Ordination of Women in the Orthodox Church

[Serge]

The arguments for women's ordination are plausible. The church has never taught them.

Well, if women's ordination is a good and every good and perfect gift is from God, then what does that say about the church?

That the church is a fraud so steal and fornicate away, because you only live once. But then life would be meaningless so why not kill yourself if things go bad?

 

[biro]

Huh? If you ordain women it will be okay to steal and kill?

Nobody says that. Come on.  :

 

[Serge]

Huh? If you ordain women it will be okay to steal and kill?

Nobody says that. Come on.  :

Catholicism and Orthodoxy are package deals. When you break one doctrine or commandment, you break them all.

 

[Mor Ephrem]

Also because I'm still not entirely sure one can affirm with a straight face that women men are just as important to God and just as much bearers of the Imago Dei as men women on the one hand and then deny them one of God's most important callings on the other.

 

[biro]

Huh? If you ordain women it will be okay to steal and kill?

Nobody says that. Come on.  :

Catholicism and Orthodoxy are package deals. When you break one doctrine or commandment, you break them all.

No, you don't.

If I lie, I do not have to confess to theft. If I argue with my parents, I do not have to confess to worshipping pagan gods.

You would be easier to take seriously if you did not seem to believe the sky were constantly about to fall.

 

[Mor Ephrem]

If I lie, I do not have to confess to theft. If I argue with my parents, I do not have to confess to worshipping pagan gods.

"For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it."  James 2.10

 

[Mockingbird]

Should we start a separate thread about ordination of women (OoW?)  It would presumably have to go in the Free-for-All board.  (Over at the Ship of Fools, the issue is confined to a board called "Dead Horses". )

The opposing side had a chance in the 1970s to make a theological case against the proposition that God is within his rights to call female Christians as well as male to the presbyterate.  The best they could come up with was some superstition about a "male principle" that sounded more like something from a heathenish fertility-cult than like Christianity.

 

[Yurysprudentsiya]

I didn't realize that the Orthodox Church seriously debated this in the 1970s.

 

[Yurysprudentsiya]

If I lie, I do not have to confess to theft. If I argue with my parents, I do not have to confess to worshipping pagan gods.

"For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it."  James 2.10

Mor,

On a serious note:  Given your theological acumen, how do you reconcile this statement with our Orthodox understanding of sin as "missing the mark," with some missing it more than others, and the relevant corrections being accordingly graded?  (Likewise, the Catholics have their distinction between mortal and venial sins?)  Can this be facially harmonized with St. James, above?  Or (without looking) is St. James talking about the Law of Moses, as did Paul, focusing on ceremonial works which served identify oneself with the chosen people when he condemned works?  (A point that the reforming Protestants entirely missed.)

Your thoughts welcome.

 

[Mor Ephrem]

The opposing side had a chance in the 1970s to make a theological case against the proposition that God is within his rights to call female Christians as well as male to the presbyterate.

I suppose God is "within his rights to call female Christians as well as male to the presbyterate"...not much use being a God if you can't do what you want.  But how would we know that God wanted this?  That God expects it of us?  That God elects so-and-so to that ministry?

 

[Volnutt]

The arguments for women's ordination are plausible. The church has never taught them.

Well, if women's ordination is a good and every good and perfect gift is from God, then what does that say about the church?

That the church is a fraud so steal and fornicate away, because you only live once. But then life would be meaningless so why not kill yourself if things go bad?

Maybe I will. Or maybe I'll become a Neopagan or something. It remains to be seen.

 

[Serge]

Should we start a separate thread about ordination of women (OoW?)  It would presumably have to go in the Free-for-All board.  (Over at the Ship of Fools, the issue is confined to a board called "Dead Horses". )

The opposing side had a chance in the 1970s to make a theological case against the proposition that God is within his rights to call female Christians as well as male to the presbyterate.  The best they could come up with was some superstition about a "male principle" that sounded more like something from a heathenish fertility-cult than like Christianity.

Yet as "cool" as First World, "Ship of Fools" (it fits) Anglicanism has become (most of the ceremonies of Catholicism, none of the guilt), freed from heathenish fertility-cult mumbo-jumbo (that's for white-trash fundamentalists and bigoted Romans; not our class, dear), next to nobody goes to it in the First World anymore.

 

[Serge]

The arguments for women's ordination are plausible. The church has never taught them.

Well, if women's ordination is a good and every good and perfect gift is from God, then what does that say about the church?

That the church is a fraud so steal and fornicate away, because you only live once. But then life would be meaningless so why not kill yourself if things go bad?

Maybe I will. Or maybe I'll become a Neopagan or something. It remains to be seen.

Neopaganism is obviously a modern invention of apostate Christians, the niceness and the pretty ceremonies minus the theological hard stuff. Real paganism is scary, making blood sacrifices to appease nasty gods who are probably demons.

 

[Volnutt]

Also because I'm still not entirely sure one can affirm with a straight face that women men are just as important to God and just as much bearers of the Imago Dei as men women on the one hand and then deny them one of God's most important callings on the other.

Well yes, there's that. I go back and forth on whether God could have created a egalitarian universe or if it has to be "one or the other." If the former is true, than I would say that God is unjust for not creating an egalitarian universe. If the later, then there's nothing wrong with male-only ordination.

I lean toward saying the former is true, tough since women are not inherently incapable of leadership or accomplishment.

 

[Volnutt]

The arguments for women's ordination are plausible. The church has never taught them.

Well, if women's ordination is a good and every good and perfect gift is from God, then what does that say about the church?

That the church is a fraud so steal and fornicate away, because you only live once. But then life would be meaningless so why not kill yourself if things go bad?

Maybe I will. Or maybe I'll become a Neopagan or something. It remains to be seen.

Neopaganism is obviously a modern invention of apostate Christians, the niceness and the pretty ceremonies minus the theological hard stuff. Real paganism is scary, making blood sacrifices to appease nasty gods who are probably demons.

I tend to agree. I just picked an easy phrase because I don't buy your "If not Christianity, therefore nihilism" corollary.

But at the same time I am uncomfortable with the idea of deism because I would still see no reason to automatically rule out the supernatural and God intervening in the world.

 

[Volnutt]

The opposing side had a chance in the 1970s to make a theological case against the proposition that God is within his rights to call female Christians as well as male to the presbyterate.

I suppose God is "within his rights to call female Christians as well as male to the presbyterate"...not much use being a God if you can't do what you want.  But how would we know that God wanted this?  That God expects it of us?  That God elects so-and-so to that ministry?

How would we know that God hasn't approved slavery and divinely appointed the white man to be the loving and burdened caretaker over all His other children? He's just keeping them safe like any good father or husband would, right?

 

[Serge]

The opposing side had a chance in the 1970s to make a theological case against the proposition that God is within his rights to call female Christians as well as male to the presbyterate.

I suppose God is "within his rights to call female Christians as well as male to the presbyterate"...not much use being a God if you can't do what you want.  But how would we know that God wanted this?  That God expects it of us?  That God elects so-and-so to that ministry?

How would we know that God hasn't approved slavery and divinely appointed the white man to be the loving and burdened caretaker over all His other children? He's just keeping them safe like any good father or husband would, right?

For Christians this kind of thing was settled in the Book of Acts: you don't have to be Jewish to follow Christ. We're not a race cult. No such directive in scripture or the councils to ordain women.

 

[Minnesotan]

Should we start a separate thread about ordination of women (OoW?)  It would presumably have to go in the Free-for-All board.  (Over at the Ship of Fools, the issue is confined to a board called "Dead Horses". )

The opposing side had a chance in the 1970s to make a theological case against the proposition that God is within his rights to call female Christians as well as male to the presbyterate.  The best they could come up with was some superstition about a "male principle" that sounded more like something from a heathenish fertility-cult than like Christianity.

Yet as "cool" as First World, "Ship of Fools" (it fits) Anglicanism has become (most of the ceremonies of Catholicism, none of the guilt), freed from heathenish fertility-cult mumbo-jumbo (that's for white-trash fundamentalists and bigoted Romans; not our class, dear), next to nobody goes to it in the First World anymore.

Except for Rachel Held Evans, of course.

 

[Serge]

Should we start a separate thread about ordination of women (OoW?)  It would presumably have to go in the Free-for-All board.  (Over at the Ship of Fools, the issue is confined to a board called "Dead Horses". )

The opposing side had a chance in the 1970s to make a theological case against the proposition that God is within his rights to call female Christians as well as male to the presbyterate.  The best they could come up with was some superstition about a "male principle" that sounded more like something from a heathenish fertility-cult than like Christianity.

Yet as "cool" as First World, "Ship of Fools" (it fits) Anglicanism has become (most of the ceremonies of Catholicism, none of the guilt), freed from heathenish fertility-cult mumbo-jumbo (that's for white-trash fundamentalists and bigoted Romans; not our class, dear), next to nobody goes to it in the First World anymore.

Except for Rachel Held Evans, of course.

Right, throw logic out the window because one pretty girl who writes a column likes liberal high church.

 

[TheTrisagion]

Should we start a separate thread about ordination of women (OoW?)  It would presumably have to go in the Free-for-All board.  (Over at the Ship of Fools, the issue is confined to a board called "Dead Horses". )

The opposing side had a chance in the 1970s to make a theological case against the proposition that God is within his rights to call female Christians as well as male to the presbyterate.  The best they could come up with was some superstition about a "male principle" that sounded more like something from a heathenish fertility-cult than like Christianity.

Yet as "cool" as First World, "Ship of Fools" (it fits) Anglicanism has become (most of the ceremonies of Catholicism, none of the guilt), freed from heathenish fertility-cult mumbo-jumbo (that's for white-trash fundamentalists and bigoted Romans; not our class, dear), next to nobody goes to it in the First World anymore.

Except for Rachel Held Evans, of course.

Right, throw logic out the window because one pretty girl who writes a column likes liberal high church.

I'm gonna have to stop you here as you have crossed a bridge too far.

Rachel Held Evans is not pretty; she is very average looking.

That is all.  Carry on.

 

[Mor Ephrem]

...how do you reconcile this statement with our Orthodox understanding of sin as "missing the mark," with some missing it more than others, and the relevant corrections being accordingly graded?  (Likewise, the Catholics have their distinction between mortal and venial sins?)  Can this be facially harmonized with St. James, above?  Or (without looking) is St. James talking about the Law of Moses, as did Paul, focusing on ceremonial works which served identify oneself with the chosen people when he condemned works?  (A point that the reforming Protestants entirely missed.)

Your thoughts welcome.

All you're going to get from me tonight are thoughts. 

1.  While the imagery of "missing the mark" allows us to make sense of the complexity of sin, its effects within and without the sinner, and the particular remedies for particular ailments, it still contains the principle that violation of part of the law is violation of the whole law.  After all, both "a little off the mark" and "way off the mark" are still "off the mark".

2.  Christ himself sums up the entire Law in two commandments: love of God and love of one's neighbour.  All sin is a violation of both of these commandments. 

3.  IMO, Scripture often uses different illustrations to describe particular teachings.  Scripture speaks of the paschal mystery in terms of atonement, victory over death, healing, breaking down the middle wall of partition, the restoration of peace, etc.  We may find ourselves drawn to one or the other image, but it seems to me that we lose something important if we neglect the others. 

We are correct when we consider each sin according to its kind, frequency, the character, knowledge, and circumstances of the one committing it, and so on.  But there is a danger in this, and the danger is that we consider ourselves worse than some and better than others.  We look at those we deem holier than we are and think we are too evil to aspire to their greatness, and so we give up.  We look at those we deem worse than we are and believe we have earned the right or, worse, the sanctity required to judge them.   

Remembering that one is guilty of sinning against the whole when he sins against the part reminds us that every sin is a violation of our covenant with God, that what we do to ourselves or to another is done to all humanity (a humanity that includes Christ), that we have no room for boasting.  We refer to ourselves in our prayers as the chief among sinners because St Paul referred to himself in this way, and we are not better or even equal to St Paul.  We ask God to receive us even as he accepted publicans, prodigals, and prostitutes, and in doing so we identify ourselves as one with them in order to receive the mercy shown to them.  None of them compared how off the mark they were compared to others: one beat his chest and said "God, be merciful to me, a sinner", another said "I am not worthy to be called your son", and the third said nothing at all because her pitiful condition was itself a cry for mercy.  If we really believed that our sins were equal to murder, to adultery, to defrauding the poor, to regarding one's family as dead while alive, etc., if we really believed that violation of a part is violation of the whole, we would be humble.  But we depend on degrees of sinfulness to feel better about ourselves.  In truth, we need both of these ideas in order to understand sin but also to fight and be victorious over sin.   

 

[Mor Ephrem]

Also because I'm still not entirely sure one can affirm with a straight face that women men are just as important to God and just as much bearers of the Imago Dei as men women on the one hand and then deny them one of God's most important callings on the other.

Well yes, there's that...

It's a pretty big that. 

 

[Volnutt]

The opposing side had a chance in the 1970s to make a theological case against the proposition that God is within his rights to call female Christians as well as male to the presbyterate.

I suppose God is "within his rights to call female Christians as well as male to the presbyterate"...not much use being a God if you can't do what you want.  But how would we know that God wanted this?  That God expects it of us?  That God elects so-and-so to that ministry?

How would we know that God hasn't approved slavery and divinely appointed the white man to be the loving and burdened caretaker over all His other children? He's just keeping them safe like any good father or husband would, right?

For Christians this kind of thing was settled in the Book of Acts: you don't have to be Jewish to follow Christ. We're not a race cult. No such directive in scripture or the councils to ordain women.

Slavery has nothing to do with their ability to come to Christ. Just as the  subordinate role of women in Church and home has nothing to do with their ability to come to Christ. Separate but equal.

 

[Volnutt]

It's a pretty big that. 

So you're saying that if women are not subordinate to men in some contexts then there are no differences at all between the sexes? I'm not sure that follows.

 

[Mor Ephrem]

It's a pretty big that. 

So you're saying that if women are not subordinate to men in some contexts then there are no differences at all between the sexes? I'm not sure that follows.

I'm not sure it follows either.  Then again, that's not what I was saying. 

 

[biro]

If I lie, I do not have to confess to theft. If I argue with my parents, I do not have to confess to worshipping pagan gods.

"For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it."  James 2.10

Your confessions must go on for hours, then, since you apparently feel the need to confess to every sin in the Bible, whether you actually committed them or not.

Thank God you haven't tried for the priesthood.

 

[Volnutt]

It's a pretty big that. 

So you're saying that if women are not subordinate to men in some contexts then there are no differences at all between the sexes? I'm not sure that follows.

I'm not sure it follows either.  Then again, that's not what I was saying.

Then I'm not seeing your point.

My argument is that if God could have created an egalitarian world then it follows that He did, or else He is not really a loving God. It's the same essential argument behind abolitionism. Huck Finn's "All right, then I'll go to Hell" immediately springs to mind.

What male-only priesthood advocates really need to prove is that all is doom and gloom whenever a female priest is ordained (a literalistic reading of 1 Peter 3:7's "weaker vessel" would also help).

 

[byhisgrace]

What male-only priesthood advocates really need to prove is that all is doom and gloom whenever a female priest is ordained (a literalistic reading of 1 Peter 3:7's "weaker vessel" would also help).

Or just prove that male-only priesthood is the correct interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:13-14?

 

[Daedelus1138]

"For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it."  James 2.10

We're justified by faith, not works, obviously.

 

[biro]

"For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it."  James 2.10

We're justified by faith, not works, obviously.

That quote was from Mor, not me.

 

[Serge]

It's a pretty big that. 

So you're saying that if women are not subordinate to men in some contexts then there are no differences at all between the sexes? I'm not sure that follows.

I'm not sure it follows either.  Then again, that's not what I was saying.

Then I'm not seeing your point.

My argument is that if God could have created an egalitarian world then it follows that He did, or else He is not really a loving God. It's the same essential argument behind abolitionism. Huck Finn's "All right, then I'll go to Hell" immediately springs to mind.

What male-only priesthood advocates really need to prove is that all is doom and gloom whenever a female priest is ordained (a literalistic reading of 1 Peter 3:7's "weaker vessel" would also help).

Catholics and Orthodox ("we can't change the matter of the sacraments") and conservative Protestants (1 Timothy 2:13-14) don't use utilitarian arguments against women's ordination; I included one (it hasn't stopped mainline decline) to "cover all my bases." It's fair to say most practicing Orthodox believe women's ordination is impossible; a reader at one local parish, who is ethnic, a born Orthodox, literally told me once that it is impossible.

 

[MalpanaGiwargis]

My argument is that if God could have created an egalitarian world then it follows that He did, or else He is not really a loving God.

Does that actually follow, though? Is being "loving" or "just" the same thing as treating everyone identically? Just on the level of natural, earthly life, God has manifestly not treated everyone identically, since, apart from the differentiation of biological sex, people are possessed of different talents, strengths and weaknesses.  Some people, through no merit or fault of their own, are born into privilege and others into unimaginable poverty. Some children have truly great parents, some have abusive monsters, most have OK parents who manage to get by.

I think the great message of Christianity is that the loving God loves each one of us no matter who or what we are. King or pauper, sinner or saint, God loves everyone and calls all to repentance and transformation. Our equality consists in the fact that we are the object of God's love for mankind and that we are all called to theosis. In this life, some He calls to priesthood, some He calls to monasticism, most He calls to married life. Before the throne of God, the mightiest Patriarch or Emperor has no greater intrinsic worth than the lowliest member of the Church. There is no inequality in the fact that God has distributed His gifts differently to each person - they are, after all, gifts to which we have no right.

The Church, if it is to be the Church, must rely on Tradition; in fact, the Church IS Tradition. Our faith is dependent on those who came before us, the God-bearing fathers and mothers who walked the path God sets before us all. Our job is not to reinvent the Church to suit the tastes of the current age; our job is to be faithful members of the Church no matter the age. For those who favor the ordination of women to the priesthood, the uncomfortable fact is that there is simply no evidence in Scripture or in the Tradition of this ever happening. Deaconesses, sure, priestesses, no. And despite the fact that the women followers of Christ were the most faithful, He chose exclusively men to be among the Twelve. Was this a concession to the age, or the explicit Divine will? I guess we will never know this side of eternity, but the Church is bound by His example.

 

[PeterTheAleut]

It's a pretty big that. 

So you're saying that if women are not subordinate to men in some contexts then there are no differences at all between the sexes? I'm not sure that follows.

I'm not sure it follows either.  Then again, that's not what I was saying.

Then I'm not seeing your point.

My argument is that if God could have created an egalitarian world then it follows that He did, or else He is not really a loving God.

How does that follow? I could argue with just as much authority that if God could have created a hellish world then it follows that He did, or else He is not really a loving God. Yet we see just how much nonsense that is. The simple fact that God could do something doesn't mean that He actually did.

 

[PeterTheAleut]

If I lie, I do not have to confess to theft. If I argue with my parents, I do not have to confess to worshipping pagan gods.

"For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it."  James 2.10

Your confessions must go on for hours, then, since you apparently feel the need to confess to every sin in the Bible, whether you actually committed them or not.

Where did Mor ever say that?

 

[Second Chance]

1. The very start of the Anglican Church was based on Henry the Eighth's obsession with having a male heir. In the process, he committed multiple grave sins, but most importantly, he also subverted enough "men of God" to establish the Anglican Church. Thus, the founding of this church was based on crass and worldly reasons.

No, our church was founded by Jesus Christ.

2. The Anglican Church today has departed from many Apostolic practices. This church does things that have no precedence (like ordination of women to priestly offices) and even are opposed by Holy Scripture (communing active homosexuals and blessing of their "marriage"). Thus, the church that started as the appeasement of  one man's worldly desires has ended up as the appeasement of some folks' worldly desires, and neither appeasement can be justified by Holy Tradition, Holy Scripture and other yardstick common to orthodox Christianity (please note the lower case "o").

Our facing the fact that some women are called by God to the presbyterate came after much debate, thought, and prayer.  So did our facing the facts and pastoral realities in the other matter you mentioned--facts that your party too must face eventually, however much some may wish they would go away.

There are two issues with your first statement, that the Anglican Church was founded by Jesus Christ. First, that statement does not necessarily mean that you have continued in being a non-schismatic, non-heretical church. Arius would have had the right to say the same thing and he would have been correct. Secondly, if you mean that the Anglican Church is apostolic, you should know that merely having apostolic succession does not make one apostolic. The Church must also continue the beliefs and practices of the Apostolic Church.

Your second statement justifies the radical changes that you made by having undergone "much debate, thought, and prayer." In other words, you claim Providential guidance, a dispensation from the obligation to hold onto the Holy Tradition that was entrusted to you. In effect, you proclaim that the Holy Spirit has guided you to a different interpretation of the Holy Scriptures: to disregard the classification of homosexual activity as a sin and to ignore both the Holy Scriptures and the practice of the catholic Church for almost 2,000 years. In effect, you replicated the original sin, didn't you? What sort of serpent whispered in your ears this time?

 

[Mor Ephrem]

If I lie, I do not have to confess to theft. If I argue with my parents, I do not have to confess to worshipping pagan gods.

"For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it."  James 2.10

Your confessions must go on for hours, then, since you apparently feel the need to confess to every sin in the Bible, whether you actually committed them or not.

Get ordained and maybe I'll confess to you.  At least then you'll be able to speak from experience and not your wild and foolish imaginings.   

Thank God you haven't tried for the priesthood.

Yeah, I'm rather pleased about it myself. 

 

[Mor Ephrem]

It's a pretty big that. 

So you're saying that if women are not subordinate to men in some contexts then there are no differences at all between the sexes? I'm not sure that follows.

I'm not sure it follows either.  Then again, that's not what I was saying.

Then I'm not seeing your point.

I don't think your earlier point, that you were "still not entirely sure one can affirm with a straight face that women are just as important to God and just as much bearers of the Imago Dei as men on the one hand and then deny them one of God's most important callings on the other", holds up when we compare it to the inability of a man to be a mother.  This does not affect whether or not men are "bearers of the Imago Dei".  Or does it?  Or perhaps "motherhood" is not "one of God's most important callings" (I suppose you could consider it merely a biological function with no connection to anything else, but then we're not really speaking about Christianity anymore)? 

My argument is that if God could have created an egalitarian world then it follows that He did, or else He is not really a loving God. It's the same essential argument behind abolitionism. Huck Finn's "All right, then I'll go to Hell" immediately springs to mind.

How egalitarian does God have to be in order to be loving? 

What male-only priesthood advocates really need to prove is that all is doom and gloom whenever a female priest is ordained (a literalistic reading of 1 Peter 3:7's "weaker vessel" would also help).

Why is that the standard? 

 

[Mor Ephrem]

If I lie, I do not have to confess to theft. If I argue with my parents, I do not have to confess to worshipping pagan gods.

"For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it."  James 2.10

Your confessions must go on for hours, then, since you apparently feel the need to confess to every sin in the Bible, whether you actually committed them or not.

Where did Mor ever say that?

He didn't.  Biro just didn't take too well to being beaten at her own game. 

 

[TheTrisagion]

If I lie, I do not have to confess to theft. If I argue with my parents, I do not have to confess to worshipping pagan gods.

"For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it."  James 2.10

Your confessions must go on for hours, then, since you apparently feel the need to confess to every sin in the Bible, whether you actually committed them or not.

Thank God you haven't tried for the priesthood.

There is a difference between committing a sin and being guilty of breaking the law.  The standard is: Have you broken the law?  You can't answer and say: No, I haven't broken the law because I didn't steal anything and don't worship pagan gods. Well, I suppose you could, but then you be guilty of your first sin that you mentioned lying, because we all break the law, just in different manners.

 

[biro]

If I lie, I do not have to confess to theft. If I argue with my parents, I do not have to confess to worshipping pagan gods.

"For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it."  James 2.10

Your confessions must go on for hours, then, since you apparently feel the need to confess to every sin in the Bible, whether you actually committed them or not.

Thank God you haven't tried for the priesthood.

There is a difference between committing a sin and being guilty of breaking the law.  The standard is: Have you broken the law?  You can't answer and say: No, I haven't broken the law because I didn't steal anything and don't worship pagan gods. Well, I suppose you could, but then you be guilty of your first sin that you mentioned lying, because we all break the law, just in different manners.

No, we don't.