Women and leadership [Archive] - Monachos.net Discussion Community

Desert Aspirant

16-07-2003, 07:13 PM

To Owen Jones:

I disagree with the above comment you made:

"...Because Christianity is a reactionary, patriarchal, rigid society designed to oppress women and minorities and enslave people to superstition....."

Christianity was not "designed to oppress women and minorities" nor to "enslave" anyone to anything.

Christianity was providentially "designed" for peoples' getting back in touch with God and the "abundant life" of the spirit.

Christ's example was that he thought very highly of women. He had many trusted women friends. After His crucifixion -- but prior to His ascension -- He first appeared to Mary Magdalene at the empty tomb.(John 20)

At Pentecost, in the Upper Room, many women were present and received the Holy Spirit along with the men.

Since then, Chritianity's high regard for The Theotokos, or Blessed Mother, and the many women saints in Orthodoxy and Catholicism have acknowledged the wisdom of women.

Christianity has proclaimed numerous women saints. Catholics have named a few doctors of the church. This recognizes the spiritual contributions of women, many of whom displayed leadership capabilites through the founding of convents and hospitals, or other charitable organizations..

That women cannot be deacons or priests stems more from perceptions of roles defined and instilled by nature. Long ago, it was more necessary that women remain at home. Just getting water for a small family could have taken an hour or more. Add laundry, food shopping, cooking, and other responsibilities to the list, and there goes an entire day! Women have always had responsibilities, and in the past many were so busy with domestic duties they had no time for increased education. The majority could not go off to universities, and few sources came to them from which they learn from.

Oppressions of women (and ethnic minorities) have been due to lack of Christian principles and spiritual shortsightedness. Throughout the centuries, people have exclaimed, "Lord, Lord," proclaiming to be Christian; but their actions have been far from His teachings.

Christ never intended for anyone to be oppressed. He taught just the opposite.

The prevailing attitudes that some men had, where women were to be seen but not heard -- were NOT what Christ demonstrated.

As far as the fraying topic of men and women goes, the world evolved with a form of social order, which can be traced back to naturally defined roles.

Things are changing. But a forced and hasty changed can have unforeseen repercussions; new problems will emerge in place of the old. If change happens at a peaceful and properly flowing pace, circumstances will be better.

Any blame cannot be placed on Christianity.

Justin

16-07-2003, 07:19 PM

Andrew,

Greetings! The questions you ask are difficult ones because Orthodox answers are hard to understand outside of an Orthodox context. You ask about being in the clergy, for instance, but for an Orthodox Christian we do not want to "move up in the ranks". There were a number of early patristic treaties on the priesthood (by Saints Gregory the Theologian, Ambrose, Gregory the Great, and John Chrysostom, to name a few), and they all generally agreed that the priesthood was not something to be sought after as you might seek after a "better job" or "more rewarding job". In the Orthodox understanding, if you are seeking after the priesthood because of power, prestige--or even because you want to help people--then you need to be examined very closely. In the words of Saint Paul in the book of Hebrews, priests must watch over the souls of others: it is a great responsibility, one so heavy that it could very well crush a soul! The temptations are numerous, and the stumbling blocks are constantly before you. Saint John Chrysostom, for example, said: "I do not think there are many among Bishops that will be saved, but many more that perish..." (Third Homily on Acts (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-11/npnf1-11-10.htm#P272_117779)) This is just one aspect of the female clergy discussion that isn't often considered (by those outside the Church). When things like this (and there are many other aspects not often explored) are added to the discussion, the seeking after of the priesthood suddenly becomes something silly, though dangerous.

By all means, please continue searching (besides the internet, there are books on the subject, if you have the time and money, and are very deeply interesting, they might be worth the investment).

Desert Aspirant

16-07-2003, 07:29 PM

P.S. to Owen Jones,

Besides, not everyone believes it "oppressive" that women are not allowed to be official priests or deacons.

I, for one, am not so sure there are any "oppressive" intentions behind it.

As stated above, Christianity's high regard for The Theotokos, or Blessed Mother, and the many women saints in Orthodoxy and Catholicism has acknowledged the contributory wisdom of women.

They've written numerous books, taught and served in many ways. Their time and talents have been appreciated.

The Bible says, "All things are possible with God." That may eventually mean, even for women to be deacons or priests. But people must greet such change with open arms, and it should be of Divine Providence's decision. If happening in God's time, there won't be as much fuss or fuming oppositions.

God bless,
A Desert Aspirant

Herman Blaydoe

16-07-2003, 07:49 PM

I suspect Owen's comments were in the spirit of ironic sarcasm--a cutting remark that implies the opposite of what it says. It generally does not work well in the impersonal environment of internet communications since the tone and facial expression of the poster cannot be sensed, and the comment often misses its mark and sparks its own thread, much to the consternation of the originator. This is what prompted the usenet/chat invention of "emoticons" to try and add a little conversational body language to bland ASCII text. Sarcasm is often accompanied by either ;) (a wink) or :P to indicate a tongue firmly planted in the cheek.

Female & Orthodox

16-07-2003, 07:50 PM

Thanks Rebecca for the distinction between ordination and leadership.

Thanks Justin for a very good answer. Clerical orders in Orthodoxy do not equate with "moving up the ranks" and there is a great responsibility associated with orders.

There is a history of women's leadership in the Orthodox Church, so I don't understand the question except the possibility that Rebecca pointed out. (confusion of leadership with ordination)
Leadership is not relegated solely to ordained, liturgical roles. We must remember that there are other liturgical leadership roles by which Orthodox lay men and lay women assist.

In regard to ordination of women, please refer to the history of the female diaconate. A very good presentation of this history is provided by Matushka Ellen Gvosdev, Ph.D. in her book "The Female Diaconate: An Historical Perspective," Light and Life Publishers, 1991. Personally, I would like to see a return of the female diaconate, but only as a restoration and continuation of the historical institution. I do not see such a restoration as a means to "moving up the ranks" toward a female priesthood.

Desert Aspirant

16-07-2003, 08:09 PM

In answer to Herman B:

Hi Herman.

Perhaps you are correct in that Owen Jones was being funny. I've not followed the entire thread, nor am I familiar with other things he has said in order to have picked up on his sarcasm.

Oh well. Got some thoughts out on the subject anyway, for what it's worth.

Believe it or not, there are people out there, who really hold beliefs such as he was being sarcastic about.

Yes sir, those "emoticons" certainly do come in handy. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

God bless.

Desert Aspirant

16-07-2003, 10:19 PM

Hello.

This morning I posted with the name "Desert Aspirant," implying spiritual aspiration. We all know what the "desert" implies in one's spiritual struggle.

But while doing dishes and putting away last night's pots and pans, it dawned on me, since I posted an oil-free muffins recipe earlier, that someone, somewhere, might misread the name as "Dessert Aspirant." http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

"Aspirant" can be very misunderstood, since Webster's Dictionary defines the term as one who aspires for things that are quite contrary to spiritual attainments.

There is a major difference between worldly aspirations and spiritual aspirations.

A spiritual aspirant is only one who aspires for growth in the spiritual realm, to acquire knowledge of the nous, hoping for theosis, and seeks to ascend only that Ladder of Divine Ascent, which ironically, requires us to descend in ego. (As the Catholic mystic St. Therese of Liseux suggested, we must instead try "to make ourselves small.")

Aspiring for the "pearl of great price" requires much humility, which a Fr. Averky on these boards has reminded us here.

The thesaurus states an aspirant is merely one who aspires, and then says aspires means to "have fervent hope for." Now, that isn't too bad.

So, from the "desert," aspiring for spiritual growth,

For now....
A Desert Aspirant (not dessert)

God bless.

Fr Averky

17-07-2003, 01:18 AM

Dear Andrew,

The Orthodox Church has always revered and honored women. While it is true that our Saviour saw fit to appoint men to be the bishops and clergy, women have had a great impact on the its spiritual and daily life.

St. Paul, in his epistles praises several good and pious women. Women were towers of strength during the early days of the Church, especially during time of persecution. When the Disciples of the Lord fled and hid themselves "for fear of the Jews," it was the Holy Myrhhbearers who came early to the tomb, and were only concerned as to who would roll the heavy stone back for them. St, Mary of Magdala also bravely went to the garden seeking the body of Christ, and the Saviour tenderly appeared to her. If one reads the lives of early saints of the church, there he will find countless women martyrs, who endured the most terrible tortures for the sake of Christ, and urged others on to be brave.

Who cannot be touched by the heart-breaking story of St. Sophia and her three holy daughters, Faith, Hope and Love? For three days she had to stand and watch as her pure young daughters were being mercilously tortured by pagans and while others cruelly condemned her for being a good mother and puting a stop the the girl's sufferings, when her daughters would cry out, she would only urge them not to give in, but to be the Brides of Christ. Three days after their death, she too died of a broken heart, and is listed among the Holy Martyrs of the Church. The Roman empress Alexandra, witnessing for years the tortures of the Greast Martyr George, stepped forward and exclaimed that she too was a Christian, and had accepted Christ after witnessing St. George's firm belief. The infuriated emperor sentenced her to death with St. George, but as she was walking to the place of execution, she asked to sit down and rest, and in His mercy, God took her soul, but she is still proclimed a Martry.

St,. Anastasia visted those suffering in the wretched prisons of Rome, feeding them and binding their wounds; Sts, Catherine and Barbara suffered terrible deaths at the hands of their own fathers rather than to give up the faith. St. Mary of Magdala and St. Photini, the Samaritan women, both became Apostles of Christ. St. Nina, Equal-to-the Apostles, converted her entire land of Georgia. St. Olga. grandmother of St. Vladimir, influenced him to bring all of his lands to Christianity . Throughout Orthodox lands, nuns lived quiet lives of great asceticism, giving spiritual strength to others. There were many holy eldresses who gave counsel and comfort to those in spiritual and physical need.

During the terrors of the Communist rule in Russia, tens of thousands of nuns and pious women were brutally tortured and put to death. The Empress Alexandra, Emperor Nicholas II and their children were brutally martyred and the Grand Duchess Elizabeth and the nun Barbara, along with relatives of the Grand Duches were thrown down a mine shaft and then explosives were hurled down after them.

In more recent times, it was the women, who, in the face of cruel threats of the godless authorities, kept the churches opened, cleaned and maintained them, and when the churches might be destroyed, ran into the burning or demolished churches and rescued as many holy articles as they could. Quietly, secretly, firmly they passed on piety, love of God . and faith to their children and grandchildren. I remember how in the early 70's a Soviet ship came into Boston harbor, and Russian friend of mine, took a stack of small icons and gave them to one of the officers during dinner. As he started looking at them other officers and sailors started exclaiming, "look, it's the Kazan Mother of God, or the Vladimir, or... I want that one for my wife, or for my grandmother .. my kids would love this one!." Suddenly they stood in silence, for, after all they were "communists," and did not "believe" in such "nonsense!" within minutes, all the icons had been snatched up. A Roman Catholic friend of mine, a Dominican called me during Great Lent to tell me how to men had come to fix the dishwasher at his rectory. One of them asked if it was Lent for him also. when he said that it was, they said, "We are Orthdox, and we grew up under the harshest Communist times, and our grandmothers would never let us have meat or milk or eggs." They said this as they were looking at his breakfast cereal and a quart of milk. He said he was not offended, but very touched by their confession of faith.

Women during the dark days of Communism endured much for the sake of Christ. There is a story told of a small group of nuns found "guilty" of crimes against the state, to which the Abbess would not admit. They were brought out in the freezing cold with only their habits to wear, no coats or scarves; They were taken before the barbed wire fence of a prison where hundreds of detainees stood watching as the prison guards let loose a pack of starving dogs to tear the women to shreds. As the dogs, ran towards them, the nuns began to sing softly and sweetly, a hymn to the Mother of God. The dogs sat meekly in the snow and would not harm the nuns, bringing to shame those who would have murdered them before helpless and terrified witnesses. As late as the early 80's a very aged nun was sent to hard labour in the Gulag, for it was discovered that she was making and giving out prayer ropes to the faithful and was found guilty of "Anti-Stae Propaganda!"

During the wars and the revolution, mothers wept before their icons praying for their sons and husbands sent of to war. And this is not just Orthodox women, but all mothers everywhere and at all times. My heart breaks when I see the poor suffering people in Africa; amother looking out in a daze as her child starves to death in her arms, mothers sorrowing in India, the Arab countries, everywhere wherever there is humanity. Using whatever strength they have left, with a stck with whatever they can find, they attempt to scratch the earth to plant a few seeds to feed their children.

Women are possessed of great leadership Andrew, and they are champions and heroines. Christ appointed men to be the clerics, but just as the husband is the head of the household, and the woman is the heart. The women of the Church are its heart, and it is they to teach their sons to say their prayers, and who lead their little hearts to love God. St. Olga brought her grandson St. Vladimir to bring all of his lands to Christianity. Women have always been a great force in the life of the church, calming the tempers and violent tendencies of their men, and instilling in them gentleness and tender-heartedness. The great monastic saints were know for their meekness, gentleness and kindness towards others, and I daresy they got most of that from their mothers. In every terrible war, men who survived told the story as to when their young fellow soldiers were dying in the battle field, their last words were, "Mama! Mama!" My own mother taught me to love the the Mother of God and every day until I graduated from high school, we walked to church for six o'clock mass every morning, no matter the weather conditions.

I thank God for all the wonderful women who helped and nourished me spiritually and materially me in my life and I honor, revere, and respect women for all they endure and all thay have provided. How God loved men to provide us with the spiritual beauty of Woman, for otherwise we would just be like savage beasts.

Father A.

Jurretta J. Heckscher

17-07-2003, 02:03 AM

Dear friends:

I am moved by Father Averky's beautiful post to add the story of another wonderful Orthodox woman saint, a married woman and a mother, Juliana of Lazarev (whose name I am honored to bear as my chalice name, and who shares her feast day, January 2/15, with St. Seraphim of Sarov). Here is a brief account of her life (she died in 1604) from the Web site at http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Feasts-and-Saints/january/jan-02.html:

"Righteous Juliana of Lazarev and Muromsk presents an astonishing example of a self-denying Russian Christian woman. She was the daughter of the nobleman Iustin Nediurov. From her early years she lived piously, kept the fasts strictly and set aside much time for prayer. Early on having become orphaned, she was given over into the care of kinsfolk, who did not take to her and laughed at her.

Juliana bore everything with patience and without complaint. Her love for people expressed itself in this manner -- she often nursed the sick and sewed clothing for the poor. The pious and virtuous life of the maiden attracted the attention of the Lazarev village owner, Yurii Osor'in, who thereafter soon married her. The husband's parents loved their gentle daughter-in-law and gave over into her hands the running of the household. Domestic concerns did not disrupt the spiritual efforts of Juliana. She always found time for prayer and she was always prepared to feed the orphaned and clothe the poor.

During the time of an harsh famine, she herself remained without food, having given away her last morsel to someone begging. When an epidemic started after the famine, Juliana devoted herself completely to the nursing of the sick.

Righteous Juliana had six sons and a daughter. After the death of two of her sons she decided to withdraw to a monastery, but her husband persuaded her to remain in the world, and to continue to raise their children. On the testimony of a son of Juliana -- Kallistrat Osor'in, who wrote her life, at this time she became all the more demanding towards herself: she intensified her fasting and prayer, slept not more than two hours at night, and then laying her head upon a board.

Upon the death of her husband, Juliana distributed to the poor her portion of the inheritance. Living in extreme poverty, she was none the less for it vivacious, cordial, and in everything she thanked the Lord. The saint was vouchsafed a visitation by Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker and guidance by the Mother of God in church. When Righteous Juliana expired to the Lord, she was then buried alongside her husband at the church of Saint Lazarus. Here also was buried her daughter, the schema-nun Theodosia. In the year 1614 the relics of Righteous Juliana were uncovered, exuding a fragrant myrh, from which many received healing."

There is an icon of her pictured at http://www.oca.org/pages/dwp/large.asp?saintid=100010

It is also important to remember that the Orthodox Church honors as its own all the women (and men!) saints of the Christian West before the Schism. These luminous exemplars of faith include women such as the Anglo-Saxon abbess St. Hilda of Whitby, who presided over an abbey of both male and female monastics and whose wisdom and holiness was honored by bishops and kings; and St. Brigid of Kildare, one of the most beloved saints of Ireland and whom, it is said, even the fishes honored for her great sanctity (this and other delightful if not necessarily strictly historical tales of St. Brigid may be found at http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~dc920/saintale.html)

Yours in Christ,

--Jurretta

Justin

17-07-2003, 02:24 AM

Just a slightly off-topic post, to compliment Jurretta's fine post. There is a parish in New Mexico named for Saint Julianna of Lazarevo (http://stjulianalazarevo.org/load.php?pageid=1) which has a lengthy biography and an akathist, among other things. Just thought I'd share (Since she is such a wonderful saint and I would love to see her become better known to in our Church!)

Fr Averky

17-07-2003, 04:49 AM

My Dear Owen,,

How does your initial post on this thread coincide with your beliefs as an Orthodox Christian? I believe that you love God and His Church, so where does this outburst come from? I do not believe a word of it!

Fr. A.

Andrew Latz

17-07-2003, 01:58 PM

I seem to have caused some confusion with the phrase 'moving up the ranks'. I did not mean to imply that being in the clergy entailed ambition and the like. My question is this: why are there no women clergy?
Fr. A: those stories were remarkable but don't answer my question. Also where is your proof for this statement: 'Christ appointed men to be the clerics'? What does it mean that men are 'head of the household' and women the 'heart'?
Herman Blaydoe: What do you make of Paul's use of women in leadership? (I realise I've switched form asking about ordination to informal leadership but this is inescapable since in Paul's day there was no formal ordination).
Justin: Sorry about the confusion from my ill-used phrase but I don't see what any of your post had to do with women.
Female & Orthodox: could you explain more about the female diaconate?
Thank you all. Hope I don't sound aggressive, truly I don't mean to, just trying to understand.
in Christ,
Andrew
PS Herman Blaydoe's point about Orthodoxy not liking change points to a deeper question. What happens if the Church is doing something not Biblical, or even wrong? How can it preserve tradition but be open to the ever new challenges of Scripture?

Owen Jones

17-07-2003, 02:55 PM

Thanks, Herman.

xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx

Rebecca

17-07-2003, 03:21 PM

Hi Andrew,

My question is this: why are there no women clergy?

Ah, clarity of question http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

To find the answer, I humbly suggest starting by looking into what the role of clergy is in the Orthodox Church. Justin provided a number of very good references to begin exploring the answer to that question. The authors he noted are truly Holy people whose recorded words provide a wealth of insight for those honestly seeking.

Also, if you haven't already, I also suggest attending an Orthodox church service to see first hand.

Best Regards

Herman Blaydoe

17-07-2003, 03:31 PM

What do you make of Paul's use of women in leadership? (I realise I've switched form asking about ordination to informal leadership but this is inescapable since in Paul's day there was no formal ordination).

I don't think the Orthodox Church "use" of women in leadership roles is any different. Neither Paul nor any of the other Apostles appointed women as bishops or "elders" but that, of course, does not mean that women did not serve in leadership roles. The Holy Church refers to several women saints as "equal to the Apostles." We recognize the special place of the Holy Theotokos and how it was the myrrhbearing women who supported Christ even in death when all the menfolk were off hiding.

You want leadership? HERE is an example of leadership: When Kruschev chided the Patriarch of Moscow he said: "what will you do when the last grandmother dies and the Church dies with them?" To which the Patriarch replied: "We will have a new generation of grandmothers to replace them."

Women are terribly important to the Church, they are teachers, healers, prophets, MOTHERS (please do not overlook this incredible LEADERSHIP resource), members of the parish council (often president or presiding officers), and so much more. How is this different than the example of the Holy Apostle Paul?

PS Herman Blaydoe's point about Orthodoxy not liking change points to a deeper question. What happens if the Church is doing something not Biblical, or even wrong? How can it preserve tradition but be open to the ever new challenges of Scripture?

Well, does God change? Is God different now than He was? Didn't the Holy Apostle Paul write that there is nothing new under the sun? The Holy Church recognizes that our Lord and Savior, Christ Jesus, gave to his Apostles the ENTIRE REVELATION. He IS the entire revelation. There can be nothing "new" unless what Christ taught was "incomplete." If the revelation was complete, how can the Church be "wrong?" Are we not guided by the Holy Spirit as promised by Christ? Is He a liar? God forbid! Did He not promise that the Church was His bride and not even the gates of hell would prevail against her? If the Church does something "wrong" we get slapped upside the head (figuratively speaking) and brought back on the right track. But we only do wrong when we deviate from the Apostolic witness, which was correct and complete. The ordination of women was evidently not part of that revelation.

It is true that from time to time there have been those who wanted to deviate from the complete revelation, to add to it or take away from it, according to their own purposes. There were Arians, Gnostics, Nestorians, Macedonians, and so on. Ecumenical councils and "heros" (saints) chosen by God helped keep the Church on the straight path. If we believe otherwise we call God a liar because the gates of hell must have prevailed at some point. I don't think so.

It is not for us to change the Church, it is the Church that must be allowed to change us.

Something that I have thought about from time to time: God gave women the unique gift of being able to bring new life into the world. I realize that this gift is denigrated horribly these days, but how is it "fair" that only women can have babies?

Justin

17-07-2003, 03:57 PM

Andrew,

Sorry about the confusion from my ill-used phrase but I don't see what any of your post had to do with women.

No problem. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif It didn't deal directly with the question you asked, but it sort of was an attempt to help clarify things generally. You asked a question about a particular aspect of the priesthood and I was just pointing out something general about the priesthood. Most people that ask about this kind of thing ask "why can't women be priests?" But my response (and part of the reasoning for my response can be seen in my last post) to them is: "why would women want to be priests??" It's something that you should do if you are undeniably called by God, it's not something that you should be seeking out and trying to run after. God, for whatever reason (and there are many given in Orthodox literature), saw fit to only make females priests, then that's the end of it; yet there is a push (even within Orthodoxy) for female priests. Again, I'd have to ask, why? Who is it that wants to risk their salvation? Who is it that wants such a large stone tied around their neck by seeking something they are not called for?

This is not an answer to your question, but part of an answer. When you look at one piece of the puzzle it doesn't really look like much... but keep looking, and when you find the other pieces then what I've so awkwardly tried to say will make a bit more sense.

Justin

17-07-2003, 04:00 PM

Er... big mistake! I really need to read over this stuff more before I post it.. the following should say male, not female...

God, for whatever reason (and there are many given in Orthodox literature), saw fit to only make males priests

Female & Orthodox

17-07-2003, 04:45 PM

Herman wrote: "It is true that from time to time there have been those who wanted to deviate from the complete revelation, to add to it or take away from it, according to their own purposes. There were Arians, Gnostics, Nestorians, Macedonians, and so on. Ecumenical councils and "heros" (saints) chosen by God helped keep the Church on the straight path. If we believe otherwise we call God a liar because the gates of hell must have prevailed at some point. I don't think so."

No one is deviating in regard to the female diaconate. In fact, females deacons were mentioned at the Council of Nicea (Didaskalia Apostolorum, Canon 19), the Deaconess Publia faced off with Julian the Apostate, and St. Irene and St. Theodora(not deaconesses) were instrumental in the restoration of Icons much to the chagrin of the iconoclasts. Some of the "heroes" chosen by God were "heroines."

Regarding gender and ordination
I do not know why God created women to have babies and men not to have to have babies, but I would make the following distinction. Whether or not women can be ordained is not tied to gender. That is the worst argument because it inevitably turns into an argument of salvation. The Early Christians were faced with an array of historical backgrounds, one of those being Judaism. Our Christian anthropology is derived from that. To put it bluntly, Woman is from and part of the Man. Examples: In Christianity, Christ, the Man, deified, thus deifies all humanity - not just men. When St. Paul speaks about marriage in Eph 5.22, he is spinning off of this anthropology. It would be ridiculous for a man for not to love his wife or vice versa. Similarly, it would also be ridiculous for a husband and a wife not to be mutually subordinate. The two become one as was intended from the very beginning of marriage at creation. Unfortunately, a focus on the primacy of the male in creation (which discounts God's plan to create woman!)and the Fall of humankind by Eve (alone, forgetting that Adam was given a will) has led to mysogyny stereotypically characteristic of patriarchical societies; but that would be a new topic! Maybe that is where Owen was heading? (BTW: Owen, I do enjoy your posts - intelligently refreshing.)

Female Diaconate
Yes, there are female saints who are listed as being "equal to the apostles." One of these is Phoebe. Paul writes in Romans 16.1-2 about "our sister Phoebe, a deaconess (diakonon) of the church at Cenchrae." I understand that there is still a church dedicated to her and that she is listed as St. Phoebe, Deacon in many Greek Dioceses. The Greek term diakonon is the same used for Stephen and the other 6 men of good repute who were deacons by the laying on of hands in Acts 6.

I will cut to the chase by stating that the main argument has been whether or not women were ordained or blessed for their ministry. The Codex for the Ordination of Women records that women were ordained to the diaconate via the laying on of hands. (cheirotonia) (NOT blessing cheirothesia)

There is further historical evidence in the Councils, canons, prayers, and hagiography. I really suggest that you obtain the source I listed above. Matushka Gvosdev did a marvellous job and I do not want to reproduce HER work in my post.

Female deacons and their duties were distinct from those of male deacons. The ministry of female deacons included baptism of females, instruction of females, visiting the sick, assisting women at liturgy, bringing communion, and sometimes (in some places) substituting for a male deacon at liturgical duties when no male deacon was present.

Jurretta J. Heckscher

17-07-2003, 04:48 PM

Dear Herman and others in this discussion:

I think perhaps the matter of revelation is a little more complicated than Herman's post suggests. Consider this passage in the Gospel of John, Chapter 16, verses 12-15:

"12: I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.

13: When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.

14: He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

15: All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you."

And in fact, this is exactly what has happened historically. The Holy Spirit has been active in this way throughout the history of the Church, and particularly during its formative first millennium. Yes, during His life on earth, the Lord gave us the foundation for all understanding--but as He says in this passage, the understanding itself was not yet complete. Therefore, as gaps in understanding came to the surface, the Ecumenical Councils, under the Guidance of the Holy Spirit, had to bring to light the meaning of what the Lord gave us in ways that are only implicit in the Gospels but that have proven essential to the fullness of Truth. Nothing proclaimed by the Councils contradicts Scripture, therefore--but the teachings of the Councils (as on Christ's own Nature, for example, or on the Holy Icons) do elaborate and illuminate what is contained in the Gospels, working out the meaning of Truth in explicit ways. That is why the Church rests its understanding not only on Scripture, but on Scripture and Tradition, because the two cannot be separated, forming as they do a single deposit of Truth.

One could perhaps say that Christ gave us the seed, complete in itself and containing already all that is necessary--but it was then also necessary for the seed to flower within Holy Tradition under the guidance of the Holy Spirit in order for its meaning to be understood aright. Or, to choose a different simile, it is as though Christ gave us a complete picture at one level of magnification, and the Holy Spirit through the Councils has given us the means to view that picture at a higher level of magnification so that its structures are more clearly revealed.

As you know, the Ecumenical Councils were often generally called in response to the rise of a heresy or of the possibility of heresy within the Church. Such heresies showed the Church the need for more explicit understanding, which the Councils then provided. Therefore I would also suggest--at the risk of shocking my brethren--that it is possible that in the future, new heresies or other difficulties will arise that will cause the Church to convene additional Councils that will likewise shed new light on the treasures of Truth that we hold. And for all that, as for all things, we must trust the Holy Spirit.

Yours in Christ,

--Jurretta J. Heckscher

Daniel Jeandet

17-07-2003, 04:50 PM

Hey Andrew, I dont understand the Churches position on this subject either, maybe because I am a guy. And I agree with you when you say that the answers to your question are not yet satisfactory, maybe because guys sometimes have a hard time understanding women.

Orthodoxy is not so much a journey with a destination, but more of a return. And its single concern Andrew, is with uniting the changeable to the Changeless. When Orthodoxy changes, it ceases to exist. There are several thousand examples of this in the various anthropocentric versions of "christianity" that have "improved" on the Faith to keep up with subjective history's evolving halucinatory stream. Like us, when our minds depart from the rememberence of God, and we partake in that which lacks substance. Like what C.S Lewis said, about how that which is not eternal is eternaly out of date.

Owen Jones

17-07-2003, 05:12 PM

A deaconness is simply not the same as an ordained deacon. I believe they had some liturgical duties and other ministries. But it is simply not one and the same. Feminists in the Epsicopal Church have argued that the early Church had women priests because of the references to presbyteras. Which just shows the ignorance of people trying to make a justification for their ideology. Of course, any Orthodox person knows that a presbytera is the wife of a priest. She is supposed to be given special praise for this position. But it doesn't mean that she serves at the altar!

All we have to do is look at the practical results of churches that ordain women to understand the problems with this. The Episcopal Church is no longer identifiably Christian.

Herman Blaydoe

17-07-2003, 05:19 PM

And in fact, this is exactly what has happened historically. The Holy Spirit has been active in this way throughout the history of the Church, and particularly during its formative first millennium. Yes, during His life on earth, the Lord gave us the foundation for all understanding--but as He says in this passage, the understanding itself was not yet complete. Therefore, as gaps in understanding came to the surface, the Ecumenical Councils, under the Guidance of the Holy Spirit, had to bring to light the meaning of what the Lord gave us in ways that are only implicit in the Gospels but that have proven essential to the fullness of Truth.

I have a problem with this. The quotes from the Gospel of John were spoken prior to His FULL REVELATION in His Ascention and Pentecost. I would contend that the Church teaches that the Apostolic witness was full and complete. It was later, when certain people decided to CHOOSE (the ultimate root meaning of heresy) to deviate from that witness, that councils would be necessary, not to "more explicitly" define or elaborate, but to simply restate what the Apostolic witness states from the beginning. We cannot add to the Apostolic witness. The best we can do is restate, perhaps in a more appropriate cultural mileu, what was taught before. Otherwise we teach a new or different gospel, and the Holy Apostle Paul tells us this is NOT a good thing.

Female and Orthodox wrote:
No one is deviating in regard to the female diaconate. In fact, females deacons were mentioned at the Council of Nicea (Didaskalia Apostolorum, Canon 19), the Deaconess Publia faced off with Julian the Apostate, and St. Irene and St. Theodora(not deaconesses) were instrumental in the restoration of Icons much to the chagrin of the iconoclasts. Some of the "heroes" chosen by God were "heroines."

I agree completely, such indeed was my point and I apologize if I gave any other impression.

Female deacons and their duties were distinct from those of male deacons.

Agreed.

The ministry of female deacons included baptism of females, instruction of females, visiting the sick, assisting women at liturgy, bringing communion,

I believe it somewhat more correct to say that female deacons ASSISTED in the baptism of women, they were there to help preserve modesty since baptisms were performed without clothes. A male priest or bishop was still present even if he was on the other side of the screen. It should be noted that in times of extreme need/imminent death, ANYBODY can perform baptism of a person, however, if that person does survive, the individual should present themselves to a priest/bishop for a formal baptism/chrismation.

and sometimes (in some places) substituting for a male deacon at liturgical duties when no male deacon was present.

I believe such actions were very limited and do not, in themselves, constitute proof that the Church as a whole condoned such practices.

Rebecca

17-07-2003, 05:21 PM

And I agree with you when you say that the answers to your question are not yet satisfactory, maybe because guys sometimes have a hard time understanding women.

Perhaps that's part of the answer? (Luke 24:11)

M.C. Steenberg

17-07-2003, 07:12 PM

I have a problem with this. The quotes from the Gospel of John were spoken prior to His FULL REVELATION in His Ascention and Pentecost. I would contend that the Church teaches that the Apostolic witness was full and complete. It was later, when certain people decided to CHOOSE (the ultimate root meaning of heresy) to deviate from that witness, that councils would be necessary, not to "more explicitly" define or elaborate, but to simply restate what the Apostolic witness states from the beginning. We cannot add to the Apostolic witness. The best we can do is restate, perhaps in a more appropriate cultural mileu, what was taught before. Otherwise we teach a new or different gospel, and the Holy Apostle Paul tells us this is NOT a good thing.

Dear Herman,

This has always been a difficult issue to address by modern minds. The Orthodox Church firmly believes that the Faith was 'once for all delivered to the Saints' (see Jude, v. 2), and that this Faith is full and complete as the self-revelation of Jesus Christ. But the Church has never equated this full and complete revelation, this deposit of the faith, with an associated fullness or completeness of comprehension, or even proclamation, on the part of the Church's people. You are right to suggest that the activities of the heretics prompted the early Councils to 'dogmatise' certain elements of the Faith that had been believed since the beginning (e.g. the two natures of Christ, the co-eternity of the three persons of the Trinity); but the proclamations of these councils were not wholly anti-heretical in function: they also defined and made comprehensible the truth of the Faith to a generation in need of such definition.

This is seen much later, in the smaller local councils that addressed the hesychastic practices of the 13th-century Athonites (in a dispute now often called the 'Palamite Controversy' after St Gregory Palamas, who wrote fervently for the type of prayer that he practiced), which made 'locally dogmatic' statements on the validity of the corporeal vision of the divine energies of God. In so doing, they were introducing nothing 'new' into the faith, yet were proclaiming in exposition the reality of an aspect of that initial 'depositum' that was not clearly understood by a great many - including many in the holy Church.

The dynamic relationship between the unchanging deposit of the Faith given by Christ to the Apostles, preserved unaltered by the succession of bishops and faithful, and the need for making comprehensible and known the mystery proclaimed in this Faith by ongoing generations of those faithful, has always been at the very heart of Orthodox 'theological proclamation'. It is the reason that homilies are given during (or after, depending on local practice) the holy Liturgy: to make more comprehensible to the people the mystery taking place in their presence and in which they are a part (as a note, 'making the mystery comprehensible' and 'understanding how things work' are very different concepts; but that is a different discussion). It is the reason that hierarchs deliver encyclicals. It is the reason that synods and councils meet in our own day to bring clarity of comprehension to the unalterable Faith which ensure that its unchanging reality is preserved in social and cultural contexts that forget (deliberately or unintentionally) the contents of that Faith, and often require that its truths be expressed (not defined) in new ways so that they can be understood.

There are definite and necessary limits on how far such re-expression of the Faith can be carried, before it starts actually to re-define. For this reasons there are canons and a hierarchy. But these limits should not be seen to quell the dynamic character of Orthodox understanding of the Faith.

INXC, Matthew

M.C. Steenberg

17-07-2003, 07:13 PM

Dear all,

Regarding the ordination of women: this is one element wherein the tradition of the Church is exceptionally clear. There has never been a custom of female ordination to the priesthood or episcopacy. This certainly stems from the initiatory example of Christ Himself, who entrusted the Apostolic (i.e. episcopal) office and priestly commission to men alone. We do not ultimately know why He instituted the hierarchy of the Church in this order - some mysteries are God's - though there have been many insightful reflections offered in writings on the nature of the priesthood. But we do know that this is the order as instituted by Christ, and thus the Church follows without question or deviation.

The question of female deacons is somewhat more complete. That they existed at some point in the early Church is not debated: there is certainly evidence for this. However, little is known at all as to the extent (i.e. geographically) and duration (chronologically) of their existence, and almost nothing at all is known of their function. There is good evidence to show that they assisted in the baptism of women when this practice was always carried out without clothing (though we do not know in what their 'assistance' consisted: was it simply the physical act of emersion in the water? Did they say the prayers, or was this done by the priest behind the screen?). They must certainly have helped teach (St Paul alludes to this), as well as visit the sick (though there is absolutely no evidence that either of these roles were restricted to 'clergy' in any sense, in the era of which we are speaking). It is possible that female deacons might have assisted in 'distributing the holy gifts' of the Eucharist, but we know so little of the actual format of Eucharistic celebration in the first three centuries that we cannot really know what this would have meant.

Similarly with such notions as female deacons 'replacing' male deacons in liturgical roles. First, there is almost no evidence for this whatever, and such evidence as does exist is so localised as to make it highly aberrational. But second, and far more important, is the fact that we simply don't know what this would have meant, even if it were true. To try to equate the 'office' of a female deacon in the second or third century to the role carried out by a deacon today is to read back nearly two-thousand years of historical development of the deacon's liturgical role into a situation where it did not exist.

Finally, a large amount of weight is given to the fact that some women were called 'deacon' or 'deaconess' in early writings, including those of St Paul. But let us keep in mind the lack of precision regarding ministerial terminology at this point. In St Paul we find evidence of the three-fold ministry of bishop-priest-deacon, but his use of the terms for these roles is imprecise and changes from epistle to epistle. St Irenaeus of Lyons uses 'episkopos' and 'presbyter' interchangeably. 'Deacon' is used regularly in different contexts. It is unwise to take our well-defined perceptions of these titles and read them back on an era in which their usage was not yet firmly established.

INXC, Matthew

Jurretta J. Heckscher

17-07-2003, 07:55 PM

Dear Herman:

Perhaps you are right, but the Lord's words I quoted from the Gospel of John say that "[w]hen the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth." The Holy Spirit came at Pentecost, so it would seem from these words that His guiding actions were to start from, not end with, Pentecost. After all, the Lord did not say, "when the Spirit of truth comes, he will have guided you into all the truth."

One example of what I am talking about is the distinction Orthodoxy makes between God's Essence and His Energies (though to be technically accurate, unless I misremember, this understanding arises from the Divinely-inspired insights of several of the Fathers, beginning with St. Gregory of Nyssa if not earlier, rather than from the conclusions of an Ecumenical Council). Contrary to the accusations of many outside Orthodoxy, this distinction is completely consistent with the Gospels, indeed it is rooted in the Gospels--but it is not _explicitly_ made in the Gospels, or anywhere in Scripture.

So I would cite the distinction between God's Essence and His Energies as an example of a more complete understanding into which the Holy Spirit has led the Church since Pentecost. Did the Apostle Paul, for example, make this distinction specifically? No. The challenges that the Holy Spirit led him to confront in his ministry, and which gave rise to his Holy Epistles, never required him to formulate it. But if it had been presented to him, would he have recognized it as true? Yes. And so it is with all the formulations of the Councils and (for example) all the "consensus Patrum," the theological accord of the Patristic age.

Our certainty, as Orthodox, that the deepened understanding of Truth brought forth in the Tradition of the Church has been completely guided by the Holy Spirit, as Christ promised in the passage I quoted, is our answer to the oft-repeated Protestant criticism that our theology is unscriptural. It is not, of course; it is entirely scriptural (and in fact the Protestants have it backwards: they seek to understand Scripture apart from Tradition, which is ontologically impossible, instead of recognizing that Scripture and Tradition are one), but the Holy Spirit has led the Church to make explicit what in Scripture is sometimes only implicit. That is why it is said that Tradition is "the life of the Holy Spirit within the Church"--the life, not merely the legacy.

Yours in Christ,

--Jurretta

Herman Blaydoe

17-07-2003, 07:57 PM

This has always been a difficult issue to address by modern minds. The Orthodox Church firmly believes that the Faith was 'once for all delivered to the Saints' (see Jude, v. 2), and that this Faith is full and complete as the self-revelation of Jesus Christ. But the Church has never equated this full and complete revelation, this deposit of the faith, with an associated fullness or completeness of comprehension, or even proclamation, on the part of the Church's people.

Agreed. My understanding of the revelation is certainly not complete, but the original question that I was addressing was essentially the hypothetical "what if the Church was wrong, is it not 'allowed' to correct itself?" i.e. CHANGE what it taught. While it may further define and refine, as in the hesychastic debates, it cannot CHANGE the Apostolic witness. I believe that the Church teaches that the ordination of women as priests/bishops essentially CHANGES what has been taught from the beginning rather than being merely "a more complete understanding."

Jurretta J. Heckscher

17-07-2003, 07:59 PM

Dear Matthew:

I wish I had read your post (no. 355) before making my own, as its clarity renders mine unnecessary! Thank you.

Yours in Christ,

--Jurretta

Richard McBride

17-07-2003, 08:02 PM

Good productive advice given by Rebecca to Andrew in her message of Thursday, 17 July -- the, "Ah, clarity of question" message; and especially that point of "attending an Orthodox church service" -- or hopefully, several services.

But I am wondering if this message, or if the many messages on this subject, will do much to fill the hole in Andrew's soul. For as I recall, is Andrew not seeking "proof", as opposed to the Praxis which all of these very good advising-messages were recommending?

I point this out (perhaps others have mentioned it too?) not to incite more messages over the issue, but simply to help overcome, more quickly, the agonizingly occluded vision of Orthodoxy which all of us have had to master -- that is, all of us who have been mired in the damaging Protestant-Modernist ethos most of our lives.

How many times have we read the admonition in these messsages, that the lazy urge to find Truth via the route of theological texts will produce neither truth nor proof. Over and over it has been said, that only in the hard work of living the spiritual life of Orthodoxy, this Praxis, will one discover the vision which we all seek -- that vision for which we long to fill the void in our modernist souls.

Owen Jones

17-07-2003, 08:29 PM

Regarding women priests and deacons, the Church has yet to really respond to this issue forcefully, because there is little there in the Patristic tradition about it. It was just a given and people understood the underlying reasons why and could not anticipate what's happening to the Church as it is secularized and paganized.

But I think we can look around us today and examine what is happening where women are being ordained as priests and deacons, and not simply wring our hands, but conduct a pretty good analysis of it.

Here is a vain attempt. I appears that the female iconic function, if it takes over the priesthood, or is seen as equivalent to the male iconic function, tends toward an ichthonic (sp?) theology. That is, a theology that wells up from the depths, from the earth. Rather than from above. The female, identified with fertility, when priested becomes the harbinger, necessarily, of a fertility cult. That is essentially what the Episcopal Church is today -- a fertility cult. With an odd twist. Most of the male clergy are homosexual and most of the female clergy and probably all of the bishops are lesbians. So one might go a bit farther and call it an Onanistic cult. The cult then conforms itselt to nature's rythms, instead of the classical liturgical rythm. It develops a theology that re-defines humanity in terms of his alienation (caused by oppressive, patriarchal Christianity) from the earth, a humanity which has cut us off from our natural origins and rythms and causes us to be alienated by the Church which created the myth of a Father God. To overcome this alienation is the motive force behind the ordination of women movement. But at the same time, the purpose is to heighten the sense of alienation for everyone. Then the goal is to use that inner energy caused by the alienation to organize people into cells and "empower" them to work to transform political society first, with the ultimate goal of a transformation of nature so that natural rythms and harmonies can prevail once again in a kind of pre-lapserian state. At that point the Church, like the Marxist state, can simply wither away, having done its job. Those who oppose the women's ordination movement are, of course, demonized as reactionary elements who are slowing the inevitable march toward the re-unification of man and nature through their troglodyte attitudes. When I was still an ordained Episcopal priest, it was not unusual for lesbian women to approach me at coffee hour and blow cigarette smoke in my face, and insult me in front of my children. That is the true face of the women's ordination movement. It is therefore a hodgepodge of Rouseuaian romanticism, coupled with the Cultural Marxism of the 60's that claimed that a sexual revolution was necessary for man to throw off his chains. Then you throw in a little alchemy and witchcraft and you begin to get the picture. It's mostly a picture of chaos glorified. Not really the Edenic state, but the state of matter before God started messing with it.

Jurretta J. Heckscher

17-07-2003, 10:16 PM

Dear fellow participants:

Andrew asked:

"Herman Blaydoe's point about Orthodoxy not liking change points to a deeper question. What happens if the Church is doing something not Biblical, or even wrong?"

My church history is not a firm as it should be, and I do not have my personal library ready to hand as I write--but I believe the answer to this question is that on at least one occasion when the (visible) Church was wrong, it eventually corrected itself, and that that, too, has to be seen as the action of the Holy Spirit.

The example I am recalling is that of the Arian controversy, in which the Church originally sided with the heretic Arius and only after many years came to recognize once and for all the orthodoxy of the Athanasian position, which of course it has affirmed ever since.

Surely others can give a more authoritative, and if necessary corrected, account of these events?

Yours in Christ,

--Jurretta

Female & Orthodox

17-07-2003, 11:29 PM

Herman wrote:
"I believe it somewhat more correct to say that female deacons ASSISTED in the baptism of women"

Herman, your point is taken. You are correct. I should have made a better distinction.

MC Steenberg wrote:
"Regarding the ordination of women: this is one element wherein the tradition of the Church is exceptionally clear."

Matthew, that is not being argued.

"However, little is known at all as to the extent (i.e. geographically) and duration (chronologically) of their existence, and almost nothing at all is known of their function."

Matthew, there is more known than that of which you are aware.

"Similarly with such notions as female deacons 'replacing' male deacons in liturgical roles. First, there is almost no evidence for this whatever, and such evidence as does exist is so localised as to make it highly aberrational."

Matthew, I agree that the evidence is of localised occurences of this, but that does not make it aberrational.

Owen wrote:
"When I was still an ordained Episcopal priest, it was not unusual for lesbian women to approach me at coffee hour and blow cigarette smoke in my face, and insult me in front of my children. That is the true face of the women's ordination movement."

Owen, that may be your experience, but please do not generalize and apply to Orthodoxy.

"Regarding women priests and deacons, the Church has yet to really respond to this issue forcefully, because there is little there in the Patristic tradition about it."

Ordination to priesthood is not even being considered. As far as the female diaconate is concerned, there was serious discussion in 1855, 1905, and 1917. There has even been a renewed precedent established in Greece, although Matthew would call this aberrational.

M.C. Steenberg

17-07-2003, 11:39 PM

Herman Blaydoe's point about Orthodoxy not liking change points to a deeper question. What happens if the Church is doing something not Biblical, or even wrong? How can it preserve tradition but be open to the ever new challenges of Scripture?

Dear Andrew,

This question evidences a different approach to the notion of the Faith's depositum than that held by Orthodoxy. For the Orthodox, it has never been the case that Scripture holds the full measure of the Faith. It is our cardinal text, our chief treasure of revelation; but it is not the extent of the revelation.

INXC, Matthew

Owen Jones

18-07-2003, 12:05 AM

Dear Female and Orthodox,

Please do not assume that the Orthodox Church can ordain women and not end up like the Episcopal Church. It will. Not all jurisdictions will. Not all churches will. BUt whoever does will end up like the Episcopal Church eventually. That was my point.

It's like saying, well, we can accept communists in the government but they will behave and play by the rules and not try to take over by subterfuge or force.

M.C. Steenberg

18-07-2003, 12:13 AM

Dear all,

Our anonymous guest 'Female & Orthodox' wrote:

Matthew: "However, little is known at all as to the extent (i.e. geographically) and duration (chronologically) of their existence, and almost nothing at all is known of their function."

Guest: Matthew, there is more known than that of which you are aware.

This is an interesting statement, since it seems impossible that you would know what I am and am not aware of. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

I would not claim to have exhaustive knowledge on any subject whatever, but I am not aware of any textual evidence vis-a-vis the female diaconate in the early Church which I have not read. I am quite happy for you to provide reference to some.

You mentioned the work of Dr Ellen Gvosdev (herself a presvytera), who has written a number of texts on the role of women in the Orthodox Church, as well as the more particular question of female deacons. Her most substantial work on the latter subject is her monograph, The Female Diaconate:* An Historial Perspective, published in 1991, though she also treats it rather extensively in a shorter article, 'Women's Role in the Church: The Restoration of the Diaconate' (published by OCL). I admire Matushka Gvosdev's fervour and wide reading, but it should be noted that she approaches the textual evidence from the foregone conclusion that female deacons were an intentional part of the Church's ministerial structure that should be restored. She reads the evidence to support a conclusion she has already drawn.

The largest flaw in her argument that I have encountered has been the assumption that the notion of gender-equality was stronger in the early Church and later was lost, oppressed, or otherwise distorted into an oppressive disintegration of such an equality. This is to ignore the actual social history of the era: there has rarely been a more patriarchal (negatively speaking) and misogynist society than that en force during the earliest centuries of the Church's history. Matushka Gvosdev's analysis of female-male relations in the early Church often follows the same unjustified 'golden age' syndrome that is behind much of the modern wish to 'recreate the early Church'. As but one example, she writes:

<blockquote>"Women in Early Church history were seen to be given an equal share. So unlike prior Hebrew tradition, the Church was egalitarian." (From 'Women's Role in the Church')</blockquote>

I find this statement rather misleading. Firstly, what is meant by 'an equal share' is remarkably unclear. A share in what? In what respect? In what contexts? The statement cannot be said to have been globally true: women were emphatically not given 'an equal share' in early Christian household duties, teaching offices, etc -- St Paul alone provides ample evidence of this. Yet ontologically, as respects the salvific relationship with God, they were understood as in every way equal to men. Such things must be specified if these statements are to have meaning.

Secondly, the comparison with 'prior Hebrew tradition', vis-a-vis the Church being 'egalitatian' is equally misleading. What does the term mean here? There are numerous ways in which the Church was not egalitarian across genders; and many ways in which Hebrew tradition was far more so.

Examination of the female diaconate in the early Church should be made on unbiased and un-purposed readings of the actual evidence of its form, function and character. This is rarely encountered in modern studies.

INXC, Matthew

Rebecca

18-07-2003, 02:09 AM

re Owen Jones post 584:

good post, Owen.

(filler text)

Owen Jones

18-07-2003, 02:49 AM

There is a problem using the term leadership in an authentically Christian context. Christ is not our leader. Bishops, priests and deacons are not ordained as leaders. The masses of people always clamour for a leader who will take care of them and their problems for them. That's what many Jews thought they were getting with Christ, and that was Christ's great temptation offered him by Satan -- to be a leader.

The true Christian is a shepherd and the good shepherd will risk his life to save the one stray sheep who has gone astray. He knows that the flock at large can pretty much take care of itself. They huddle together to protect themselves, they are very capable in the wild. You can travel on foot or horseback over the hills of England, Scotland and Wales and run across thousands and thousands of sheep with no people around at all. But there have to be shepherds to keep an eye on the sheep that run into trouble, who get caught up in thickets, or fall over and can't get up on their own and will have their eyes pecked out by crows or get hung up in barbed wire. There are some shepherds who don't care, and are willing to take an economic calculation that he can afford to lose a certain percentage of his flock who go astray. But the good shepherd makes no such calculation. He is constantly on the alert for the one sheep that has gone astray. And he does not treat them as eternal reprobates for being lost. He simply saves them from the trouble they have found themselves in -- because that's his job and he loves doing it. But he doesn't need to lead the flock.

When ordination or other ministries in the Church is re-interpreted to mean leadership, then the Church becomes spiritually dead, and extremely dangerous. Because when you combine religious fervor with the concept of leadership you get totalitarianism.

The concept of leadership in politics and business and the Church has supplanted the ancient idea of Christian heroism. Now the world's problems are seen as a lack of efficiency and inadequate management strategies. If the world were just better organized everyone would be better off, or so we are taught today. This is predicated on the unspoken assumption that had we gotten here first, we could have created a much better world than God himself.

So when women claim that they are discriminated against because of being shut out of leadership positions in the Church, this is based on a profoundly misguided understanding of what it means to be a Christian, what it means to carry Christ's cross. Anyone who WANTS to be a priest and actually lobbies for it is either insane or so filled with egotistical drives as to be very dangerous to the rest of us. Insanity in others I can deal with. But power mad people are really, really dangerous.

Evangelos Perry

18-07-2003, 03:54 AM

Encouraged to see a healthy discussion about women's role in the Church, but can't see why there is a need to distinguish between Christians on the basis of their genitals. What matters is their purity of heart. Was not Mary Magdalene an apostle? Can a woman be an apostle but not a priest? Why are so many Orthodox terrified of women in holy orders? Rather than Jesuitical arguments against women's ordination I would like to know what is behind this dread of priestesses? Is it a fear of witches or something Dr Freud might be able to explain?

Fr Averky

18-07-2003, 07:29 AM

Dear Owen,

I thank you for a clear and concise answer-these are the moments when I appreciate you so very much, and readily overlook the little hand grenades you love to toss into conversations from time to time!

Evangelos, the main reason that the Church has never ordained and will never ordain women to the priesthood is because our Saviour did not grant the authority to the Church to do so, and the Church cannot on Her own change what was given to Her.

I personally have never understand why there are those who feel that women are being "denied" the priesthood when it was never provided for in the first place. If it had, I would have no problem with it, and as it stands, I have no problem, for I follow what I believe that the Orthodox Church teaches and upholds. In my first post I pointed out how very important the role of women have always had in the Church.

Starting in the 60's of the last century, more and more women began to think that they had just as much "right" to be priests as men do, but they forget that the Church does not have the right to ordain them, at least the Orthdodox Church does not, and the Roman Catholic Church holds to the same tradition.

I find that most women who are Orthodox who would even think of the idea of women clergy are usually converts, and have never heard a "Cradle Orthodox" woman express such an idea, not that that is important, just an observation One contemporary Russian author, Solzhenitzin, made the comment that in the West, people are always clamouring for their "Rights," while constantly overlooking their Obligations. In this case one could say that it is much more important to have the Obligation to accept and follow the teachings of the Church, rather than to seek to have the Right to change them.

If one reads the life of the New Martyr, the Grand Duchess Elizabth, one can see that after she had founded the Martha and Mary Convent, she approached the Hoyly Synod with the idea of restoring the female diaconate as had been in the early Church, but the decision was handed down that this office had been limited to another time, had passed out of use, and there was no real justification to re-establish it. The Grand Duchess obediently accepted that decision.

There are plenty of opportunities for women to be priests, and even bishops, but not in The Orthodox Church. It is not a question of "fear" of women in the clergy at all, but the boundaries in which the Church exists. I think that Owen could tell you much more than I could about all the painful changes the Anglican communion has gone through in the last fifty years, and how in the U.S. the Episcopal Church is much smaller than it was then. As a former Roman Catholic, I experienced the horrors of having the rich traditions to which I adhered thrown out, for the sake of being "relevant to the times." It is as St. Athanasius of Alexandria said, "We do not worship the times, we worship God."

I could not possibly say more about how much women in the Church and the women in my own life have been a powerful force except to mention to the wonderful Catholic sisters who sacrificed so much to educate thousands of children for over a hundred years here in the U.S. For some time now, it has been fashionable to make fun of the nuns, or to complain about how cruel they were. My memories are nothing but positive, and I remember with greatest love the many religious of several congregations who formed my life and who instilled in me a love for the Church and for learning.

Fr. A.

Fr Averky

18-07-2003, 08:04 AM

Beloved in the Lord Jurretta,

Just for information's sake:

The Alexandrian deacon Arius came forth with the theological idea that Jesus Christ was a man, but not God somewhere between 319 and 321, A.D. Arius taught that Jesus Christ was perhaps an angel or a demi-god, or perhaps a man who had been given divine attributes by God. He composed little songs, which soon spread throughout the empire, and many Christians began to believe this erroneous view. He was challenged in this false teaching by St. Athanasius, the bishop of Alexandria who mainained that Jesus Christ has two Natures, True God and True Man, because a creature -one who had been created by God, could not redeem fallen mankind.

The dispute became so heated, that followers of the two men, including priests, deacons, and monks, would flood into the streets and physically attack each other, especially with clubs, which, with the exception of only being verbal, has become a long-standing Orthodox tadition. The Arian teaching was declared a heresy at the First Ecumenical Council in Nicea in 325 A.D., but the bickering continued for another fifty years or so and it was finally confirmed that Jesus Christ is both man and God at the First Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D. It has been rumoured, but never confirmed, that the Emperor Constantine, waiting until he was near death to be baptized, was baptized by Arian bishops. On the other hand, he died quite suddenly, and I cannot imagine that the Orthodox Church would have declared him a saint if it thought that such had been the case. This is just one of the many questions in history that we will never really know. I myself believe him to be a saint of the Church.

Fr. A.

Andrew Latz

18-07-2003, 01:03 PM

Dear All,
Thank you, very much enjoying the discussion. Just to clear up one idea that has arisen. I don’t think women in the clergy has anything to do with rights or people wanting to be in the clergy. I think the issue is what Scripture says and whether the church and Tradition understands Scripture correctly at this point.
MC Steenberg: thank you for your posts, tremendously helpful. I agree with you that women and men have an ontological equality: I think that’s pretty clear from the creation stories. I also agree that the culture the early church existed in was patriarchal. However there are two points where I disagree with what you said about the Bible and wondered if you could say more. Firstly, why do you not think that Paul, having as he did both genders in leadership, was putting the church in a direction that should have led to restoring the original equality of creation? (I think your point about the church in Paul’s day having no rigid definitions backs that up).
Secondly, the fact that Christ had only male apostles doesn’t translate into a guide for ecclesial structure. I suggest Jesus was restricted by his culture and wanted to symbolise the new Israel. This prevented him from appointing women. However, women were important in his life and ministry and his attitude to them again points to the equality you mentioned.
One further point. You mentioned that we shouldn’t question some things. I’m not sure if you meant that absolutely but I think we need to question things in the right spirit. If we can’t, where will our prophets be?
Sorry to put forward ideas but I want to see how you respond and how you understand the same data/evidence.
Andrew
PS, you said the following with which I would agree.
This question evidences a different approach to the notion of the Faith's depositum than that held by Orthodoxy. For the Orthodox, it has never been the case that Scripture holds the full measure of the Faith. It is our cardinal text, our chief treasure of revelation; but it is not the extent of the revelation

Owen Jones

18-07-2003, 02:58 PM

Would someone please show me where there is a doctrine of equality anywhere in the Bible or Christian tradition? Please tell me where the doctrine of equality is in Genesis 1. Please tell me where it is in the New Testament, or anywhere in the Fathers. Please show me anywhere where equality is taught or preached.

Herman Blaydoe

18-07-2003, 03:10 PM

Secondly, the fact that Christ had only male apostles doesn’t translate into a guide for ecclesial structure. I suggest Jesus was restricted by his culture and wanted to symbolise the new Israel. This prevented him from appointing women.

How so? He did many things otherwise restricted by His culture. He spoke publically to a Samaritan woman. He railled against the ruling clergy of His day. He dared to call Himself the Son of God. He went and allowed those durn Goyem into the club (there goes the neighborhood!). Why would He have to stop at appointing women as apostles? How is GOD "limited" by culture, or anything else for that matter? Don't you think God can do what He wants to do? If He wanted women to be apostles and presbyters, don't you think He would have done it?

However, women were important in his life and ministry and his attitude to them again points to the equality you mentioned.

Absolutely, and therefore why, exactly, would designating them as apostles be necessary?

One further point. You mentioned that we shouldn’t question some things. I’m not sure if you meant that absolutely but I think we need to question things in the right spirit. If we can’t, where will our prophets be?

One of the prayers of the Church to the Holy Theotokos says: "Protect me from my own vain reasonings." God will take care of prophets. If I run across a burning bush, or get knocked off a horse and blinded..., otherwise I won't worry about doing His job for Him. I have my hands full working out my own salvation, I don't have time to save the Church, and somehow, I don't think God will fault me for that. This opinion is not valid in all states. Some settling may have occured during shipping. Your mileage may vary.

Justin

18-07-2003, 03:28 PM

Secondly, the fact that Christ had only male apostles doesn’t translate into a guide for ecclesial structure. I suggest Jesus was restricted by his culture and wanted to symbolise the new Israel. This prevented him from appointing women.

Ahh, but this is the problem with speculative theology: everyone can throw their hat in and use historical evidence to back it up! ;) I could say in response that the pagan societies at the time had female priests, and since Jesus wanted to reach the whole world, if Jesus had intended on having female priests, he would have ordained one. Also, perhaps too much is made of Jesus and how much he went along with the Jewish culture: numerous times he defied the sabbath, and he often said things that made the Mosaic law look morally weak in comparison to his own teachings (and it was). Certainly he held certain things back from them, so as not to confuse them and drive them wholly away (e.g., keeping them in the dark about some of the Trinitarian truths the Church would later state publically), but it hasn't been shown that female priests were one of these condescensions to culture.

Thought of from a different perspective, within a few generations the majority of the Church was non-Jewish: did the successors of the apostles, at that time, start talking about having female priests? And if not, did that mean that 1) the church forgot that part of what they were suppose to do, or 2) they hadn't been told yet (which sounds more like a western, "development of doctrine" applied to the priesthood, than the concept that it was all given in the beginning)?

Just some random questions http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif I've avoided trying to give a list of evidences as I think that's generally something that doesn't work on questions like these, but I am glad others are giving you lengthy responses.

Andrew Latz

18-07-2003, 03:44 PM

have no time so only some brief pointers: both male and female are made in God's image in Gen 1, no real distinction is made between them if my memory serves me correctly.
Paul seems to aim towards this in his 'neither jew nor greek' idea. as i said before the attitudes of Jesus and the early church to women strike me as significant (for one example the role of women in the Gospels and Acts).
Ben Witherington III, Richard Bauckham and Amy Oden have all written on the topic.
Maybe more later. What do other people think?
Andrew

Margaret Jackson-Rober

18-07-2003, 03:50 PM

Well, Owen, one could pray in aid of equality St Paul: "In Christ there is neither male nor female" but what would that prove, other than a preference for gender transcendence as an aspirational state? And many of us would sign up to that, I am sure.

the seeker (not asleep but ever watchful)

Owen Jones

18-07-2003, 04:19 PM

I don't see that transcendence equals equality. All it means is that social arrangements do not preclude salvation. That salvation is open to all of faith. That the spiritual realm transcends the social, political, historical, material realm.

But there are still masters and servants. There are still those who, by virtue of birth, or by evidence of their own virtues, have authority over others. "In Christ there is no male or female" is no different than saying that in heaven, men do not have wives. That the spiritual realm is constitutionally different than the social, political material realm, and superior to it. But there are still hierarchies in the spiritual realm. People are assigned different roles and responsibilities, both in the spiritual and social realms. It seems that once the doctrine of equality enters the equation, we ought to choose Bishops by lot. And when decisions are made in the home, they ought to be made either by vote or by casting lots, if there is indeed to be a doctrine of equality. The virtues of meekness, humility, patience, voluntary poverty and virginity imply an overturning of the conventions regarding social hierarchy, but they do not imply equality. There is still a hierarchy. There are still different spiritual gifts and different orders of authority associated with those spiritual gifts. Where is the doctrine of equality?

Jay Holman

18-07-2003, 04:31 PM

Where do you folks get the time? I'm amazed at the proliferation of words by so few participants!

Owen, you question sounds like you're trolling, but for the sake of argument (no pun intended) can you define what YOU mean by "equality"?

Owen Jones

18-07-2003, 04:45 PM

My dictionary defines equality as "sameness in amount, size, number, value, degree, rank, etc."

Owen Jones

18-07-2003, 05:05 PM

Galatians 3 is not a paean to radical equality. It contains a doctrine of spiritual unity. I can have spiritual unity with others, despite our inequality, is how it should be understood. If it had intended to mean that we are all equal, it would have said so. But it is intended to mean exactly what it says, that we are one -- in the spirit. The fallacy of the doctrine of radical equality is that it can be the basis of unity. There is no evidence that this is possible. Egalitarian societies are are always at war with themselves. There is no unity. Because the premise of unity -- equality -- is wrong.

Spiritual unity should not be confused with equality. The doctrine of spiritual unity says that the rich man or the monarch takes communion with the slave. That's it. It does not mean that that we are equal in any sense in this world. And that, after all, is what we are talking about, right? If you wish to talk about equality in heaven, fine. Although I would argue that there is no Christian doctrine of equality in heaven either. Does not Christ sit at the right hand of the Father?

In any case, this is not heaven. We cannot institute heaven on earth by making everyone equal.

Andrew Latz

18-07-2003, 05:08 PM

Justin: “Ahh, but this is the problem with speculative theology: everyone can throw their hat in and use historical evidence to back it up! ;) “
LOL http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif
It seems to me Jesus was changing the way women (and others) were treated. The early church kept this up I think but later succumbed to patriarchy.

Herman: "Don't you think God can do what He wants to do? If He wanted women to be apostles and presbyters, don't you think He would have done it?”
That’s an argument from silence. There maybe any number of reasons about which I won’t speculate. Again, look at what Jesus did in that culture. The Kingdom was for those that were considered of lesser value (for want of a better phrase).
As for God being restricted by culture: I think God chooses to communicate and deal with us within our cultures. Look at Abraham, Isaac and Jacob for instance.
As for it being necessary to have women clergy. Well, I don’t think it means the collapse of the church if we don’t have them but I think there’s a problem if we forbid it.

Herman Blaydoe

18-07-2003, 05:11 PM

both male and female are made in God's image in Gen 1, no real distinction is made between them if my memory serves me correctly.

And yet they are certainly distinctive? There are many distinctions made in their roles in Genesis.

Paul seems to aim towards this in his 'neither jew nor greek' idea. as i said before the attitudes of Jesus and the early church to women strike me as significant (for one example the role of women in the Gospels and Acts).

The Holy Apostle also said that women should keep silent in the church and be subservient to their husbands as the Church is subservient to Christ, so it would seem reasonable that his "...neither jew nor greek..." and "...neither male nor female..." perhaps need to be examined in a wider context.

BTW for Evangelos, Mary Magdelene was NOT an Apostle. She was neither one of the 12 nor of the 70 (none of them were women). But that did NOT keep her from being a wonderful witness for Christ.

Andrew Latz

18-07-2003, 05:15 PM

Just realised that my writing 'I think there's a problem' could sound offensive. It's not meant to at all. I'm open to being corrected on anything I've said.
Asking forgiveness from all
Andrew

Andrew Latz

18-07-2003, 05:17 PM

I think that wider context, Herman, is that of recreation. Those text you mention are obscure and difficult. I think we should be trying to fit those into a wider and plainer reading of Scripture rather than trying to fit the rest of Scripture around some obscure passages
andrew

Owen Jones

18-07-2003, 05:21 PM

Dear Andrew,

The problem that occurs when the Church forbids women to be ordained is that people who are double-minded and do not understand the spiritual doctrines of the Church, and who have adopted a secular mindsight regarding rights, and who believe, falsely that their self-esteem is at issue, and that they cannot have self-esteem unless they are ordained, are going to do serious, permanent damage to the Church by insisting that the Church change its doctrine. They will be no happier, and everyone else will be worse off.

Historically, where is the point at which the Church was radically egalitarian and then reverted to a patriarchal system? Please tell me when that happened? Was it the same time in which the true, apostolic Church went "underground" and became invisible, only to become visible again in 16th century Germany?

Herman Blaydoe

18-07-2003, 05:21 PM

My church history is not a firm as it should be, and I do not have my personal library ready to hand as I write--but I believe the answer to this question is that on at least one occasion when the (visible) Church was wrong, it eventually corrected itself, and that that, too, has to be seen as the action of the Holy Spirit.

Well, in a word, no. An individual within the Church can be wrong, even a bishop or patriarch, but not the spotless Bride of Christ, or He is a liar ("...the very gates of hell shall not prevail..."). Parts of the church may wander off, but the Church of the Saints, past, present and future, will never totally forsake the guidance of the Holy Spirit. In the case cited, a significant portion of the Church was mislead, as predicted by our Lord and commented upon by the Apostles in various epistles about ravening wolves within the flock. But the Church remained true, just as Christ promised it would.

Jay Holman

18-07-2003, 05:30 PM

By your "dictionary's" definition, then, this is a pointless discussion. No two things are precisely equal. There will always be at least an atom of difference somewhere on some level. So if your your dictionary's definitions are the basis for your arguments you're only arguing to be argumentative. If that's the case then have at it, it's a meaningless and uninstructive discussion "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".

So, would you like to give a definition of "equal" that isn't just an insulting quip?

Herman Blaydoe

18-07-2003, 05:31 PM

I think that wider context, Herman, is that of recreation. Those text you mention are obscure and difficult.

Not to be confrontational, but what is obscure or difficult? It is that they do not fit in well with our modern preconceived notions that we "know better" now than those ancient savages?

I think we should be trying to fit those into a wider and plainer reading of Scripture rather than trying to fit the rest of Scripture around some obscure passages.

I guess I simply fail to understand what you mean by "wider and plainer." I am sorry, but it sounds like "easier to accept on my terms." Forgive me if I am reading more into this than you intend. We certainly should look at ALL Scripture as a whole, together with the Tradition from whence it came. But we look to the guidance of 2000 years of wisdom of the Church, as explained by the writings of the Fathers, guided by the Holy Spirit, rather than simply "wider and plainer." Well, at least I try to.

Herman Blaydoe

18-07-2003, 05:37 PM

It seems to me Jesus was changing the way women (and others) were treated. The early church kept this up I think but later succumbed to patriarchy.

Succumbed? Sounds like "reformation" thinking, which is something that the Orthodox Church never "succumbed" to. To Orthodox ears, this sounds like the Holy Spirit is not able to guide the Church. When did the early church "succumb?" Right after Pentecost? During the persecutions? After Constantine? Before the rift between East and West or after?

Rebecca

18-07-2003, 05:40 PM

In any case, this is not heaven. We cannot institute heaven on earth by making everyone equal.

Indeed.

God created things as He sees fit.

Just like He didn't have to make flowers beautiful, they could have been ugly,

Just like He didn't have to be born of a poor Hebrew girl, He could have been born into a wealthy and powerful family,

Just as He didn't have to be crucified, He could have continued attending weddings in Cana, turning water to wine,

He didn't have to create male and female, but He did.

We are all free to believe whatever we wish, to deny Him in all we do, yet He still loves us and actively cares for those who, seeing him mocked, say "I know him not."

Should we worship our own ideas of how things "should be"? Shouldn't we rather worship God as He Is, seeking after and recognizing Truth, even if He is not what we think He should be? Even if it means humbling our proud minds?

Herman Blaydoe

18-07-2003, 05:44 PM

Christ was not changing the way women and others were treated. He was NOT a "social reformer." He was God Incarnate, reclaiming His Creation. He was not here to "shake up society" as much as He was here to shake the foundations of the Earth.

As Fr. A says, we are NOT afraid of women priests, we simply acknowledge that we do not have the authority to CHANGE the Witness handed down to us from Christ through His Apostles as guided by the Holy Spirit.

Herman Blaydoe

18-07-2003, 05:54 PM

Jay,

What is YOUR definition of equal? Owen gave an accepted third-party definition, free of prejudice. Can you do the same?

Perhaps the point IS that a discussion of "equality" is, in fact, pointless? Does not ordaining women make them "not equal?" Can two people have two different roles and yet still be "equal?" Again, what is your definition of equal? An attack is not an definition.

Priest David Moser

18-07-2003, 06:16 PM

The arguement that our Lord chose men as the Apostles due to the cultural and societal constraints of the time has always seemed a bit weak to me. Not only that Jesus could and did speak and act in a manner contrary to societal norms, but also the idea that God somehow is subject to the flow of history (as opposed to the Maker of history).

The evangelists Matthew and Luke go to great lengths to describe the birth of Christ and the depth of the preparation made by God for His own coming. The Holy Apostle Paul, in Galatians says the "In the fullness of time, Christ came" indicating to us that this was the *right* time chosen by God for the coming of Christ into the world to establish the Church. Nothing was left to chance - every detail and contingency was covered - all preparations were painstakingly made. How is it then that we assume that Christ came into a society and time that would have hindered Him in any way from doing that which came to do - to redeem mankind and to establish the Church as the Ark of salvation.

To say that God was constrained by society and culture from doing something He would have otherwise done is to imply that God somehow missed that little detail in His Incarnation. He wasn't really clear on the details of society and so had to "make do" with the societal norms that He found when He came. This goes against the clear witness of Scripture and Tradition that God knew what He was doing and had prepared throughout the whole of history by leading and guiding His Chosen People to the exact moment and place where He would become incarnate. He not only planned, but actively prepared the time and place - He created the society and culture into which He was born. To say that God was prevented from naming women to the episcopacy due to cultural and societal constraints is saying that God either was not careful in his preparation and "missed" a detail - or that He wasn't really in control of this preparation and had to "make do" with what He found (and therefore was "subject" to the flow of history.) Neither of these options are acceptable if one believes that God is omniscient, omnipotent and compassionate because they leave the assumption that God doesn't control history, doesn't know everything about history, or doesn't care enough about the details.

Either God became man in exactly the right place, at exactly the right time, with all His preparations made to perfection - or He isn't really the God that we believe Him to be.

Priest David Moser

Fr Averky

18-07-2003, 06:20 PM

Herman,

There are other Apostles besides the Twelve. When I mention St. Nina particularly, she is called "Equal -to-the-Apostles," so is St. Averkios, my patron. Sts. Photini and Mary of Magdala are referred to as being Apostles. because we are told that both of them preached Christ. If you would like, I can find a list of saints who have been given that appellation. St. Photini right away went to her village and told themen of the town to go and see the Man who had told her all about her life.

As to the notion that at first the Church was open to women in the clergy, and then became patriarchal has no basis in history. Using the temporary office of the deaconess as proof does not give any support to the idea that there were other women who served in the ranks of the clergy, with the exception of the early Church in Ireland, where women acted as bishops until Rome put a stop to the entire church structure there. And that was not main-stream church teaching, tradition, or discipline. In Ireland at the same time, some of the monks were married, and a "monastery" was more of community with some monks and several layman who lived within the confines of the monastery and shared a way of living. This however does not mean that the Church ever recognized these women, for it was a purely Irish phenomenon, and was considered to be an unacceptable abberation by Rome, and it ceased. I find this to be revisionism at is worst. Who does it serve to desire to start yet another internal struggle within Orthodoxy? Besides, I cannot imagine that the ordination of women would ever be seriously considered, so it really is a moot point. People are getting passionate about something that cannot and will not take place, so please, don't let yourselves get too upset, like I have in the near past. This is an interesting point, but it is not a salvific discussion. I am always amazed to see that some of the most ardent Feminists are men.

A.

Owen Jones

18-07-2003, 06:39 PM

I think ordination of women, especially in the Greek Orthodox Church in America, is going to be a very hotly contested issue in the future, Fr. A. There is really no stopping this movement. We ought not to bury our heads in the sand. It's coming.

As for women bishops in Ireland, are you not referring to "mitred abbesses?" That would not exactly be the same thing as a bishop.

Herman Blaydoe

18-07-2003, 06:51 PM

Fr. A:
Father Bless!

We have the names of the 12 Apostles. We have the names of the 70 Apostles. We refer to St. Paul as an Apostle. I am NOT aware of anywhere that the Church refers to St.Mary Magdalene as an Apostle. I am familiar with the appellation "equal to the Apostles", I believe I was first to mention it in this thread. This very appellation serves as evidence that THE APOSTLES were distinct from those who came after. Otherwise we would simply call them apostles rather than "equal-to the apostles. THE APOSTLES were specifically appointed by Christ, even the Apostle Paul, "...as one out of time..." There is no Scripture or Tradition I am aware of that holds that Christ appointed St. Mary or any other woman as one of the 12 or the 70. That in no way diminishes her contribution to the Church nor that of any of the "equal to the Apostles."

Owen,
If the GOA were to go en masse into apostasy, it would be a very sad thing indeed, but the Church will remain triumphant. The GOA is not the totality of the Orthodox Church. The minority may be very vocal, but they are also very minor.

M.C. Steenberg

18-07-2003, 07:31 PM

Dear Andrew and others,

I must admit to be enjoying this discussion. While I agree with Fr Averki, who in his latest post indicated that the topic of women's ordination is not one which, at a practical or intentional level, is useful or beneficial, I believe that a discussion on the role of women in the Church -- i.e. the whys, whens and wherefores -- can be helpful in encouraging understanding.

I will use Andrew Latz's recent post as a starting point for my own here:

I agree with you that women and men have an ontological equality: I think that’s pretty clear from the creation stories.

This is important, especially in light of some of the posts on 'equality' that have come since my original message. I tend to agree with Owen's analysis of the term, especially as it is defined in modern society: in this social context, 'equality' means absolute sameness. In terms of theological anthropology (which for those who blessedly do not spend all their time studying such things, means simply the theological understanding of humankind and human nature), 'equality' relates to essence: all men and women, all persons in all situations, are ultimately 'equal' as respects the essence of their being - the image of God which is the same in each, which leads to salvation. Since there is but one God, there can be but one image, and thus the core of 'humanness' is identical in all persons.

But beyond this ontological core, 'equality' in the modern sense of 'sameness' has never been part of the Christian understanding of humankind. This is not only true across gender lines (where man and woman were from the first created with distinct and different roles), but also within genders: the establishment of patriarchs, kings, prophets were largely intra-male distinctions (though there were many female prophets, matriarchs did exist, and so with queens). The equality of essence has never equated to equality of place, function, life, etc. For these there has always been distinction.

In the modern context, this notion of distinction has taken on a distinctly negative air. But it is the witness of the Church (or, in some case it should more readily be the witness of the Church) that such distinction is a blessing, a gift. The fact that there is diversity of roles and functions in human life is a great blessing - an integral part of human nature (for it has existed from the beginning). We must always be on the watch not to allow misuse of these distinctions to become oppressive (which they all too often have), but we must also not try to eliminate them. It is interesting that in the two major 'equality movements' of the past century -- civil rights and women's liberation -- the initial drive for absolute sameness (which was an important corrective, at the time, for severe abuse of power), has gradually given way to a desire for the reestablishment of positive, healthy distinction. We are beginning to reach a point when we can acknowledge, not that black and white people are 'the same', but that we are positively and wonderfully different: one humanity with diverse characteristics. Equally human and yet beautifully distinct. Women and men do not have to be 'the same' - we are (just) beginning to come to a point where, acknowledging our equal humanness, women can be women and men can be men. This is a major step forward in human interaction.

On to a specific question:

Firstly, why do you not think that Paul, having as he did both genders in leadership, was putting the church in a direction that should have led to restoring the original equality of creation? (I think your point about the church in Paul’s day having no rigid definitions backs that up).

To clarify, my comment on 'definitions' referred rather specifically to the issue of terminology. It is true in other senses as well; but in my previous post I was speaking of the as-yet-unformalised language of 'bishop', 'presbyter', 'deacon' etc. in the early Church.

But I think your question has certain difficulties. Firstly, what do you mean by Paul 'having [...] both genders in leadership'? The question of what 'leadership' means has already been raised in this thread, but I think it is yet a more specific question with Paul. It is unclear (historically) how those in 'leadership' positions in that era came about: but we certainly know that in house churches, leaders of households became natural 'leaders' of such communities. But does this necessarily equate to a liturgical, or what we would call 'clerical' role?

St Paul certainly encouraged women to be active in the organisation, function, outreach and care for the Eucharistic communities he established; but this has always been true in Orthodox ecclesiology. It has never been seen as readily having anything to do with the question of the priesthood.

I think the issue of the 'original equality of creation' has by now been addressed. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif Paul's writings in other epistles makes it clear that he himself believed women and men should have clearly, rigidly defined and distinct roles vis-à-vis family life, Church activity, and so on.

You also wrote:

Secondly, the fact that Christ had only male apostles doesn’t translate into a guide for ecclesial structure. I suggest Jesus was restricted by his culture and wanted to symbolise the new Israel. This prevented him from appointing women. However, women were important in his life and ministry and his attitude to them again points to the equality you mentioned.

Others have commented on this, and I myself do not have a great deal to offer to what has already been said. Christ lived in a rigid society, but He was not bound by it. Apart from all else, the sheer weight of evidence in the Gospels gives overwhelming demonstration of Christ breaking out of social customs and mores with downright regularity. He overturned the tables in the Temple when He believed the worship there was impure. He harvested, worked and healed on the Sabbath. He dined without purifying Himself via ritual handwashing. He associated with both prostitutes and lepers. He took into His ranks tax-collectors and other 'obvious sinners'. He defied the High Priest, a governor, a prelate, an emperor.

Based purely on such things, it seems highly unlikely that Christ would have had the boldness to break out of such radical social strictures as these, yet not to appoint women to the Apostolate had He so desired.

As to the other issue, that 'the fact that Christ had only male apostles doesn’t translate into a guide for ecclesial structure': In actuality, all of Orthodox ecclesiology is based upon the example of Christ's ministry and the definition given to it by His practice. It is precisely because Christ did or did not do one thing or another, that we follow the same pattern in ecclesiological function. So the manner in which Christ appointed His Apostolate becomes of absolute importance.

INXC, Matthew

Jurretta J. Heckscher

19-07-2003, 01:32 AM

Dear fellow participants:

Warmest thanks to Father Averky for giving a much more complete account of the Arian controversy than I could. Isn't it also the case, Father, that at one point, however briefly, a majority of the leadership of the Church succumbed to Arianism and exiled St. Athanasius for his orthodoxy? If so, I take that not as any reflection on the Church in its fullness, but as an indication that its visible, temporal, human leadership may sometimes for a time be "wrong" (and on that score, though I do not wish to touch a still-inflamed wound about whose meaning there is still agonizing controversy, one cannot help thinking of what went on in the Patriarchate of Moscow under the Soviet yoke).

Accordingly, Herman, thanks (and I do mean thanks!) for demonstrating the inadequacy of my language in my attempt to make a distinction between the visible Church at one point in time, many of whose members did err insofar as they veered briefly into Arianism, and the full, eternal Church, visible and invisible, which (as you quite rightly insist) of course does not err. I meant to indicate that distinction by referring to "the (visible) Church," but clearly did not do so adequately.

On the question of women's ordination to the priesthood: there are some Orthodox clergy, some bishops, and at least a few theological scholars who consider the question unresolved, and insofar as such matters may be subject to personal opinion, I suppose I am among them (which is partly why I am enjoying and being edified by this discussion).

However, one very interesting and telling point is (as Father Averky points out) the extraordinary degree to which the question itself is purely theoretical for us Orthodox. It may be a matter of a certain amount of intellectual dispute, but as far as I can tell--and of course my viewpoint is quite limited--whatever the feelings of a handful of individual women (and I am not among them), there is simply no authentic inner challenge, crisis, or possible opportunity to which these intellectual arguments respond. In other words, within Orthodoxy as a whole, the question of women's ordination is simply not an issue, despite the fact that it has been a raging question elsewhere in the Christian world for more than a generation. It is possible that it may become a genuinely significant question for Orthodoxy in the future, I suppose (and it's interesting that Owen believes this likely--why, Owen?), but if it does not, I would think that that in itself answers the theoretical question rather conclusively.

The question of women deacons/deaconesses is another matter, however, for that is surely something which Orthodox history itself presents to us for further prayerful exploration and deepened understanding, whatever the Church's eventual conclusions may be.

Yet isn't the question of the female diaconate really entirely separate from the question of ordination to the priesthood? If it is, and if that could be recognized, it would surely be helpful; one senses that some of the inclination to foreclose the discussion of the female diaconate prematurely rests on the fear that by leaving the question open one is inevitably entertaining the possibility of a female priesthood.

And with all due respect to Matthew's welcome erudition, it seems that we really do not know enough--yet--about the historical female diaconate (whatever it may have been) to reach final conclusions about its nature and significance. May the prayerful, scholarly exploration of the subject continue.

On the question of "equality": like Matthew, I am not sure that that is a helpful concept in a discussion such as this, as it is almost impossible to disengage our understanding of it from the powerfully influential Enlightentment and post-Enlightenment concept of political equality. That concept concerns the problem of relative political rights, a problem whose analysis depends on comparison among groups of human beings and/or individual human beings.

But I am not at all sure that comparison of that kind has any place in Orthodoxy (which is not to say that it is inappropriate for Orthodox to consider it in the political arena). In one sense, we are all equal, inasmuch as our God Who is Infinite Love loves us all equally--that is, infinitely. Yet His love for each one of us is absolutely personal and radically differential: He meets each one of us in the depths of our unique and unrepeatable personhood, becoming for each of us the Shepherd seeking the one lost sheep.

I do not speak here of isolated individualism, but of unique interpersonal communion, of relationship which calls forth into love and into wholeness an essential human personhood that cannot be replicated in, or compared with, any other person--and which integrates each human person into Christ's love for all other persons. For the glorious paradox is that although the Lord loves each of us as though we were the only person who existed, His love leads us to love without exception, as He does, every single other person whom He has made.

Yours in Him,

--Jurretta

Richard McBride

19-07-2003, 06:00 AM

This is a keen observation:

"By your "dictionary's" definition, then, this is a pointless discussion."

Or perhaps, it should be limited to the last phrase in the sentence.

I wonder, has anyone changed their mind on these issues, by reading the messages? If so, why now? All this has been said so many times.

Those with a gender agenda aren't about to give up their position -- unless the Holy Spirit steps in. And those who are concerned for the tradition of the Church know better: that these arguments can not help the Church, but they can harm the individuals who indulge them; and I'm not sure this is not true for both sides.

Still, I have never heard of anyone being swayed by this sort of arguing itself. Clearly, all positions had been set in stone long before they have been vented here. The result is, Logomachy. Do you think this is good for the soul?

Or is that no longer the point?

Richard McBride

19-07-2003, 06:10 AM

Please forgive me, but this bears repeating:

"Just as He didn't have to be crucified, He could have continued attending weddings in Cana, turning water to wine..."

That is beautifully said. Wish I had said it. But the following is so true, so TRUE, I cannot understand how anyone may ignore it:

"Should we worship our own ideas of how things "should be"? Shouldn't we rather worship God as He Is, seeking after and recognizing Truth, even if He is not what we think He should be? Even if it means humbling our proud minds?"

I am duly humbled. Thank you Rebecca.

richard mcb

Fr Averky

19-07-2003, 07:04 AM

Dear Prof. McBride,

Thank you for putting a "cap" on this discussion, because as you so wisely said, there is noithing new about any of the cases presented, and they can only lead no where.

I think sometime people get the concepts of "equality" and "equity" confused, because if all things were "fair," then perhaps there might more of a point for this discussion, but in the end, it really is not a question of things being equitable, or of people being equal to one another. Women are not being treated unfairly because the Church cannot ordain them, nor does it mean that they cannot be ordained because they are not equal to men.

As you so aptly put it, Mr. McBride, we cannot worship our own ideas, but God.

I see Andrew that you attend Nazarene college, and I can see where as a non-Orthodox person you would have your own perspectives on this situation, especially if your particular denomination allows for women pastors.

For those of us who are Orthodox Christians, let us rejoice in the Faith we have, and know that not only it is a Truth to be known, but a life to be lived, and as Matthew feels that there is some value in this sort of discussion, it has no value if it causes people to veer one way or another to an extreme view.

I am but one person; for myself, I accept what I have ben taught, and I spend no time in speculation what the church might be if I had my way or my opinion, when I left the Catholic Church and embraced Holy Orthodoxy, I never looked back and have tried to be, as James Anthony always signs his posts, a "Humble Servant" of the Lord and His Church. Thank you again, Professor McBride.

Fr. A.

Fr Averky

19-07-2003, 07:29 AM

Dear Owen,

As for as the issue of women priests as a question in the Greek Orthodox church, I have no idea, since I am in the Russian Orthodox Church, and I cannot envision that ever being a question, but only God knows.

As regards to women "bishops," I admit a bit of concern on that point, because I just finished a short book on the history of Ireland, which coincides with a PBS special on the same, and it struck me that the authors might also have mistakenly called mitred abbesses "bishops." Stange, though, because it is written by Irishmen who seem to know their history. I stand corrected if I am wrong.

Hereman, I will not argue that there is no Scriptural basis for calling St, Mary Magdelen an Apostle; I think that in this context, our professor in seminary used the term "apostle" when he said that she and St. Photini had gone on to be "apostles" for Christ, not meaning to group them with the twelve or the seventy.
In the "Prologue from Ochrid" written by Saint Nikolai Velirmirovic, is stated:

""She returned to from Rome to Ephesus, to St. John the Theologian, whom she helped with his task of preaching the Gospel. With great love for the Risen Lord, and with great zeal, she proclaimed the Gospel as as true apostle of Christ." (From Volume 3, july 22, page 94).

Herman, this is was what I was taught, and it was in the same conterxt as St. Nikolai puts it.

Respectfully,

Fr. A.

Fr Averky

19-07-2003, 07:48 AM

Dear in Christ, Jurreta,

While it is true that St. Athanasius had to run into the desert and hide from the emperor's soldiers, spurred on by the Arian bishops who for the time held sway at the court, and there indeed was a real "tug of war," it does not mean that the Church as a whole succumbed to the Arian heresy.

In the 20's of the last century, some of the local Churches changed to the New Calendar, which also has caused a tug of war, involving in some ways, the integrity of the Church. Yet, while some seem to be in the "majority," [ actually, the Churches who follow the Old Calendar are the largest in number] in the end, the Orthodox Church will triumph, for in every church there are those who will always uphold true Orthodoxy and its teachings. Over the centuries, the Church has had to face heresies and attacks, and many of the original heresies exist with new :faces, but in the end, the Church prevailed, and always will. I remember that last Christmas Eve, n.s., I had stopped to drop of some gifts at the home of some very good friends. While they were waiting to watch the Pope's Christmas from Rome, a show for youth came on put on by the Baptist Church. A youngish youth pastor sang a song in which the words stated that "2000 years ago, In Bethelem, the Creator became the "Created One." The important thing Jurretta, is our Lord's promise that He will be with His little flock until the end. Let us strive by our faitfulness to the teachings and Tradition of our Holy Church, to be in that little flock of Christ.

lovingly,

Fr. A.

M.C. Steenberg

19-07-2003, 08:40 AM

Dear all,

To offer an evening thought to this discussion: It is not unhealthy or pointless positively to discuss the role of women in the Church. We can learn an immense deal from well-intentioned, healthy reflection on the nature of gender, the notions of 'gender roles' in the Church, the relationship between 'leadership' and the office of the clergy, and so on.

What is to be avoided is discussion that has motivations beyond understanding.

Those who are Orthodox should approach discussions as an attempt to understand the tradition and teaching of the Church. I notice that many become immediately nervous with this particular topic, because the desire to understand, to inquire after details for the sake of comprehension and knowledge, is mistaken for the desire to challenge, to question with the intention to alter. This latter is indeed the wrong approach for Orthodox to take to the tradition of the Church, and we should rightly flee from it. But let us not dismiss the kind of reflection on these matters that genuinely fosters understanding of the richness of the Church's teaching and love of her precepts, when such occurs. The baby and the bathwater are not one and the same. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

INXC, Matthew

Andrew Latz

19-07-2003, 10:51 AM

Dear All,
thank you so much for sharing your knowledge and insight. I think some of my statements moved from asking questions to understand to putting forward a position, and for that I apologise. Still, I have learned and am grateful to you.
Priest David Moser's post brought another question to mind. For which I started another thread.
Many thanks,
In Christ,
Andrew

Owen Jones

19-07-2003, 02:05 PM

Dear Richard,

The purpose of arguing is to resist revolution while it is still in its incipient stages. Otherwise, the revolutionaries always win.

Rebecca

19-07-2003, 04:52 PM

Re: Richard McBride post 225

Dear Richard,

Thank you for your kind words, but I need to say that I was using imagery from a hymn by St. Romanos the Melodist, which I should have credited...it's here:

link to St Romanos' Hymn about Mary at the Cross (http://www.monachos.net/mb/messages/4226/10345.html#POST2910)

Also thank you for your and Matthew's focusing comments.

M. Rallis

19-07-2003, 06:10 PM

Dear Richard McBride, and all:

Indeed, the beautiful and insightful phrase that Rebecca has shared with us bears repeating, and again we hear:

“Should we worship our own ideas of how things "should be"? Shouldn't we rather worship God as He Is, seeking after and recognizing Truth, even if He is not what we think He should be.”

I wonder if whether in this phrase we have the essential difference between Orthodox Christianity and the protestant movement!

I wonder that this phrase means that in order to “worship God as he is” one must seek out the body of Christians, whose worship was instituted by Him, who know their Shepherd, whose authority in all things is the on-going activity of the Holy Spirit.

I wonder that this phrase reminds us to be in awe of the way that the Holy Spirit has ordered things for us in His Church, for He orders things for our salvation. Our job is not to seek to change His ordering to reflect our own pride/self-image, nor to create false idols, but to seek out His will in all things.

I wonder that this phrase also triggers the thought that “seeking after and recognizing the Truth” is not strictly speaking an intellectual exercise, otherwise we would have as guides “spiritual professors” and not spiritual fathers! We would only need to study Truth in books and even the “cyber-world” of the internet, rather than encountering Him in the mysteria of Orthodox worship: Baptism, Chrismation, Holy Communion, Repentance and Confession, and all of the Spirit-inspired services of community worship that God has blessed us with, to lead us to our salvation, to grace us with an intimate knowledge by experience of Him, the only Truth.

I wonder that this phrase also reflects the essential importance of inner prayer and enlightenment of the eye of the soul, for this is the mechanism of “recognizing Truth”, and being able to experience the uncreated Grace of God, and not a delusional, created, idolatrous, man-made image of god, christ, worship, church, or grace.

I wonder that this phase embodies the intellectual humility that one needs in discussions such as these, that is if we wish that our discussions will be leading us towards salvation.

Rebecca

19-07-2003, 07:09 PM

Dear Michael,

not strictly speaking an intellectual exercise

I like this phrase.

Intellect, reason, logic, rational thought (all synonyms in my fuzzy understanding) all these are a gift that God gave to us, as I think you've pointed out in the past.

And there are many various gifts that God gives us. (I Corinthians 12-13)

I like your use of the word "strictly," because to my mind it conveys the idea of "only" or "solely."

If a physician was to care for the whole person, he would not tend the heart problem while completely ignoring the fractured skull. Neither would he treat the headache while ignoring the heart attack.

Ever since Richard Leigh posted his comment that intellectual exploration is an activity that one participates in, I've been thinking about it on and off, wanting to find a response--thanks for the challenge Richard! http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif.

I can't really say he's wrong. I can say that intellectual exploration is only one part of the path we are all walking, and suggest that the yearning that draws each of us to the path was aptly described by Richard McBride as a "hole in the soul."

Reading some of the Psalms, one sees the author speaking of anguish of the heart; reading some the Fathers one sees first what Owen has described as (if I'm remembering right) a great intellectual depth, yet with other Fathers(even some of the same Fathers, but in different writings) one sees first that which reaches out to the heart (Easter Sermon of St. John Chrysostom comes to mind).

Maybe it's about our whole being walking the path, with not one part left behind, not one part left unredeemed? Not veering too far on one side or the other so as to ignore even one part of the person that might be caught in the bramble like the sheep in need of the Shepherd? (St. Macarius says something to that effect...I'll try to find the quote).

Richard McBride

19-07-2003, 10:01 PM

Blessed of the Lord, Michael:

I enjoy your amplifications; they are most always thoughtful and worth studying. In this latest one, the "I wonders...", they expand Rebecca's Hymn to Mary nicely. And I am especially taken with the one which ends in this sentence:

"Our job is not to seek to change His ordering to reflect our own pride/self-image, nor to create false idols, but to seek out His will in all things. "

Isn't it wonderful that we have such a strong legacy of teaching which helps us recognize and then, through prayer and the help of the Paraclete, to purge our hearts of " our own pride/self-image" ?

And this notion of "our job" seems to be one of the really good ways to filter out diversions that are so often and so tantalizingly offered by the enemy. I am referring, in part, to the awful presumptions far too commonly found in the popularis aura [one of the 'ill winds' which brings so little good]. It is this stuff which makes up the modernist air we breathe, wherein we accept the prevailing urges toward individualism, as though they were the answer to the Lord's lessons on freedom. In asking, What is our job as children of God?, always the first and great answer is, To adore God; that is, 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind." [Mat. 22:37]

Once we accept this framework for the second great commandment -- which refers to our job, or career, under the Lord -- then we have the guiding parameters for our prayers, and thus for making all future decisions. All this 'self-interest' is tossed out and then we may focus upon adoring God.

It is amazing, and frightening too, to see people on the other side of the thin veil -- a veil which keeps them from focusing upon their job as exampled by Saint Matthew. Instead, this other pathological focus upon the work of this world may lead individuals into ambitious struggles of all sorts (not just struggling with notions of priesthood), but ...

... so much more. I cut this thought off here, realizing that either one knows this reality; or one ignores it in favor of the delusions.

Argument will never, of itself, advance one to the other side of the veil. Only the work of the Paraclete may do that. Praise God in all His Glory if you, or anyone, is called on to participate in that advancement.

Thank you, Michael, for your words; I pray that all our words be advanced through the Will of God via the Holy Spirit. Then, and only then, will they be less than vain.

richard mcb

George Hawkins

21-07-2003, 03:41 AM

I have heard of Mary of Magdala being referred to as the Apostle to the Apostles, though I can't remember where I read that.

I too would like to thank Rebecca for pointing us to some very inspirational reading.

George

Andrew Latz

21-07-2003, 05:03 PM

Following intervie with Bishop Ware may be of interest:
http://www.stnina.org/97s/97s-ware-interview.htm

Herman Blaydoe

21-07-2003, 07:32 PM

This organization of St. Nina is "...dedicated to exploring the ministry of women in the Orthodox Church and to cultivating a deeper understanding of ministry in the lives of all Orthodox Christian women and men...."

Perhaps this is where some of the confusion lies...does one HAVE to be ordained to have a ministry? In the Tradition of the Church are many ministries for which ordination is not necessary.

One might ask, is the purpose of ordination to edify the people or the person?

Would the ordination of women better express the essential Truth of Christ or not?

Is serving at the altar a "right"?

And remember this is all in the context of a Church that has excluded all women from a significant chunk of real estate in Greece for over 1200 years (Mt. Athos). Oops, have I started another thread?

Elizabeth Hanson

21-07-2003, 07:59 PM

My dearest friends:

Christ is in our midst!

Not too long ago I was given an essay distributed by the Convent of the Holy Apostles in Colorado.

I cannot remember the title, but the thesis was that the female diaconate has evolved into the monastic life, so that today's nuns are the descendants of that Order.

The Order of Widows was also the beginning of the monastic life in the Church.

So, if anyone desires to be a female deacon, get thee to a ... (I won't quote Shakespeare's exact words!)

Yours in Christ,
Elizabeth

Elizabeth Hanson

21-07-2003, 08:26 PM

My dearest friends:

Christ is in our midst!

The whole point of entering a monastery is to repent. People don't enter the monastery to become a deacon or a priest. They come to repent, to put on Christ.

The new monk is like a catechumen.

So for anyone seeking the "exalted state" of a Deacon, they must remember that the diaconate was established to serve. And God calls us to serve His church in many ways, primarily as wives and husbands, as parents and witnesses of our faith.

Your sister in Christ,
Elizabeth

(Message edited by chanterhanson on 21 July, 2003)

Elizabeth Hanson

21-07-2003, 08:29 PM

Thank you for bearing with my vision problems.

(Message edited by chanterhanson on 21 July, 2003)

Elizabeth Hanson

21-07-2003, 08:30 PM

Please forgive my requests for editing advice.
All is okay.

(Message edited by chanterhanson on 21 July, 2003)

Jurretta J. Heckscher

21-07-2003, 08:37 PM

Dear Herman and fellow discussion participants:

Herman wrote:

<snip>And remember this is all in the context of a Church that has excluded all women from a significant chunk of real estate in Greece for over 1200 years (Mt. Athos).</snip>

Well, actually, not _all_ women: Mt. Athos has been called "the Garden of the Theotokos," and the monks say that it is to honor her exclusively that they have closed the Holy Mountain to all other women.

Yours in Christ,

--Jurretta

Elizabeth Hanson

21-07-2003, 09:18 PM

My dear Herman and friends in Christ,

Christ is in our midst! He is and always shall be!

I heard that Mt. Athos harbored Jewish women during the Nazi occupation in WWII, so the bar isn't rigidly applied.

Yours in Christ,
Elizabeth

George Arnold

22-07-2003, 07:24 PM

re: earlier post:

"Most of the male clergy are homosexual and most of the female clergy and probably all of the bishops are lesbians. So one might go a bit farther and call it an Onanistic cult."

I'd be interested to know how you came across this info.

Owen Jones

22-07-2003, 08:50 PM

Dear Mr. Arnold,

I used to be an Episcopal priest. My seminary was run by homosexual priests who intentionally recruited homosexual students from dioceses that were run either by homosexual bishops or bishops who went both ways, or who were ideologically in favor of ordaining homosexuals. There was a coterie of parish priests who would visit the seminary to cruise for young seminarians, would take them on a boy friends in exchange for the plumb jobs as curates in the larger, wealthier urban parishes. My seminary experience was not unique.

The first women ordained were self-avowed lesbians and marxists. The first female bishops was a self-avowed lesbian and marxist. The current Presiding bishop has been described publicly by his own wife as bi-sexual. Virtually all of the major urban dioceses are run by homesexuals and lesbians. They tend to be very tribal about hiring their own for jobs in the diocese. non-homosexual males are just not likely to get any of the best postings in the Church in the larger, wealthier dioceses. They are usually posted to missions and small churches. My own parish for a while in Chicago was run by a priest with a live-in male lover. He told me once that he was unique among the clergy in the diocese in that he never went cruising.

I could go on and on.

John P. Nasou

23-07-2003, 02:15 AM

John Nasou, first time poster Regarding Mary Magdalene: Her title is taken from the Diptych Book of = the Church of Greece. On July 22nd it states as I translate it -"The = Holy Myrrhbearer and Equal to the Apostles Mary the Magdalene (deceased = in the first century)

David Dietrich

07-12-2007, 03:37 AM

Although I have by no means read the entire thread, I have skimmed across a "significant portion" of it and as far as I can see the arguments have been primarily moving along purely historical/evidence-based lines. In other words, the debate seems to be restricted to proving historically that women have been or have not been restricted from leadership or ordination.

I think that presenting historical precedents and exegesis will not satisfy the real root of this problem. That root, it seems to me, is that our understanding of "male" and "female" has been systematically and successfully destroyed in our culture. As a result, there is growing confusion over gender in general and an increasing outcry for a reinstatement of clear and precise gender definitions.

This cry is not based on historical precedent and historical precedent seems to have no power over it. It is based in ideology, philosophy, and/or culture. The only really effective way to respond if this is true is to debate on the basis of ideology, philosophy, and/or culture, and not on the basis of history and precedent.

Therefore, I would like to posit a philosophical and ideological framework to explain why women in the church are not given liturgical leadership (which is my way of fusing the terms "leadership" and "ordination"), and to replace the flawed gender ideology of our sad, modern culture.

In the beginning God created man, and later He created woman to be the helpmate of man. There is no explicit reasoning behind the making of Adam (beyond the Godhead wishing to emulate Himself) as there is behind the making of Eve, whose purpose is as the helpmate of Adam. Thus, Eve appears as the "satellite" to the primary, but imbalanced, central figure of Adam. Next, as Adam was the first created, so Eve was the first to succumb to sin and Adam followed completing the symmetry of creation and fall. I do not argue that all womankind is guilty of Eve's sin, nor do I say that Adam did not sin. However, just as humanity inherited the fatal weakness of both their parents, so to did each half of humanity inherit the unique weakness of each progenitor, that is, of Eve to the serpent and of Adam to Eve.

In the pure beginning Adam is the leader and head steward of creation while in the defiled fall, Eve has been deceived into being the head steward of destruction. This correlates directly to the fact that in the Church of Christ men lead the temples as priests/bishops/deacons/acolytes while in the pagan religions of Satan women lead the temples as priestesses/temple prostitutes/sorceresses etc. This is not to say that in Christ's fold women do not assist their husbands and brothers nor that in the opposite case men do not "assist" (if such a term can be used here) the priestesses/sorceresses/prostitutes.

Obviously this sketch of a "gender ideology" is imperfectly expressed and more confused in historical practice. I merely seek to, in broad strokes, outline a philosophical framework that, perhaps, may be used in contrast with modern cultural confusion. Please do not think that I consider this to be the absolute truth, it is merely my hypothesis trying to pierce through the confusion which the Enemy places between us and the True Reality.

Mary

07-12-2007, 02:54 PM

In the beginning God created man, and later He created woman to be the helpmate of man. There is no explicit reasoning behind the making of Adam (beyond the Godhead wishing to emulate Himself) as there is behind the making of Eve, whose purpose is as the helpmate of Adam. Thus, Eve appears as the "satellite" to the primary, but imbalanced, central figure of Adam. Next, as Adam was the first created, so Eve was the first to succumb to sin and Adam followed completing the symmetry of creation and fall. I do not argue that all womankind is guilty of Eve's sin, nor do I say that Adam did not sin. However, just as humanity inherited the fatal weakness of both their parents, so to did each half of humanity inherit the unique weakness of each progenitor, that is, of Eve to the serpent and of Adam to Eve.

I"m not sure I see it quite this way - as Adam being 'central but imbalanced' and Eve his 'satellite'... No one is Central, except for God. We're All imbalanced without God and without each other. But how much we truly need each other, is something I haven't figured out. There are monks, and they're doing perfectly fine without 'satellites', and there are nuns who are doing just great without having to be anyone's 'satellite'.

Yesterday, after Divine Liturgy, as our priest was telling us the Story of St Nicholas, my mind, as usual, took a leap of logic and went down a new and wonderful trail. I thought about the saints, and how, St Nicholas is so well known, and yet, he wasn't at all like St John Chrysostom, who wasn't anything like St Mary of Egypt... Only in Orthodoxy, is everyone so perfectly equal!

Throughout history, people have fought for dominance, the latest one, being women trying to be equal to men. But there is no equality outside the Church. Our equality lies in our relationships to the Central Figure - God Himself. So, a child can be a saint, as easily as an old and wise man, a king can be a saint, as easily as a slave, a man, a woman, a great speaker and a fool, a warrior, a tailor, an evangelist, a cook... No one is anyone else's satellite.

Forgive me. I have nothing against men being leaders. I'm quite thankful that they are the undisputed leaders in the Orthodox church. When I first started going to orthodox churches, I was thrilled to feel the strength in the parishes. It had nothing to do with anyone in particular, because I didn't know anyone. It was connected to the presence of men. More so, with the Men in Black. =)

And the women... a different kind of strength! Also one that I'd never felt before. In fact, it was the first time in my life that I'd 'felt' the equality of men and women, so much so, that I no longer feel that I've been shortchanged for having been created a woman. It wasn't to lead, that I wished I"d been a man. It was just to be more free, and have more fun! =) But now, I'm quite enamored with this feminine strength that I've found in the Orthodox Church, and I'm happy to be a woman. It's like having discovered a whole new world to explore and conquer! Looks like I'm going to have all the fun and freedom I ever wanted! =)

In Christ,
Mary.

Nina

07-12-2007, 03:30 PM

I agree very much with some of the things you say:

I think that presenting historical precedents and exegesis will not satisfy the real root of this problem. That root, it seems to me, is that our understanding of "male" and "female" has been systematically and successfully destroyed in our culture. As a result, there is growing confusion over gender in general and an increasing outcry for a reinstatement of clear and precise gender definitions.

Last century really changed many things and mixed roles. In the recent years we have heard about words such as metrosexual for a man (who can have facials, mani and pedicure, eyebrows plucked etc), and women who wear boyfriend everything - clothes wise etc. This mixing of genders is work of the evil one.

St. John Chrysostom (I think) has said that God created woman from the rib of Adam, and not from the head so she would not be superior to him, and not from the feet so she would not be inferior to him, but from the rib (middle of the body) so they would be equal to each other. Now this equal word has been abused and ravaged and manipulated and misused so much in the recent decades and in its name there is actually created gender confusion, and role confusion, and not gender equality.

But on the other hand we can not say that because Eve fell, women are kind of related to that. Of course they were cursed, but man was cursed too. Also Eve fell first, but the New Eve who is Virgin Mary surpassed in purity all humans that she was made worthy for God to be abide in her womb.

Also:

Ordination οf Women

Once, some spiritual children of his were worried up ο n hearing that ίn Great Britain women «Priests» were being «ordained» by the Anglicans. And they asked him what pos*sibly could happen if similar ideas ever came into the Ortho*dox Church. The Elder, with his familiar sense of humor which distinguished him many times, responded:
«Why do you worry, my children? Οn the one hand, we have as a sign pious women who want to cacry «monasti*cism» οn their shoulders, faithfully keeping the traditions of Orthodoxy. And, οn the other hand, the «feminists» of the Greek land hear «Church» and . . .run ίn panic! So, don't worry. Orthodoxy is not ίn danger of «ordaining» any wo*man. Neither impious, nor much less, a pious one! You may find this here (http://impantokratoros.gr/AB23165E.en.aspx).

Fr Raphael Vereshack

07-12-2007, 04:53 PM

In the beginning God created man, and later He created woman to be the helpmate of man. There is no explicit reasoning behind the making of Adam (beyond the Godhead wishing to emulate Himself) as there is behind the making of Eve, whose purpose is as the helpmate of Adam. Thus, Eve appears as the "satellite" to the primary, but imbalanced, central figure of Adam.

Just to tweak this description a bit: all relationships are created by God in image of that between the Persons of the Holy Trinity.

So these relationships are complementary not in a negative sense; ie filling what is lacking (how after all can we say that God created a human nature which is lacking?) but rather through natural relationship to each other.

This also takes us beyond worldly ideas of relationship which usually involve emotional necessity. In other words individuals are not in absolute need of each other but rather freely are complemented by whomever God brings before them. This puts human relationship into a whole different dimension.

Next, as Adam was the first created, so Eve was the first to succumb to sin and Adam followed completing the symmetry of creation and fall. I do not argue that all womankind is guilty of Eve's sin, nor do I say that Adam did not sin. However, just as humanity inherited the fatal weakness of both their parents, so to did each half of humanity inherit the unique weakness of each progenitor, that is, of Eve to the serpent and of Adam to Eve.

Yes, one can see this in human behaviour. Just as humanity is created with distinct male & female characteristics so the Fall distorts these to some extent.

In the pure beginning Adam is the leader and head steward of creation while in the defiled fall, Eve has been deceived into being the head steward of destruction. This correlates directly to the fact that in the Church of Christ men lead the temples as priests/bishops/deacons/acolytes while in the pagan religions of Satan women lead the temples as priestesses/temple prostitutes/sorceresses etc. This is not to say that in Christ's fold women do not assist their husbands and brothers nor that in the opposite case men do not "assist" (if such a term can be used here) the priestesses/sorceresses/prostitutes.

I think this is a good insight on the connection to male priesthood and even of Christ as male. But I would again tweak this to first look at what *both* Adam and Eve are created to be. I would also look at how the Fall distorts these characteristics.

Thus I'm not sure about priestesses resulting from females usurping the priestly role of males. Rather I would tend to see it more as the result of confusion over what female stewardship is.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

RichardWorthington

07-12-2007, 05:38 PM

And the women... a different kind of strength! Also one that I'd never felt before. In fact, it was the first time in my life that I'd 'felt' the equality of men and women, so much so, that I no longer feel that I've been shortchanged for having been created a woman. It wasn't to lead, that I wished I"d been a man. It was just to be more free, and have more fun! =) But now, I'm quite enamored with this feminine strength that I've found in the Orthodox Church, and I'm happy to be a woman. It's like having discovered a whole new world to explore and conquer! Looks like I'm going to have all the fun and freedom I ever wanted! =)

Mary,

I have been looking into women's ordination for over 10 years now, as I was attending the Orthodox Church around the time of women's ordination to the priesthood in the Anglican church here in England. Quite a few clergy and people joined the Orthodox Church, although more became RC, and some just stopped attending church altogether (and some found the change in the Anglican church necessary).

It is very good to have a woman's experience (!) recounted like this. In this post http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=53188&postcount=12 I show examples of women (abbesses) teaching in church. I am in favour of restoring the female diaconate, but I think your view will outweigh anything that could be said or done by a female diaconate.

It is necessary to find ourselves in Christ first, to be glad to be a man (for me), and to be gald to be a woman (for you). The female diaconate will not lead to this finding, but this finding in Christ should come first. I think in Western churches there has been an imbalance with the men (e.g. unmarried priests in places) which caused an imbalance with the women.

So thank you Mary: your words have said more than the numerous books I have read!

I will put my thoughts on why liturgical roles (e.g. bishops, priests) are only male later.

Richard

David Dietrich

08-12-2007, 04:24 AM

Your comments are very true. I agree that Adam and Eve are equal, and that Adam was not intrinsically incomplete. The primary point is that Adam is the first, as in, the leader while Eve is the second, as in, the supporter, and that this is the basic ideological understanding that has been lost and which needs to be re-found for the confusion over genders to end. Of course, it does seem that I am preaching to choir on this point...

Mary

08-12-2007, 05:50 AM

So thank you Mary: your words have said more than the numerous books I have read!

Richard

Dear Richard,

Thank you for your kind words! But you should always read what I write with plenty of caution, for I am new to Orthodoxy. =) I usually only write about things I feel and think about, for I haven't read everything that there is to read, and haven't had time to learn a whole lot yet.

But I do completely agree with you, I can't see the how restoring the diaconate would in any way help a woman find herself... not all would qualify to be a deaconess, and it may even just create more problems till more women find themselves first! =)

Your comments are very true. I agree that Adam and Eve are equal, and that Adam was not intrinsically incomplete. The primary point is that Adam is the first, as in, the leader while Eve is the second, as in, the supporter, and that this is the basic ideological understanding that has been lost and which needs to be re-found for the confusion over genders to end. Of course, it does seem that I am preaching to choir on this point...

Dear David,
I am not at all disputing the fact that Adam came first and that Eve came second, or man's role as leader. I just have a problem trusting. In order to follow a leader, you should be able to trust him. Being a leader is a huge responsibility, and it's hard work. A man is not naturally a leader, just because he's a man, in the same way that a woman is not motherly and supportive, just because she's a woman.

What would you say is the right thing to do in a situation where a man is not being a real man? How can a woman, then be a true supporter? I've been in both situations. I'm infinitely thankful to God for bringing into my life True Men. It's such a total freedom to be able to trust someone, without fear!!

But a woman needs to be trustworthy, in the same manner that a man needs to be trustworthy (along with all the other things that constitute 'being like Christ'). That's why I have trouble seeing man as first, and woman as second, because the things that are required of them seem to be the same. Man doesn't always lead the way. I have to be trustworthy even if all the men in my life aren't. Of course, it will be easier for me, if they would lead, but it isn't impossible, neither do I have to wait for them to get their act together before I start to get my own life in order.

In order for a man to guide and lead and protect others, he has to be way ahead of them! You cannot teach what you do not know, you cannot lead down a path that you haven't travelled! If the man who is to be the leader, isn't doing any leading, what then is the woman supposed to support?

But I fear I'm getting side-tracked. I'm thinking of a marriage. It would be different in a parish. But... maybe not too much. If the priest isn't leading, what's the parish to do? Force the priest to lead? Somehow, I don't think it works that way. Being a leader is a terribly big responsibility... We need to work together somehow and give each other room to grow and also help each other grow, I think...? I dunno. Just tossing thoughts around. =)

In Christ,
Mary.

Mary

08-12-2007, 06:10 AM

Just to tweak this description a bit: all relationships are created by God in image of that between the Persons of the Holy Trinity.

So these relationships are complementary not in a negative sense; ie filling what is lacking (how after all can we say that God created a human nature which is lacking?) but rather through natural relationship to each other.

This also takes us beyond worldly ideas of relationship which usually involve emotional necessity. In other words individuals are not in absolute need of each other but rather freely are complemented by whomever God brings before them. This puts human relationship into a whole different dimension.
In Christ- Fr Raphael

Fr Raphael...

this gives me SO much to think about. I feel a hundred questions lurking, but they're refusing to formulate! =(

Mary.

RichardWorthington

08-12-2007, 10:23 AM

all relationships are created by God in image of that between the Persons of the Holy Trinity.

Moreover, the only distinction/'relationship' between the Persons of the Trinity is that of origin (unbegotten, begotten, and proceeding), and its image in humanity is described as follows:

We have an analogy in Adam, who was not begotten (for God Himself moulded him [from the earth]), and Seth, who was begotten (for he is Adam’s son), and Eve, who proceeded out of Adam’s rib (for she was not begotten). These do not differ from each other in nature, for they are human beings: but they differ in the mode of coming into existence. (St John of Damascus, "Orthodox Faith", book 1, chapter 8)

The main God-given distinction between man and woman is that of origin: man from the dust of the earth, and woman from man. Gender is fundamentally irrelevant to this, other than enabling us fallen children of God to identify which origin each of us has.

So regarding women priests: we read of the offering of Noah, "the Lord smelled a sweet savour, and the Lord said in his heart, ‘I will not again curse the ground for man’s sake’ " (Genesis 8:21). The key in this verse is the word "again" used by God to Noah regarding cursing the earth. For on the previous occasion that the earth was cursed God said, "Cursed is the ground for your sake … thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you." (Genesis 3:17-18). To whom were these words spoken? To Adam, because it is he and not Eve who was taken from the dust of the earth. "For dust you are, and to dust you shall return" (Genesis 3:19). It is through Adam that creation fell, and it is only through one like Adam that the creation is healed. All men are ‘second Adams’, but of course the ultimate second Adam is Jesus Christ, our Incarnate God. Sin and death entered the creation through Adam, since he is from the dust of the earth. Healing and eternal life entered the creation through the second Adam, Jesus (consider Him wearing the crown of thorns, the product of the first Adam’s sin).

However, through whom did God become incarnate to become a ‘second Adam’ in the first place? Through man or through woman? We sing to Mary the Mother of God that the Lord of all "made you from the side of Adam" ("Sunday Matins", Tone 4 ode 8) and St John of Damascus calls her the "first offspring of Adam" ("On the Orthodox Faith", Book 3, chapter 1). God entered humanity to become the Second Adam via one who was from the side of Adam, i.e. a woman. It is not merely Mary who is a second Eve but all women equally, for all are from the side of Adam, as all men are from dust. Moreover, St Proclus (Bishop of Cyzicus about the time of the Council of Ephesus) declared that giving Mary the title of "Mother of God" is "the glorification of the race of women" (I found this in a guide book of Turkey in my local library: "Ancient Turkey", Setan Lloyd, British Museum Publications Ltd, 1989; page 224). All women are included in the veneration of the Mother of God and will equally and identically share in her God-given honours, as we sit down with Christ and shall reign with Him.

So to summarise: If anyone asks you why a woman can not become a priest, simply say the following:

First God created the earth, then Adam from the dust of the earth, then Eve from the side of Adam. Man is therefore like a gateway into the earth, and woman a gateway into humanity. So we have the sequence: earth, man, woman, and God above all.

In order to unite with the whole creation, God became incarnate via the gateway into humanity, i.e. via a woman like Eve. Having entered humanity it was necessary for God to become a man like Adam, being the gateway into the creation. This man Jesus then dies a deathless death and so unites His uncreated divinity with the creation.

And so His mystic Sacrifice of the Cross in the Eucharist can only be presented by men, as it is only a man, being the gateway into creation, who can say during the Liturgy, ‘Thine of Thine own we offer unto Thee’, or anything similar.

Any thoughts?

Richard

PS. In the attachment (which I wrote a few months ago; the paragraphs here are taken from it) I give my thoughts on related issues: if humanity is from the earth, then what about evolution? (I plan to reproduce this in the Genesis:Truth and Methaphor thread, with perhaps a few changes), and - in the numbered list at the end - that it is Christ Himself who is the real Second Eve (I like this bit, even if I say so myself!), a bit on Gnosticism's 'Lady Wisdom', how "a priest is an icon of Christ" does not signify who can or cannot become a priest, and also how we are all a royal priesthood.

David Dietrich

08-12-2007, 05:57 PM

So if I understand you correctly, Richard, you are saying that the nature of woman is to be the gateway into man and for man to be the gateway into the earth. I presume that these gateways lead from the spiritual, i.e. hopefully God, to the material, i.e. the creation. This pathway is shown in the Incarnation where God moved from Heaven, through woman, to be a man, and finally into Hell to revitalize creation.

You have taken my idea several steps further and made it into something quite revelatory for me!

Robert Hegwood

08-12-2007, 11:33 PM

Perhaps Richard in a nutshell is saying that male and female are not just accidents of or temporary condescension to biology but do in fact bear theological content and as such transcend biological categories. Each sex and their interrelationship reveals something about God and the life of the Holy Trinity.

RichardWorthington

09-12-2007, 04:24 PM

male and female are not just accidents of or temporary condescension to biology but do in fact bear theological content and as such transcend biological categories. Each sex and their interrelationship reveals something about God and the life of the Holy Trinity.

Yes, except that it is not gender distinctions ('male' and 'female') but our ineffable origins that have a theological content, and that technically there are no relationships between the Persons of the Trinity. (We 'relate' to each other because we are separated and desire to communicate with each other. However, the Persons of the Trinity totally dwell in each other, so that one is just as close to the other two as to Itself. In the Eucharist, on the Last Day, we shall be totally united with Christ, and so too dwell one in another: "that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us" (John 17:21). See also what I wrote about the 'Filioquibble' (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?p=53169/lpost53169).)

The primary point is that Adam is the first, as in, the leader while Eve is the second, as in, the supporter

Yes, this can be said so long as all gender distinctions are ignored, and that it only relates to offering the Eucharist. Recent theologians tried to make a case of special gifts ('charisms'?) belonging to men and women. The result of this was, of course, that women could not be priests (and the possible deduction that men were more in Christ's image - 'closer'? - than women); this thinking came, I think, from seeing the Persons of the Trinity somehow separated from each other, having separate functions or operations even if the end 'result' was harmonious between Them - see the 'filioquibble' link above.

For example, in the Incarnation it is woman who leads and man who supports. It is Mary who says, "Let it be to me according to thy word", and Joseph who has her as wife thereby allowing her Son to be called 'Son of Man' and not only 'Son of Mary. Similarly, in the Eucharistic offering, it is man who leads and woman who supports. Please note that neither Mary nor the priest 'do' anything: she merely assents to be the vehicle of the Incarnation, and he - after saying and doing all those words and actions - acknowledges that nothing has happened and so prays for the Holy Spirit to come upon the people and the "gifts here set forth" (i.e. the invocation, 'epiclesis', prayer).

Please note: I am not talking about domestic or worldly relationships, but about our natural in-built 'sacramental' place in the creation. How men and women relate to each other in real fallen life will be determined probably first by testosterone and oestrogen and secondly by our upbringing and society.

So if I understand you correctly, Richard, you are saying that the nature of woman is to be the gateway into man and for man to be the gateway into the earth. I presume that these gateways lead from the spiritual, i.e. hopefully God, to the material, i.e. the creation. This pathway is shown in the Incarnation where God moved from Heaven, through woman, to be a man, and finally into Hell to revitalize creation.

Yes, and as an afterthought, the offering of the Eucharist by the people via the priest happens (ideally) in a church building, within the womb of our Heavenly Mother Church, the deified Body of Christ. For after asking the Holy Spirit to come upon the Holy Gifts, we sing a song of praise to the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God. This then acknowledges woman's necessary 'support' in the Mystery. (Again, the leading and supporting are not actions or activities, but expressions of our Trinitarian being.)

Richard
PS I am sorry my posts are so long, my mind gets carried away!
PPS. Sorry also if I appear to preach: having thought about these things for over ten years, I suppose I am desperately hoping that I might be vaguely correct - or else it was all in vain!

M.C. Steenberg

09-12-2007, 05:27 PM

There are most certainly relations in the Trinity.

M.C. Steenberg

10-12-2007, 12:59 AM

Dear all,

I hope a blessed weekend has had by all. Having just spent some time reading through a few of the recent posts in this thread, Richard W.'s most recent post raises a number of points that seem to me to require some substantial further thought / modification. A few initial points in reaction to various portions of that post (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=54819&postcount=114):

it is not gender distinctions ('male' and 'female') but our ineffable origins that have a theological content, and that technically there are no relationships between the Persons of the Trinity. (We 'relate' to each other because we are separated and desire to communicate with each other. However, the Persons of the Trinity totally dwell in each other, so that one is just as close to the other two as to Itself. In the Eucharist, on the Last Day, we shall be totally united with Christ, and so too dwell one in another: "that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us" (John 17:21).

I cannot thinking of any patristic defense of this position, certainly not articulated in this manner -- though I think I recognise the fundamental point of unity that you are trying to express. Nonetheless, the whole patristic articulation of God as Father, Son and Spirit in trinity is entirely based on the notion of their very real, irreducable relation. The persons of the Trinity are not absent of relation because they are the one God; they are the one God in ultimate evidence that relation does not equal separation -- in other words, that relation does not, in fact, imply persons that are 'separated and desire to communicate with each other'. This is, indeed, the direct implication of the great prayer of Christ to his Father in St John's Gospel, which you have quoted: his prayer reveals his eternal relation to his Father. The words make no sense without that relation; and the prayer indicates the future of humanity as fully engaged in that relation.

The idea that relation and relating equates to division or separation, is precisely at the heart of the trinitarian disputes of the 'high' patristic period (i.e. the third-seventh centuries AD); for it is just such seemingly obvious and sensible perceptions that led to various (and often quite different) doctrines of division in God, or - to the other extreme - confusion in God. Arianism and Sabellianism are both, in some sense, means of attempting to understand the relationship of the persons of the Trinity with this framework as a backdrop.

But God, as Trinity of Father with Son and Spirit, is always relating, always in relation. This is what causes Christianity to understand the very concept of 'relation' in new terms: relation does not imply division, but communion. Distinction without separation. Union in disinction. It is no chance accident that the classical adverbs of Christological relation used at Chalcedon dwell on just these ideas: the relation of two natures in Christ is not unrelated to the relation of the three persons in God as Trinity.

Taking this back to anthropology, Christianity must always taking as its starting point this notion of relation in communion. Seeing relation as always, ultimately, the result of division and disunity forces one into a position of claiming that distinction must be part of a rebellious or disharmonious condition. But this is not the reality of distinction in relation as understood in a truly trinitarian theology.

The primary point is that Adam is the first, as in, the leader while Eve is the second, as in, the supporter

Yes, this can be said so long as all gender distinctions are ignored, and that it only relates to offering the Eucharist. Recent theologians tried to make a case of special gifts ('charisms'?) belonging to men and women. The result of this was, of course, that women could not be priests (and the possible deduction that men were more in Christ's image - 'closer'? - than women); this thinking came, I think, from seeing the Persons of the Trinity somehow separated from each other, having separate functions or operations even if the end 'result' was harmonious between Them.

On the last part of this particular comment ('this thinking came, I think, from seeing the Persons of the Trinity somehow separated from each other...'), my above again. I am deeply concerned at what seems to be the brunt of an essentially conflated trinitarianism in these and the previous comments in the post. It is not quite modalism, but it follows the same type of problematic conception.

As to the question of the distinctions in men and women: it does not seem appropriate to me to attempt a reading of the anthropological testimony of scriptures and the broader witness of the Church, by dismissing a very real aspect of that testimony which is that male and female are distinct, and it is not simply the order of their coming-into-being that is significant, but the gender of their creation (though the order of their coming-into-being also has its significance, and is addressed by many of the fathers and early writings).

The fathers are far from unanimous in how they understand the creation of gender. Some reflect on the distinction of male and female as part of the original design and intention in creation; others comment on it as part of the heritage of sin - a kind of 'double creation' related to this double aspect in the creature's existence. But certainly in the early testimony of the Church, the creation of male and female is part of the design of the creator, and the the gendered nature of humanity an intrinsic part of the 'one race' of Adam as community. Male and female exist in distinction, precisely so as to be in relation. Moreover, in this relation, there are indeed specific characteristics and charisms to each gender. One of the first great typologies in the theological writings of the Church was the Adam-Christ / Eve-Mary parallel, to which many of the fathers speak expressly of the differing characteristics of male and female in these parallels. Further, in the prayer of the Church, specific charisms of the male and female (and the female in particular) are stressed: specific petitions to the grace of maternity and maternal love are made in the daily cycle of the Church's prayer: a charism specifically of the female. It is perhaps in this area of prayer, in particular, that the proper understanding of gender must come about in Christianity: the prayers and petitions of the Church do not hesitate in the slightest to speak about very specific charisms of the genders.

For example, in the Incarnation it is woman who leads and man who supports. It is Mary who says, "Let it be to me according to thy word", and Joseph who has her as wife thereby allowing her Son to be called 'Son of Man' and not only 'Son of Mary.

The ordering is important, yes; and in general I do agree with your drawing attention to it. But it is far more customary in the patristic testimony to see the Mother of God not as leading, but responding. The lead comes from the Angel: the Virgin assents to his word, after questioning. Joseph's assent comes not from following woman (in fact, he attempts to put her away, to hide her), but from assenting to the same word of God. The fathers focus on Mary's 'informed consent' to the Word of the angel (hence in Irenaeus, as in Jacob of Serug and others, much attention is paid to the fact that she properly questions the angel). It is in her role as one in response, following rather than leading, that they see her direct parallelism to Eve in Eden. Eve attempted to lead, to guide the economy of her own will. The Mother of God, on the other hand, does not lead. Hence, in receiving the Word and obeying, she fulfils the nature of one in relation to God: that God reigns and rules.

You focus on this to a degree in your following comment:

Similarly, in the Eucharistic offering, it is man who leads and woman who supports. Please note that neither Mary nor the priest 'do' anything: she merely assents to be the vehicle of the Incarnation, and he - after saying and doing all those words and actions - acknowledges that nothing has happened and so prays for the Holy Spirit to come upon the people and the "gifts here set forth" (i.e. the invocation, 'epiclesis', prayer).

Yet it is not correct to say that the Virgin at the annunciation, or the priest at the consecration, do not 'do' anything. What they do is critical, and must not be down-played simply because the great miracle is wrought of God. Mary does speak with the angel, does question, and does assent. Her words, 'Be it done unto me according to thy word', are an act, a response. And her work is not simply that moment, but all the moments of the life that follows. Again, the fathers focus on her person with such intensity precisely because of what she does, of how she acts. Eve acts wrongly, Mary rightly. Eve 'ties a knot' of sin into all humanity; the Virgin unties the knot (a la St Irenaeus). God acts in symphonia with his creation, not simply through them as mere conduits. Her work is critical. It is only in this sense that the Church sings, 'Thou art the rampart of salvation...'

Similarly, the eucharist. It is not true that the priest does not 'do' anything in the consecration of the holy gifts. He is intimately involved in this mystery - it is the whole focus and purpose of the priesthood. Of course, it is God who makes himself present, a thing no man could accomplish. But God works in relation with his creature. The priest does not 'acknowledge that nothing has happened' by petitioning the Holy Spirit to come upon the gifts set forth on the altar: his very petition is part of the 'something' of this mystery.

Relation does not involve division of persons, when we talk about God as Trinity or about man and woman as persons; nor does distinction require separation of act, when we talk about God and his creature in relation.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

David Dietrich

10-12-2007, 05:16 AM

I am becoming rather muddled here, primarily because I failed to grasp Mr. Worthington's original point. As far as I can make out, the core of your argument, Mr. Worthington, lies in the fact that "man" and "woman" do not hold unique identities by the fact of their being "male" and "female," but instead hold the characteristics they hold solely because of their respective histories/origins. So, according to this, it might just as well have been Eve that was made first from the dust and Adam that was made second from Eve's rib.

If this is correct, then I must disagree because the labels/names we use for "Adam" and "Eve"/"male" and "female" are not independent of their history. Thus, if "Eve" had been made first from the dust she would be called "Adam" and vis versa. But still further, not only the "labels" placed on each person, but their eternal identities, the platonic ideals of male and female if you will, are as inseparable from their history as the names are. According to this, it would be impossible for Adam to be created second from the rib of Eve because, on the eternal plane of existence, Adam never would do such a thing, does not do it, and never has. In short, he could not because of who he is both in the past, in the present, and in the future. The eternal aspect of this existence precludes the possibility of any arbitrary "swapping places" among the genders.

Although your post, Dr. Steenberg, I think has slipped beyond me to a great extent, it seems to me you are saying that the it is the relationship between Adam and Eve/Father, Son, and Holy Spirit that define who they are eternally, and that this defining relationship does not entail any separation.

RichardWorthington

10-12-2007, 10:47 AM

Er … hello again! :)
Perhaps I should point out that I have not received any formal theological training. As such, when reading books on Orthodoxy and encountering a technical term (especially one in ancient Greek) I then try to put that into English in a way I can understand. For example, the Greek word energia/'energies' means nothing to me (except perhaps referring to some New Age terminology), so I think of functions/ functionality/ operations/ actions/ activity instead, and hope that I am vaguely on the right track! As such, my terminology might well not be 'standard'!

Regarding my phrase, "that technically there are no relationships between the Persons of the Trinity", Fr Dcn Matthew correctly replied:

I cannot thinking of any patristic defense of this position, certainly not articulated in this manner -- though I think I recognise the fundamental point of unity that you are trying to express. Nonetheless, the whole patristic articulation of God as Father, Son and Spirit in trinity is entirely based on the notion of their very real, irreducable relation. The persons of the Trinity are not absent of relation because they are the one God; they are the one God in ultimate evidence that relation does not equal separation -- in other words, that relation does not, in fact, imply persons that are 'separated and desire to communicate with each other'.

Limited only to that one phrase I would agree with you! However, I was assuming the comment from my previous post where I do indeed state that the Persons of the Trinity are related: "the only distinction/'relationship' between the Persons of the Trinity is that of origin (unbegotten, begotten, and proceeding)". The Father is unbegotten, and is related to the Son by the Son being begotten, and is related to the Holy Spirit by the Spirit proceeding. The terms 'begotten' and 'proceeding' do indeed imply a relationship, but only a relationship of origin. I am basing this on the following passages:

"The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one in all respects, except in that of not being begotten, that of being begotten, and that of procession" (St John of Damascus, "Orthodox Faith", book 1,chapter 2)

"no difference either of nature or of operation is contemplated in the Godhead" (St Gregory of Nyssa, On "Not Three Gods")

I was merely trying to point out that the Persons do not 'chat' with each other, or 'show love' to each other. For example, if the Father shows love to the Son, then the Son either was not in full possession of love by nature - making the Son 'less than God' - or else the Father is showing the Son something the Son previously did not have or know. But the Persons dwell in one another, as close to each other as to themselves, so this would be impossible. (Also, union is beyond love; love works towards union, but union is beyond love. The Fathers say that the Persons dwell in one another, but I have never heard them say that the Persons show love to each other, for to show love to another is a separate action or operation, but there are no separate operations in the Trinity. God is Love, so the Persons dwell equally in that one love, as that love belongs to all three by nature.)

This is, indeed, the direct implication of the great prayer of Christ to his Father in St John's Gospel, which you have quoted: his prayer reveals his eternal relation to his Father. The words make no sense without that relation; and the prayer indicates the future of humanity as fully engaged in that relation.

"that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us" (John 17:21). I take this as having double references, like saying "I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father": the 'proceeds from the Father' refers to the 3rd Person's eternal origin, the 'send to you' refers to God's Presence coming to us after Pentecost; both '3rd Person' and 'God's Presence' ('energies' again!) are referred to by the term 'Holy Spirit'. Therefore, Christ is praying that we may dwell one in another as the Father and Son (Persons) dwell one in another (to the extent that created can imitate the Uncreated). Also, by dwelling in each other and so becoming one humanity again in the Son (in His human nature), we may be filled with the Godhead, the fullness of which dwells in the Son bodily (Col. 2:9). (Similarly, when the gospels say that the Father loves the Son, it is the human nature of the Son that is being talked about, e.g. John 3:35 refers to the previous verse, "He whom God has sent", thereby implying the Incarnation of the Son; John 5:20 refers to the Son raising the dead, by His own physical resurrection.)

Taking this back to anthropology, Christianity must always taking as its starting point this notion of relation in communion.

As such, I try to avoid dividing the Trinity by referring to the Persons dwelling in each other as close as to themselves (and also having one nature), and try to avoid 'modalism' by referring to their separate origins. Humanity should mirror the Trinity, but the Fall has gotten in the way - which is where misunderstandings about the 'role' of men and women can occur!

(For ease of replying to Fr Dn Matthew's and Mr Dietrich's posts concerning gender I will place this in another post soon.)

But it is far more customary in the patristic testimony to see the Mother of God not as leading, but responding.

I agree with you; I was merely following the initial terminology of 'leading' versus 'support'. Perhaps 'primary' and 'secondary' respectively would be more appropriate. Sorry for the confusion!

What they [Mary and priest] do is critical, and must not be down-played simply because the great miracle is wrought of God. Mary does speak with the angel, does question, and does assent. Her words, 'Be it done unto me according to thy word', are an act, a response.
…
Similarly, the eucharist. It is not true that the priest does not 'do' anything in the consecration of the holy gifts. He is intimately involved in this mystery - it is the whole focus and purpose of the priesthood. Of course, it is God who makes himself present, a thing no man could accomplish. But God works in relation with his creature. The priest does not 'acknowledge that nothing has happened' by petitioning the Holy Spirit to come upon the gifts set forth on the altar: his very petition is part of the 'something' of this mystery.

I agree. Mary most certainly does assent to being the vehicle of the incarnation. The priest most certainly does pray for the descent of the Holy Spirit. They do these things, and without these actions God would not act, as He acts "in symphonia with his creation", as you correctly state. All I wanted to stress is that no long drawn out activities are required of us. It is Mary's assent in her heart that matters, not the exact words or the context of any conversation. It is the priest's reaching out to God from his heart that matters, not all of the words and actions; I have read that in the very early church the invocation 'epiclesis' prayer was simply, 'Maranatha' - 'Come, O Lord'!

It seems as though one misunderstanding may have lead to another! :)
However, if there are any further Trinitarian points to discuss, would it be better in another thread, and then report back here as and when appropriate (after all, we are made in God's image!)?

Richard

Mary

10-12-2007, 03:54 PM

I was merely trying to point out that the Persons do not 'chat' with each other, or 'show love' to each other. For example, if the Father shows love to the Son, then the Son either was not in full possession of love by nature - making the Son 'less than God' - or else the Father is showing the Son something the Son previously did not have or know. But the Persons dwell in one another, as close to each other as to themselves, so this would be impossible. (Also, union is beyond love; love works towards union, but union is beyond love. The Fathers say that the Persons dwell in one another, but I have never heard them say that the Persons show love to each other, for to show love to another is a separate action or operation, but there are no separate operations in the Trinity. God is Love, so the Persons dwell equally in that one love, as that love belongs to all three by nature.)

Richard

This sounds very similar to the Islamic view of Love and God (from what little I know - please correct me if I'm wrong). They claim God cannot Love or that He does not need our love, because the need for love and the showing of love, shows an incompleteness, and God cannot be incomplete.

That's so wrong! God isn't going to become any less because we show our love to Him. And how can we learn how to love each other if the Persons of the Trinity, dont' first love each other and show us how it's done? Also, showing love just because someone lacks something, sort of minimizes what love is. I love my child, not because he's lacking in something or other and I'm trying to fill the gaps, but I love him, because he's mine. When he's older and doesnt' need anything from me anymore, I'll still continue to love him. If I'm paralized from my eyelids down and become a burden to him, I'll still love him. And for all this talk about love, God's love is still something so much bigger and more complete than I can ever imagine in my wildest imaginations, so I can't try to figure out how the Persons of the Trinity love each other in their awesome, pure, perfect and holy love. And even if God explained it to me, I doubt if I'll understand.

In Christ,
mary.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

10-12-2007, 04:35 PM

Fr Dn Matthew wrote:

Taking this back to anthropology, Christianity must always taking as its starting point this notion of relation in communion. Seeing relation as always, ultimately, the result of division and disunity forces one into a position of claiming that distinction must be part of a rebellious or disharmonious condition. But this is not the reality of distinction in relation as understood in a truly trinitarian theology.

This point I think is very important. What Christian trinitarian theology continually faces is fallen man's sense that distinction in itself is a travesty of the original unity. How many different ways this has been expressed over the centuries, philosophically, theologically & also scientifically (this sense underlies much of the modern understanding of progress).

And seen in these terms the resolution of all things or their salvation must involve their all being rolled back up into the original unity again.

In other words the point beyond which one has difficulty going in this discussion (and one can see this endlessly at play in the theological debates of the early centuries) is that what through trinitarian eyes is communion and salvation, outside of this can only represent the original fall from unity.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

RichardWorthington

10-12-2007, 06:12 PM

Dear Fr Raphael,

I agree with you. Distinction is not a result of the Fall, for there is distinction within the Godhead between the Persons. What did happen to humanity with the Fall was a division going beyond distinction.

Richard

RichardWorthington

10-12-2007, 06:48 PM

This sounds very similar to the Islamic view of Love and God (from what little I know - please correct me if I'm wrong). They claim God cannot Love or that He does not need our love, because the need for love and the showing of love, shows an incompleteness, and God cannot be incomplete.

That is why we say during the Liturgy from the Bible: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, so that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life"! :)

That's so wrong! God isn't going to become any less because we show our love to Him. And how can we learn how to love each other if the Persons of the Trinity, dont' first love each other and show us how it's done?

We should not need to learn love, for "God made man upright" (Eccl. 7:29); we have fallen, but our original nature in God's image still remains even though sin is superimposed upon it. We were created in love, by love, for love. Love is part of our nature, implanted by God who is Love, and so we should not need to learn it. However, due to our sinfulness we do need to re-find our original nature, which the God of love lovingly helps us to do, to the glory of His holy Name.

Also, showing love just because someone lacks something, sort of minimizes what love is. I love my child, not because he's lacking in something or other and I'm trying to fill the gaps, but I love him, because he's mine. When he's older and doesnt' need anything from me anymore, I'll still continue to love him. If I'm paralized from my eyelids down and become a burden to him, I'll still love him. And for all this talk about love, God's love is still something so much bigger and more complete than I can ever imagine in my wildest imaginations, so I can't try to figure out how the Persons of the Trinity love each other in their awesome, pure, perfect and holy love. ( Bold mine)

Mary - you have just captured my thoughts! What you have expressed is perfectly correct. However, I think you have not written about one specific manifestation of your love for your child which opens the key to seeing more completely what divine Love is all about. (At least, assuming we are all human together with similar experiences!)

The manifestation of your love is this: your desire to hold your child close to you (especially when young). You desire to hold him/her, and he/she desires to be held close. Intimacy comes from love, and love directs us towards ever-increasing intimacy. However, because we have separate bodies, bodies existing separately from other bodies both in time and space, then there is a limit to the closeness you can achieve with your child. But in God there is no 'body'; the three Persons of the Trinity do not have separate bodies. As such, there is no limit to the closeness between the Persons.

So if we can suppose a sort of process within the Trinity merely for making this clearer, then the explanation of what I wrote about the Persons not showing love to each other would be as follows:

Initially, the three Persons love each other, and show love towards each other. This love then draws them ever closer to each other. However, because they do not have any separate bodies or separate existence, there is no barrier to union. As such full union between the Persons is achieved, and the full intimacy which love directs them to is actually attained, thereby not destroying the original love, but causing to exist the goal of love, which is something greater than love: full union. As we have been taught: the Persons of the Blessed Trinity dwell one within the other, and at that with one Person being just a close to another as to Himself.

And even if God explained it to me, I doubt if I'll understand.

We will never understand, but we are also working towards this same unity with God and with each other; this unity which does not destroy what should be kept distinct, but is the goal of the love built into our nature by the God of Love. We have separate bodies, but on the Last Day, because of the Eucharist of Christ's Body and Blood, "we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one Bread" (1 Cor. 10:17).

We will not understand, but we will become!

Richard :)

Mary

10-12-2007, 08:00 PM

The manifestation of your love is this: your desire to hold your child close to you (especially when young). You desire to hold him/her, and he/she desires to be held close. Intimacy comes from love, and love directs us towards ever-increasing intimacy. However, because we have separate bodies, bodies existing separately from other bodies both in time and space, then there is a limit to the closeness you can achieve with your child. But in God there is no 'body'; the three Persons of the Trinity do not have separate bodies. As such, there is no limit to the closeness between the Persons.
We will not understand, but we will become!

Richard :)

Richard, your post is making me smile! =) Forgive me for pulling out bits and pieces to disagree with. (you may freely assume that whatever I dont' comment on, is either because I agree with you about it, or else I don't understand what you've said, or else I dont' have time to comment on it right now!) =)

Yes, you're right, there is the aspect of wanting to hold your child close. But I do not agree with your statement that our bodies limit the closeness we can achieve. We're not only physical, we're also spiritual beings. And the oneness of our spirits transends time and space. Personally, I think it depends on how much we dare to strip our souls bare before each other. And for that to happen, there needs to be an incredible amount of trust. The less I hide, the more one I can become, with the person that I'm not hiding from. It isn't our bodies, but our sins that limit our closeness. But, even more than the sin, it is the desire to hide our sins. As long as we're on earth, we're going to have some sin or other lurking about. So, our only recourse is to be brutally honest, not try to defend ourselves, etc.

Of course, such a oneness is reserved for those whom God has place in my life, and not for the general public. But even all those whom God has place in my life cannot know me to the same degree. Also, without Christ in our lives, it's totally impossible to unite with someone else. I noticed a distinct cutting off of my closeness with family and friends, when I became orthodox. So, with Christ in both of us, we can become completely one with each other, and our bodies aren't going to be in the way. =)

This, of course, is entirely based upon my own personal, limited observations, about how relationships have happened in my own life, over time and space, and defying all logic. You've got to admit, it would be quite inappropriate, to get physically close to everyone you know! =) And also, no one is limited to being close only with spouse or children, which are the closest you can get to each other physically.

In Christ,
Mary.

RichardWorthington

11-12-2007, 11:46 AM

And also, no one is limited to being close only with spouse or children, which are the closest you can get to each other physically.

Of course, with the common understanding of physical union you are correct. However, have you never read the scripture which says, "we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one Bread" (1 Cor. 10:17)?

I have started a new thread (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4404) to discuss such ideas on our union on the Last Day, as I thought this one could get bogged down - I can have quite wacky ideas!

Richard :)

RichardWorthington

04-07-2008, 10:38 PM

Here is a fax I recently sent to the Archbishop of Canterbury (well, would have but his fax machine was turned off), the Archbishop of York, and the Bishop of Manchester and Chair of the Women Bishops Legislative Drafting Group of the Anglican Church. I had just recently read that a split was probable if the ordination of women bishops went ahead.

I wrote quickly, as I was due to go on holiday (and am away from home at present).

Let us leave aside all fruitless 'point-scoring': a split is never honourable to God, and neither side can claim divine assistance: here I basically show that those who claim that a woman can not be a bishop because Christ only chose men, and those who cliam that as there is neither male nor female in Christ so therefore a woman can be a bishop, that both of these are fundamentally flawed for the same reason: a denial of the Vision of the Uncreated Light.

I am very reconcilatory towards women's possibilites, but state that only a man can complete a sacrament, so to speak.

Richard

-----------------

Dear Most Reverend Archbishops, and Right Reverend Bishop,

It was with great sadness that I read in yesterdays paper that there was yet another possibility of a split in God’s churches, this time regarding women bishops. I am a member of the Russian Orthodox Church, and we have recently undergone a split ourselves. It is most unpleasant and dishonouring to God. Additionally, such things are usually mere foolishness: I cannot help but imagine at such times that Michael glances at Gabriel, Gabriel glances at Michael, and then both shake their heads in disbelief at us! However, having been taught the Christian faith beyond the usual humdrum “ancient Greek words” stuff by a venerable Orthodox priest-monk, and putting this together with the Western reality of women priests/bishops, I feel in myself that I have a duty to write to you, to offer my advice. I see that you will be meeting in York on Friday, so I do not have much time: hence the fax.

We all know the scriptures which talk about neither male nor female in Christ and the royal priesthood:

Gal 3:27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

1Pe 2:9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvellous light;

However, who are “Abraham's seed”, for “God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones” (Mat 3:9)? Is it not those who are “living stones,” and “are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1Pe 2:5)? And yet how are such living stones identified? God changed Abram’s name to Abraham when He appeared to him (Gen 17:1,5). The living stones are those to whom the “Father of lights” has appeared, as scripture verifies regarding us being heirs (“giving thanks to the Father who has qualified us to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in the light”, Col 1:12), and those who have been called “out of darkness into His marvellous light”.

Those who have attained to the Vision of the Uncreated Light alone are true Christians and true priests of God. The rest of us, myself included, are indeed Christians and accepted by our loving Father, but who still need to say “I press on, that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me” (Phl 3:12). But what about ‘apostolic succession’? God is not blackmailed into giving His Spirit, for if He can “raise up children to Abraham from these stones” then he can make those same stones be in a better apostolic succession than all bishops who have not had the Vision of Light: for the Vision of Light is what is properly meant by Abraham’s children and being in apostolic succession. This is confirmed by St Paul:

Hbr 10:19 Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus,
Hbr 10:20 by a new and living way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh,
Hbr 10:21 and having a High Priest over the house of God,
Hbr 10:22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

And which Holiest (i.e. Holy of Holies) do we enter? The one in an earthly temple or church? No! For “we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God” (Hbr 4:14). Therefore by the Eucharistic Body and Blood of Christ we enter into the “more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation” (Hbr 9:11). Please also note the reference to the “pure water”: this is the same baptism Paul mentioned when writing to the Galations about being neither male nor female.

Who without this divine apostolic succession can properly say we “have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels” (Hbr 12:22)? Who having merely the laying on of hands has had a vision of angels? Therefore a young girl (for children partake of the Eucharist in our Church) who has the Vision of Light is more in apostolic succession, and has more knowledge, than even a whole council of bishops – whether termed ‘ecumenical’ or otherwise – in which none of the attendants have had such a Vision.

This should not be strange to us who know the scriptures. For our Christ, as the pre-Incarnate Angel of the Lord, appeared to Manoah and his wife. Therefore, as related above, both are more priests than those who served in the tabernacle or even now those who serve in our altars who have not had such a Vision. However we read that,

Jdg 13:19 So Manoah took the young goat with the grain offering, and offered it upon the rock to the LORD. And He did a wondrous thing while Manoah and his wife looked on--
Jdg 13:20 it happened as the flame went up toward heaven from the altar--the Angel of the LORD ascended in the flame of the altar! When Manoah and his wife saw this, they fell on their faces to the ground.

(Please observe the reference to grain and goat – Bread and Wine – and to the appearance of the Angel in the flame. The flame and smoke of the sacrifice of Manoah only ascended a few metres, but the Son of God ascended into the heavens. ‘Transubstantiation’, ‘consubstantiation’, and especially Eucharistic ‘symbolism’, fall away with the knowledge of the Vision.)

Why did Manoah offer when it was his wife that God appeared first to, and who was the centre of the whole episode? We should offer to God the best of the earth, like Abel and not like Cain (Gen 4:3-4). And what is the best of the earth? The plants, the birds, or the animals? Is it not man, who like Adam was taken from the dust of the earth? Note it is Adam, and not Eve, who was taken from the dust of the earth. The priest in the Day of Atonement “shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, confess over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel” (Lev 16:21), thereby becoming the sacrifice himself (I read this in the works of a Hebrew scholar). Now if no man ever offered himself literally, see how greater is our Christ, the second Adam, who offered up Himself to death, and who raised Himself up to life by the Spirit? So even though both men and women become priests equally by eating the Eucharist of our God, - the distinction between male and female dissolves - yet the distinction of origin (from dust) is preserved.

It has to be a man who completes the sacraments, whether this is the words of consecration (“take eat, drink all of you ..” with the invocation of the Holy Spirit), or ordinations, or whatever.

The divine part of the Church leads us from the primordial chaos into the kingdom of light; the human part merely adds chaos to chaos! So therefore, that the chaos in God’s Churches does not produce a split in either denying women bishops or in allowing women bishops, let there be two offices of bishop: “Overseeing bishops” and “Sacramental Bishops”. A “Sacramental Bishop” is a man, who adds the Adam-touch to the sacraments to complete them, whereas an “Overseeing Bishop” can teach, organise, be official representatives, etc., and, if a woman, can perform the sacraments, but leaving the most mystical moments to the “Sacramental Bishop”.

However, it is right and proper that I do not finish here, for if there is something special about a man, then what is special about a woman? It is in Mary that God came to us not merely in a Vision of Light, but the Vision now coming from a human body to the whole creation. See how great it is to be human?! And yet St Proclus (Bishop of Cyzicus about the time of the Council of Ephesus) declared that giving Mary the title of "Mother of God" is "the glorification of the race of women" (I found this in a guide book of Turkey in my local library: "Ancient Turkey", Setan Lloyd, British Museum Publications Ltd, 1989; page 224). All women are included in the veneration of the Mother of God and will equally and identically share in her God-given honours, as we sit down with Christ and shall reign with Him.

Part of the veneration of Mary is that she is somehow a symbol of the Church, who is mentioned by John, “a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a garland of twelve stars” (Rev 12:1). Yet is not the Church not only our Mother (Gal 4:26), but also the Body of Christ. Did not the Church come out of the side of the second Adam when He was on the Cross? So we see that Adam and Eve have been united in Christ, for He can not be separated from His Body. Christ is Adam, and the Body of Christ – the Church – is Eve. Christ is simultaneously the second Adam and the second Eve. Yet neither Adam nor Eve are destroyed by being united, but the distinction of origin (from dust, from Adam) is preserved.

So it is clear that as Adam is from dust, it is he who unites the creation to God. Yet it is also clear that as Eve is from Adam, she goes forth from humanity to God, and so unites God with creation-already-in-humanity-via-Adam. As John writes later,

Rev 21:9 Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls filled with the seven last plagues came to me and talked with me, saying, "Come, I will show you the bride, the Lamb's wife."
Rev 21:10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,
Rev 21:11 having the glory of God.

and again,

Rev 22:3 And there shall be no more curse, but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and His servants shall serve Him.

Therefore it is the woman-Church-Body-of-Christ who brings God to humanity. Therefore both Adam and Eve have an equal place in Christ, but as we do not repent then the Eucharist has to be given to us often, and this requires a man. Yet as St Nina of Georgia was told the words of Christ, “For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist” (Luke 21:15), so let no godly women be prohibited. There is chaos in the world, let us not be too strict, for we are too weak in virtue to take the true reality.

I hope I do help prevent yet another church split, yet I know that there words of mine are little. I have written with speed as I must leave soon. Forgive me. If you do wish to contact me, then perhaps it would be easier by email: xxxxxx.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Worthington