Woman and the holy Liturgy

[S. David]

Beloved in Christ,

Is it allowed for a woman to read the Apostle on the Sunday? In general, is it allowable for her to loud her voice in the Church?

In-Christ

[Michael Stickles]

Is it allowed for a woman to read the Apostle on the Sunday? In general, is it allowable for her to loud her voice in the Church?

The thread "Readers and subdeacons: different types of ordination? (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?1334-Readers-and-subdeacons-different-types-of-ordination)" touched on this a couple of years ago, when a woman (who, with the blessing of her priest, did read from the Apostol on Sundays) brought up the same question. Posts #10 and following are the relevant ones, especially Fr Dcn Matthew's lengthy response in #15.

In Christ,
Michael

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

The thread "Readers and subdeacons: different types of ordination? (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?1334-Readers-and-subdeacons-different-types-of-ordination)" touched on this a couple of years ago, when a woman (who, with the blessing of her priest, did read from the Apostol on Sundays) brought up the same question. Posts #10 and following are the relevant ones, especially Fr Dcn Matthew's lengthy response in #15.

Unfortunately, Fr. Dn. Matthew's very good excursus on the office of reader does not adequately address the specific issue of women reading. From the Church's earliest days, women were forbidden to take such a role in public worship because of the Church's understanding of the order of creation and the woman's subjection to the man under the Law. The Apostle Paul explicitly forbade a woman to speak up in church (1 Cor. 14:34), and the Fathers upheld this stricture without exception. The relevant citations are many, and I will produce them if need be, from the chapter on silence in my book The Scandal of Gender: Early Christian Teaching on the Man and the Woman (Regina Othodox Press, 1998), which I happen not to have handy at the moment.

In summary, I should say now that women in the early Church were expected to sing along with the congregation in the liturgy and were on at least one occasion organized into a female choir (by St. Ephraim the Syrian). They also served as readers in female monasteries, but in "city" churches where both men and women were present, they were expected to remain silent. St. Gregory the Theologian praises both his mother and his sister for their silence in church. No Father explicitly approves of women readers outside female monasteries. Many merely repeat St. Paul to say that women are subject to men and therefore must remain silent.

I should also point out that women were not forbidden to be readers because reading was a priestly office; rather, they were forbidden to be both priests and readers because of the order of creation and the woman's subjection. The modern practice of allowing women to read the epistle has arisen out of both general ignorance and willful abandonment of the Church's teaching on those bigger issues. If we cared for the Fathers' take on the bigger issues, we would not have female readers.

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

[S. David]

.... The relevant citations are many, and I will produce them if need be, from the chapter on silence in my book The Scandal of Gender: Early Christian Teaching on the Man and the Woman (Regina Othodox Press, 1998), which I happen not to have handy at the moment.

...

Bless father,

Some people claim that the statement made by St. Paul is understood in its context, where his message was to a specific people under specific conditions. What do you think? and can you please give us more citations from the holy father's writtings and in more details about the reasons, because you know that these matters is taken in some sensitive manner in thesedays, just like the contribution of the Holy Communion for the womam in her monthly cycle.

In-Christ

[Panayota K.]

these matters is taken in some sensitive manner in thesedays, just like the contribution of the Holy Communion for the womam in her monthly cycle.

In-Christ

As far as the last one is concerned, why is it taken in sensitive manner? Things are perfectly clear and mean no devaluation of women. In these days we simply don't take the Holy Communion. There are plenty opportunities for that during the month.
Some people of past generations, even priests, used to think of women who were in their montly circle as dirty, but that's old news.

Panayota

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

The Apostle Paul prescribes silence for women on two occasions (1 Cor. 14:34-35; 1 Tim. 2:11-15) Both times their silence is related to their subjection. Here's what the Fathers have said on the subject:

St. John Chrysostom:


Great modesty and great propriety does the blessed Paul require of women, and that not only with respect to their dress and appearance: he proceeds even to regulate their speech. And what says he? "Let the woman learn in silence"; that is, let her not speak at all in the church; which rule he has also given in his epistle to the Corinthians, where he says, "It is a shame for women to speak in the church" (1 Cor. 14:35); and the reason is that the law has made them subject to men. And again elsewhere, "And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home." (Ibid.) [Homily 9 on First Timothy]

And again elsewhere:


Seest thou the wisdom of Paul, what kind of testimony he adduced, one that not only enjoins on them silence, but silence too with fear; and with as great fear as that wherewith a maid servant ought to keep herself quiet. Wherefore also having himself said, "it is not permitted unto them to speak," he added not, "but to be silent," but instead of "to be silent," he set down what is more, to wit, "the being in subjection." And if this be so in respect of husbands, much more in respect of teachers, and fathers, and the general assembly of the Church. . . . Further, because they supposed this to be an ornament to them, I mean their speaking in public; again he brings round the discourse to the opposite point, saying, "For it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church." [Homily 37 on 1 Corinthians]

The silence then covers not just idle chatter but all speech, even prophecy:


To such a degree should women be silent, that they are not allowed to speak not only about worldly matters, but not even about spiritual things, in the church. This is order, this is modesty, this will adorn her more than any garments. Thus clothed, she will be able to offer her prayers in the manner most becoming. [Homily 9 on First Timothy]


For if to them that have the gifts it is not permitted to speak inconsiderately, nor when they will, and this, though they be moved by the Spirit; much less to those women who prate idly and to no purpose. [Homily 37 on 1 Corinthians]

Origen:


Even if it is granted to a woman to prophesy and show the sign of prophecy, she is nevertheless not permitted to speak in an assembly. . . . “For it is improper for a woman to speak in an assembly,” no matter what she says, even if she says admirable things, or even saintly things, that is of little consequence, since they come from the mouth of a woman. [Fragment 74]

St. Irenaeus of Lyon:


Others, again (the Montanists), that they may set at nought the gift of the Spirit, which in the latter times has been, by the good pleasure of the Father, poured out upon th human race, do not admit that aspect [of the evangelical dispensation] presented by John’s Gospel, in which the Lord promised that He would send the Paraclete; but set aside at once both the Gospel and the prophetic Spirit. Wretched men indeed! Who wish to be pseudo-prophets, forsooth, but who set aside the gift of prophecy from the Church; acting like those (the Encratite) who, on account of such as come in hypocrisy, hold themselves aloof from the communion of the brethren. We must conclude, moreover, that these men (the Montanists) cannot admit the Apostle Paul either. For, in his Epistle to the Corinthians, he speaks expressly of prophetical gifts, and recognizes men and women prophesying in the Church. Sinning, therefore, in all these particulars, against the Spirit of God, they fall into the irremissible sin. [Against Heresies, 3, 11, ANF Vol. 1, p. 429]

Some read this passage to mean that women prophesied in church — that is, in the public assembly of the Church. But the sentence in question is better understood in context as meaning merely that women in the early Church prophesied. His point, after all, is that the gift of prophecy was already given and that the Montanists sin against the Spirit by claiming a “new outpouring of the Holy Spirit,” as if the outpouring of the Spirit upon the Apostles at Pentecost was not enough. The setting of prophecy is irrelevant to Irenaeus’s purpose. Certainly men and women “in the Church” prophesied, but, as we have seen already, the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 11 does not speak of women prophesying in the public assembly of the Church, and in 1 Corinthians 14, before ending his lengthy lecture on prophesying in the public assembly, the Apostle pauses to expressly forbid women in the public assembly from speaking at all.

St. Cyprian's Rule 46 (Treatise 11):


“That a woman ought to be silent in the church.”

He then cites 1 Cor. 14:34-35 and 1 Tim. 2:11-15.

St Basil the Great's Rule 73 of Moralia:


“That women should keep silence in the church, but be zealous at home to inquire about the manner of pleasing God.”

He then cites 1 Cor. 14:34-35 and 1 Tim. 2:11-15.

Canon 70 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council:


Let it not be permissible for women to talk during Holy Mass, but in accordance with the words of Paul the Apostle, “let your women remain silent. For it has not been permitted them to talk, but to obey, as the law directs. If they wish to learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home.”

St. Cyril of Jerusalem advises male candidates for baptism to read aloud or pray aloud while waiting in church, but prescribes total silence for female candidates, citing St. Paul:


Further, let the men when sitting have a useful book; and let one read, and another listen. And if there be no book, let one pray, and another speak something useful. And again let the party of young women sit together in like manner, either singing or reading quietly, so that their lips speak, but others’ ears catch not the sound: for I suffer not a woman to speak in the Church. [cf. 1 Cor. 14:34 and 1 Tim. 2:11-12] And let the married woman also follow the same example, and pray; and let her lips move, but her voice be unheard . . . [Procatechesis, NPNF2 Vol. 7, p. 4]

St. Ambrose recommends silence for virgins:


I should prefer, therefore, that conversation should rather be wanting to a virgin, than abound. For if women are bidden to keep silence in churches, even about divine things, and to ask their husbands at home, what do we think should be the caution of virgins, in whom modesty adorns their age, and silence commends their modesty? [On Virgins]

Likewise St. Basil writes that


"in women's life more and greater modesty is required, as regards the virtues of poverty and quiet and obedience and sisterly love . . ." [Ascetical Treatises]

St. Gregory the Theologian (of Nazianzus) praises both his sister and his mother for their silence. Of his sister, St. Gorgonia, he writes:


What could be keener than the intellect of her who was recognized as a common advisor not only by those of her family, those of the same people and of the one fold, but even by all men round about, who treated her counsels and advice as a law not to be broken? What more sagacious than her words? What more prudent than her silence? Having mentioned silence, I will proceed to that which was most characteristic of her, most becoming to women, and most serviceable to these times. Who had a fuller knowledge of the things of God, both from the Divine oracles, and from her own understanding? But who was less ready to speak, confining herself within the due limits of women? Moreover, as was the bounden duty of a woman who has learned true piety, and that which is the only honorable object of insatiate desire, who, as she, adorned temples with offerings, both others and this one, which will hardly, now she is gone, be so adorned again? [Funeral oration, NPNF2 Vol. 7, p. 241]

Some years later, in his oration on the death of his father, St. Gregory turns to praise his mother, St. Nonna, in the same way:


Who paid such reverence to the hand and countenance of the priest? Or honored all kinds of philosophy? Who reduced the flesh by more constant fast and vigil? Or stood like a pillar at the night long and daily psalmody? Who had a greater love for virginity, thought patient of the marriage bond herself? Who was a better patron of the orphan and the widow? Who aided as much in the alleviation of the misfortunes of the mourner? These things, small as they are, and perhaps contemptible in the eyes of some, . . . are in my eyes more honorable, since they were the discoveries of her faith and the undertakings of her spiritual fervor. So also in the holy assemblies, or places, her voice was never to be heard except in the necessary responses of the service. [NPNF2 Vol. 7, p. 257]

In view of the above, it is impossible to imagine the Fathers allowing women to read the epistle during the Divine Liturgy or perform the duties of a solo reader or chanter. Those duties were reserved for trained and tonsured men by Canon 15 of the Council of Laodicea (ca. 364):


“No others shall sing in the Church, save only the canonical singers, who go up into the ambo and sing from a book.”

The ancient epitome reads:


“No one should ascend the ambon unless he is tonsured.” [NPNF2 Vol. 14, p. 132]

Many sources testify that the people sang the responses during the liturgy. This canon concerns the reading of the Holy Scriptures, which was reserved for tonsured readers (anagnostes) and chanters (psaltes).

There is an uncertain reference to “lectresses” or female readers in the Arabic version of the so-called Canons of the Apostles, known also as the fourth-century Apostolic Church Order, Statutes of the Apostles, Canons of the Apostles, and Canones Ecclesiastici. The Arabic version contains the following canon, number 53:


The fifty-third: Concerning the ordination of the Presbyters and the Deacons, and concerning the Deaconesses and the Subdeaconesses and the women Readers.
And thou, O bishop, ordain the presbyter, lay thy hand upon his head, and all the presbyters standing by and all the deacons, and pray and ordain him. And the deacons also, ordain him and put thy hand upon him, and pray, and all the presbyters and deacons standing by.
And concerning the deaconesses and the subdeaconesses and the women readers, we have already spoken. [Horner, p. 277]

This canon also appears nearly verbatim as canon 54 of the Ethiopic version. Unfortunately, there is nothing in any extant version to tell us what the Apostles “have already spoken” on the subject of female readers, unless the phrase refers to canon 21 of the Ethiopic text:


Statute 21. Said Kefa [i.e., Cephas (Simon Peter)]: It is not fitting for women to raise their voice while they stand in the church, but rather to prostrate themselves with face toward the earth. Said Yaekob: How can they order for women a ministry of the Mystery, but only this ministry that they should help the needy?

The last saying above, attributed to the Apostle Jacob, also appears attributed to Jacob in the Arabic and Coptic versions. It is therefore highly doubtful that the bare mention of “lectresses” in canon 53 of the Arabic version indicates approval of their participation in public worship, as some modern commentators have maintained. After all, the Ethiopic text, which makes the same mention of female readers, nevertheless forbids women to “raise their voice” in church.

In fact, we find no evidence from orthodox sources of the approved use of women as readers or chanters in the public worship of the early Church. Women reading or chanting in church was not the issue; the issue was whether women should be allowed to sing at all, even along with the men, and on that issue we find in the Fathers an evolving concern.

Nevertheless, the singing of women was eventually suppressed by the Church, beginning toward the end of the fourth century with the so-called Didascalia CCCXVIII Patrum (if not a generation earlier with St. Cyril of Jerusalem):


“Women are ordered not to speak in church, not even softly, nor may they sing along or take part in the responses, but they should only be silent and pray to God.” [Quasten, p. 81, from Didascalia CCCXVIII Patrum 9 (18 Battifol)]

In 415, St. Jerome accuses the Pelagians of allowing women to sing and read the Scriptures in church:


Truly you are so gallant that, in order to win the favor of your amazons, you write in another place that "women also must have a knowledge of the law," although the Apostle teaches that women should be silent in church, and if they do not understand something they should ask their husbands at home. You are not satisfied merely to give the members of your party a knowledge of the Scriptures, but you also wish to enjoy their voices and their singing. So you continue with your prescriptions, that women too should sing praise to the Lord. Who does not know that women should sing the praises of the Lord — in their own chambers, far removed from the meetings of men and the assemblies of the multitude? But you permit what is not permissible, namely, that they do what should be performed by them secretly and without any witnesses as though they were lawfully constituted teachers. [Contra Pelagianos, Quasten, Music & Worship in Pagan & Christian Antiquity, p. 82]

About the same time, St. Isidore of Pelusium is heard complaining in the following letter to a Bishop Isodoros that the singing of women had gotten out of hand and become too showy and immodest:


The Apostles of the Lord, being keen to control and even suppress troublesome talkativeness in the assemblies, offering themselves to us as masters of humility and gravity, by wise counsel permitted women to sing among themselves. Nevertheless, though all of their divine examples are to the contrary, this led in most cases to laxity and an occasion for sin because the women were not moved with great compunction from the divine hymns, but instead, misusing the charm of singing to provoke and excite desires, for no reason at all, they considered the singing to be more outstanding than theatrical choruses. It is therefore worthwhile, if only because it is pleasing to God, to seek to forbid it, as we wish singing to be for the edification of all; and considering how their misuse of singing was the same as misusing Christ for the profit of shopkeepers and converting divine grace to ruin as wages, let them not sing in church, and let them stay in the city. [Migne, Vol. 1, Epistle 90]

Many monks of the fourth century fiercely resisted the singing of the city churches, and many more pious souls must have felt the same ambivalence as the Blessed Augustine of Hippo, who confessed to "fluctuate between the peril of pleasure and approved wholesomeness" of singing [Confessions, chapter 10]. The peril of pleasure was of greater concern when women were singing, for the beauty of the female voice was no doubt a dangerous distraction to pious young men.

Quasten argues that the boldness of women among the heretics provoked reaction among the orthodox, contributing to the suppression of singing by women. But we must also considered the testimony given above by St. Isidore, that in the first century after Constantine the worship of the Church became too much of a public show perhaps, with many people in attendance for reasons more social and political than pious. The tendency of the city churches toward ostentation offended the sensibilities of many pious desert-dwellers, who discerned a lack of modesty and contrition in the singing of the women in particular.

There might also have been a danger that women were, in a sense, “taking over” the singing of the churches by their perhaps fuller presence and greater willingness to sing in public. In our own day indeed, women dominate virtually every church choir, often outnumbering men by better than two to one. It is also common to hear more women than men singing in the congregation. The problem worsens when men come to view singing itself as feminine and so withdraw from it altogether. By and large the voice of liturgical singing in our world today is overwhelmingly female, although one stills finds a strong male voice in some Protestant churches that practice singing a capella and in the Coptic and Indian Orthodox churches, which still sing congregationally and even antiphonally, with men and women singing as separate choirs on opposite sides of the sanctuary.

St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain, compiler of The Rudder, commenting on Canon 70 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, says:


According to the words of this Canon and according to the words of St. Paul, women are prohibited from teaching either in holy temples (churches) or outside thereof, for St. Paul does not mean by "church" the temple itself, but a "congregation of people" anywhere; and still more are they prohibited from chanting either in a choir of their own or along with men.
"For it is a shame for women to talk in church" (1 Cor. 14:35). This means that women should keep silent in church, and out of church wherever there is a congregation of people. The fact that the word talk is used here, and not the word speak, controverts and overthrows the allegation put forward by some persons that only teaching is forbidden to women but not chanting; for talk includes any sort of vocal utterance, and not merely articulate speech. In fact, women are not allowed to let their voice be heard at all within the sacred temple of the church. They may, of course, sing and chant in their hearts praises and blessings to God, but not with their lips.
Before God formed Eve, He said: "It is not good that man should be alone; let us make for him a helper meet for him" (Gen. 2:18). This means that woman was created, not to rule man, but to help him and to be ruled by him. Woman is a teacher of every virtue by word and deed within her own province at home; but she is not allowed even to speak or sing within the sacred precincts of the church. Woman's job is to bear children and rear them in the belief and love of God, to uphold the sanctity and sobriety of marriage, and to shun adultery as a thing that is odious to God. By so doing she will be saved, and not otherwise; by leaving this path and failing in these duties, she invites perdition.
"If anyone think himself a prophet or a spiritual agent, let him acknowledge that what I write unto you are commandments of the Lord. But if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant" (1 Cor. 14:37-38). A true prophet or teacher or spiritual agent has the spirit of Christ and does not disagree with Christ's Apostles; he easily discerns and believes that St. Paul's commandments are commandments of Christ. Whoever, on the other hand, does not discern and believe this, yet thinks that he is a prophet or a spiritual agent, is merely deluding himself; he is a false prophet lacking the spirit of Christ.
Teaching and chanting are inconsistent with the nature and destiny of a Christian woman, just as are the priesthood and the bishopric. Eve, the woman formed by God, was the first to teach Adam once, in Paradise, and she ruined everything; that is why women are forbidden to talk in churches. The greatest adornment of women is silence. Let their example be Mary, the New Woman and Child of God, who alone has the honor of having had her speech recorded in history and handed down in the ninth ode of the Church; this refers to her speech and that of Elizabeth. Therefore let Christian women emulate her. The ancient idolaters had priestesses to officiate at the altars and in the temples of idols, in which demons were worshiped; and hence it is that deluded heretics derived this impious custom of theirs of letting women teach and sing and govern in their churches. Shall we Orthodox Christians imitate them? By no means!
It is recorded in the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius (Book 7, ch. 30) that a council of bishops met in Antioch in the third century after Christ from various cities for the purpose of trying Paul the bishop of Samosat, who was rather a sophist and magician than a bishop and who, in addition to other heresies, had introduced a choir of women into the church of Antioch. That council addressed a letter to bishops Dionysius of Rome and Maximus of Alexandria containing the following phrase: "Having suppressed the psalms to our Lord Jesus Christ on the pretext that they are modern psalms and the writings of modern men, who is preparing women to chant to himself in the midst of the church on the great day of Easter whom one would shudder merely to listen to." [Original emphasis]
Women were never permitted to teach or to chant in the church along with the sacred cantors or in a choir of their own. Female choirs are an unexampled innovation involving many perils and capable of leading to many scandals, for woman's voice is more attractive and more pathetic than man's. The appearance of women in the church choir constitutes a stumbling block; for the eyes and ears of the congregation are at once turned to them, and, becoming intoxicated with the sight and sound of the high-strung melodramatic voices of women, they are languorously effeminated in mind and rendered incapable of enjoying the modest and contrite songs of the Church; thus the church choir gradually becomes transformed into a theatrical chorus!
Canon LXXV of the Sixth Ecumenical Synod decrees the following with reference to church choirs: "It is our wish that those who come to church to chant should neither employ disorderly yelling and strain their natural voices to scream, nor recite anything inappropriate and not suited to a church, but that they should offer such psalmodies with great care contrition to God, who listens and looks on in secret." "The children of Israel shall be reverent," saith the sacred saying (Lev. 15:31).
The holy liturgy and sacred hymnody presented in church has the purpose of offering prayers to propitiate God for our sins. Whoever prays and supplicates should be of humble and contrite mind; yelling indicates rudeness and irreverence of mind. But voice and faces of female choirs and the psalmody of European quartets represent a theatrical mind rather than a modest ecclesiastical mind. What is it that is unsuited to the church? Effeminate songs (melodies) and trills (which means the same thing as the warbles of old) and an excessive variety of tones that inclines to whorish songs, Zonaras, an interpreter of the Canons, says.
The children of Israel after Christ are the pious Christians, who should be imbued with fear of God and reverence while within the church. God is not pleased with variety of melodies and voices, but with contrition and repentance of the heart. This is easily understood when we remember that man is pleased to listen to melodies and to look at pretty faces, whereas God looks into man's soul in the depths of the heart and delights in its reverence, which is manifested by humbleness of behavior. [The Rudder, p. 373-375]

[Marge Kostas]

He seems to have silenced us all.

[S. David]

Bless father,

Thank you very much for this plenty citations which explain and affirm the matter in hand, but I have two questions:

1- If women are forbidden to read or chant in the church, why do we see many orthodox choirs consisted of women along with men? How does this make its way to our Holy Church? Why don't the priests simply explain this as one of the orders in the Hole Bible which must be take as unity not a verse from here and a verse from there as it is suited for our desires and thoughts?

2- To expand in this matter: The essense of all citations say that women are not just forbidden to talk in the church, but also in any public assembly. How can we interpret this in the light of our daily life where women occupy many positions out of church? and what about the social occasions such as family meetings and so on?

Pray for me father

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

There are several questions here. I'll try to at least touch on each of them briefly.


If women are forbidden to read or chant in the church, why do we see many orthodox choirs consisted of women along with men? How does this make its way to our Holy Church?

In the first few centuries after the peace of the Church brought by St. Constantine, the Church experienced a rapid development of its liturgical life, both in city churches and in monasteries. Many more services were added, many more hymns were written, and the style of singing became more elaborate. The people couldn't keep up with the demand, so churches came to rely more and more on trained chanters, just as some Greek churches do today. These chanters worked closely with the clergy, often sang solo, sometimes functioned as readers, and sometimes also went on to higher office, so the office of chanter came to be reserved for men. This effectively squeezed the people — both men and women — out of church singing.

Our modern choirs have at least partly returned singing to the people, so naturally they include both men and women. This is, I think, as it should be. Everybody should singing the "necessary responses." No one should ever be told not to (although the tone deaf should be told to tone it down — in other words, sing softly).


Why don't the priests simply explain this as one of the orders in the Hole Bible which must be take as unity not a verse from here and a verse from there as it is suited for our desires and thoughts?

The issue of women readers is part of the much larger issue of the order of creation and the nature of sexual distinction. Until lately, the Church has pretty much handled these larger issues intuitively, with reference to custom, common sense, and scriptural guidance. Nowadays that's not enough. People demand to know why women may not do everything men may do, and the Church really hasn't had a complete and satisfying answer. The difference of sex is a great mystery, and the Church has not needed to understand it better until now. But until a better understand becomes available, priests are hard put to insist that some traditions lately laid aside should be taken up again. They are up against the popular assumption that "that was then but this is now." Many people are plainly feminist in their thinking and do not want to return to tradition.


2- To expand in this matter: The essense of all citations say that women are not just forbidden to talk in the church, but also in any public assembly. How can we interpret this in the light of our daily life where women occupy many positions out of church? and what about the social occasions such as family meetings and so on?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by social occasions. I suspect you might have in mind some settings for which there is no clear equivalent among Americans. But the rule on silence, as the Fathers understood it, meant that women should not preside or take a leading role over men, not that women should never speak up in any group. The more informal the group, the more freedom there would be for women to speak up. It's not possible to spell out the rule in every circumstance, but an good understanding and faithful acceptance of the principle will enable intuition to guide us. In all things, men and women should pay due respect to the order of creation and the economy of salvation (not to mention the apostolic tradition).

In the order of creation, an archy exists between the man and the woman analogous to the relationship existing within the Trinity between the Father and the Son and Holy Spirit. In the economy of salvation, an hierarchy exists between the man and the woman, according to which the woman is subject to the man. This is the subject of a lengthy article I have written to be published by St. Vladimir Theological Quarterly sometime late this year perhaps. The article should go a long way toward explaining the mystery. Then the only question will be whether we accept it or not.

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

[S. David]

Bless father,


...Until lately, the Church has pretty much handled these larger issues intuitively, with reference to custom, common sense, and scriptural guidance. Nowadays that's not enough. People demand to know why women may not do everything men may do, and the Church really hasn't had a complete and satisfying answer....

I totally agree. I think the science and feminism have the major effect on this. In my humble opinion, the deviation from the tradition and the natural role of men and women (including the working of women outside home) creates a lot of problems in all aspects of life.


...But the rule on silence, as the Fathers understood it, meant that women should not preside or take a leading role over men, not that women should never speak up in any group...

What about a woman who has authority in the political field, for example? What about a professor at a university? Can we categorize these as women's leading role over men or not?

I wanted to say that St. Paul says in an explicit way that women must be silent at churches, regardless of the reason if it is convinced or not for some people, priests must teach that this is a divine teaching and who wants to follow Christ must comply to these teachings.


...This is the subject of a lengthy article I have written to be published by St. Vladimir Theological Quarterly sometime late this year perhaps...

We hope that we can access and read it then.

Thank you father

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

What about a woman who has authority in the political field, for example? What about a professor at a university? Can we categorize these as women's leading role over men or not?

These are leading roles. Some are more onerous than others. In a saner world, women would not seek to do many things they now do. But the world has never been entirely sane, and we often must endure things that ought not be.

The real question for us is, what should we teach our daughters? We should teach them the truth. We should teach them to value modestry, marriage, and motherhood more than worldly honors and the things of men.


I wanted to say that St. Paul says in an explicit way that women must be silent at churches, regardless of the reason if it is convinced or not for some people, priests must teach that this is a divine teaching and who wants to follow Christ must comply to these teachings.

We must be patient and endure the errors of others, while still bearing witness to the truth when it is needed and efficacious. It is more important, for others' sake, that we get the mystery right, to enlighten us and them with a fuller knowledge of God and man, than that we simply obey the rule ignorantly and arrogantly. With knowledge comes obedience, and with obedience, knowledge.

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

[Eric Peterson]

When I look at history, however, I see a far more leading role for Orthodox empresses, particularly in the Roman Empire, than in contemporaneous non-Christian polities. Even when an empress did not rule by herself. the Byzantine model accorded her much authority in her own right as a leader. St. Pulcheria, for example, may be a case in point, taking the lead for the Orthodox party against Nestorianism and Monophysitism. Coins were even issued with her likeness. Maybe she is an exception, but the Mother of God herself was also a leader. An anecdote I heard talks about the Apostles asking what should be done with her--should she be made a priest or bishop? And she told them, no, only men will be priest. Yet she is depicted with an omophorion and cuffs, is called the Champion Leader, and has great authority, for she was consulted by the Apostles.

When you look at the role of Christian women, historically, versus pre-Christian pagan women, I think there is a difference here, and a form of "liberation," if I can use this term divorced from the modern context, with the coming of Christ--Whose attitude toward women was markedly different from the pagans of the time and perhaps even the Jews. The pagan attitude toward women, and that of the gnostics, made women of less worth than men, ranking them below slaves in the social hierarchy and questioning whether they could be saved. I think it's important to note that the pagan attitude toward women was not informed by piety, and we need to make some distinctions because the attitudes of paganism are still around, having even influenced Christian society--for example, in according no rights to women, no ability to inherit, etc. If we are staying true to ourselves, we should find ourselves in the middle, between the extremes of paganism and feminism.

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

Eric,

The Byzantine Empire lasted a very long time — over 1,200 years — and yet women ruled, one way or another, only on a handful of occasions. The rule of women was never normative. Men were always preferred in succession. When women did rule, church leaders did sometimes complain that they shouldn't. It sometimes happens that families are left fatherless; does that overturn fatherhood as the norm?

I have not heard or seen the things you say about the Theotokos and therefore must ask you to substantiate your claims. You need not substantiate the exaggerated praise heaped on her by the Church, but you do need to recognize such praise as hyperbole and not as dogma regarding the mystery of gender.

It is difficult to generalize about gnostics and pagans. Some gnostics and pagans did in fact teach the equality of the sexes (some Christian heretics, too), but, overall, patriarchy has been the rule throughout human history. Christianity offers the world a kinder, gentler patriarchy, but it is patriarchy nonetheless. A proper, fuller, balanced understanding of patriarchy is what my article for SVTQ is all about.

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

[Herman Blaydoe]

I wonder how silent was St. Nina when she evangelized Georgia, or St. Photini once she left the well? Was St. Mary the Magdalene silent before the emperor? How do we accomodate this data into the analytical model?

Little thoughts from a little brain,
Herman the Pooh

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

I wonder how silent was St. Nina when she evangelized Georgia, or St. Photini once she left the well? Was St. Mary the Magdalene silent before the emperor? How do we accomodate this data into the analytical model?

We "accommodate this data into the analytical model" by being careful and discriminating about our facts and logic, and by not simply throwing things out there to cause others trouble. The testimony of martyrs and the sharing of the Gospel person-to-person do not amount to presiding over a public assembly. To suggest that it does is not helpful.

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

[Herman Blaydoe]

I am not "trying to cause trouble" and find the ad hominem less than helpful as well.

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

Pardon me, Herman. Maybe I just took you the wrong way. But I've dealt with the issue for many years, and my experience is that people on the other side will throw out any irrelevancy just to have something to say that appears to justify women doing everything. The way you asked your questions made me think that was your intention.

Since you raised the question of women acting as evangelists, I will tonight provide lengthy quotes from the Fathers on that issue, too, specifically mentioning many female saints, including Mary Magdalene. Needless to say, the Fathers also distinguish between personal evangelism and teaching/preaching/presiding.

With apologies in Christ, Dn. Patrick

[Olga]

Eric, you wrote:



Yet she is depicted with an omophorion and cuffs, is called the Champion Leader, and has great authority, for she was consulted by the Apostles.



The Mother of God has never been depicted in icons dressed as a bishop or priest, this would be utterly against what the Church teaches. The closest would be her wearing a mantia, as is seen in some versions of the icon Abbess of Athos. Even this is incorrect.

[Eric Peterson]

I did not say Panagia was depicted AS a bishop or a priest, but with cuffs, and her veil is referred to as "omophorion."

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

The apostolic injunction against women teaching and preaching is found in 1 Timothy 2:


In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array. But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. This is a faithful saying. [1 Timothy 2:9-3:1]

This passage is consistent with St. Paul’s instructions to the Corinthians in his first epistle:


As in all the churches of the saints, let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. [1 Corinthians 14:34-35]

For many ancient authorities, it is enough to cite the passages above. Among the “heavenly precepts” of his Treatise 11, book 3, St. Cyprian includes #46 on the silence and subjection of women, quoting 1 Cor. 14 and 1 Timothy 2. [ANF 5, p. 546] St. Basil quotes the same passages to justify a portion of Rule 73 of his Moralia, “That women should keep silence in the church, but be zealous at home to inquire about the manner of pleasing God.” [Wagner, pp. 190-191] Canon 70 the Sixth Ecumenical Council (A.D. 692), which also requires silence of women in church, cites the same passages, as rendered in The Rudder (p. 373).

Other texts also adduce the examples of the Virgin Mary, Mary Magdalene, and other women from the New and Old Testaments, who were not called to teach. On the duties of widows, the third-century Didascalia Apostolorum says:


It is neither right nor necessary therefore that women should be teachers, and especially concerning the name of Christ and the redemption of His passion. For you have not been appointed to this, O women, and especially widows, that you should teach, but that you should pray and entreat the Lord God. For He the Lord God, Jesus Christ our Teacher, sent us Twelve to instruct the People and the Gentiles; and there were with us women disciples, Mary Magdalene and Mary the daughter of James and the other Mary; but He did not send them to instruct the people with us. For if it were required that women should teach, our Master Himself would have commanded these to give instruction with us. But let a widow know that she is the altar of God; and let her sit ever at home, and not stray or run about among the houses of the faithful to receive. For the altar of God never strays or runs about anywhere, but is fixed in one place. [Chapter 15, Connolly, pp. 132-138]

A parallel passage in the fourth-century Apostolic Constitutions adds the issue of headship and subjection:


We do not permit our "women to teach in the Church," but only to pray and hear those that teach; for our Master and Lord, Jesus Himself, when He sent us the twelve to make disciples of the people and of the nations, did nowhere send out women to preach, although He did not want such [i.e., did not lack women disciples]. For there were with us the mother of our Lord and His sisters; also Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Martha and Mary the sisters of Lazarus; Salome, and certain others. For, had it been necessary for women to teach, He Himself [would have] first commanded these also to instruct the people with us. For "if the head of the wife be the man," it is not reasonable that the rest of the body should govern the head. Let the widow therefore own herself to be the "altar of God," and let her sit in her house, and not enter into the houses of the faithful, under any pretense, to receive anything; for the altar of God never runs about, but is fixed in one place. . . . [Book III, Section I, ANF 7, pp. 427-429]

Teaching, after all, is the responsibility of those given precedence, who stand with authority over those whom they teach. In antiquity, teachers were addressed as “master” (Latin, magister). Being subject to men, women cannot teach or rule over men. In 1 Tim. 2:12, the Apostle Paul himself speaks of teaching and exercising authority in the same breath, explaining his stricture with reference to the creation and fall: “For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression” (1 Tim. 2:13-14). The Fathers take his lead in this. Says St. John:


For the woman taught the man once, and made him guilty of disobedience, and wrought our ruin. Therefore because she made a bad use of her power over the man, or rather her equality with him, God made her subject to her husband. [Homily 9 on 1 Timothy]

Later in the same homily, St. John is more emphatic, although less serious: “The woman taught once, and ruined all.” (Today all criticism of women is taboo, but St. John's audience could appreciate a little humor at anyone's expense.)

St. John also relates teaching to authority when commenting on the Apostle Paul's instruction that the older women teach the younger ones in Titus 2:5:


And yet thou forbiddest a woman to teach; how dost thou command it here, when elsewhere thou sayest, “I suffer not a woman to teach”? (1 Tim. 2:12) But mark what he has added, “Nor to usurp authority over the man.” For at the beginning it was permitted to men to teach both men and women. But to women it is allowed to instruct by discourse at home. But they are nowhere permitted to preside, nor to extend their speech to great length, wherefore he adds, “Nor to usurp authority over the man.” [Homily 4 on Titus]

The prohibition on women teaching men is not absolute. Acts 18:26 tells us that Priscilla, with her husband Aquila, taught Apollos, and from Theodoret of Cyrus’s Ecclesiastical History, we learn of a young man who was instructed in the faith by a matronly friend of his mother (book 3, chapter 10, NPNF2, Vol. 3, p. 100). St. John Chrysostom even allows that wives may instruct and lead their husbands if their husbands are unbelievers, saying:


How, then, can he afterwards say, when he writes to Timothy: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over men"? This posture refers to the case of a man who is pious, professes the same faith, practices the same wisdom; but, when the man is not a believer and the plaything of error, Paul does not exclude a woman's superiority, even when it involves teaching. Writing to the Corinthians, he says: "If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, she should not divorce him. Wife, do you not know that you might save your husband?" But how can the believing woman save her unbelieving husband? By instructing, obviously, by teaching, by trying to lead him to the faith, as Priscilla did with Apollos.

The matter is not the same when he says: "I permit no woman to teach." This declaration concerns teaching from the pulpit and giving speeches in public, which belongs to priestly duties. But he does not forbid exhorting and advising in private. Indeed, if that were forbidden, he would not have eulogized this woman who had conducted herself in this way. [First Homily on “Salute Priscilla and Aquila,” Gryson, pp. 81-82]

In Homily 31 on Romans and Homily 4 on Titus (cited above), St. John makes plain the obvious interpretation of the restriction:


It was not then to cut in sunder private conversing for advantage that he said this, but that [teaching] before all, and which it was the teacher's duty to give in the public assembly; or again, in case the husband be believing and thoroughly furnished, able also to instruct her. [Homily 31 on Romans]

In other words, women may sometimes teach men, but only informally and privately — in such a way, we might say, that their instruction is not recognized as direction but as advice. Pious women endeavoring to advise men would do so modestly and with restraint, so as not to appear to set themselves over men. In the example from Theodoret mentioned above, the young man’s motherly counselor sends him off to a local holy man for formal instruction in the faith as soon as he makes his decision to become a Christian. As St. Jerome says of Marcella:


. . . when she answered questions she gave her own opinion not as her own but as from me or someone else, thus admitting that what she taught she had herself learned from others. For she knew that the Apostle had said: “I suffer not a woman to teach,” and she would not seem to inflict a wrong upon the male sex . . . [Letter 127]

What is clearly inappropriate is formal, public teaching of men by women. For St. John Chrysostom, the matter is so plain, in both scripture and tradition, that only the impious would question it. After praising women for “their sanctity, I mean, their fervency, their devotion, their love towards Christ,” Chrysostom asks:


Wherefore then, one may say, did Paul exclude them from the teacher's seat? And here again is a proof how great a distance they were from the men, and that the women of those days were great. For, tell me, while Paul was teaching, or Peter, or those saints of old, had it been right that a woman should intrude into the office? Whereas we have gone on till we have come so debased, that it is worthy of question, why women are not teachers. So truly have we come to the same weakness as they. These things I have said not from any desire to elate them, but shame ourselves, to chastise, and to admonish us, that so we may resume the authority that belongs to us, not inasmuch as we are greater in size, but because of our foresight, our protection of them, and our virtue. For thus shall the body also be in the order which befits it, when it has the best head to rule. [Homily on 13 on Ephesians, NPNF1 Vol. 13, pp. 116-117]

Even the teaching of women is principally the responsibility of men, that is, their husbands, according to St. John Chrysostom, who cites St. Paul’s instruction that women seek instruction from their husbands at home:


I address all generally, do you each individual privately, and let each charge himself with the salvation of his neighbors. For that it becomes one to preside over those of his household in these matters, hear where Paul sends women for instruction; "And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home" (1 Cor. 14:35); and he does not lead them to the Teacher. For as in the schools of learning, there are teachers even among the disciples, so also in the Church. For he wishes the Teacher not to be troubled by all. Wherefore? Because then there will be great advantages, not only that the labor will be light to the Teacher, but that each of the disciples also, having taken pains, is soon able to become a teacher, making this his concern. [Homily 5 on 2 Thessalonians, NPNF1 Vol. 13, p. 397]

At the same time, older women are charged in Titus 2:5 to teach “good things” to younger women, although here again the reference is to informal instruction, for while younger women owe honor and deference to older women, they owe obedience and reverence (literally, fear) to their husbands. (Eph. 5:22-33)

Origen, allows that women may certainly teach other women, but not men:


“It is improper for a woman to raise her voice at meetings,” [1 Cor. 14:35] and: “I am not giving permission for a woman to teach” and even less “to tell a man what to do.” [1 Tim. 2:12] Although those [Scriptures] given above say more categorically that a woman does not have the right by her word to guide a man, I shall further prove this position from another text. “Bid the old women to behave themselves as befits holy women, teaching what is good, in order to form young women in wisdom,” and not simply “Let them teach.” [Titus 2:3-4] Certainly, women should also “teach what is good,” but men should not sit and listen to a woman, as if there were no men capable of communicating the word of God. “If they have any question to ask, they should ask their husbands at home: it does not seem right for a woman to raise her voice at meetings.” [1 Cor. 14:35] It seems to me that the expression “their husbands” [i.e., “their men”] does not refer only to husbands; for if that were the case, either virgins would speak in the assembly, or they would have nobody to teach them, and the same is true for widows. But could “their husbands” not also mean a brother, a relative, or a son? In short, let a woman learn from the man who is her own, taking “man” in its generic sense, as the counterpart of “women.” [Fragment 74, Gryson, pp. 28-29]

Of women teaching in an assembly, he says, “clearly this abuse is denounced as improper — an abuse for which the entire assembly is responsible.”

For St. Jerome, the abuse includes the reading (i.e., chanting) of the Holy Scriptures in church, which was regarded as a form of public instruction (a regard still evident in two English words, lecture and lesson, both of which derive from Latin words for reading). In his dialogue work Contra Pelagianos, St. Jerome accuses the Pelagians of just this fault: “But you permit what is not permissible, namely, that they do what should be performed by them secretly and without any witnesses as though they were lawfully constituted teachers.” [Quasten, Music & Worship in Pagan & Christian Antiquity, p. 82]

Pelagius himself may have agreed. In the following passage from his Commentary on First Corinthians, Pelagius shows a more conventional mind, writing that women may teach or prophesy only "in suo sexu et in domo" — among their sex and at home:


"Women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak." It is contrary to the order of nature and of the law that women speak in an assembly of men. But how can Paul say elsewhere that women must teach prudence and chastity? They must teach their sex. Just as he points out the place where they must be silent, he permits them to speak elsewhere.
"But they should be subordinate, as even the law say," since man was created first, and since Sarah called Abraham "lord." "If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church." So as not to seem to forbid them to be instructed, he enjoined them to do at home that which was not suitable to do in public. [Gryson, p. 98]

Likewise in his Commentary on First Timothy, Pelagius writes: “‘I permit no woman to teach.’ He does not permit her to teach in public; for it is in private that she must teach a son or a brother.” [Gryson, p. 98] And also in his Commentary on the Epistle to Titus: “‘Let them teach chastity and prudence.’ He permits them to teach, but women only, and that not in church but in private.” [Gryson, p. 98]

As for exercising authority, the Fathers nowhere limit “authority” to the power to “loose and bind,” as some moderns do to allow women every sort of authority saving the priestly office. As understood by the Fathers, authority is simply the right to tell someone what to do. As the centurion, St. Longinus, says to our Lord: “For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.” (Matt. 8:9) In accordance with the order of creation, women are forbidden authority over men; they are not allowed “to tell a man what to do,” as Origen says above. St. Augustine writes in his On Marriage and Concupiscence:


Nor can it be doubted, that it is more consonant with the order of nature that men should bear rule over women, than women over men. It is with this principle in view that the apostle says, "The head of the woman is the man," and "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands." So also the Apostle Peter writes: "Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord."

Accordingly, the Fathers reserved for men many duties considered “priestly” or “sacerdotal” because they involve teaching, leading, presiding, commanding, directing, ruling, judging, and even public speaking and writing. The question of women baptizing seems to have arisen in the early third century, for both Tertullian and the compiler of the Didascalia condemn the practice. Says the Didascalia:


That a woman should baptize, or that one should be baptized by a woman, we do not counsel, for it is a transgression of the commandment, and a great peril to her who baptizes and to him who is baptized. For if it were lawful to be baptized by a woman, our Lord and Teacher Himself would have been baptized by Mary His mother, whereas He was baptized by John, like others of the people. Do not therefore imperil yourselves, brethren and sisters, by acting beside the law of the Gospel. [Connolly, p. 142]

A parallel passage in the Constitutions cites the headship of the man to condemn the practice as contrary to “the order of the creation”:


Now, as to women’s baptizing, we let you know that there is no small peril to those that undertake it. Therefore we do not advise you to it; for it is dangerous, or rather wicked and impious. For if the “man be the head of the woman,” and he be originally ordained for the priesthood, it is not just to abrogate the order of the creation, and leave the principal to come to the extreme part of the body. For the woman is the body of the man, taken from his side, and subject to him, from whom she was separated for the procreation of children. For says He, “He shall rule over thee.” For the principal part of the woman is the man, as being her head. But it in the foregoing constitutions we have not permitted them to teach, how will any one allow them, contrary to nature, to perform the office of a priest? For this is one of the ignorant practices of the Gentile atheism, to ordain women priests to the female deities, not one of the constitutions of Christ. For if baptism were to be administered by women, certainly our Lord would have been baptized by His own mother, and not by John; or when He sent us to baptize, He would have sent along with us women also for this purpose. But now He has nowhere, either by constitution or by writing, delivered to us any such thing; as knowing the order of nature, and the decency of the action; as being the Creator of nature, and the Legislator of the constitution. [ANF 7, p. 429]

Tertullian twice condemns the practice of women baptizing. In chapter 9 of his work On the Veiling of Virgins, he writes: “It is not permitted to a woman to speak in the church; but neither (is it permitted her) to teach, nor to baptise, nor to offer, nor to claim to herself a lot in any manly function, not to say (in any) sacerdotal office.” [ANF Vol. 4, p. 33] He writes with more force in chapter 17 of On Baptism:


But the woman of pertness , who has usurped the power to teach, will of course not give birth for herself likewise to a right of baptizing, unless some new beast shall arise like the former; so that, just as the one abolished baptism, so some other should in her own right confer it! But if the writings which wrongly go under Paul’s name, claim Thecla’s example as a license for women’s teaching and baptizing, let them know that, in Asia, the presbyter who composed that writing, as if he were augmenting Paul’s fame from his own store, after being convicted, and confessing that he had one it from love of Paul, was removed from his office. For how credible would it seem, that he who has not permitted a woman even to learn with overboldness, should give a female the power of teaching and of baptizing! “Let them be silent,” he says, “and at home consult their own husbands.” [ANF Vol. 3, p. 677]

Tertullian refers above to the Acts of Paul and Thecla, purportedly an account of the Apostle Paul’s missionary work in Asia Minor and of the miraculous works of the peasant girl Thecla, whom the Apostle converted at Iconium. The veneration of the martyr Thecla was once popular throughout the Church, although the authenticity of the Acts was doubted even in Tertullian’s day. Even so, nothing in the Acts actually contradicts the Apostle’s teaching on women, even if Tertullian found Thecla’s bold witness unseemly. The Acts do not tell of Thecla preaching to people assembled in church or the public square, but they do tell of her bold defense of the faith under interrogation and of her private witness to both men and women.

No one objected to women ruling monasteries of women, but women presiding over other women at a mixed assembly was forbidden by Canon 11 of the Council of Laodicea (ca. 364): “Presbytides, as they are called, or female presidents, are not to be appointed in the Church.” [NPNF2 Vol. 14, p. 130] Theodore Balsamon, Patriarch of Antioch, commenting on this canon in the 12th century, wrote:


In old days, certain venerable women [presbytides] sat in catholic churches, and took care that the other women kept good and modest order. But from their habit of using improperly that which was proper, either through their arrogance or through their base self-seeking, scandal arose. Therefore the Fathers prohibited the existence in the Church thereafter of any more such women as are called presbytides or presidents. [NPNF2 Vol. 14, p. 130]

He goes on to say that no one may object to one woman presiding over other women in a monastery of women, then he says, “But for a woman to teach in a catholic church, where a multitude of men is gathered together, and women of different opinions, is, in the highest degree, indecorous and pernicious.”

[S. David]

Bless father,

What I want to say is that many Christians (I was one of them) simply do not know about these verses about women in the church. I believe that just mentioning it will cause a major difference in the behavior because of the reverency to the Holy Bible and the teaching of apostles.

In Christ

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

The previous post is also an excerpt from my 1998 book The Scandal of Gender. What strikes me about reading the Fathers on this issue is how vehement they are. They have no patience for feminism as it appeared in their own day, and some of them obviously didn't worry much about offending women. In our day, they sound terribly sexist, even to me.

One reason for their vehemence, I'm sure, is that they were often writing only for men. The public preachers like St. John Chrysostom were kinder in their approach. I myself am more comfortable with Chrysostom than with others who are more harsh.

But there is a mystery at stake, a fundamental truth about the nature of human existence, that can't be abandoned just because it offends modern sensibilities. As we see now in our own world, abandoning that truth ultimately undermines everything and ends in Sodom and Gomorrha.

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

[Olga]

I did not say Panagia was depicted AS a bishop or a priest, but with cuffs, and her veil is referred to as "omophorion."

The cuffs you refer to worn by the Mother of God simply refer to her descent from the noble house of David. If you look closely at the vast majority of icons of the Virgin, you should see that she bears a narrow ornate cuff at the sleeves of her inner blue garment, and a similar motif at the neckline. This iconographic motif is universally used in icons of both male and female saints of noble birth, and cannot be equated with the cuffs worn by priests and bishops as part of their vestments.

The term omophorion refers to the narrow strip of cloth worn over the shoulders by a bishop, which gives him his episcopal authority, in the same way as the epitracheilion is the vestment of priestly authority. The Virgin's garment is referred to as the maphorion, so as not to invite confusion with the liturgical vestment.

[Ilaria]

Yesterday, at the Feast of the Presentation, Anna the Prophetess, in the Temple,when she saw the Christ Child she praised God and spoke of him to all who were awaiting the Messiah...
It seems to me that, when the Holy Spirit fills a person, that person is no more woman or man, as st Paul specifies - in Christ;
We know that the rules are clear and inspired; and woe to us if we do not obey

I agree with Herman - there are some exceptions...If I am to take in consideration only the disciples of st Paul - Phoebe or - much more in a role of preacher - St Thekla;

but again, if - and only if - the person is filled with grace; as Elder Paisios answered so simple to someone who asked him 'may I believe in dreams?Because Joseph was inspired in dreams..." "if you have attained the measure of Joseph - yes!"

because..."The wind blowswhere it wants"

Fr Brian, the Rightful Zaharia was breaking the rules when he allowed the 3 years old Virgin to enter the Altar? Much more, was he wrong that he puts her - after giving birth - in the virgins place, in the Temple? to some, it seems he was, as they stoned him...

[Ben Johnson]

Recently during a Liturgy I attended, a young lady read from the epistles. The words were the exact words I would have heard if a man read from the epistles.

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

Yesterday, at the Feast of the Presentation, Anna the Prophetess, in the Temple,when she saw the Christ Child she praised God and spoke of him to all who were awaiting the Messiah... I agree with Herman - there are some exceptions...If I am to take in consideration only the disciples of st Paul - Phoebe or - much more in a role of preacher - St Thekla;

This is just the kind of irrelevance I faulted Herman for yesterday. Anna's prophecy in the temple is obviously not analogous to a woman's preaching in church. First, Anna would not have been allowed beyond the women's court of the temple. Second, women were not enjoined to silence in the women's court. Third, Anna didn't preside over an assembly of men and women; she merely shared her prophecy with those who would listen to her. The same is true of Phoebe and Thecla and any other female saint you can think of. That at least is the testimony of the Fathers.


It seems to me that, when the Holy Spirit fills a person, that person is no more woman or man, as st Paul specifies - in Christ ... because..."The wind blows where it wants"

The Apostle Paul himself denies your interpretation of his words in Gal. 3:28, for he himself enjoins women to silence in the assembly in 1 Cor. 14:34-35 and 1 Tim. 2:11-15. We are not Pentecostals. We do not throw decency and order to wind when the Spirit moves us. As Paul himself says, right after enjoining women to silence, "Let all things be done decently and in order." (1 Cor. 14:40)

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

Recently during a Liturgy I attended, a young lady read from the epistles. The words were the exact words I would have heard if a man read from the epistles.

So the Apostles and Saints were all wrong? What else were they all wrong about? If a woman intoned the exact words of the prayers of the Anaphora, would it be just the same as if a man did so? But a woman would have to be a priest to do so. (You will, of course, say, "Oh, that's different," but the Fathers didn't think so. As proven by the citations I have already adduced and many more I could adduce, they justified the exclusion of women from both the readership and the priesthood on the same grounds: The woman is subject to the man and therefore cannot preside.)

There is no good end to your line of thinking. If sex doesn't matter, then it doesn't matter. If we can have female readers, then we can have female priests, and if we can have female priests, then we can have gay priests — because (people say) sex doesn't matter, we now understand things better than the Fathers did, and it's wrong discriminate against people because of their gender. This is the road to perdition. The American Episcopal Church has taken that road; the American military is now also taking that road. Having closed their eyes to the difference between men and women, they now must close their eyes to the difference between gay and straight. The two, indeed, go hand in hand, as St. John Chrysostom recognized:


O ye subverters of all decency, who use men as if they were women, and lead women out to war as if they were men! This is the work of the devil, to subvert and confound all things, to overlap the boundaries that have been appointed from the beginning, and remove those which God has set to nature. (Homily 5 on Titus)

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

What I want to say is that many Christians (I was one of them) simply do not know about these verses about women in the church. I believe that just mentioning it will cause a major difference in the behavior because of the reverency to the Holy Bible and the teaching of apostles.

My experience is that you are right. I have often been surprised by how many people only need to hear the truth to accept it. Most Orthodox Christians, I believe, would gladly accept the apostolic tradition if it were presented to them by their pastors. I dare say that even Ilaria and Ben would accept it then. But pastors don't present it to them because they themselves are ignorant of it and also fearful of the minority who will very loudly and unreasonably object to it. A signifiant share of the American church, in particular, is determined to keep up with secular society and will, I fear, ultimately choose the world over the Gospel. But a significant share will also take refuge in truth and tradition.

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

[Mary]

I've been reading this thread with interest. I had no intention of writing, but I cannot hold my tongue. (because I"m a woman! lol) Seriously though, I wonder if the efforts of the feminists haven't paid off, since they seem to have wiped out the differences between men and women. I grew up, hating the fact that I was a girl, because my mother's standard line for why I couldn't do the things I wanted to do, was because I was a girl. I thought I wanted to be a boy, but in retrospect, I think I was wrong. I like being who I am. And although, I also find St John Chrysostom's approach to the subject to be more loving and kind, I don't find myself being offended by what the other fathers have said.

Partly because, I've experienced it and I know that what they say is right. I've been taught by men and by women. I find that I learn differently from men, and from women. If women try to teach like men, it turns me off. So, even in the case of an older woman teaching a younger one, I wouldn't be able to listen to a woman who preaches to me. When I was about 10 or 11, long before I read any of those verses by St Paul, an Indian woman visited our town. They said she was an evangelist and said all kinds of wonderful things about her. So we went to hear what she had to say. There wasn't enough room for everyone to sit, but since Indians are just as comfortable on the floor as on a chair, that was no problem. But I felt my discomfort grow, when I noticed that there were just as many men on the floor as women and children. And my heart was totally crushed when my father sat on the floor. She hadn't even begun to speak then! But when she did, she made things worse. First, she never shared the story of her life and how she became a christian and why she is an evangelist - which to me, would've been acceptable. Instead, she preached. And she used people from other countries as negative examples to make her point. I didn't think she had any right to speak about other people, when our own are so full of all kinds of sins. (Also, i couldn't stop thinking about all my wonderful friends from all over the world who've never once said bad things about Indians). By the time the meeting was finished I was enraged. I hated her for a long long time.

In nursing school, we had an anglican minister who visited us on a regular basis and was supposed to be available to us if we needed someone to talk to. The only problem was, she was a she. She wore what a male priest would've worn. I found it totally revolting. I never gave her a chance, I didn't even want to get to know her. It seemed she was 'wearing men's clothes' - and I don't feel the same way when I see women wearing pants!

As for women reading in the Orthodox church, I think it's because there aren't enough men who are willing and that is extremely sad. It isn't the same when a woman reads. The words may be the same, but it isn't. I'm afraid I can't explain it. I don't mind women in the choir, but without men, again, it seems to be lacking something. But an all male choir, doesn't seem to lack anything.

Forgive me. I'm just sharing things I've felt and I have no idea if any of it is real or if it's all delusions.

Women teaching interests me greatly, because I like to talk about the things I've learned and I find sometimes, that I can articulate my thoughts more accurately than a man. I don't like being told that I have to go learn from my husband, because, unless he is more interested and knows more, how can he teach me? I do ask him questions, but I find I have more ideas and possible answers than he does. He doesn't get interested enough in a topic to dig out answers for me. So, those statements about women having to go to their husbands - have to be modified according to the kind of husbands they have. Else I'm stuck. Well... not so much in this age, when we have access to books and podcasts and online forums... but not everyone has access to these things.

Unless it's wrong to want to know so much... after all, with greater knowledge comes greater responsibility (and less excuses for disobedience!)

in Christ,
Mary.

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

Thank you, Mary, for your very valuable insights. You are indeed especially good at expressing things, and a discussion on this topic needs the contributions of women.

On the matter of asking husbands at home, dare I say that this needs to understood in the context of early Christian worship? From what we can tell, the Church's worship in the early years was less structured, included more practical instruction, and provided time for many people to speak and ask questions. In such a setting, it might have become a problem that too many woman were speaking up and asking questions. Women are less reticent in groups and often speak up when men (being more rank-conscious) would remain silent. Women asking unimportant questions or offering uninformed opinions would embarrass their husbands, waste the assembly's time, and undermine the social order of the Church. So they were told to practice silence.

On the matter of why some parishes have women read the Epistle, what I have seen in every parish where women read is that there are men who are willing and able to read the Epistle, but the parish priest actually wants women to read it (often despite the objections of the male readers). In most cases I have have seen, I believe the reason is that the priest is really not comfortable with the Church's teaching on gender. He's embarrassed by having to exclude women from the altar, and so he offers them everything outside the altar as compensation, in effect securing his own all-male domain at the expense of other men's manhood.

Many parishes where women read in fact operate a round-robin reading schedule, whereby 5 to 15 people will take turns reading the Epistle, for the sake of "lay participation." This runs directly counter to the Church's concern in tonsuring readers, which was to set apart a committed, accountable, experienced few for the duty of reading. It devalues and in effect disestablishes the office of reader and turns the reading from a sacred service for the good of others into a private delight of the person whose turn it is to read.

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

[Ilaria]

Forgive me, father, now I understand your point; evidently, thanks to God!, we are not Pentecostals; I understand your position, because it is difficult in States, with such a diversity of neo-protestants, to deal with such a delicate subject;
now, my point was quite different; in fact, this thread is called "Woman and the Holy Liturgy" and not who is reading the Apostle in the church

Now talking about the apostolic tradition in this regard

The most extensive and fundamental research by an Orthodox scholar on the topic of female in the Church has been done by Professor Evangelos Theodorou of the University of Athens. Through his analysis of Byzantine liturgical texts, Theodorou has clearly demonstrated that the female deacons were actually ordained at the altar and within the context of the Eucharist. While this question was once debated among Orthodox theologians, Theodorou has forcefully shown that the female deacon did not simply receive a blessing (cheirothesia) but received the laying on of hands (cheirotonia) as was the case of the male deacon.
According to the Byzantine liturgical texts, the ordination of the woman deacon occurred as any other ordination to major orders. It took place during the celebration of the Eucharist and at the same point in the service that the male deacon was ordained. She was ordained at the altar by the bishop and, later in the service, received Holy Communion at the altar with the other clergy.Depending upon the need, location, and situation in history, the deaconess ministered primarily to the women in the community in much the same way that the male deacon ministered to men. While the expression of the deaconess work varied in both form and content throughout the life of the Church, it is important to note that the hallmark of this ministry had always been loving service to others. This is because the female deacon, like the male deacon, was ordained to diakonia or ministry.And, as was the case with her male counterpart, she was ordained to unconditional service to the Lord and His Church.

The ordained diaconate is the only ministry of higher orders that has been open to women in the Orthodox Church. Although women have in fact been ordained deacons in the Orthodox Church, they have never been ordained to the orders of priesthood and episcopacy. Those persons who presently believe that there is no need for the diaconate in general and, more particularly, for women deacons, would find the prayers of the Orthodox Church of special interest. In the Orthodox ordination service of the deaconess, the following prayer is offered by the ordaining bishop.
'O God, the Holy and Almighty, You have blessed woman through the birth in the flesh of Your only-begotten Son and our God from the Virgin, and You have given the grace and visitation of the Holy Spirit not to men only, but to women as well; Lord, look now upon this Your servant and call her to the work of Your ministry (es to ergon tis diakonia sou). Send down upon her the rich gift of Your Holy Spirit. Preserve her in the Orthodox faith, that she may fulfill her ministry in blameless conduct according to what is well pleasing to You. For to You are due all honor, glory and worship, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, now and forever and unto the ages of ages. Amen.'


And, as the ordination service continues, the bishop offers this prayer prior to vesting of the deaconess with the diaconal stole.
'O Lord and Master, You do not reject women who are willing to offer themselves, in so far as it is fitting, to minister in Your holy houses, but rather You accept them into the rank of ministers (en taxei leitourgon). Grant the grace of Your Holy Spirit also to this Your servant who desires to offer herself to You and fulfill the grace of Your ministry, just as You gave the grace of Your ministry (charin tis diakonias sou) to Phoebe, whom You called to the work of ministry (ergon tis leitourgias).'




studies of these and other prayers clearly indicate that the witness of the liturgical life of the Church does not limit this particular visitation of the Holy Spirit to men only, nor to certain privileged women who lived during a certain time in history, never again to be repeated. There are no constraints imposed upon the Holy Spirit in these prayers! These prayers tell us that the Lord accepts women "into the rank of ministers" with no restrictions as to time and place.

Also, we have the striking example of St. Gorgonia, the sister of St. Gregory of Constantinople. She was praised by her brother for her courage and faith in God. St. Gregory notes also that when she was "dangerously ill of a malignant disease," she clutched the holy altar and prayed for God to deliver her from her illness. In telling this story, St. Gregory remembers her "declaring that she would not loosen her hold until she was made whole." While the story of St. Gorgonia may be somewhat unusual, the very fact that St. Gregory records the incident is a vivid reminder that we must be willing to broaden our appreciation of the various elements of the tradition of the Church that may enable us to see contemporary issues in a better light.



in conclusion, the Tradition reveals that there have been this 'special' institution of female deaconate which managed the role of women in the Church - the question that raises now: was this institution dismissed? No, it seems not; is it actual? the last Pan Orthodox meeting in Rhodos states that it is; Archbishop Christodoulos ordained two deaconesses...following the service of St Nektarios (saint Nektarios ordained two deaconesses) - the service were the ancient one, of course...

[Panayota K.]

Ilaria, that is a very interesting post!!
I knew there was a blessing for women to become deacons but I didn't know about the cheirotonia. I'd like to add to what you wrote that St Olympiada was a female deacon ordained (along with other faithful women) by St John Chrysostome. Their responsibilities were to teach and prepare young female cathechumens and to look after the poor, orphans, widows and elders. In fact these women with St Olympiada in charge were the staff of hospitals and orphanages that St Chrysostome founded.

As to if deaconesses exist today, well in Greece they do and they were blessed by priests. However there is great argument about their way of life, their role in the Church and the outcome of their work.


Panayota

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

Thank you, Ilaria, for your interesting and worthwhile contribution. The thread is indeed entitled "Woman and the Holy Liturgy," so we are not wrong to include deaconesses in our discussion.

But in keeping with the thread's title, I wonder what role you see for deaconesses in the Holy Liturgy. They once had a liturgical role, but it was plainly not the role of a male deacon. In the Didascalia, they assisted women at baptism for modesty's sake. In the Apostolic Constitutions, they also minded the women's doors. They may also have taken the Eucharist to women who were shut-ins. These duties were occassioned by the clear distinction the early Church made between men and women, by the modesty required of Christian women, and by the separation of the sexes both in worship and in society.

Nowadays we don't need deaconesses to do what they once did in the Holy Liturgy, so why ordain them? The order of the Church is first and foremost an order of worship, yet with the deaconess, we have a rank without any purpose of worship. All other ranks in the Church hierarchy are distinguished by their liturgical role, as was the rank of deaconess originally. To ordain deaconesses without any liturgical role would be a departure from tradition and, IMHO, from the traditional understanding of the nature of the Church.

Don't get me wrong. I think it would be a good if the Church paid more respect to the difference of male and female, in which case there could be a need for deaconesses in the Holy Liturgy. But right now I don't see the need. I see instead a desire — a desire for rank on the part of some women (not many, for sure) and a desire on the part of some clergy to appease feminists by exalting some women to the dignity of deaconess. Seeing that desire, I can only believe that ordaining deaconesses nowadays is a bad idea. Let us make sure we have quashed the heresy of feminism before we begin vesting women with clerical robes.

About this distinction between cheirothesia and cheritotonia, I know this means a lot to some people on both sides of the issue. Maybe the words in Greek are deeply evocative. In English, it doesn't seem such a big deal, and it's never been an issue with me that deaconesses were "ordained" by the laying on of hands. The Apostolic Constitutions tell us that they were, but so were readers and chanters according to the Constitutions, which also tell us that deaconesses, readers, and chanters received the same share of the oblations remaining after the Eucharistic, whereas deacons received more. At Holy Communion, the order was bishops, priests, deacons, subdeacons, readers, chanters, and male monks; then deaconesses, widows, and virgins. These are just the kind of details that are overlooked by people working to show that deaconesses stood on the same level as deacons. They didn't.

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

[Ilaria]

I wonder what role you see for deaconesses in the Holy Liturgy First of all, as I mentioned before, there were no certain privileged women who lived during a certain time in history, never again to be repeated. There are no constraints imposed upon the Holy Spirit as related to time and space!

The positive way of approaching a phenomenon - feminism - is to see why is happening, to discover the 'good' core in it (any problem has a positive part); what raised it; were there similar situation in history? how were solved?

I had searched this topic few years ago; but not only from what I read, my own experience working in a church obviously clarifies me that there is need of woman services in the church, precisely linked with the needs for the holy Liturgy and the other services, as well as the good standing of the church

Evidently, for married women the role is clear - raising children; I think thats why st Paul continues "let them ask their husbands at home";St Paul clearly do not include here the unmarried women!

in this regard, there is a precious study made by Dr. Kyriaki Karidoyanes FitzGerald , author of Women Deacons in the Orthodox Church which contains an extensive preface by Professor Evangelos Theodorou. She has represented the Ecumenical Patriarchate at numerous theological conferences including the Pan-Orthodox Consultation on Rhodes in 1988 - in short, at this Consultation it was stated that the order had never totally fallen out of existence. Mindful of the historical and liturgical evidence, the delegates formally called for the restoration of the order of the diaconate for women to serve the needs of the Church today.

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

There are no constraints imposed upon the Holy Spirit as related to time and space!

This does not comfort me. I ask what you think a deaconess ought to do in the Liturgy, and you say "there are no contraints," no limits to what the Holy Spirit might do, anything goes. We know where that leads, and it does not lead to decency, order, and Orthodox faith.


The positive way of approaching a phenomenon - feminism - is to see why is happening, to discover the 'good' core in it (any problem has a positive part); what raised it; were there similar situation in history? how were solved?

Historically speaking, feminism arose out of the Protestant Reformation and Europe's subsequent "Enlightenment." It arose among the most liberated, least oppressed women on the planet. It arose among passionate heretics and apostates whose motivating spirit was not the Holy Spirit but the spirit of rebellion, the spirit of anarchy.

The Modern Age could well be called the Age of Anarchy. It began with a religious rebellion against hierarchy, which led in time to a political rebellion against monarchy, which has culminated in our own day with a social rebellion against patriarchy. (I am quoting here from my book, Eight Ways to Run the Country, a peer-reviewed work of political theory published by Praeger in 2007.) In each of these rebellions, the thing to be thrown off was a personal "archy" according to which certain persons look to other persons as their point of origin and reference. The true anarchist looks to no one as his guide. He refuses to honor priests as sources of faith, kings as sources of safety, fathers as sources of life, God as the source of everything. He views the rule of priests, kings, fathers, and God as vile tyrannies inhibiting his individuality. He views himself as sui generis, of his own beginning, without reference to any originating archē and therefore unbeholden to any governing person or principle.

Feminism is in essence the rejection of the natural archy of man and woman. It is also a rejection of the archy of God and man, for it seeks "to overlap the boundaries that have been appointed from the beginning, and remove those which God has set to nature," as Chrysostom says in his Homily 5 on Titus. In that sense, there is nothing good about it. It is an error by definition.


I had searched this topic few years ago; but not only from what I read, my own experience working in a church obviously clarifies me that there is need of woman services in the church, precisely linked with the needs for the holy Liturgy and the other services, as well as the good standing of the church.

Evidently, for married women the role is clear - raising children; I think thats why st Paul continues "let them ask their husbands at home";St Paul clearly do not include here the unmarried women!

What is this need and who needs it? Do the people need it, or do some women need it to feel better about themselves? Please be specific. Tell us how you would change the way we worship to accommodate deaconesses.

There is, of course, a need for services which women can perform, and for which unmarried women might be especially eligible. But these services could well be performed by nuns. Why do the nuns need to also be deaconesses? Why do they need a rank within the Church hierarchy? Why specifically do they need to outrank male subdeacons, readers, and chanters? The desire to outrank men seems to be the very reason behind the push for deaconesses, but where is the need for it?


in this regard, there is a precious study made by Dr. Kyriaki Karidoyanes FitzGerald , author of Women Deacons in the Orthodox Church which contains an extensive preface by Professor Evangelos Theodorou. She has represented the Ecumenical Patriarchate at numerous theological conferences including the Pan-Orthodox Consultation on Rhodes in 1988 - in short, at this Consultation it was stated that the order had never totally fallen out of existence. Mindful of the historical and liturgical evidence, the delegates formally called for the restoration of the order of the diaconate for women to serve the needs of the Church today.

I am not favorably impressed by the work of FitzGerald, Theodorou, and the 1988 consultation in Rhodes, and, thankfully, the broader Orthodox Church has not accepted their work. As Panayota attests above, even in Greece deaconesses are controversial. The office did indeed fall into disuse. It was banned entirely in the West as early as the fifth century, at the Councils of Orange (441), Epaon (517), and Orleans (533). It survived in the East mainly as a way to honor aristocratic women who could do much for the Church with their wealth and cultivation.

But why trouble the Church now with this demand? What greater good will come of it?

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

A couple of comments here from a perspective from within the Russian church.

As I have commented on the Forum before, in the Russian church & culture, women have played a continual role of support. This comes almost from a generalization of the culture, but women will often play that role of 'filling in' for the men who are either too dissipated to serve or or else are not to be found. This is why throughout Russian history women have played a role managing the home or even managing the state. This tendency can also be found in the Church where to this day the role of women (eg the sisterhood) to maintain the church is crucial.

This role however has been largely informal; where men are available and willing then men lead. Which suggests that in Russian society, support is that which women provide rather than leadership. This goes for the Church also where women are often found reading but it would be thought very strange to have them as ordained readers.

Somehow I think that this corroborates Fr Dn Patrick's overall point.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Michael Stickles]

Many parishes where women read in fact operate a round-robin reading schedule, whereby 5 to 15 people will take turns reading the Epistle, for the sake of "lay participation." This runs directly counter to the Church's concern in tonsuring readers, which was to set apart a committed, accountable, experienced few for the duty of reading. It devalues and in effect disestablishes the office of reader and turns the reading from a sacred service for the good of others into a private delight of the person whose turn it is to read.

I am not sure the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. First, whether or not reading is treated as a "sacred service" or a "private delight" depends upon the attitude of the one reading, not their tonsure or lack thereof. I am not tonsured as a reader, and have read the Epistle twice during Liturgy, and I can guarantee that "private delight" is not how I would characterize those experiences! The awareness of what I was doing as "sacred service" - plus another, stronger awareness that I don't really know how to describe - was far too strong for that.

Second, as far as the "devaluing" of the office of reader, while I personally would not use that word, Fr Dcn Matthew has elsewhere noted that there has already been a "lessening" or "changing" of the responsibility placed upon the shoulders of the reader:


... the strict regulations on only readers reading, was to preserve the integrity of the Word as proclaimed in the churches. Without obedience, one must not read; and obedience to this role is bound up in the office of reader.

In modern practice, some things have changed. The same trust for accuracy is not always placed upon the shoulders of the reader, as texts are now readily available to all. There is not the same reliance in the modern era upon the reader as keeper of the faithful word. A much greater proportion of the faithful are literate; copies of the scriptures are everywhere. This particular aspect of the reader's responsibility has certainly changed.

And, while I don't doubt that you are accurately relating your experiences regarding why women do the readings:


On the matter of why some parishes have women read the Epistle, what I have seen in every parish where women read is that there are men who are willing and able to read the Epistle, but the parish priest actually wants women to read it (often despite the objections of the male readers). In most cases I have have seen, I believe the reason is that the priest is really not comfortable with the Church's teaching on gender. He's embarrassed by having to exclude women from the altar, and so he offers them everything outside the altar as compensation, in effect securing his own all-male domain at the expense of other men's manhood.

My own experience has been somewhat different. Before we had a deacon at our parish, if our tonsured reader was not present, then much of the organization of services tended to be done "on the fly" by whoever was leading the choir. Selection of a reader was often done by pointing at them and gesturing about a minute or less before they were to go get the priest's blessing to read, and the primary "qualification" was someone who could find the right reading and properly handle it and the prokeimenon without any prompting - a very small set of people, which included one or two women. Occasionally one of the women might read even when the reader was there, since he doubled as a choir director and couldn't do the reading if someone couldn't take over directing for him. When women read, it was a matter of practicality rather than philosophy.

(We have not had a woman read the Epistle in quite a while, though, now that we have two deacons, plus a few more men who can handle readings. The need just hasn't arisen. But it is common for women as well as men to read from the Old Testament during Vigils and the like when there are a lot of readings, so as to "spread the load" and save wear on everyone's voices. Most of our willing readers are also in the choir.)

Another parish that I've visited has women who read the Epistle more regularly than ours ever did, but while there may be more of an "egalitarian" spirit there than at my parish, the relevant philosophy seems to be more that those who are strongly active and involved - "invested", so to speak - in the parish should be the ones doing the reading. From what I've picked up in my visits, this group includes far more women than men, and not all of those men desire to read, so women do the Epistle reading probably about half the time. I don't know if the priest there prefers this in the same way you described, or if there are other reasons for the inclusion of women in the reading rotation, but if so it certainly doesn't seem to be over anyone's objections.

How prevalent any particular attitude is Church-wide, I have no idea. My circle of experience is rather limited. What you've seen may be more the norm; I just haven't seen it myself.

In Christ,
Michael

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

First, whether or not reading is treated as a "sacred service" or a "private delight" depends upon the attitude of the one reading, not their tonsure or lack thereof.

This is certainly true. In my experience, private delight appeared to be motivation for some women to read. One wanted to read the Epistle only on the Sunday nearest the anniversary of her father's falling asleep — arguably not a private delight, but certainly a private devotion, which the duty was not meant to be. Another woman came to church only when it was her turn to chant. (She wasn't allowed to read the Epistle, but she was appointed the parish's chief chanter.) In other cases, the women are not needed, but they want to anyway, even if someone objects.

Men also sometimes want to do things for which there is no need, even despite their obvious unsuitability. I would ask them the same question. Commenting on Canon 15 of the Council of Laodicea (ca. 367), St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain says that no one should be allowed to read or chant in church "simply because he wants to." I know both men and women who all but beg to do things not needed for that very reason. They might have pious reasons for their desire, but they might have impious reasons also.


My own experience has been somewhat different. Before we had a deacon at our parish, if our tonsured reader was not present, then much of the organization of services tended to be done "on the fly" by whoever was leading the choir. Selection of a reader was often done by pointing at them and gesturing about a minute or less before they were to go get the priest's blessing to read, and the primary "qualification" was someone who could find the right reading and properly handle it and the prokeimenon without any prompting - a very small set of people, which included one or two women.

I have seen this also, but certainly in this case we are talking about a very small parish, a mission perhaps, where there are only a handful of people present. If we are not talking about a very small parish, then I would put this in the category of "management problem": The priest is not taking care to ensure that there are a few committed, accountable men to do the job, and the reason he's not taking care is probably because the office of reader has indeed been devalued and is now treated with little respect. But should that be the norm?


But it is common for women as well as men to read from the Old Testament during Vigils and the like when there are a lot of readings, so as to "spread the load" and save wear on everyone's voices. Most of our willing readers are also in the choir.

This would fit into the category of economia, which is fine (to my mind) as long as it is not abused and used to overthrow the general principle.


Another parish that I've visited has women who read the Epistle more regularly than ours ever did, but while there may be more of an "egalitarian" spirit there than at my parish, the relevant philosophy seems to be more that those who are strongly active and involved - "invested", so to speak - in the parish should be the ones doing the reading.

The problem in such a parish would seem to be that, in their egalitarian spirit, they have chosen the wrong criterion for selecting readers. The apostolic criterion was that readers must be male. The Church later added a requirement for tonsuring. The aforementioned Canon 15 of Laodicea says: "No others shall sing in the Church, save only the canonical singers, who go up into the ambo and sing from a book." The ancient epitome of this canon reads: "No one shall ascend the ambon unless he is tonsured."


From what I've picked up in my visits, this group includes far more women than men, and not all of those men desire to read, so women do the Epistle reading probably about half the time.

It is a common phenomenon that when women move into an occupation, men move out. It takes time for this to happen, but it does regularly happen. Women filling a role in itself devalues the role in men's eyes. It de-relates the role to their identity as men. It says to them that this is now a role for women. If they want to fill it, they may have to subject themselves to a woman's lead, becoming her understudy, her protege, her pupil. This is unnatural, so naturally parishes and churches that make the most use of women increasingly suffer a lack of men. We have only to look at "mainline Protestants" to see where this leads.


I don't know if the priest there prefers this in the same way you described, or if there are other reasons for the inclusion of women in the reading rotation, but if so it certainly doesn't seem to be over anyone's objections.

The reason for this is general ignorance of the Scriptures, the Fathers, and the Tradition. Teach them these things and see what they say. Again, my experience is that most Orthodox Christians have no problem accepting orthodoxa.

But don't think that no one objects. People who don't like it often suffer in silence because they don't like to make trouble and assume their complaint will fall on deaf ears, as it usually will. If they do complain, they will complain privately, and you won't hear about it. Quite coincidentally, a friend of mine, who had never heard of monarchos.net, called me just this week to ask advice on how to proceed on this very matter. He had already sounded his priest out and got nowhere. He wanted to know what else he try.

See his predicament? He, a layman, is faced with telling his priest what the apostolic tradition is. That's both daunting and discouraging. So no, don't assume that no one objects.

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

[Mary]

The positive way of approaching a phenomenon - feminism - is to see why is happening, to discover the 'good' core in it (any problem has a positive part); what raised it; were there similar situation in history? how were solved?

Evidently, for married women the role is clear - raising children; I think thats why st Paul continues "let them ask their husbands at home";St Paul clearly do not include here the unmarried women!

Feminism! I think it has devalued both men and women! But that's my own opinionated opinion. I've been told that I don't understand feminism if I can say such things about it. Here are my thoughts: even if there were good reasons for the rise of feminism, the spirit that fueled it, wasn't orthodox. Basically, it's about 'fighting for my own rights'. Since when is it acceptable in the Church to fight for one's own rights? The world can do what it wants, but why should we do the same? This month is Black history month in the US schools. I dont' know if this is true outside schools. Anyways, we usually drown in stories of black people fighting for their rights. The fact that a few brave people dared to cross the boundaries that separated them from the whites is praised exceedingly. Like whoever it was who insisted on being served at the tables reserved for whites. Or whoever it was who wanted to ride on the white section of the bus and refused to get off the seat. (Sorry. I don't know their names, and that's not deliberate. I'm just not interested enough to know who's who.) Anyway, I always wonder - is this a the kind of attitude that I want to encourage in my children? It's the exact opposite! (the reason I mention this, is because you asked if there was a similar situation in history).

Even if there's a good reason for fighting for one's freedom, I still think it's wrong to go about it in this way. Divisions have existed among people from ancient times. Of course that doesn't make it right. But it's not the most evil thing in the world either. And in the Church, there are no divisions. St Paul says, in Christ, there is no male or female, no Greek or Jew, etc. On the outside, it appears that there are divisions. Only men can become priests, only men are ordained, etc. How then can St Paul say that there is no division? I think it's because, what happens on the outside, has nothing to do with 'division'. It only has to do with function. Different people are gifted in different ways so they can do different things. (One Body, many parts). And men, are gifted with the ability to lead. But even here, not all men can lead equally. So some are chosen, to be ordained, and most, aren't.

I wonder if the biggest problem lies in the fact that a woman's role in the Church, isn't clearly defined. But an ordained man's role, is quite clear. So then you have this vast number of women, and no one knows what to do with them, and they dont' know what to do with themselves, and they start feeling like they're useless because they don't have a definite spot to fill. I'm just guessing here, based on my own self. I am the most useless of people you'll ever meet. There are so many things that I'm not good at. And the few things that I am good at, are quite useless. So there are many times, when I start feeling quite worthless, because I have so little to contribute. But I was told, that God doesn't see usefulness in the same way as we do. So, I shouldn't judge my usefulness (or another person's), based on what I (or they) can do or can't.



I had searched this topic few years ago; but not only from what I read, my own experience working in a church obviously clarifies me that there is need of woman services in the church, precisely linked with the needs for the holy Liturgy and the other services, as well as the good standing of the church.

But, please, please, do tell me what you have seen of the need of of woman services in the church. I have not researched this, but if you share what you've seen, I'd like to see if similar needs exist in my parish, and how they're taken care of (or not). You say they're 'linked with the needs of the holy Liturgy and other services,' and also 'the good standing of the church'! That's heavy stuff. But in order for it to make any sense to me, I need to know what they are. What do you mean by 'the good standing of the church'? What do you mean by 'needs of the services'??

Thanks!

in Christ,
Mary.

[Father David Moser]

I have seen this also, but certainly in this case we are talking about a very small parish, a mission perhaps, where there are only a handful of people present. If we are not talking about a very small parish, then I would put this in the category of "management problem": The priest is not taking care to ensure that there are a few committed, accountable men to do the job, and the reason he's not taking care is probably because the office of reader has indeed been devalued and is now treated with little respect. But should that be the norm?


Dear Father,

I would guess that you are not in a mission parish. I have a small mission parish (around 70 people - average Sunday liturgy would be around 30). I have two readers - one is away at university at least half the year and the other lives so far out of town that he is not able to come to all the services (keep in mind we are talking mountain roads and snowfall here, not to mention the price of gas and a drooping economy). I do have a cadre of men whom I have asked to read on a regular basis and assigned them according to a regular rotation. Most are not readers and not all could be readers (various impediments usually mixed marriage, 2nd marriage, etc). It is not that I devalue the office of reader, but rather that because I maintain a high level of respect for the office and thus many who might otherwise be tonsured are ineligible. My parish is not unique - many mission parishes struggle with the same limitations simply because we live in a society where families do not pray together nor do the stay together and the converts especially bring that baggage with them. I do not think you can lay this issue at the feet of priests who "are not taking care" and who "devalue the office of reader". It is not as simple as that.

Fr David Moser

[Olga]

To add to Fr David's comments:

The church I have now attended for close to 15 years is a parish, established 60 years ago, not a mission, but the numbers are small. The only deacons who have served there in my time are visiting deacons, either at episcopal visits, or for other ad hoc reasons. About ten years ago, one man was tonsured as a reader, but within months, moved to a neighbouring state. Otherwise, of the regular male readers, none are tonsured, not even the most senior one, who has been reading and singing for 30 years. The women in the choir, including the priest's wife, and the choirmistress, all read from time to time during evening services. Of the choir singers, perhaps two or three have had any formal training in music. The rest have learned their craft "on the job", having been perceived as having a "good ear" to begin with. Yet, on a good day, their efforts can make your hair stand on end for all the right reasons.

A question for Fr Patrick: What of choirmistresses? Is this position considered as one of "leadership"? A woman in a position of authority telling a man what to do?

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

Fr. David and Olga,

You misunderstand me. My point was that in mission parishes and other very small parishes, there may not be enough men (tonsured or not) to always have the Epistle covered. In which case, economia would allow a woman to substitute. In larger parishes, there would be no need for them if the priest made a point of recruiting men for the task, impressing upon them that this was a service to which only men are called normally. If these men can be tonsured, great, but it is more important that they be men. That part is apostolic; tonsuring came later. The apostolic requirement is on account of the great mystery of sexual distinction, which the people should be led to understand and respect by both explicit teaching and orthopraxis. In many parishes currently, they have the benefit of neither. (For the record, I served as a reader for years in two very young missions, in two jurisdictions and in two different states.)

As for "choirmistresses," clearly it is better and more orthodox for choir directors to be men. Current practice is wanting on this, but current practice is what it is largely because we Orthodox have abandoned Orthodoxy on this issue. Lord have mercy.

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

[Olga]

As for "choirmistresses," clearly it is better and more orthodox for choir directors to be men. Current practice is wanting on this, but current practice is what it is largely because we Orthodox have abandoned Orthodoxy on this issue. Lord have mercy.


In centuries past, it was considered utterly shameful for an Orthodox woman to be associated with acting, or the musical or poetic arts, perhaps because of the strong association of these pursuits with pagan practices, both "secular", and in pagan religious observances and expressions. Yet, in the eighth century, there lived a woman of great literary, musical and poetic talent, who also happened to be a nun and abbess. Some of the hymnography she wrote has become a permanent part of the liturgical canon, and these works are by no means unknown, buried deep within an obscure vigil service, but some of the best-known and most beloved of hymns.

It is a credit to her God-given talent, her strength of character, and to the foresight and great grasp of Orthodoxy of those Fathers, including those who knew her well, such as St Theodore of the Studion, that this indeed came to pass. Who is she? Venerable Kassiane the Hymnographer.

Hymnography, like iconography, must pass the most stringent examination for it to be considered canonical. Long-standing members of this forum well know my stance on this matter. Hymnody and iconography are the cornerstones, the distillation, of the expression of the Orthodox faith, of its teachings. Despite the immense pressure to dismiss her efforts as "a woman teaching in church", and therefore unseemly, particularly for a monastic, the Church did, in the end, see it fit that Kassiane's works were indeed worthy to be added to the liturgical deposit. In the end, it was the great theological and doctrinal truths that were expressed in her works which were important, not the fact that they were composed by a woman.

Here are some of her works:

1. The doxastikon of the Matins Apostikha of Great and Holy Wednesday.The text is based on the sinful woman who is introduced by the Evangelist St Luke in his Gospel (7.36-50). Kassiane contrasts the repentance of the sinful woman with Eve’s fall (Gen. 3.8-11):

Tone 8:
The woman who had fallen into many sins, perceiving Your divinity, O Lord,
Received the dignity of a myrrh-bearer,
For with lamentation she brought fragrant myrrh to You before Your burial.
And she cried: Woe is me, for love of sin and stings of lustful passion envelop me as the night, dark and moonless.
As You cause the clouds to drop down the waters of the sea, accept the fountain of my tears.
As by Your indescribable condescension You bowed down the heavens, so incline to the groaning of my heart.
I shall kiss Your most pure feet and wipe them with the hair of my head,
Those same feet whose sound Eve heard at dusk in Paradise when she hid herself in fear.
Who can count the multitude of my sins? Who can measure the depths of Your judgements, O Saviour of my soul?
Do not turn away from me, Your servant, for You have immeasurable mercy.

Kontakion
Tone 4
I have transgressed far more than the harlot, O Good One, yet have never brought you showers of tears; but entreating in silence, I fall before you, as I kiss your immaculate feet with love, that as Master you may grant me forgiveness of offences, as I cry out, O Saviour: deliver me from the filth of my works.

Other compositions include:

* The Eirmos of the 9th Ode of the Canon of Matins of Holy Saturday, which is also sung at the Matins of the Resurrection:

With these stanzas, Kassiane achieves a taut sense of anticipation, providing a marvellous momentum into the climactic celebration of Our Lord's Resurrection.

Tone 6
Weep not for Me, Mother, as you behold Me in the grave,
The Son you conceived without seed in your womb.
For I shall rise and be glorified, and as God I shall raise to eternal glory
Those who magnify you with faith and love.

* Idiomel Stikheron at Vespers of the Nativity of the Lord:

When Augustus reigned alone on the earth, the many kingdoms of mankind came to an end;
And when You became man from the pure Virgin, the many gods of idolatry were destroyed;
The cities of the world passed under one single rule; and the nations came to believe in a single Godhead;
The peoples were enrolled by decree of Caesar; we the faithful were enrolled in the name of the Godhead,
When You became man, O our God.
Great is Your mercy, Lord, glory to You.

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

Olga, I can't tell if your post was meant as a counter to what I have written about "choirmistresses" or as a fully approvable example of female contribution to church worship. It must be the latter, because that's the only way the example of Kassiane makes sense in this discussion. As the former, Kassiane is irrelevant. She practiced her art in a monastery for women, not in a parish church, and she did not direct a choir of men.

Kassiane was not an actress, and Christians were forbidden to be actors and actresses not because of the pagan associations of the theater, but because of the inherent immodesty of acting. Christian women were not forbidden to learn music or poetry. They were, however, expected to practice their music and poetry in appropriate settings, which is to say at home or in a monastery.

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

To keep things on track, I would like, at this point, to restate three points worth remembering and arguing specifically for or against:

1) The exclusion of women from the office of reader relates directly to the Church's understanding of the order of creation and the economy of salvation.

2) Many Orthodox have abandoned Orthodoxy on the narrow issue of women reading, partly out of ignorance but also partly out of faithlessness on the bigger issues of the order of creation and the economy of salvation.

3) The supposed duties of deaconesses could all be done by nuns, who don't need to be deaconesses to do them.

[Olga]

The topic of this thread is the role of women in church life, including the liturgical life, is it not? Is not the example of St Kassiane one of the works of a woman, and a monastic, who engaged in a pursuit which was at odds with the mores of her time and her station in life, but whose works are, to this day, sung in every Orthodox church in the world? Are not these hymns a form of public teaching, not the "preaching in the village square" type, but within the very liturgical setting of the Church, which is, by definition, public and corporate?

I am no hardline feminist (God knows I had my fill of them in my youth!). I am completely comfortable with Orthodox clergy being exclusively male, I would not wish this to change. I am less comfortable with the various attempts in some circles to restore the female diaconate. I am horrified at reports from time to time of "altargirls" serving in parish churches. However, for women who read, sing, or direct a parish choir, I'm yet to be convinced that this is such a great doctrinal deviation that some seem to make it. A case can indeed be made that only men can be tonsured readers, even that only men should be permitted to read the Epistle. But to effectively lump all liturgical activities as out of bounds to women seems to me to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. What next, that women should be forbidden from painting icons? ;)

(And, for the record, I don't sing. I have a good enough ear for music and pitch, but quality of voice is woeful.)

[Andreas Moran]

. . . about the Theotokos . . . the exaggerated praise heaped on her by the Church . . . such praise as hyperbole and not as dogma regarding the mystery of gender.

I have not before heard the Church's praise of the Theotokos described as exaggerated and hyperbolic. According to my dictionary, these terms indicate statements in excess of the truth. As Olga often so usefully reminds us, the Church's hymnography teaches us dogma. Accordingly, I am left wondering which parts of the Church's Marian hymnography exceeds the truth and is not dogmatic about her.

[Ilaria]

Why do the nuns need to also be deaconesses?well, father, I feel it is not proper for me to continue , I am sorry i did open the subject
But if someone is really interested in the subject I would humbly suggest that maybe by praying to St Nektarios - who did ordained deaconesses - or St Great Duchess Elizabeth, he may receive an answer
but I am afraid we do not really need just any kind answer

forgive me

[Andreas Moran]

In view of some of the comments posted, I'm wondering what to think of St Hilda of Whitby who governed a monastery which produced five bishops, who was consulted by kings, and whose learning and teaching abilities were such that an Oxford College is named after her. Or of St Theodora who ruled the Byzantine empire as regent, overrode the ecclesiastical policy of Theophilius, summoned a Council under Patriarch Methodius, restored the veneration of icons, and appears on icons which celebrate the Triumph of Orthodoxy. Or of Lydia who was a successful business woman who helped St Paul. Or of Priscilla who, with her husband, taught Apollos. Or of those such as Euodia whom Paul regarded as his fellow-workers (see Philippians 4:2-3).

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

I have not before heard the Church's praise of the Theotokos described as exaggerated and hyperbolic. According to my dictionary, these terms indicate statements in excess of the truth. As Olga often so usefully reminds us, the Church's hymnography teaches us dogma. Accordingly, I am left wondering which parts of the Church's Marian hymnography exceeds the truth and is not dogmatic about her.

Here is just one example of hyperbole:


My most gracious Queen, my hope, Mother of God, shelter of orphans, and intercessor of travelers, stangers and pilgrims, joy of those in sorrow, protectress of the wronged, see my distress, see my affliction! Help me, for I am helpless. Feed me, for I am a stranger and pilgrim. Thou knowest my offense; forgive and resolve it as thou wilt. For I know no other help but thee, no other intercessor, no gracious consoler but thee, O Mother of God, to guard and protect me throughout the ages. Amen.

This is a prayer in the akathist to the Virgin celebrated in the presence of the Kursk "Root" icon. A bit over the top, don't you think?

Hymns are useful evidence of what we believe, but they do not have the same standing as Holy Scripture or ecumenical councils and should always be understood for what they are and not for what they are not.

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

[Rick H.]

I think I have read the above quote in an essay somewhere, I think it was titled "Mary in the Imagination of the Church."

This thread on 'women in the liturgy' causes me to pause and reflect on what is in the imagination of Orthodoxy today, as opposed to what exists in reality? Or,to hold it up to the light and turn it a slightly different way, as we see in above posts, what is Orthodoxy in theory, and what is abstract, as opposed to what is Orthodoxy in practice today.

I'm an idealist first class; but, I also think there is a time to call a spade a spade.

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

In view of some of the comments posted, I'm wondering what to think of . . .

Dear Rdr. Andreas and others,

Here is what I recommend that you think of your examples, in view of the clear consensus of the Apostles and Saints on the matter, as already attested in this thread:

This is a fallen world. In a fallen world, things are not always as they should be. We cannot ourselves set everything aright. We must therefore patiently bear many things that are not right. We must also, however, seek the truth, tell the truth, and urge others to do the same. We must keep faith the Apostles and Saints by confessing and doing what is right in their eyes as much as possible, in accordance with truly apostolic tradition. We must not succumb to the lie of the devil that our failings in this fallen world are actually normal and wholesome. We must be honest with ourselves and admit that we are not as Orthodox as we should be and that many things we accept as Orthodox are in fact very recent departures from the Orthodox way.

What more can I say? I have shown you the Fathers. If you can point to anything I have said that contradicts the Fathers, please show me what it is. But, please, don't keep throwing up examples of our fallenness as excuses for the same.

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

But to effectively lump all liturgical activities as out of bounds to women seems to me to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. What next, that women should be forbidden from painting icons?

No one has done this, and the insinuation that I have is unfounded and unfair. I have plainly said in the posts above that women may do things normally reserved for men when there is real need. I have, however, argued that when there is not a real need, the apostolic tradition should be respected, against those who seem to want to throw it away forever.

[Andreas Moran]

The theme of this thread concerns the role of women in church. Clearly, women have no sacramental ministry in church. I agree that Readers ideally should be men but there may be occasions when the ideal cannot be met. That women may be choir regents and members of church choirs must be accepted - this is the norm in Russia. The quotations from the Fathers in post #6 refer to restrictions on the role of women in church. The wider premise that women have a similarly restricted role outside church cannot stand. We have, for example, Christ and the Samaritan woman who went on to convert her people - surely Christ knew that by His exchange with her, that is what she would do. And so she is a saint (Photini/Svetlana). The examples (from Scripture) of Lydia, Priscilla, Euodia (there were others) have been mentioned, as have the likes of St Hilda and St Theodora. Consider St John Chrysostom's close friendship with St Olympias (patron saint of women's ministry) whom he addressed in one of his letters to her as 'most reverend and divinely favoured deaconess'. The Orthodox Christian faith has, since the time of Christ's being on earth, followed Christ in bestowing upon women the respect and dignity due to them. The Church has honoured so many women as saints for many reasons. To suggest, as post #52 appears to, that the achievements of women in the Church are 'failings in this fallen world' merely because they were accomplished by women and so indicate some attenuation of and falling away from Orthodoxy, is, I would have to say, indicative of a perverted view of the anthropology of Orthodox Christian faith. Taken with the comments in post #50 about the Church's ways of praising the Theotokos (which are not at all 'over the top' - how could they be?), one senses unwarranted bias.

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

Dear, dear, dear Rdr. Andreas,

At least in this post you do actually take a stand and argue it, instead of just throwing exceptions out there for me to explain. And I admit I did leave myself open to objection by not explaining what I meant by "failings." I certainly didn't mean that the good deeds women do are failings, only that some of them should rather have been done by men. The men failed, and so women did their job for them. I assumed people would know what I meant, but I did suspect that some would immediately jump to the wrong conclusion.

But all in all, I have to wonder: What do you think I am saying? Do you think I am saying that women should never do anything publicly? Never drive cars, never go shopping, never buy or sell anything, never open their mouths to strangers, never bare their faces in public, never been seen or heard outside the home? I have said none of these things, yet you seem to believe that I have, and that I have condemned all of these saints you name for improprieties. It just ain't so, and I don't understand why you would jump to that conclusion, unless you are disposed to think the worst of me for other reasons. The other day, on another thread, you told me my opinion wasn't welcome because two quotes from two saints have settled the issue for you, but here on this thread I give you scores of quotes from the Fathers and you accuse me of a "perverted view" and "unwarranted bias." Are you saying I'm a sexist bigot? It certainly seems so.

Now, as to your argument:


That women may be choir regents and members of church choirs must be accepted - this is the norm in Russia.

What do you mean by "accepted"? Do you mean that we must live with it even though it's not the best practice, or that it is blameless and perfect and just as things should be? I have already said that we must sometimes live with it, but the Apostles and saints tell us it is not blameless or perfect or as things should be, even if it's as things are now in Russia.


The quotations from the Fathers in post #6 refer to restrictions on the role of women in church. The wider premise that women have a similarly restricted role outside church cannot stand.

The Fathers do not limit their rules to the church. That is a strictly modern accommodation of the Zeitgeist. The headship of the man in general was a unquestioned rule in Byzantium as well as Russia, and a handful of exceptions did not overturn the rule. Only in this day, and in the West, do people point to the Samaritan woman to argue for complete gender equality in society, on the grounds that Christ talked to strange women in public. The Fathers never drew that conclusion.


The Orthodox Christian faith has, since the time of Christ's being on earth, followed Christ in bestowing upon women the respect and dignity due to them. The Church has honoured so many women as saints for many reasons.

Amen. This is absolutely true, although my experience is that if you quote the Fathers on women, many people won't believe that it's true. They have a very different understanding of respect and dignity, based on feminist notions of equality.


To suggest, as post #52 appears to, that the achievements of women in the Church are 'failings in this fallen world' merely because they were accomplished by women and so indicate some attenuation of and falling away from Orthodoxy, is, I would have to say, indicative of a perverted view of the anthropology of Orthodox Christian faith.

There obviously has been a falling away, or bringing up these old sayings of the Fathers would not ignite such a debate.


Taken with the comments in post #50 about the Church's ways of praising the Theotokos (which are not at all 'over the top' - how could they be?), one senses unwarranted bias.

Now this comment really does amaze me. Do you really believe that the bolded portions of the prayer in post #50 are without hyperbole? "For I know no other help but thee, no other intercessor, no gracious consoler but thee, O Mother of God, to guard and protect me throughout the ages"? Have we not Christ as our intercessor? Have we not the Holy Spirit as our comforter? Have we not the angels to guard us?

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

[Mary]

Beloved in Christ,

Is it allowed for a woman to read the Apostle on the Sunday? In general, is it allowable for her to loud her voice in the Church?

In-Christ


This is the first post. I had to go back and read it, because I have lost track of the topic. It seems to me there are two topics.

1. Reading the Epistle on Sunday - I suppose that would be, during Divine Liturgy, since I can't imagine being told I can't read the Epistle on Sunday at home or in the car, etc...

2. Speaking out loud in the Church.

I suppose, the first has been answered - at least to my satisfaction. Here's what I understand - it's a man's role. But if a suitable man isn't available, it's perfectly ok for a woman to do so.

The second seems to be the cause of all the confusion. What is meant by 'the Church' in the second question? And what does it mean to 'speak out loud' or 'raise one's voice'?

If it means, preaching during Divine Liturgy, then the answer is "NO" because it is. Can't use the same explanation as the reader's position, because you can't have Divine Liturgy without a priest, and if there is a priest, there is always a suitable man to do the preaching.

So then, all those verses came up, about Woman having to learn in silence and stuff like that. But, it is quite obvious, that after you've learned in silence, and as you live in obedience, you become quite capable of teaching others to do what you have done. So there's the examples of all the women who evangelized and taught men, who later became bishops, and so on.

Now all that brings me to where I am now - I'm confused again. What exactly is the question now? It seems to me that none of these women were ordained to be priests, and I don't understand what it means to be ordained a deaconess other than the fact that it's not the same as being ordained to be a deacon. Nor did they preach during the services. It seems they did their jobs 'at home' whether that's in the monastery or in the marketplace. Did St Kassiane write down those beautiful hymns in order for them to be included in our services? Or were they just an outpouring from the depths of her heart, which was so in love with God? Would she not have written them, even if no one else had ever seen them and recognized their place in our services? I don't know. I'm just wondering out loud. Sort of seems to me, that it is similar to the woman who washed Jesus's feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. She didn't do it in order for her act of devotion to be included in the gospels and shared with all the world. She did it for Christ, out of her love for Him and it would've made no difference to her if anyone remembered what she did or not. Her reward was Christ's acceptance of her love.


The Orthodox Christian faith has, since the time of Christ's being on earth, followed Christ in bestowing upon women the respect and dignity due to them. The Church has honoured so many women as saints for many reasons.

And how has 'respect and dignity' been bestowed upon them? By ordaining them to be deaconesses and canonizing them as saints? What about the rest of the women? I do not feel any less respected or undignified and I'm neither a deaconess nor a saint. I do not sing in the choir, I'll never paint (or write) an icon. I have absolutely no designated role in the church, other than to show up and light my candles, and go to confession and join everyone else for the Eucharist.

I don't think this respect and dignity comes from being honored or recognized publicly for something or other. Honor and recognition has its rightful place, but it is still superficial. The world thinks everything has to be recognized in order to encourage someone and help them to keep doing the good things they are doing. So they give out trophies and certificates of achievements and employee of the month awards. Is that supposed to make a difference? It shouldn't, if we're orthodox. Are we not supposed to receive both insults and praise in the same way? With No reaction? That's not to say it's wrong to tell someone that they've done a good job or other such ego-boosting, danger-of-causing-pride kind of statements. Or is it? I don't know. I always feel weird whenever I overhear someone praising someone in the choir for how wonderful they were that day. Will they tell them they were bad on a bad day? The choir isn't there to impress us or entertain us. So it shouldn't make a difference to us, if they were good or bad. I think I've lost track of my own thoughts. Sorry.




Taken with the comments in post #50 about the Church's ways of praising the Theotokos (which are not at all 'over the top' - how could they be?), one senses unwarranted bias.

Yes, it is 'over the top'. She isn't the 'only one' who prays for us and protects us and comforts us and intercedes for us and all that praise. She may be the greatest one, I do not know how these things work. Sometimes I find myself praying to her, and other times I go to some other saint for help. If she is the only one who can help us, it would be wrong to ask anyone else to pray for us and help us, because they won't be able to. When I was a protestant, I only prayed to Christ, because I thought only He could help me. Then I learned that Christ works through others, and anyone who is in Him can help me. Well... she isn't the only one who is in Christ. Besides the countless invisible saints, there's also my priest, and some other very close orthodox friends who also help me. (and sometimes I do feel like singing praises to them, after they've helped me get out of another deep pit I've tossed myself into.)

in Christ,
Mary.

[Olga]

This may well warrant a thread of its own, but here goes:

Fr Patrick, you wrote:



This is a prayer in the akathist to the Virgin celebrated in the presence of the Kursk "Root" icon. A bit over the top, don't you think?

Hymns are useful evidence of what we believe, but they do not have the same standing as Holy Scripture or ecumenical councils and should always be understood for what they are and not for what they are not.


The hymnody and iconography of the Orthodox Church is nothing less than the distillation of scripture and the consensus patrum. It is what, in words and in pictures, the whole Church proclaims and believes. It is the ultimate expression of Holy Tradition (scripture, patristics, etc) reflected and explained by the Church. Hymnody and iconography subordinate to scripture? Merely "useful evidence" of what we believe?

[Eric Peterson]

Something else in this thread might be excised for a new thread.

I know the Fathers' statements on the place/role of women did not apply just to what happens in the Church, however, were the Fathers speaking from a cultural context or from the context of Christian revelation? Was pre-Christian pagan culture (of the Greco-Roman world) patriarchal in the same way as Jewish culture and Christian culture? Did the fathers define the role of women in church and public life in a different way than had existed up to their time in the pagan and Jewish cultures? It would seem to me that they did, but that is just a theory. My contention is that they reacted against forms of female leadership in paganism (one reason why we do not have priestesses is that such a thing was quite prevalent in the pagan world), but that they would have been also against the treatment of women as occurred in tribal pagan Arab culture, and still occurs in Islam.

To me, the issue of cultural hold-over versus revelation (or even a holdover from Judaism), is important for trying to get at the mind of the Fathers. Some issues they accepted as the societal status quo, like slavery. Others they reacted against. It may just be speculation, but I'm wondering what was the inspiration.

[Andreas Moran]

So far as praises to the Mother of God are concerned, I am guided by the comments of: St Irenaeus, St Ambrose, St Jerome, St Cyril of Alexandria, St Epiphanius of Cyprus, St Proclus, St Romanus the Melodist, St Andrew of Crete, St John of Damascus, St Germanus, St Theodore of Studion, St Tarasios, St George of Nicomedia, St Joseph the Hymnographer, St Photios, St Gregory Palamas, St Theophanes of Nicaea, St John of Kronstadt, St John of Shanghai and San Francisco - to name but a few. To respond that we have Christ as our intercessor is to expose a Protestant mis-understanding and a failure to understand the Orthodox faith.

[Eric Peterson]

To clarify my comments above, my issue deals with the role of women in public life outside the Church, and the Fathers, as explained by Fr. Patrick. I may have misread, but it seemed to me Fr. Patrick is saying that women in positions of authority outside the Church is an aberration, according to the Fathers, but Fr. Patrick has said he is not against, and perhaps the Fathers are not against women driving, and perhaps not against them being able to inherit their own property, enter into business contracts, etc. I guess what I'm hoping to get at here are some clearer delineations. If we are to say that having female professors is a result of the fallen state of mankind as I gathered from Fr. Patrick's comments, what of other things?

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

To respond that we have Christ as our intercessor is to expose a Protestant mis-understanding and a failure to understand the Orthodox faith.

Nonsense. The prayer says "no other help but thee, no other intercessor, no gracious consoler but thee." If you can't at least admit that this is a pious overstatement intended as praise and not as dogma, then God help you.

[Andreas Moran]

No - you challenge the hymnography and precepts of the Orthodox Church - you, a deacon!

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

No - you challenge the hymnography and precepts of the Orthodox Church - you, a deacon!

Andreas, hyperbole has its place, but it must be understood rightly -- as hyperbole, not as literal truth. The failure to recognize hyperbole is a Protestant fault. They are the ones always looking for literal truth.

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

To clarify my comments above, my issue deals with the role of women in public life outside the Church, and the Fathers, as explained by Fr. Patrick. I may have misread, but it seemed to me Fr. Patrick is saying that women in positions of authority outside the Church is an aberration, according to the Fathers, but Fr. Patrick has said he is not against, and perhaps the Fathers are not against women driving, and perhaps not against them being able to inherit their own property, enter into business contracts, etc. I guess what I'm hoping to get at here are some clearer delineations. If we are to say that having female professors is a result of the fallen state of mankind as I gathered from Fr. Patrick's comments, what of other things?

What's at stake is the general principle of male headship, founded upon the order of creation and the economy of salvation. You have only to read the words of the Holy Apostle Paul on this to hear how he grounds the principle in first things, in bigger issues, in greater mysteries.

How we act upon the principle is another issue, which in the fallen world will be sometimes uncertain and sometimes messy. For most of the Church's life it has not been terribly difficult. In latter days, however, with so many people under the influence of the Zeitgeist, it has become much more difficult to discern both the principle and its application to our lives.

Some have sought an easy way out by confining the principle to the Church and embracing fully feminist principles for everything outside the Church. Thus they say that women cannot be priests but can be professors and presidents and combat soldiers. The Apostles and Saints, as has been shown, did not say these things. They did not have one anthropology for the Church and another for society. They justified the exclusion of women from leading roles on the basis of both natural archy and economical hierarchy, nature and the Law, the way God made us and the order He imposed after the fall. They recognized exceptions to the rule as concessions to the fallen world. Some they condemned and resisted; others they regretted and endured. We must do the same.

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

[Jennie Lyndy]

Dear Deacon Patrick,

I have read your replies on this thread including your quotes of the Fathers and of your own book on this subject. I believe many of the reactions that you are seeing towards you are not so much in response to your material but your approach.

You have said (if I understand correctly) that it is sometimes necessary due to economy for women to perform certain functions due to the lack of available (or willing) men. I would assume it follows that it is most important for the job to get done, and then it is important for the job to be done in the way that is most reflective of God's order. So, it is ideal for men to perform these jobs because this is the best liturgical representation of God's creation and plan for our salvation and theosis. In this spirit, of demonstrating to the world God's love and plan for us, wouldn't it be more appropriate to first call men to humble repentance for their lack of leadership which has made it necessary for women to perform roles that they were not meant to fill (which has overburdened them and made it difficult for them to accept this service from men because the precedent for trust has been eroded) rather than effectively accusing women of usurping a place that doesn't belong to them since they have stepped up to fulfill roles out of economy and have grown accustomed to this practice because this lack of leadership has gone on for so long? If men are supposed to lead as Christ loves and leads the Church by laying down their lives and washing feet, wouldn't it be more appropriate to first call them to this standard rather than berating the people who are subject to them?

I recognize there are women who try to interpret Scripture by our sinful culture, and this is wrong. But it is wrong because it is not good for our salvation, and it leads to a lack of peace and a lot of anxiety. Women are suffering due to this. God loves us and desires for us to experience peace and to have leadership which guides us into this reality so that we may use our gifts to help in the way He has designed. Why not encourage women positively to do things that will cultivate this rather than first pointing out what we should NOT do?

Please let me know if I have misunderstood you in any way. The spirit that I have addressed is what came across to me after careful reading of what you have written. And please forgive me if I have offended you or overstepped.

[Owen Jones]

Permit me a couple of observations about this thread. The assertion of authority by the Church hierarchy, that is, apostolic authority, does not necessarily confer that authority. Spiritual authority of one person over another is something that has to be embodied internally first, and then observable by others through the person's character and virtue. So that it becomes natural to obey authority, and to exert authority, rather than something that is forced. What happens over time, as spiritual authority becomes institutionalized, is that the spiritual underpinnings of that authority tend to be obscured by the institutional authority. No amount of quoting the Fathers as proof texts can repair that damage. So simply saying that the Fathers oppose this and that is, especially in our day and age, insufficient. It is not that our day and age is in any way superior, or that the Church should condescend to the spirit of the age. it is a practical challenge to deal with it in an age of defiance. But what typically happens is that the clergy tend to circle the wagons when their authority is challenged or questioned, or, to mix metaphors, tend to react like cornered animals. The next step is for them to make concessions as they tire of the harassment that they perceive themselves being subjected to by questioning or skeptical or critical laymen.

I see this in my Bible class conducted by our priest, who is otherwise gentle and loving and an example of piety. But when somebody says something like, why do we do it that way, or I think the Bishop should allow such and such, the priest becomes defensive and testy. This represents a lack of spiritual authority, not evidence of it. This is not to say that I have anything that the priest lacks. Heaven forbid. It is just an observation. So when we are entreated to come to communion in faith and fear, I think this is the spiritual moment, so to speak, that conditions everything else. It's all connected in Orthodoxy. If I do not come to communion in faith and fear, then how can I have the experience of obedience? How will I know true spiritual authority when I see it? On the other hand, if I were a priest, am I confusing institutional authority with spiritual authority, when I make the invitation to come forward in faith and fear?

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

I believe many of the reactions that you are seeing towards you are not so much in response to your material but your approach.

This is no doubt true, but that does not mean that my approach is wrong. This is not a personal counseling session in which I can tailor what I say to each heart hearing me; it is a public debate on virtually permanent record with many, many people I cannot know at all. I have therefore chosen the approach that makes the most sense: to speak plainly and dispassionately about the teachings of the Fathers. If this unsettles some, then they need to be unsettled. At least once in their lives, they need to endure the truth plainly stated.


... wouldn't it be more appropriate to first call men to humble repentance for their lack of leadership which has made it necessary for women to perform roles that they were not meant to fill ... rather than effectively accusing women of usurping a place that doesn't belong to them ..."

This is so much the modern way -- blame it all on the men so as not to offend the women. But that would be unbalanced and unfair. It took two to fall, and if you re-read my posts more carefully you will see that I have been very balanced. I have faulted just a few women for wanting to be deaconesses or readers, and I have blamed many pastors for not teaching the truth and for taking part in this error. I have furthermore placed feminism in the broader historical context of the Western world's anarchic rebellion going back 500 years, for which women could hardly be responsible. So the bias is not in what I have written but in your perception of it.


Why not encourage women positively to do things that will cultivate this rather than first pointing out what we should NOT do?

Women are so much now positively encouraged to do many things. Once in a while, we all need to be told what they should not do.

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

[Mary]

Women are so much now positively encouraged to do many things. Once in a while, we all need to be told what they should not do.

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

Actually, I see it the opposite way. Since women have so much freedom to do anything they wish, it isn't so helpful to tell women what they shouldn't do in the church. Rather, it would be more helpful to talk about what they can do, that will be in line with the teachings of all the Fathers. In the old days, most women stayed home and took care of their families. So, there wasn't so much need to talk about the role of women then. But now, not everyone has a family to take care of. So then, is there something for women to do? I believe, we already know what we cannot do. And I haven't met any orthodox woman who wishes to do what the men are supposed to do. And also, we can't go back to the way things were in the past. We cannot undo the freedom that women have. We have to figure out how to use it in the right way.

in Christ,
mary

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

So then, is there something for women to do?

If you are asking, is there anything in worship that is specifically set aside for women only, the answer is no. It is no because the Gospel is not based on sexual dualism as some pagan cults are. Our ultimate reality is not yin and yang.

Since there is nothing in worship specifically set aside for women only, the easiest way to say what women may do in worship is to say what they may not do and why. The reason things are as they are is that Christian pastors and people have not been saying that. They have been avoided admitting the limits to the participation of women, partly because both men and women take offense at the mention of them, as we have seen here.

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

[Mary]

If you are asking, is there anything in worship that is specifically set aside for women only, the answer is no. It is no because the Gospel is not based on sexual dualism as some pagan cults are. Our ultimate reality is not yin and yang.

Since there is nothing in worship specifically set aside for women only, the easiest way to say what women may do in worship is to say what they may not do and why. The reason things are as they are is that Christian pastors and people have not been saying that. They have been avoided admitting the limits to the participation of women, partly because both men and women take offense at the mention of them, as we have seen here.

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

Ok, so in an ideal setting, the men would be doing the services, and the women come to church with their children and attend the services and go home. But we continue to be a part of the church even when we're not attending the services. So then, what is the role of women in the Church? Especially, if they do not have family obligations or their children are grown and need them no more. It is clear how men may serve the Body of Christ. How do women serve?

For example, is it ok for women to go to seminary and know their faith? Reason I'm asking that is, I have many opportunities to talk to people because I'm home. They come to my door wanting to invite me to their 'churches'. I invite them in and talk about my Church. I see this as an awesome opportunity to make people aware of orthodoxy and invite them to our Church. But, I need to know my own faith well enough so I can talk about it, and I also need to know it well enough so I am not confused by their heresies. Or else, I could say: "I'm sorry. I'm a woman. It's not my place to discuss my faith. Come back when my husband is home, or go talk to my priest..."

So, I guess I'm asking in a broader sense - what is the role of a woman in the Church as a whole?

in Christ,
mary.

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

So, I guess I'm asking in a broader sense - what is the role of a woman in the Church as a whole?

I'm sorry, Mary, but you seem to be asking me to enumerate all of the various things women may do as Christians. Is that really necessary? Read the lives of the saints. You will see that the women among them were not readers or deacons or priests or bishops, but they were a lot of other things that women today still can be.

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

[Panayota K.]

Father Patrick, you said in some posts "ago" that for a woman to take positions such as professor is an evidence of a fallen world. This makes some sense to me and it surely got me thinking. I've studied to be a professor and chose that profession consciously. Now that I am practicing it I feel it just right for me. I figure if God did gave me this "talanton", I 'd better not hide it away (Matthew 25:25). Since I have male students and I surely will in the future, can this be one of the things I will have to answer before God when I close my eyes?

In Christ
Panayota

[Owen]

Depends on what you're professor of. But I remind you that the criterion of judgement, according to Matt. 25, is "Did you do works of mercy?"

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

Panayota,

God gives most of us many talents. Some we use a little, others we use a lot, as need be. So it is a little presumptuous to think that because I can, I should.

It may very well be that God has given you the talent to teach, and it may very well be that, the world being what it is, you could use that talent to teach men and that this might not do anyone any harm. But all that doesn't mean that we should pay no attention to gender in arranging who is to take the lead in society.

A Christian woman assigned to teach or direct men should keep in mind that men learn and take direction differently from women and at certain ages may resent and resist a woman's mastery over them. She would do well to treat them with special respect and not to lord it over them like the mother they have left behind. Earlier generations of women would have understood this intuitively.

And then there is the talent God gives most women to raise children, which all too often today takes a backseat to talents more in line with feminist principles. The result is that fewer people marry, fewer who marry have children, those who have children have fewer children, and both society and the Church suffer significant long-term losses in membership as well as an overall shift of perception of the value of human life.

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

[Paul Cowan]

Fr. Dcn,

I've tried to stay out of this thread and perhaps I should not write this either. It sounds to me like your position is to keep them barefoot and pregnant. You're not willing to give thoughts on what women "can" do but more to pointedly tell them what they cannot do. If the Theotokos is the model for women, seems to me, they should have a strong role in the church. What is it?! I recognize they can never be clergy of any order. Give a list of what you feel women can do in the church.

In relation to the Liturgy I think they can
Chant
Sing
Sponsor
help with baptism preparations
bake prosphora
light candles outside the altar area
make the koliva
make and mend vestments
upkeep and print the weekly bulletins
clean the church
clean the holy vessels

Outside the liturgy
assist in burial arrangements
Sunday School
upkeep parish hall
parish council and all related duties
drive priest to house blessings
grounds keeping
all fundraising efforts
this could be a huge list

Surely it is more than keeping them barefoot and pregnant.

Paul

[Herman Blaydoe]

"Taking up the slack" seems to be a proper role for women, that is, filling in when men fail to live up to their responsibilities, like say, the myrrh-bearing women who went to minister to Christ in the tomb while the men hid in fear and shame. And they were graced with seeing the Resurrected Christ first.

I believe that it was Khrushchev who ask the Moscow Patriarch: "What will you do when the last grandmother dies and your church dies with them?" The MP did not bat an eye but quickly replied "they will be replaced by a new generation of grandmothers!"

Whatever women do, the Church needs them. It is their work, often behind the scenes, doing the less-than-glorious things that the men overlook or neglect, they sometimes "PUSH" the men to do what they need to do. I think this is what the good Father Deacon is alluding to. I think he is saying it is better, when it is possible, for the women to "encourage" the men to do what they are supposed to do, to be the leaders they are supposed to be, and take the initiative they are supposed to take, rather than simply "taking over" that responsibility themselves. But if the men are hiding, God will do what needs to be done through the women. Isn't this how it has always been?

Just a little thought from a bear of little brain.

Herman the Pooh

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

It sounds to me like your position is to keep them barefoot and pregnant.

This is patently unfair, considering all that I have heretofore written, but I'll overlook the slight and thank you anyway, Paul, for using your imagination to draw up an obvious list, which hardly needed to done. As you say, "this could be a huge list," which is why I didn't bother with it.

You have, however, left off two very important Christian duties: giving aid and comfort to Christian men through marriage and bearing and raising good Christian children. These two are more important that anything you have listed. The Theotokos devoted her entire life to just these two. You can't go wrong doing so.

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

[Mary]

You have, however, left off two very important Christian duties: giving aid and comfort to Christian men through marriage and bearing and raising good Christian children. These two are more important that anything you have listed. The Theotokos devoted her entire life to just these two. You can't go wrong doing so.

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

An observation from my extremely twisted and broken perspective. Times have changed. Life has changed. The world is a horrid place to live in. I think it is an extremely selfish thing to bring children into this ugly, painful world. I did not have a single unselfish and unpresumptuous reason for having children. I did not want to be the only childless woman amongst my friends. I just knew my own babies would be cuter than everyone else's. I knew I'd be the best mother in the world. Hogwash. Sometimes I don't know if I even love my own kids. Isn't it a horrible thing I did? To bring them into this world to torment them with my selfish desires and my tainted love?

Why are monastics, virgins and those who lived a celibate marriage praised more than ordinary husbands and ordinary wives who raise ordinary children? I know, I know. Everyone says that marriage is the same as monasticism, just different. In practice, those who remain celibate are considered to be better in some way. Perhaps because of what St Paul said about celibacy being better, but if one doesn't have self control then one should get married? I don't know. But it has made me re-think the way I grew up. I thought the only normal life for a girl was to grow up and get married and have kids and live happily ever after. For some reason, that's not real life. I agree with St Paul now. Being celibate is definitely a better choice. Best to just work on that self control factor, instead of trying to get married. Or trying to have kids.

After all, no one is going to be getting married in heaven. Why should anyone get married now? Just get ready to live in heaven right now. No marriage. No having babies.

in Christ,
Mary.

PS - I would like to be enlightened - about the unselfish reason for having children. I do love my kids, and I can't imagine life without them. But I was only thinking of myself, not of them, when I wanted to have them.

[Jennie Lyndy]

This is no doubt true, but that does not mean that my approach is wrong. This is not a personal counseling session in which I can tailor what I say to each heart hearing me; it is a public debate on virtually permanent record with many, many people I cannot know at all. I have therefore chosen the approach that makes the most sense: to speak plainly and dispassionately about the teachings of the Fathers. If this unsettles some, then they need to be unsettled. At least once in their lives, they need to endure the truth plainly stated.



This is so much the modern way -- blame it all on the men so as not to offend the women. But that would be unbalanced and unfair. It took two to fall, and if you re-read my posts more carefully you will see that I have been very balanced. I have faulted just a few women for wanting to be deaconesses or readers, and I have blamed many pastors for not teaching the truth and for taking part in this error. I have furthermore placed feminism in the broader historical context of the Western world's anarchic rebellion going back 500 years, for which women could hardly be responsible. So the bias is not in what I have written but in your perception of it.



Women are so much now positively encouraged to do many things. Once in a while, we all need to be told what they should not do.

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

Thank you for your reply.

I gather that you feel your role here is to be a sort of balancing voice (in your view) to counteract all the other voices about women out there. I am assuming this based on your last sentence. I believe you are incorrect. Women ARE positively encouraged to do many things. Many things that you consider to be incorrect, so in your view they are not ACTUALLY being encouraged to greater holiness, but towards greater evil. My suggestion to you was not to simply discourage women from evil, but encourage them towards holiness and the good things that they SHOULD do and move into if economy is no longer necessary. And this is hardly an individual counseling issue.

You would also note, if you reread what I wrote, that I did not place all the blame on men. I addressed a disconnect that I see in your approach between your insistence on headship and the failure to call to repentance those who have failed in that headship BEFORE calling their subjects to repentance. I realize that you have stated that there are many male leaders in the Church who have failed to teach and uphold the truth, but the problem is not just limited to the teachers, but to those who have failed to step up into leadership and caused these places to remain empty so that women step up due to economy. You say you have been balanced, and yet the "air time" that you give to the male side of the issue is very disproportionate to the women's.

I did not say that women have no need to repent, but that there is an order of responsibility there that comes with leadership. I do not believe headship is just a figurehead role. It has real consequences and real responsibility. Women have a responsibility to God in how we follow that leadership and whether we submit, but a lack of good leadership is a very real stumbling block. Obviously God's grace can overcome any stumbling block and we have no excuse for not acquiring and using that grace, but it is a stumbling block.

I would also ask - What is it that women, regardless of whether they are wives, widows, never-marrieds, mothers or childless, bring to the Church that is unique from what men bring? Rather than just the absence of what men bring? I am interested in hearing your thoughts on this and the thoughts of the Fathers.

[Marianthy]

"But Mary kept all these things and pondered them in her heart." Luke 2:19

I just skimmed through this thread...as Paul and Herman duly noted, women do a lot for the church. At the end of Pascha i am exhausted!! I can honestly say it never crossed my mind otherwise.

Without taking this the wrong way dear brothers and sisters, and I mean it from the bottom of my heart, this forum confuses me sometimes. Just my 2 unworthy cents.

Marianthy

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

Historically, the special vocation of Christian women, outside the home, has been helping the needy. Thus we find in Canon 20 of the Arabic Canons of the Apostles:


Said James: How can we find for the women any ministry except this ministry only, that they should help the needy? [Horner, p. 244]

[Marie-Duquette]

Historically, the special vocation of Christian women, outside the home, has been helping the needy. Thus we find in Canon 20 of the Arabic Canons of the Apostles:

Dcn Patrick,

In relation to the Gospel of "Judgment Sunday" all followers of Christ, men as well as women are called to the feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, visit the sick and imprisoned, clothe the naked and accept the stranger. "As long as you did this to the least of my brethren you ddi this to me." Matt. 25: 35-40 These are the Works of Mercy for all, aren't they?

In relation the Gospel of Judgment Sunday, I wonder why, as you stated above, that this is to be the special vocation of Christian Women -- Canon 20 of the Arabic Canons of the Apostles.

Didn't Our Lord Jesus Christ speak this in the Parable for all His followers? So why would James (which James?) single out women for this ministry?

I haven't read your book, so this seems to be from a very old school of thought, not specifically from the Gospel of Matthew.

In Christ Jesus Our Lord,

marie-duquette

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

I haven't read your book, so this seems to be from a very old school of thought, not specifically from the Gospel of Matthew.

Dear Marie-Duquette,

My apologies for not being hip enough for you. I do prefer very old schools of thought such as one finds in Holy Scriptures and the Fathers.

As you will see in my earlier posts, I have already said that there is no exclusively female vocation except being a wife and mother. That apparently does not appeal to some women in this discussion, so they have demanded that I name others ways they can serve the Lord as women. I would think that the other ways would be obvious, and I suspect they are just baiting me for further attacks, for nothing I say satisfies them, even though I am just repeating the Fathers.

If you have a problem with Canon 20, please take it up in prayer with the Apostles.

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

[Eric Peterson]

Not all men, incidentally, are called to or even can serve in various liturgical capacities in the Church or leadership capacities in or outside the Church. When someone says, "only men can do X," this does not mean that just any man can do it. One needs the proper qualifications and the blessing. A man who has some sort of physical or mental deformity, for example, cannot be ordained. There are reasons for this. Our modern egalitarianism would call this "unfair." But it would be wrong of us to accuse God or the Holy Fathers of being unfair. God offers His salvation to everyone, men and women, the healthy and the unhealthy, the righteous and the sinners. However, God has created distinctions, allowed for infirmities, patiently borne sins, and given commandments. And still people are myopic and think that if a position is not open to them or if they can't do something, there simply isn't anything for them to do. This is not a very intelligent course of thought, given that we have countless examples of how people who could not do certain things for whatever reason went on to do great things, to the point that they were honored by God and venerated by the Church.

[Andreas Moran]

Hymnography to the Mother of God

The hymnography of the Orthodox Church exists to give form to the services, convey the truth of our faith and to instruct, exhort and inspire the faithful. Hymnography is part of the Holy Tradition of the Church in the same was as icons for example. In relation to the Mother of God, hymnography is particularly rich in allegory, often based on the OT. One thinks of those hymns which call her ‘Ladder’, ‘Ark’, and ‘Burning Bush’. This typology treats OT texts as foreshadowing the Mother of God in much the same way as Christ is foreshadowed by OT prophecies. The hymns to the Mother of God are thus entirely biblical in their exegetical purpose. The hymns to the Mother of God throughout the liturgical year make one whole so that the hymns attain their fullness of meaning when viewed in context. The language used, which is poetic in style, has been understood for nearly two millennia as conveying theological truths which set veneration of the Mother of God within the Church’s Christological doctrine. Truths can be expressed by poetic devices. The hymns are built on the Orthodox faith. Hymns, furthermore, serve the same mystical purpose as icons; as they are windows into heaven, so the hymns of the Church, often divinely inspired, as in the case of St Romanus the Melodist, link the angels and saints in heaven with the faithful on earth.

The Mother of God, however, is above all creation, higher than the angels and all the saints, ‘holy and more than holy, of an immaculate purity, greater than that of humans of all generations’; she is the Queen of saints, ‘sovereign, queen, lady and Mother of all the saints [who are] her servants’ (St Symeon the New Theologian). She receives veneration from the angels and saints, including the chief of them. ‘According to St. John of Damascus, ‘The name of the Mother of God (Theotokos) contains the whole history of the divine economy in the world’’; Mary is the hypostasis of the Church: ‘the very heart of the Church, one of her most secret mysteries, her mystical centre, her perfection already realised in a human person fully united to God, finding herself beyond resurrection and the judgment. This person is Mary, the Mother of God’ (Vladimir Lossky).

This does not, of course, mean that the hymns ascribe anything to the Mother of God which is only ascribable to God. The hymns of the Church teach about the Mother of God ‘that which Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture have informed concerning her, and daily it glorifies her in its temples, asking her help and defense . . . She stands and will stand, both in the day of the Last Judgment and in the future age, at the right hand of the throne of her Son. She reigns with Him and has boldness towards Him as His mother . . . [She] ‘as the Intercessor of the Christian race sees every tear, hears every groan and entreaty directed to her . . . She is an irreplaceable helper . . . saving the world by her intercessions . . . There is no intellect of words to express the greatness of her who was born in the sinful human race but became more honourable than the cherubim and past compare more glorious than the seraphim . . . “Every tongue is at a loss to praise thee as is due” ‘(St John Maximovich).

The Church asserts all these things as true of the Mother of God. The hymns are the Church’s expressions of all these things. ‘Truth is foreign to all overstatements’ (wrote St Ignatius Brianchaninov) and so it cannot be the case that anything in the Church’s hymnography is overstated or exaggerated. To say so is to say that the saintly hymnographers of the Church did not deal entirely in the truth.

Elder Cleopa is one of the great elders of our times. An inquirer puts a question which he answers:

Inq: Many places are found in Scripture that testify to the fact that Christians don’t have more than one mediator for their salvation, Jesus Christ. And yet, we appeal to the Mother of the lord, saying: “We have no other hope besides thee” and “Most holy Theotokos, save us”. According to some this is a great error . . .

EC: When we turn to the Mother of the Lord with the expression “we have no other hope besides thee”, what are we deprived of? With this we do not deny the uniqueness of Christ as mediator of our objective salvation, yet neither are we indifferent to the rendering of any sort of help to our personal salvation. The meaning of this expression is as follows: “You can give us the most help for our personal salvation” or “another, superior helper we cannot find, nor in one of the saints.” Or, “We have none other who is able to help us as much as you, O Mother of the Saviour”. The Elder clearly does not see such an expression as erroneous.

The role of women

Women in the Orthodox Church
Brief Comments from a Spiritual Perspective by Archimandrite [now Archbishop] Chrysostomos

Anyone reading the sublime words of the Orthodox Church Fathers is immediately struck with a number of overwhelming impressions. First, there emanates from their words a certain sense, by which all that is written seems intuitively true—as though some inner cord were struck in the reader, resounding harmonically with the tone of what the Fathers have written. Then, the more one reads of the Fathers, the more one feels, despite notable differences in their writing styles, modes of expression, and subjects of attention, that they are making one single statement, saying the same thing; although the content of that statement be elusive and more warm the heart than stimulate the mere intellect. And finally, though at times there is apparent hyperbole (an impression that comes to us because we are too often cold to the impulse of holy zeal), and though one cannot find in the Fathers the lack of commitment and detachment from moral absolutes which we today so wrongly call "objectivity," the Fathers reveal a sense of moderation; they convey, amid their concerns for pure truth and undiluted veracity, a knowledge which is neither to the "right" nor to the "left," which is perfectly balanced by that mystical and universal equilibrium which is truth itself.

It is precisely these characteristics of the patristic writings which define that subtle cornerstone of Orthodox life: spirituality. Transferred from written word to personal life, they describe the holy person. Raised from image to experience, they portray the inner life of every Christian. The Fathers shared, in every way, the fullness of the Orthodox life, and it is this completeness which permeates their writings. They express the experience to which each of us is called, and inwardly we see this, if we are attentive and moderate in our own views. It is this spirituality, alas, that is absent in the discussion of the role of women in the Orthodox Church today. So, the discussion has become extreme (immoderate), secular, and worldly—detached from the inner life and spiritual experience. There have developed opposition parties, diametrically opposed views, warring factions, and intemperate antagonists, the latter expressing profound, spiritual issues in the arena of counter-spiritual emotions and dispositions.

Let us look at the general reaction among Orthodox thinkers to the modern discussion of the role of women in the Church. On the one hand, we have the very "traditional" view, expressing a conservative attitude toward the social role of women in general. I have often read of, and heard expressed, images of women that are in almost total concord with the old German expression, "Kinder und Kuche"—women are essentially for child-bearing and for cooking. In Greek we think of the notion of "oikokyrosyne," the woman of the house." It is argued, from this point of view, that women have an essential "nature" such that they appropriately belong to the home. The things of the home are fundamentally and somehow appropriately suited to the female gender. One senses, in the more extreme advocates of this view, the notion that the social roles of females are perhaps dogmatic, that women are universally relegated, by a God-given command, to the home and its concerns.
On the other hand, we find ample evidence, in all of the media in American society, that women are willing to sacrifice every notion of their separate and unique identity in order to break the bonds of the presumably man-made social roles which constrain them in their actions and behaviors. It is not unusual for women to deny even their physiological distinctions from the male and to advocate the most extreme form of "sexual equality." In the frenzy of this denial process, they paradoxically often claim for themselves the right to the same abusive characteristics which men have ostensibly exhibited in exercising their prejudicial authority over women. And often, from the psychological standpoint, the intemperance of these women leads them to crises in sexual identity, further resulting in behavior of such an abominable kind that it bears little protracted comment.

In lecturing at several Orthodox parishes, I have been shocked at times (and, needless to say, saddened) at the growing popularity of extremist feminist views among Orthodox women. I have actually heard St. Paul, in view of his statements regarding the role of women in the Church, described in modern rhetorical terms that no casual, let alone pious, Orthodox Christian would ever have used in times past. I have been asked quite bluntly by some of these same women how I could feel that I was somehow worthy of the priesthood and yet had the audacity to support the notion that women are unworthy. Is this not, I have been asked, an arrogance inappropriate to the humility of the priesthood? In yet another instance, a woman declared to me that, as a human being and as a Christian, she had every right to the priesthood. She referred to the Holy Fathers of the Church (who, contrary to her mistaken thought, include the Holy Mothers of Orthodoxy) as a band of "male chauvinists" who had tried to maintain the power of their offices by the constant denigration of women! (If I offend the reader with the repetition of these sentiments, it is a necessary evil. The true Christian apologist must be aware, however painful the facts, of the content and of the gravity of what he intends to combat.)

Indeed, both of these arguments regarding women are faulty. In the first place, there is nothing at all truly "traditional" about assigning a certain "nature" to women. True it is, many of the great ascetic Fathers warn monks about the wiles of Eve that exist in the female character, but the counterpart of this is the submission of the male counterpart of Adam in sinning monks. Yet in no sense do we attribute to males a certain "nature," as such, which defines their social roles. Indeed, these images are meant for male and female monastics and are, rather than statements of blame for this or that sin or temptation against one or another of the sexes, practical advice in the pursuit of the angelic life which, after all, transcends human "nature." In addition, when we, as Orthodox, speak of fallen men and women, we speak, as compared to the heterodox Westerners, in relative terms. From St. Maximos the Confessor to St. Seraphim of Sarov, the Fathers of the Church have emphasized that, while we are spotted by the ancestral sin (by the ancestral curse, etc.), we have never lost the divine image. Were this not so, St. Seraphim argues, what of the great and divine Prophets? From whence their holiness? It is Christ Who restored us (potentially) to our full and true natures. He fulfilled what lingered within us, what enlightens every man coming into the world. As for the fallen "nature," it is not a fixed, universal characteristic of man. It is typical of his fallen state.

The very message of Orthodoxy, then, is that men and and women are called away from the erroneous "natures" which they have taken to themselves, away from the labor and pain, to deification, to union with God, through the grace of Christ. The very task of the Church in the world is to preserve this notion of salvation, to protect the vessel in which rests this great and sacred potential. If, then, the Church exalts the woman as child-bearer, it is to lift her nature, to emphasize her unique social role. But should she choose to be called to the higher "nature" Of holiness, the Holy Church even more greatly honors her. In that higher calling, she gives birth to Christ, as did the Blessed Theotokos, bearing "asomatos" ("in an unbodily way"), as St. Maximos says, God within her. And this potential is not that of women alone, but of men, too. The spiritual child-bearing of the human is a male and female role.

Thus it is that we must not speak too boldly about women in society. If "Kinder und Kuche" are our banner words, we discredit those holy women who surpassed human nature. We dishonor the Holy Mothers and women saints of the Church. We impose on women a role which must never be overemphasized or placed above the higher spiritual calling of man and women. Moreover, in a certain sense we fail to understand that the worldly role of women in the Orthodox Church, as evidenced by the Byzantine empresses who stand as saints in the Holy Church, is not dogmatized and fixed. There are, as always, exceptions, paradoxes, and unique circumstances which a rigid view can never capture. Indeed, the liberty to fulfill the role to which God calls us must never be compromised by those roles which we preserve as salutary for the correct ordering of society.

Our goals together, as Orthodox men and women, are to make society, as much as possible, an image of the divine. To do this, the family must be sacrosanct and the parents must fulfill the roles necessary to the preservation of social order. But this means that men and women must be caretakers in the home together, that they must be what they are because a greater goal than fulfilling social roles or would-be "natures" calls them. This is not the denigration of the man or woman, but the calling of each to serve ultimately spiritual goals. And if these roles are violated and the spiritual welfare of the family and the children are compromised, then we can speak of duty and assigned responsibilities. (And so St. Paul chastises the women of the Church when they introduce disorder into its life. Thus he tells women to be obedient to their husbands, if they disturb the spiritual welfare of the family. But these chastisements are as much for males who violate these rules of order as they are for women. The question is one of practical living, not one of "natures" and so on.) But this is the lower life; in the higher life, there are neither men nor women nor the obedient and disobedient. Rather, one provokes not the other, as with parents and children, and harmony is born.

We run the risk, if we become rigid in our views of social order, of ruling out the inner fulfillment which makes a mother what she is and a father what he is. Things done in fulfillment of the laws are dead; those done in spirit are enlivening and vivifying. We must not build an Orthodoxy of prescriptions and proscriptions, but an Orthodoxy in which God expresses through us the Kingdom of Heaven and in which that which is worldly reaches up to its more heavenly image. Each of us is chastised by the famous Amma in the desert who hastened to inform a monk (who had crossed to the other side of the road when she and her disciples passed) that had he been a perfect monk, he would not have known that they were women. If we live our Orthodoxy appropriately, we need not define with rigidity the nature of our relationships, men and women, to one another. We will live within that perfect peace by which each knows his role, not out of the imposition of another's will, but out of humility before God. And in this humility, how dare any man think that he is above a woman or a woman above a man, anymore than a priest might think himself, superior to the royal priesthood of the people whom he serves.

As regards the so-called "feminist" position (of which we hear so much today), there are certain issues on which the Orthodox Christian (if not, perhaps, the rational individual) cannot yield. We do affirm and recognize an order, meaning, and functional differentiation in created things. Thus our Faith teaches us that the female is endowed by God with certain characteristics and tendencies that differ from those of men. (And this, rather than detracting from her, elevates her as part of the divine scheme. By no means does this teaching suggest. or tolerate the relegating of women to some lowly status.) Moreover, our intellects and senses teach us that women and men differ. We border on the insane (not an unusual thing in these bizarre times) if we deny the biological roles of men and women in procreation. These roles are verified by the external, physical distinctions of gender. And even the most radical psychological portrayals of men and women readily admit to fundamental differences between the sexes in cognitive style and mental functioning. (Paradoxically enough, it is part of the feminist movement itself that psychological profiles and categories standardized on males are not appropriate in the assessment of female behavior.)

Again, however, these rudimentary statements cannot be overstated. They "characterize" a role; they do not dogmatize it. They have reference to the redeemed individual and should not necessarily be applied to the human in his fallen state. And it is here where both extremes regarding the image of women go similarly astray. On the one hand, the fallen "nature" of the woman is assigned to her by the would-be traditionalist as the character of her entire being, forgetting the divine image of the female. On the other hand, the feminist position overemphasizes the divine image of the female, thereby wishing to free its proponents of the necessity of conquering human "nature"—a task, as we have repeatedly stated, that belongs to man and woman alike. It is, then, aside from the blasphemy of extreme rhetoric, foolish to speak of St. Paul's view of women. He speaks from practical experience of the weaknesses of the female—the counterparts of which can be found in men (imagine the reaction of the Cretans, both men and women, to the blessed Apostle's statements regarding that people). He also speaks of the spiritual nature of women. If we make no distinction regarding the spiritual and fallen natures of women, we simply fail to understand St. Paul in an intelligent way. We come to extreme views.

Something must be said, now, of the way in which we should learn to understand the words of St. Paul. We must approach them with spiritual sobriety, asking that the power within the words (en to logo, within the word itself) reveal their ultimate truth. Otherwise, we become students of the Bible, joining those unwise and foolish Orthodox who wildly rush to analyze and, thereby, distort the meaning of Scripture by making the mere words understandable to their intellects. If we properly understand Biblical exegesis in the Church, we know that the modern "Bible study" is, quite simply, "un-Orthodox." For us to glean notions and images of women, then, from Biblical statements is fruitless and not within the Church's Tradition. If we fulfill the Orthodox life (with fasting, prescribed prayers, services, and the pursuit of humility), the icon of the words of Scripture will be revealed to us and its grace will flood our minds. We will know, noetically and mystically, precisely what St. Paul wrote and what he meant, for his words will be our own, joined to us in our common source in Christ.

We cannot, here, overstate the absolute necessity of understanding how we are to read Scripture—for the improper reading of St. Paul has led both to the errors on the "right" and those on the "left" in the assessment of women in the Orthodox Church. The late Protopresbyter Georges Florovsky has left us some keen insights into the nature of Scripture in the Church. In so many ways, he hearkens repeatedly back to St. Irenaeus' vision of Scripture. St. Irenaeus, in his well-known dissertation against a certain heretical sect, compares the person who uses his intellect to understand Scripture to an artist, who wrongly uses stones to create a mosaic portrait of a dog, when in fact the components of the mosaic might rightfully create the portrait of a king. In short, the final portrait depends on the vision of the artist when he begins his project. If he knows that it is a king that he is to portray, he does so. If he does not, he might neatly fit the stones together and create a hideous image. And so, one who attempts to understand Scripture without first being enlightened by the very content and spirit of Scripture itself (envisioning it as the perfect icon of theological grace), will likely hideously distort what Scripture means.

In a more specific sense, St. Paul argues for the proper ordering of the Church in his statements regarding women. And, as we often fail to recognize, he makes distinctions between function and nature. Anyone schooled and experienced in the subtle paradox of spiritual life recognizes this sense in St. Paul. Not to recognize it leads to overstatements that yield either a non-Orthodox view of the spiritual potential of women or a wholly secular reaction against spirituality that dooms one to eternal ruination.

To speak to the issue of women in the priesthood is to recognize that on this issue, too, extreme voices have distorted the truth. Let us return to the moderation of what the Fathers teach us. No man, St. John Chrysostom tells us, is worthy of the priesthood (and here we mean "men" as males and females). Yet for the functioning of the Church, we have a priesthood. It is, therefore, not a "right" which one holds, but a burden which one takes upon himself with the greatest fear and trembling—the archpriesthood epitomizing this deep fear in the human soul. Somewhere in the moderation between knowing oneself unworthy of the priesthood and trembling before the fact of its reality, the priest exists. If he moves away from this delicate understanding, he imperils his soul. Enough, then, of any person, be he man or woman, claiming .1 rights" to the priesthood. This is spiritual folly and a total misunderstanding of the visible manifestation of Christ's Church. It is foolishness inviting internal death.

It follows that in the early Church, the priesthood should have been restricted in every possible way. It is a fact that we received some traditions from the Jews, and that the Jewish priesthood was male. The Church is real, existing in reality, expressing the life of real people. It should not be strange, therefore, if we see the priesthood restricted to males. And yet, the Church manifested its supra-historical nature to us. Females, too, within the limits of the great regard the Church showed toward the priesthood, shared in priestly grace. Have we forgotten, perhaps, that the diaconate has been held by females, that social order, Church law, and human nature" at times yield to the spiritual? We have forgotten. We have so formalized the priesthood, so "Westernized" our understanding of it, that we have somehow reduced the grace and magnificence of the diaconate to a secondary position. We have come to think of the deacon and deaconess as "half-priests," as though ordination could be measured and quantified in terms of the "amount" of grace bestowed. Who dares to assign greater grace to St. John Chrysostom (a patriarch) than to St. Stephen the First Deacon and Martyr? Where does one find a sober Father speaking in such terms? Woe to us Orthodox if we forget that even in the priesthood, in a subtle way, the spiritual role of the female and male made one in Christ triumphs.

Do we, as Orthodox, finally, deny the ministry to women? No! Nor do we guarantee it to men. Nor do we minutely define it, as though it were under the microscope of the scientist. Nor do we violate its beauty by reducing it to a mere position or role. It is much more. And what it is no man can claim with worthiness and no woman can claim by right. It is held by God's mercy and fails to burn and consume the unworthy holder, only because he is "girt with the grace of the priesthood." This economy, this mercy, is extended to males and females, in the most technical sense, and to speak of the male or female character of the priesthood is to misunderstand this extension and to distort and change the nature of the priesthood. Any true servant, be he archpriest, presbyter, deacon, or deaconess, stands where he is precisely because he is neither man nor woman and precisely because God has granted him the grace to set aside his own, sinful nature in this one instance. Understanding this, the issue of the priesthood transcends social roles. It is wrong to speak of it in such a context. The priesthood, ministry to the people, and service in the Church do not belong to the realm of sexual distinction, declarations of differing natures, or human prattle. Their focus is eternal, spiritual, and noumenal. They are the wards of a dimension where extremes do not exist, where all truth is witnessed in the royal way, in the mystical truth encompassed only by moderation.

Moderation in thought and attitudes manifests itself to us also in flesh and blood, so that we can see in sober Orthodox men and women exactly what is wrong with our present intemperate thinking about men and women in "roles" dictated by their "natures." Where, indeed, are such thoughts in the tear-evoking sweetness of the encounter of the Elder Zossima with our wondrous Mother, Saint Mary of Egypt? Can one imagine the holy elder saying to himself, "Being a priest, I shall bless -this saint, for I am, by nature, worthy of that which she, by nature, is not"? God forbid! Rather, the holy elder fell before our beloved Mother and asked that she bless him. And could it be that the wondrous woman among God's saints said to herself, I will bless this man, since he, indeed, must know that I have a right to the priesthood"? Indeed, no. Which of us can forego tears thinking of what truly happened? Falling prostrate before the holy elder, St. Mary begged his forgiveness, the two remaining for some time thus prostrated before one another, each saying, "Eulogeite," or "Bless." As we all know, the Holy Mother, deferring to Father Zossima's priesthood, wished his blessing. And what a lesson to learn from the result. She cried out, "Blessed is our God, who watches over the salvation of souls and people." And the holy elder responded, "Amen."
Shame, hence, to each of us who proclaims either the man or the woman superior, or pretends to know the proper role and nature of each. This is arrogance , immoderation, intellectual pomposity, and the usurpation of judgments which only God can make. In true spirituality, distinctions, both formal and informal, disappear. This is not to say that we should, in any way, allow our social responsibilities to go unheeded in the name of human freedom and illusory, worldly liberty. Certainly we must not in any sense feel akin to movements which threaten social and spiritual order. But neither should we decide that there are clear offices and stations in life which, gleaned from an improper understanding of the spiritual world, absolutely fix the role of any person, whether Lord or serf, freeman or slave, man or woman. We live between the two antipodes of our future existence: separation from God, the fruit of our mortal way, and union with God, the fruit of the spiritual way—between Hell and Heaven. We must correctly envision ourselves in this middle state, reflecting as it does. our notions of men and women. If we are too extreme in the mortal sense, we lower the image of God in man. If we are too extreme in the spiritual sense, we suffer from the delusion of aspiring to what we are without proper transformation of our fallen selves.

In some ways, perhaps, I have been immoderate in my statements about women in the Orthodox Church. Certainly this must be so, for I, more than the reader, know that the sublime beauty of the moderation of the words of the Holy Fathers is not to be found in my own words. But if I have erred, it is error, not in my counsel, but in the manner in which I have expressed some ideas. And if I can be rightfully condemned for counseling temperance, I have done so with immoderation. This forgiveness I ask of the reader.

From Orthodox Life, Vol. 31, No. 1 (Jan-Feb, 1981), pp. 34-41.

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

In the first section, please note, Andreas, the words "poetic in style" and "poetic devices." Hyperbole is a poetic device. I cannot therefore be faulted for showing that hyperbole exists in hymns and prayers of the Church addressed to the Theotokos, which are not to be taken too literally.

In the second section, I find nothing to complain of, except that the Church has in fact dogmatized certain limits on the role of women, which limits we have already recognized: Women may not be bishops, priests, deacons, or readers, if we take Canon 70 of the Sixth to heart. The Church has also dogmatized that the man is the head of the woman, as St. Paul says, and this should guide our definition of gender roles in every age and every circumstance. As Chrysostom says:


"Let us take as our fundamental position then, that the man occupies the place of the 'head,' and the woman the place of the 'body.'" [Homily 20 on Ephesians]

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

[Andreas Moran]

Hyperbole means exaggeration - the dictionaries say so. Exaggeration is the same as overstatement. Read what St Ignatius Brianchaninov wrote. So, yes, you are at fault in asserting that the hymns in question are hyperbolic.

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

Andreas,

I should like to know the source and context of Brianchaninov's statement. There isn't much given here.

I should also like to know who wrote that section of your post.

Contrary to what the author says, it plainly is the case that the Church’s hymnography is sometimes overstated or exaggerated and must not be taken literally.

Dn. Patrick

[Fr Michael Monos]

I agree wholeheartedly with Fr. David's comment. It really is not as simple as that. And regarding "a layman" "faced with telling his priest what the apostolic tradition is" because he perceives some deviation in the 'exact practice' regarding this particular issue, is the greater virtue in opening his mouth or keeping it closed?

And what in the world does this statement mean, "I cannot therefore be faulted for showing that hyperbole exists in hymns and prayers of the Church addressed to the Theotokos, which are not to be taken too literally."

[Olga]

Fr Patrick, you wrote:



The Church has also dogmatized that the man is the head of the woman, as St. Paul says, and this should guide our definition of gender roles in every age and every circumstance.


Every age and every circumstance? During the seventy years of Soviet rule and its attempt to destroy the Orthodox Church, who were the ones who ensured the books were stashed, the icons were hidden, the babies were baptised, the faith was taught and promoted, at fearsome danger to themselves, their families and communities? Who were they? Overwhelmingly, the mami and babushki, those dogged, indomitable women who ensured the survival of the Church and the faith. These gutsy women were the descendants of the women who stood at the foot of the Cross, where all but one of the male disciples, including Peter, had fled. Do not insult their memory, Fr Patrick, nor their efforts, by your assertion of "this should guide our definition of gender roles in every age and every circumstance". Many of us know such women, and have heard their stories. May we all be humbled by their sterling efforts.

[Marie-Duquette]

Dear Marie-Duquette,

My apologies for not being hip enough for you. I do prefer very old schools of thought such as one finds in Holy Scriptures and the Fathers.

As you will see in my earlier posts, I have already said that there is no exclusively female vocation except being a wife and mother. That apparently does not appeal to some women in this discussion, so they have demanded that I name others ways they can serve the Lord as women. I would think that the other ways would be obvious, and I suspect they are just baiting me for further attacks, for nothing I say satisfies them, even though I am just repeating the Fathers.

If you have a problem with Canon 20, please take it up in prayer with the Apostles.

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

Dcn Patrick

The appellation "not hip enough for you" is the label you give to yourself. I am neutral as to how you see yourself. I simply made a point in my previous post concerning the Gospel of Matthew which was read on Judgment Sunday; and that Christ Jesus in the Parable addresses all of His followers in reference to the Judgment; not only women are called to the accomplishment of the "Works of Mercy."

Concerning Canon 20, I searched quite a bit and found nothing concerning Canon 20 in relation to the role of women in the Early Church. I will continue to search, as well as I can at present.Perhaps you could point out to me where I can find Canon 20 that you are referring to above.
I found nothing in the Arabic Canons of the Apostles, either.

There has been, in my humble, restricted knowledge always a vocational place in the Church for women who desire/or are called to the state of Virginity/celibacy/monasticism. So, there are not only two choices: wife and mother, for women when facing a life's vocation in the Church. St Paul does state this in Chapter 7 of 1 Corinthians.

marie-duquette

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Father Deacon Patrick,

I hope that I might be able to share some thoughts on this subject that may be of some help for us.

It might be helpful for us to remember well the source of the hymns of the Church, the deposit of the faith as Andreas has conveyed. These are not the fruits of intellectualism, rather they are the results of prayer and asceticism that the Church conveys.

When you say:


"Contrary to what the author says, it plainly is the case that the Church’s hymnography is sometimes overstated or exaggerated and must not be taken literally."

Much of this depends on where the person is, Saints spending years of repentance in the desert without pillows on the bed and the air conditioners on high as we often experience. As such we might look at it in terms of the humility of the saints, as much as this is possible for us. Within the text we might also most importantly see the extreme humility of Christ. What we may find is what we are supposed to pursue. It is said that Saint Mary of Egypt literally turned her gaze to the Theotokas almost from the outset of her repentance. So we might ask why this was so? The text provides for us the response.

I think that perhaps turning our gaze to the examples of the many Saints who often co-authored what might be seen as hyperbole since we are often not aware of our sinfulness as often is very helpful. All of us can see it in such a way and often do should we give much preference to our own ways of thinking. As you know, there is no doubt that the Saints are humble, as such if we can humble ourselves intellectually or most important in spirit somewhat we may participate in how they see things. For example see Abba Zosimas turning to the East in prayer after his intellectual hopes came up short even after having waled for 20 days.

If we look at the reciprocity in the dialog between Saint Mary of Egypt and Abba Zosimas we can see and hear much.
Saint Mary to Abba Zosimas, Why did you wish, Abba Zosimas, to see a sinful woman? What do you wish to hear or learn from me, you who have not shrunk from such great struggles?""

Zosimas threw himself on the ground and asked for her blessing. She likewise bowed down before him. And thus they lay on the ground prostrate asking for each other's blessing. And one word alone could be heard from both: "Bless me!"

The Church helps all of us along in such ways, God forgives. What the Church and the faith convey to us really is not hyperbole at all but rather often the fruits of extreme asceticism even to the point of crucified minds where thoughts that are known to be dismissed for the sake of the kingdom of heaven are dismissed. Saint Mary wrestling with wild beasts etc. What I mean by this is if we study the lives of the Saints knowing that we are often sinful (even in how we think often) these hymns that can be seen as exaggerations are not exaggerations at all, they are reality since the ways of delusions are well known to them from experiences. When Saint Mary of Egypt for example (and there are many, so many more) began her journey in repentance the Orthodox tradition conveys to us that she having led a life that was sinful and not pleasing to God, literally found help only by turning to the Mother of God. Christ is also usually seen in the icons of the Theotokas, yet when she prayed in front of the icon she turned to the Theotokas for help not finding herself even worthy to turn to Christ, in other words with much humility after not being allowed to even enter the Church and knowing her state.

If we read the text we can see how Saint Mary saw the Mother of God, "But I have heard that God Who was born of thee became man on purpose to call sinners to repentance. Then help me, for I have no other help." Literally she had no other help according to her testimony, no pious overstatement there in her situation that led to her ultimate glorification by the Church. The Church rightly and very accurately conveys how she came to Christ, by offering to Christ the Theotokas as a merciful intercessor.

"Having escaped the fog of sin, and having illumined thy heart with the light of penitence, O glorious one, thou didst come to Christ and didst offer to Him His immaculate and holy Mother as a merciful intercessor. Hence thou hast found remission for transgressions, and with the angels thou ever rejoicest."

In the account of her life we can read:

The holy day of the Exaltation of the Cross dawned while I was still flying about -- hunting for youths. At daybreak I saw that everyone was hurrying to the church, so I ran with the rest. When the hour for the holy elevation approached, I was trying to make my way in with the crowd which was struggling to get through the church doors. I had at last squeezed through with great difficulty almost to the entrance of the temple, from which the lifegiving Tree of the Cross was being shown to the people. But when I trod on the doorstep which everyone passed, I was stopped by some force which prevented my entering. Meanwhile I was brushed aside by the crowd and found myself standing alone in the porch. Thinking that this had happened because of my woman's weakness, I again began to work my way into the crowd, trying to elbow myself forward. But in vain I struggled. Again my feet trod on the doorstep over which others were entering the church without encountering any obstacle. I alone seemed to remain unaccepted by the church. It was as if there was a detachment of soldiers standing there to oppose my entrance. Once again I was excluded by the same mighty force and again I stood in the porch.
Having repeated my attempt three or four times, at last I felt exhausted and had no more strength to push and to be pushed, so I went aside and stood in a corner of the porch. And only then with great difficulty it began to dawn on me, and I began to understand the reason why I was prevented from being admitted to see the life-giving Cross. The word of salvation gently touched the eyes of my heart and revealed to me that it was my unclean life which barred the entrance to me. I began to weep and lament and beat my breast, and to sigh from the depths of my heart. And so I stood weeping when I saw above me the ikon of the most holy Mother of God. And turning to her my bodily and spiritual eyes I said:

`O Lady, Mother of God, who gave birth in the flesh to God the Word, I know, O how well I know, that it is no honour or praise to thee when one so impure and depraved as I look up to thy ikon, O ever-virgin, who didst keep thy body and soul in purity. Rightly do I inspire hatred and disgust before thy virginal purity. But I have heard that God Who was born of thee became man on purpose to call sinners to repentance. Then help me, for I have no other help. Order the entrance of the church to be opened to me. Allow me to see the venerable Tree on which He Who was born of thee suffered in the flesh and on which He shed His holy Blood for the redemption of sinners and for me, unworthy as I am. Be my faithful witness before thy Son that I will never again defile my body by the impurity of fornication, but as soon as I have seen the Tree of the Cross I will renounce the world and its temptations and will go wherever thou wilt lead me.'

We can see that for Saint Mary of Egypt she found in the Theotokas "no other help but thee, no other intercessor, no gracious consoler but thee". That was the will of God and her life of repentence is blessed gift and expample for all of us. People have turned to her for her blessed intercessions before the Theotokas and our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. In this we can see that traditionally dogma is not separated or categorized away from praxis, ultimately the dogma that Saint Mary of Egypt encountered she expressed most succinctly when she said, "Blessed is God Who cares for the salvation of men and their souls."

The good news is men and women are called to be Saints ,to the glory of God. The faith and the Church teaches us that such things are absolutely wonderful in our eyes. That, it seems, is something for all of us to rejoice about and nobody can take that away. I do now find myself wondering how often we give that away . Recently a Priest gave a wonderful homily in it he mentioned: "We need to keep our eyes on the prize. The Psalmist puts it like this, "set your face like flint towards Jerusalem." In other words, whatever happens, don't let it become a distraction. Keep moving in the right direction. Head down, eyes center. Keep to the middle of the road and keep going no matter what!"

Here is a link to the text that is often encountered in the Church in the near future.

http://www.monachos.net/content/patristics/patristictexts/182-life-of-mary

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

For Fr. Michael and anyone just joining us without carefully reading the preceding pages, I offer this brief account of one issue at hand, that of hyperbole.

We began with a question about whether women should read the Epistle, and after much discussion and many citations from the Fathers to the contrary, plus further discussion of appropriate roles for women, Eric Peterson dragged in the Theotokos to argue against male headship:


the Mother of God herself was also a leader. An anecdote I heard talks about the Apostles asking what should be done with her--should she be made a priest or bishop? And she told them, no, only men will be priest. Yet she is depicted with an omophorion and cuffs, is called the Champion Leader, and has great authority, for she was consulted by the Apostles.

In my reply, I wrote:


I have not heard or seen the things you say about the Theotokos and therefore must ask you to substantiate your claims. You need not substantiate the exaggerated praise heaped on her by the Church, but you do need to recognize such praise as hyperbole and not as dogma regarding the mystery of gender.

Sometime later, the Rdr. Andreas Moran wrote:


I have not before heard the Church's praise of the Theotokos described as exaggerated and hyperbolic. According to my dictionary, these terms indicate statements in excess of the truth. As Olga often so usefully reminds us, the Church's hymnography teaches us dogma. Accordingly, I am left wondering which parts of the Church's Marian hymnography exceeds the truth and is not dogmatic about her.

In response to which, I provided this prayer from an akathist for Kursk Root Icon:


My most gracious Queen, my hope, Mother of God, shelter of orphans, and intercessor of travelers, stangers and pilgrims, joy of those in sorrow, protectress of the wronged, see my distress, see my affliction! Help me, for I am helpless. Feed me, for I am a stranger and pilgrim. Thou knowest my offense; forgive and resolve it as thou wilt. For I know no other help but thee, no other intercessor, no gracious consoler but thee, O Mother of God, to guard and protect me throughout the ages. Amen.

Andreas then insisted that there is nothing at all hyperbolic about this prayer and took great umbrage that I would think the apparently unthinkable.

Matthew Panchisin now informs us that the wording of the prayer may come from the life of St. Mary of Egypt. Very well, but the question now is, if St. Mary of Egypt felt that only the Theotokos could save her, is that literally true for all of us? Is the Theotokos truly the one to forgive and absolve our sins, as the prayer says? Is she truly our only help, our only intercessor, our only consoler? Is she our only guard and protector throughout the ages?

Furthermore, do we really have to insist that the Orthodox must answer yes to each question, denying anything hyperbolic about them, in order to maintain a thoroughly Orthodox understanding of our salvation?

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

[Andreas Moran]

Dcn. Patrick,

The first part of my long post is based on the writings of St Symeon the New Theologian, Vladimir Lossky, St John Maximovich, and Elder Cleopa. I insist only that the testimony of saints and elders is true. It is not me you contradict but them. The quotation from St Ignatius Brianchaninov is taken from the treatise on the Mother of God by St John Maximovich. You dogmatically insist that your error is right and wilfully refuse to consider that you may be wrong even in the face of the sayings of the saints. What you say is 'plainly the case' is clear to no one but you and is contrary to what is taught by these saintly teachers of the Orthodox Church. No one here supports what you say - doesn't that tell you something?

[Fr Michael Monos]

Dear Dn. Patrick,

You have an unhappy tendency to respond in an (I hope unintentionally) boorish manner. I read the thread, I disagreed with your comments -- in particular those I quoted. Now that you have restated them, I can say I still disagree with them.


My most gracious Queen, my hope, Mother of God, shelter of orphans, and intercessor of travelers, stangers and pilgrims, joy of those in sorrow, protectress of the wronged, see my distress, see my affliction! Help me, for I am helpless. Feed me, for I am a stranger and pilgrim. Thou knowest my offense; forgive and resolve it as thou wilt. For I know no other help but thee, no other intercessor, no gracious consoler but thee, O Mother of God, to guard and protect me throughout the ages. Amen.


1. I see nothing questionable about the quote which is apparently attributed to an Akathist to the Kursk Root Icon.

2. I do not believe anyone familiar with the Life of St. Mary of Egypt could doubt that she understood her savior to be the Lord Jesus Christ: "Allow me to see the venerable Tree on which He Who was born of thee suffered in the flesh and on which He shed His holy Blood for the redemption of sinners and for me, unworthy as I am." The blessed Saint approached the Theotokos as intercessor, not as Savior. Thus, before she is admitted for veneration, she says, "And so I stood weeping when I saw above me the ikon of the most holy Mother of God. Not taking my eyes off her, I said, `O Lady, Mother of God, who gave birth in the flesh to God the Word, I know, O how well I know, that it is no honour or praise to thee when one so impure and depraved as I look up to thy icon, O ever-virgin, who didst keep thy body and soul in purity. Rightly do I inspire hatred and disgust before thy virginal purity. But I have heard that God Who was born of thee became man on purpose to call sinners to repentance. Then help me, for I have no other help."

3. The passage from the Akathist, properly reflects that:

a) the Saints have special apprehension / knowledge [2 Kings 5:25; 6:8 / Acts 5:1-11]
b) the prayers of the righteous avail much [James 5:16]
c) the Saints have pity and care for the world and those in suffering bound together in faith and thus continually pray for the household of faith [Col. 1:9]
d) that the Saints who were continually praying while on earth have gone over from death to life and are living, hearing intercessors after passing from this earthly existence [1 John 3:14]
e) that the Most Holy Theotokos has revealed herself to be the constant protector of the human race at her falling asleep where we read in the Synaxarion: "When they ceased their lament they begged her not to leave them orphans. She assured them that when she had passed over she would watch over and protect not only them but the whole world." and the revelation of her protect veil, as we read in the Synaxarion: "And as they [Andrew and Epiphanios] watched, she bowed her knees and prayed for a long time, shedding tears down her godlike and immaculate face…o when she had removed the veil which she was wearing on her most-pure head and which had the appearance of lightning, she unrolled it and taking it with great reverence in her all-pure hands — it was large and awesome — spread it out above all the people who were standing there."
f) that the Saints have gifts of healing through the power of the Triune Godhead [Acts 3:6, 12, 16]
g) the Holy Orthodox Church does not teach that there is any other Savior except our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God [Acts 4:12] and that the Saints are constantly honoring this name alone and not themselves.
h) our prayers to the Saints, our fervent intercessors, chastise us in humility regarding our own poor prayers, looking to them for guidance and help who have become nearer to Him through their deified lives [1 Peter 3:12].
i) the Most Holy Theotokos is rightly addressed in our plea: Most Holy Theotokos Save us…that is, Save us in Christ, your Son.

Whether this has anything to do with women as Readers is another matter altogether. I was simply taken aback by your comment which implied that the hymnology of the Church was untrue, exaggerated, hyperbolic, or whatever term you'd like to use. I personally do not believe this, and I most certainly do not believe that it reflects Holy Scripture or Holy Tradition.

Fr. Michael

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

I see nothing questionable about the quote which is apparently attributed to an Akathist to the Kursk Root Icon....

What can I say, Father? I have no problem with any of your lettered points, but not one of them addresses the exclusive wording of the prayer:


no other help but thee, no other intercessor, no gracious consoler but thee, O Mother of God, to guard and protect me throughout the ages.

You and I agree on how to understand this, but that understanding is not immediately obvious from the plain English of the prayer, which is not exactly the way we understand it. This is hyperbole, this is overstatement. Is it a problem? Only if it causes a weaker brother to stumble, or if it is used to undermine other teachings of the Church, or if it becomes a pretext for intolerance, as it has become here.

Dn. Patrick

[Andreas Moran]

This is hyperbole, this is overstatement. Is it a problem? Only if it causes a weaker brother to stumble, or if it is used to undermine other teachings of the Church, or if it becomes a pretext for intolerance, as it has become here. Dn. Patrick

It has been stated that the saints say it is not hyperbole and cannot be. Hyperbole involves a degree of untruth and the hymns of the Church do not contain any untruth. The hymns of the Church do not cause anyone to stumble nor do they undermine the teachings of the Church. The truth cannot become a pretext for intolerance.

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Father Deacon Patrick,

I think that since the prayers to the Theotokas come down to us from many centuries and always actually point to Christ as the Theotokas is the birth giver of God these things you mentioned are not usually encountered in the Church. It is noted here that well before the reformers had even been formed the Orthodox Church has kept the Orthodox faith and will continue to do so.

I did not mean to convey that such prayers came exclusively from Saint Mary of Egypt. They come from the heart of the Church, from the prayers of the communion of Saints, as well as from the mouths of the Bishops, the Priests and the Deacons leading the faithful in prayer and rightly dividing the word of God's truth.

Additionally Father Deacon Patrick, I don't think the prayer is saying as you have stated, that the Theotokos is truly the one to forgive and absolve our sins, it reads:

Thou knowest my offense; forgive and resolve it as thou wilt. For I know no other help but thee, no other intercessor, no gracious consoler but thee, O Mother of God, to guard and protect me throughout the ages. Amen.

The example of Saint Mary of Egypt that I presented I thought conveyed for her the Mother of God resolved her situation by sending her to a place where she would be saved. For us our place of struggle and rest is in the Church, thanks be to God.

When you ask Father Deacon Patrick, "if St. Mary of Egypt felt that only the Theotokos could save her, is that literally true for all of us?" I think that would depend on our opinions regarding the deposit of the faith, the liturgical traditions of the Orthodox Church and in the light that they are understood. The Church is a place of illumination and those prayers can be seen as such as well. The light of Christ is not dimmed through such prayers, we can bring to mind her words. " My soul doth magnify the Lord. And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour." Really these prayers are historically and in these days as well processed in ways that magnify the incarnation, salvation in Christ. Mothers can give children much encouragement and strength. I don't think it is possible to accept any notion of what is seen as hyperbole or an overstatement while such prayers are not seen in such ways by the Saints and many of the Holy Martyrs even as they faced death. After all who are we to question ones such as the Holy Martyrs who had been protected and many have been known to turn to her in very difficult situations throughout the ages. So things worked out for them through the intercessions of the Mother of God, Joy of All Who Sorrow.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

The hymns of the Church do not cause anyone to stumble

Such words are a stumbling block for many Protestants, who will read them literally and reject them, if you insist that they may not read them as hyperbole.


nor do they undermine the teachings of the Church..

Such words do apparently encourage the worship of the Theotokos as a goddess or demigoddess, and that worship now provides a grounds for the abandonment of the Church's teaching on gender. (That is, after all, how the Theotokos entered this discussion.)


The truth cannot become a pretext for intolerance.

There are many things in the tradition, many saints, many visions, many teachings. They do not all agree. To demand that every believer accept literal inerrancy of the Church's hymnology is intolerant, and your behavior on this occasion proves it.

[Herman Blaydoe]

It has been stated that the saints say it is not hyperbole and cannot be. Hyperbole involves a degree of untruth and the hymns of the Church do not contain any untruth. The hymns of the Church do not cause anyone to stumble nor do they undermine the teachings of the Church. The truth cannot become a pretext for intolerance.

Sorry Andreas, but that is simply not true. You are defining your own standard that does not apply. Hyperbole is a perfectly legitimate form of expression and is not "untruth", our Lord Himself uses it or do you think you really should pluck out your eye or chop off your hand? Please do not accuse Christ of "untruth".

I certainly see some intolerance going on here, and some serious misunderstanding of "truth".

Herman the hyperboilic Pooh

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

Matthew,

Some Protestants insist on the absolute literal inerrancy of the Bible because it's all they have and they're afraid that if any part of it is shown to be in error, their claim that Scripture is inspired will fall apart and they will be left with nothing.

Here we have Orthodox insisting on the absolute literal inerrancy of the Church's hymnology for fear that if any part of it is shown to be in error the whole Orthodox tradition will fall apart and they will be left with nothing.

I don't believe that, and I know for a fact that a lot of Orthodox don't believe that. They don't believe it because it is not necessary for the Gospel to be true and for the Orthodox Church to be the true Church of Christ.

But since you do believe it, and since for you the absolute literal inerrancy of the Church's hymnology is an article of faith which may not be questioned, I won't argue with you or the others further.

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

[Herman Blaydoe]

Dear brothers and sisters-in-Christ,

Looks like PLS* has started in earnest.

Please remember that we are all witnesses to Christ by our actions. By this all shall know that you are My disciples, that you have love for one another. (John 13:35). Remember the guidelines. Does this post contribute in a positive way to the discussion? Does it belittle another? Does it edify? Does it glorify Christ? Does it show respect to the Christ in others? Please take a deep breath and remember to say "In the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" before hitting the POST button.

Click here for guidelines (http://www.monachos.net/forum/faq.php?faq=vb_read_and_post#faq_ontopic) if you have any questions.

Herman the moderating Pooh

* Pre-Lent Syndrome

[Herman Blaydoe]

Matthew,

Some Protestants insist on the absolute literal inerrancy of the Bible because it's all they have and they're afraid that if any part of it is shown to be in error, their claim that Scripture is inspired will fall apart and they will be left with nothing.

Here we have Orthodox insisting on the absolute literal inerrancy of the Church's hymnology for fear that if any part of it is shown to be in error the whole Orthodox tradition will fall apart and they will be left with nothing.

I don't believe that, and I know for a fact that a lot of Orthodox don't believe that. They don't believe it because it is not necessary for the Gospel to be true and for the Orthodox Church to be the true Church of Christ.

But since you do believe it, and since for you the absolute literal inerrancy of the Church's hymnology is an article of faith which may not be questioned, I won't argue with you or the others further. You are not to amenable to reason on this point, and so further argument would be pointless.

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

While some rather strong statements have been made, I think it something of an overstatement to say that the hymnography of the Church is ever "in error". I think it is perhaps more appropriate to say that the hymnography can be misunderstood, that does not make the hymnography itself "wrong". If we truly believe Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi (and I personally do), then we ARE saying that the prayers of the Church "infallibly" (how I hate that word) state our beliefs by definition. However, I do agree that some of the hymnography can be placed in a wrong context, and therefore misunderstood or misinterpreted and I see that happening here, by those trying to press a point.

To say that all hyperbolic rhetoric is "untrue" is an incorrect statement. Hyperbole, used correctly, is a perfectly legitimate mode of expression and often emphasize a deeper truth than the words themselves contain. It is a different mindset, a particularly "eastern" mindset, and those of the west often misunderstand it. It is not "untrue", it is emphasis by deliberate overstatement. To call it untrue or "fallible" is to entirely miss the point. It does not have to be "literally true" to still be inerrant, even if our understanding of it is in error. Rather we should conform our understanding to the hymnography of the Church in its proper context, than change the hymnography to our "understanding" or to simply suit our own tastes regardless of what protestants think. They too can be educated. Hoepfully, we can be as well.

Herman the Pooh

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

Thanks for the reminder, Herman.

Thanks also for your comment about hyperbole. We have all been using Andreas's definition of hyperbole as untruth, but that is not an accurate poetic definition of the word.

Hyperbole, according to M.H. Abrams's Glossary of Literary Terms is a "bold overstatement, or extravagant exaggeration of fact, used either for serious or comic effect." We often use hyperbole to express truths because we are limited in our conception and expression and cannot say exactly what we mean with the full effect we mean. Thus, we say things like, "You're the greatest!" and "There's nothing I like better than ..." We don't mean these things literally, but we can't say just how great you really are or just how much we like something, so we say what we can with something extra to cover the full sense we mean.

That's how we should view the prayer in question. It is not literally accurate, but it expresses something for which we are at a loss for words. The words of the prayer are useful and harmless as long as we understand them rightly -- as hyperbole.

Unfortunately, as we have seen, people do not always understand them rightly, which should make us think twice about their propriety. In some circles, they might be harmless, but in other circles they could cause scandal.

But if we all agree on how to understood them, what's the harm in admitting that the form of expression here is hyperbolic?

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

While some rather strong statements have been made, I think it something of an overstatement to say that the hymnography of the Church is ever "in error". I think it is perhaps more appropriate to say that the hymnography can be misunderstood, that does not make the hymnography itself "wrong". If we truly believe Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi (and I personally do), then we ARE saying that the prayers of the Church "infallibly" (how I hate that word) state our beliefs by definition. However, I do agree that some of the hymnography can be placed in a wrong context, and therefore misunderstood or misinterpreted and I see that happening here, by those trying to press a point.

I agree for the most part, but as a writer I must say that words are only as "right" as they are rightly understood. When they are wrongly understood, other words should be used.

I haven't actually said that anything in the Church's hymnology is in error, only that some hymns are not rightly understood because people do not recognize hyperbole as such and therefore take things too literally and misuse hymns for purposes for which they were not intended.

Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi is a good general rule, but what I see is people elevating the Lex Orandi above everything else without actually understanding it. Here in this thread, various praises of the Theotokos have been used to contradict plain apostolic and patristic teaching on the order of creation. That is an abuse of the Lex Orandi.

Furthermore, I don't see the need to insist that everything in the Church's repertoire is perfect. To insist that it is is to make an idol of it, just as Protestants make an idol of the Bible.

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

[Rick H.]

Dear Fr. Dcn. Brian,

I don't want to embarrass you; but, I just have to say that your last post on "Orthodox Inerrantists" is one of the most insightful posts that I have ever read here on Monachos since I signed up! Especially, as you wrote so very succinctly:




Some Protestants insist on the absolute literal inerrancy of the Bible because it's all they have and they're afraid that if any part of it is shown to be in error, their claim that Scripture is inspired will fall apart and they will be left with nothing.

Here we have Orthodox insisting on the absolute literal inerrancy of the Church's hymnology for fear that if any part of it is shown to be in error the whole Orthodox tradition will fall apart and they will be left with nothing.



This is so true! And, I think this is exactly what is behind the spirit of confusion that I see in this thread, and others, in terms of thinking that is motivated by fear. Where the spirit of fear is the spirit of confusion will be found also. I remember, just exactly as you say, how I felt in the past when I was starting to realize that my views of the literal inerrancy of the Bible were a good theory, but they didn't hold water. I didn't want my apple cart to be turned over all at once or even gradually, because as you say that was all I had. That was a crucial part of "my system."

Even after I came to understand clearly that I could no longer hold on to this view, I still held on to it because to give it up was to be left with nothing. Even after I came to see clearly that I would have to at least soften my doctrine a little bit, I still would gnash my teeth at times when I was challenged on this. And, I would still try to defend what was indefensible. So I actually have compassion for some here who seem to be in a similar place. I can sympathize with what is going on here in this thread as I consider your words. So, this is kind of a game changer for me and I would like to say thank you very much for this. This will influence me from now on when I see this spirit of confusion in other threads which is based on fear.

I have thought for many-many years that this is just a part of the MO of the fundamentalist, but I think I see now for the first time that it is just human nature for one to not want to have their system for living challenged (via. Women in the Liturgy or something else) for fear that one will be left with nothing. This is not fundamentalism, this is a passion in the true sense of the word in which one suffers passively from their fears and is one is also ruled by the emotions that flow from this domination. It's a sad thing really.

I have recognized this parallel that your write about early on in Orthodoxy but I normally just hint at it or speak in terms of analogies in order to not try to turn someone's apple cart over all at once. But, I am saying thank you here for having the courage to speak plainly and clearly.

I see the charge of "boorishness" above, this is an ignorant statement, this is the kind of angry judgmental comment that you would expect from a pastor who is an inexperienced greenhorn . . . but even priests do not want their apple carts turned over. And, as I said, I can empathize with this because I have been there myself, and in the end, it is what it is. The words of Fr. Matthew come to mind from another thread which was overcome by the spirit of fear (An American Orthodoxy I) as he talked about forum discussion which "stems from personal fears being projected onto the discussion." And, as he followed this up with an admonition to "those who feel they have attained the spiritual perfection required to judge others in such a manner" to "not do it on the forum," I think we have a helpful standard. But, how can I even point this out without laying myself open to the same charge?


So, thanks very much, Fr. Dcn., for bringing what you have to the table, I remember thinking that some others in my past were insensitive to me as they attempted to share things with me that I didn't want to hear about like "my" infallible Bible and Sola Scriptura . . . but, as it turned out they were dead on target, they were my best friends and they were my greatest teachers in a very good sense.


In Christ,
Rick

[Andreas Moran]

Hyperbole - a figure of speech consisting in exaggerated statement
Exaggerated - magnified or inflated beyond the limits of fact, justice, propriety, or truth.
Source: Oxford English Dictionary

I assume this is what hyperbole or exaggerated meant to St Ignatius Brianchaninov and St John Maximovich.

[Owen Jones]

1. Jesus uses what we might term hyperbole. I see no reason why the term applied to some of our hymnography should cause so much distress. Let's not resort to a secular dictionary definition. All of our hymnography, prayers, doctrine, need to be seen through eyes that have been illumined in any case.
2. The traditional Biblical and Patristic teachings on the role of women, and male/female roles in and out of the Church need to be taken seriously, but let's try to avoid the same abject literalism. Theology is not a cultural construct, as modernists understand them to be. But there is no such thing as theology absent a culture, and vice versa. So one is obligated in principle to apply doctrine in a way that is at the very least culturally intelligible.
3. It does no good to simply be a "traditionalist" in these or any other matters. There must be an underlying spiritual principle at stake, and just stating that something is right and true does not make it so. Even less quoting someone else.
4. One of the questions my priest is fond of asking us is, is it necessary for salvation? I think that helps put things into perspective. Does not mean that something that is not necessary for salvation isn't important, or isn't extremely important, both to do and to understand why we should do it. But it helps put things into perspective.
5. There are a lot of super traditionalists in American Orthodoxy, especially among converts (I say a lot, it probably measures in the hundreds, certainly no more than a thousand or two) who adopt what my wife calls the Russian Babushka role. I have personally seen numerous cases where it is a religious fixation, not a genuine spiritual thing.
6. So while taking the teachings on female roles seriously, it is also important not to be Pharisaical about it.

[Fr Michael Monos]

I see the charge of "boorishness" above, this is an ignorant statement, this is the kind of angry judgmental comment that you would expect from a pastor who is an inexperienced greenhorn . . . but even priests do not want their apple carts turned over.

Rick,

Boorish means rude. In my opinion, Dn. Patrick often responded to other's comments in a rude dismissive / sarcastic manner. I am not 'angry' that Dn. Patrick responded in that manner, I was simply pointing it out in the hopes that he would stop it in the future because I do not think it is advisable. How that makes me an 'inexperienced greenhorn,' I'm not quite sure, and what it has to do with my 'apple cart,' I do not understand either.

Fr. Michael

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

I say amen to all six of Owen's points.

On the issue of gender roles, I have been pressed here repeatedly to say specifically what women may do, and I have resisted doing so precisely because application of the general principle will indeed vary depending upon the time and place.

During the course of this thread, someone asked me privately about gender differences in education. I explained that education for most of history was a luxury most people couldn't afford in terms of either time or money. If people couldn’t afford to educate all of their children, they preferred to educate their sons because their sons would need to make a living while their daughters worked at home and raised children. Ancient Christians were more inclined to educate their daughters so their daughters could read the Scriptures and teach the Faith to children and other women, but Christians also typically spent more on educating men than women, for very practical reasons.

Some of these reasons still exist, though education is now generally available to all. The question is, what are we educating men and women for? The unbelieving world now ignores gender in answering that question, but the Fathers never did. They believed that men and woman have different roles to play in society, and so the old-fashioned way of “gender coding” occupations would have made much sense to them. The two biggest factors in deciding which occupations were coded for women were (a) the belief that raising children is an extremely important social value and the principal vocation of women, and (b) the belief that the headship of the man must be preserved. Thus, for example, nursing came to be a woman’s job because it fit the woman’s principal role of nurturer, while doctoring came to be a man’s job because it supported the headship of the man, inasmuch as doctors were the ones who gave the orders and wrote the prescriptions.

But gender coding is not fixed in stone. It is an adaptation of general principles to social and economic realities, which vary from place to place and change over time. Nowadays, for instance, the medical profession is less hierarchical. There are many different kinds of doctors and many other medical roles: physician’s assistants, nurse practitioners, medical assistants, and many different kinds of med techs. Consequently, gender coding is harder to do and less significant. The need for adaptation is important to remember. There is not one right way to live in all times for all people. There are, however, eternal truths of nature that should be respected in all times by all people, albeit in different ways. We live not by a law specifying all that we are to do, but by the truth which sets us free.

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Father Deacon Patrick,


Here we have Orthodox insisting on the absolute literal inerrancy of the Church's hymnology for fear that if any part of it is shown to be in error the whole Orthodox tradition will fall apart and they will be left with nothing.

I don't believe that, and I know for a fact that a lot of Orthodox don't believe that. They don't believe it because it is not necessary for the Gospel to be true and for the Orthodox Church to be the true Church of Christ.

Actually, I don't think that is what we have here at all. What we have is something that we have seen many times before, namely something that is difficult to accept or understand (as the Orthodox understand it for centuries) or a struggle for people who have entered the Church from other traditions. Within cradle Orthodoxy I have never met anyone who feared the whole Orthodox tradition will fall apart since it never did in the past because the traditions that we are taught by our elders from our youth we hold or keep dearly in our hearts. So what you transfer to us comes from another place where traditions fall apart through the minds of men who think themselves to know better than the Orthodox Church. Indeed in those places things are torn apart while using the bible in one hand for support of the dismantling and holding their own thoughts as a sovereign guiding the corrections for the Church. It seems here though for us it would be hard to go against a Russian Priest crucified to the interior walls of an Orthodox Church by the Godless communist as a mockery of his faith while he is chanting the sort or praises to the Theotokas that are seen by some as hyperbole as the babushki wept. After they wept they went home and with no Church or Priest left they engaged in hyperbole as an overstatement?

While the students in the theology at University may Pontificate the loaves of bread of the babushki, (the ones that engage in hyperbole) multiply. Then again they do magnify the Theotokas. Churches and Cathedrals (the bishops Church, they are the ones in charge of what is said in the Liturgy and all the Churches services) like Holy Virgin Protection, Joy of All Who Sorrow and so forth are constructed.

These things that you see as stumbling blocks for others have indeed held the Church together, they are stumbling blocks because their minds work differently in terms of how things are understood. It is not the Churches liturgical traditions that we are to change (who are you and I before the crucified Russian Orthodox Priest on the wall with hyperbole coming out of his mouth to heaven) but rather those traditions and encounters are to change us. After all can you imagine yourself standing by as the crucified Russian Orthodox Priests Deacon hearing hyperbole as the Mother of God receives his blessed soul into a very high place. That would represent something of a severe disconnection in the unity of the prayer that was joined to the blessed Priests soul as it soared up under a hyperbolic mantle? One goes up and one holds on to a hyperbole translation during the process. Who is wrong we might ask and why? Surely the firmly planted hyperbole stance would be elevating?

If you ask yourself why you see these things as hyperbole and other Orthodox Christians do not nor ever have actually you may find out that there must be a difference in approaches to the subject matter that makes the differences.

After re-reading much of what you have written Father Deacon Patrick, I have come to the conclusion that we just have different way of seeing and understanding things, that's all I can say on this.

I'm at peace with my stance on this since it is in sync with our orthodox traditions, the Saints, the Church Fathers, Bishops, Priests, Babushki and the kids.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Herman Blaydoe]

Hyperbole - a figure of speech consisting in exaggerated statement
Exaggerated - magnified or inflated beyond the limits of fact, justice, propriety, or truth.
Source: Oxford English Dictionary

I assume this is what hyperbole or exaggerated meant to St Ignatius Brianchaninov and St John Maximovich.

I fear you make a presumptuous assumption. I suggest you do a little research on rhetorical techniques or perhaps take a basic creative writing class. There is nothing wrong with hyperbole, used properly, nor in acknowledging its use in an appropriate manner. And don't get too tied up in western definitions that are not culturally aware and I ASSUME you are aware that words sometimes have more than one meaning depending on context yes?

From the American Heritage Dictionary: A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton.

Or the Cultural Dictionary: An exaggerated, extravagant expression. It is hyperbole to say, “I'd give my whole fortune for a bowl of bean soup.”

When you find you are digging yourself into a hole, the best thing to do is STOP DIGGING.

Herman the hyperbolically defined Pooh

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

If you ask yourself why you see these things as hyperbole and other Orthodox Christians do not nor ever have actually you may find out that there must be a difference in approaches to the subject matter that makes the differences.

Matthew,

Most of what you have written in this recent post is irrelevant, and the comment above is boorish. As you can now see by the thread, it's not just me against the Church.


I'm at peace with my stance on this since it is in sync with our Bishops, Priests, Babushki and the kids.

Same here.

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

[Andreas Moran]

I think Matthew P has a point. I think there is confusion here between what the language of Orthodox hymnography means to and how it is received by someone from a non-Orthodox background and with a western mindset on the one hand, and what it means to 'cradle' Orthodox and those from Orthodox cultures on the other. This is certainly what I glean from conversations I have had in the last few days with Russians.

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Father Deacon Patrick,

You say it is irrelevant but it is relevant. Who is your bishop?

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Herman Blaydoe]

This discussion is now generating more heat than light. In the hopes of everyone making peaceful preparations for Great and Holy Lent, unless otherwise directed by competent authority, this thread is closed at least temporarily.