritual and literary weight. The BCP revisionists had created something that reads like a comic book because they live in a tower of contempt for the faith of the simple. The revisionists right simple language for people they think are simple.
Those congregations which have most strongly embraced the feminist transformation are losing members and shutting down, traditional congregations are doing fine, although their clergy is beleaguered by the revisionists at every step.
Just from my personal experience as a cradle Orthodox Christian I have met only one Orthodox woman who desired to restore the office of the deaconess and I have never met any Orthodox woman who wanted to become a priestess. Most of us have found a thousand other ways to serve the Lord because there is so much work to be done. These debates from the few are just another distraction from keeping us focused on Christ and doing His work.
What little I have read about the role of the deaconess in ancient times was this office was developed to help the bishop when serving women. Culturally in ancient times, men were not allowed to touch women so the deaconess would assist the male clergy during baptisms of women. The deaconess would also go to the homes of women who were ill to take care of them because again, it was not appropriate for male clergy to directly minister to women in such an intimate way. I don’t believe there is any record of deaconesses serving on the altar in the same capacity as a deacon. The deaconess had a specific role to play in ancient times due to propriety sake. Over time the need to have females assist the priest in baptizing adult women disappeared due to cultural changes and with it the office of deaconess disappeared. Anyway, most women continue to serve the needs of the Orthodox church in ministering to others. We are chanters, choir directors, teachers, charity fundraisers, parish council presidents, officers of the diocese ministries, etc. We can get theology degrees, teach in seminaries and write books on the faith. And now that the Orthodox church is beginning to return to its roots of evangelizing, women are also playing vital roles as missionaries here and abroad.