« A Dance before the Ark | Main | Grandma and Son »
November 12, 2006
Egalitarian Orthodoxy?
The blogsite of Christians for Biblical Equality, an evangelical feminist interest group, posts an interesting query about who might be the hardest constituency to crack for the cause of women's ordination. As the blog, puts it:
I wonder who might be the hardest group of Christians to reach with the good news that in Christ there is neither male nor female (Gal 3:28), and the (to me) necessary corollary that God gifts both men and women for ministry. The (big-O) Orthodox may not be the hardest to reach, but I’m sure they’re in the top five. They’ve got a view of the church, its ministry, and its sacraments that isn’t just “high,” it’s stratospheric. And they’ve got a nearly 2,000-year track record of not ordaining women. If you can convince an Orthodox believer, you’re probably a long way towards convincing anybody else.
This leaves me wondering what the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Moscow, and so forth would call themselves in a new gender-neutral Orthodox Church.
I will agree that 2,000 years of ordaining only qualified men is indeed a barrier to women's ordination among the Eastern Orthodox. But is it only Eastern Orthodox who have this 2,000 year tradition, broken only in recent years among the more "innovative" branches of Protestantism?
I agree with this egalitarian blogger that in Christ there is neither male nor female, slave nor free, Jew nor Greek (Gal 3:28). I will also say that the "to me" part of the "necessary corollary" he mentions is not just a "big" leap; it's stratospheric.
Posted by Russell D. Moore at 02:03 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c5ee953ef00d8342e6ccc53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Egalitarian Orthodoxy? :
» How Can One Take Offense? from This is Life!: Revolutions Around the Cruciform Axis
Russell Moore, in blogpost, "Egalitarian Orthodoxy?" at Touchstone's Mere Comments, notes a comment from the CBE blog which states: I’ve heard it said that Willow Creek Community Church tries to target middle-class males of about my age precisely becau... [Read More]
Tracked on Nov 16, 2006 1:05:31 PM
Comments
I don't have a copy nearby to check, I seem to remember Timothy Ware (in _The Orthodox Church_) saying that the Patriarch of Alexandria had expressed support of the ordination of women.
Posted by: Russ | Nov 12, 2006 2:24:41 PM
>>>I don't have a copy nearby to check, I seem to remember Timothy Ware (in _The Orthodox Church_) saying that the Patriarch of Alexandria had expressed support of the ordination of women.<<<
Not entirely correct. He noted that some hierarchs were dubious of the reasoning used to justify the Tradition, but none had come out in favor of ordaining women to the presbyterate. There are more than a few Orthodox bishops who favor restoration of the office of Deaconess, and several deaconesses have in fact been ordained since the 1950s. But there is no real movement afoot to ordain women to the priesthood.
That's the great thing about Orthodoxy--even if YOU want to do something extraordinary, you don't do it until you have moral unanimity for it. Canon of the Holy Apostles No.34.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Nov 12, 2006 2:29:14 PM
I wish such Egalitarians would think a little harder about their beloved phrase "God gifts both men and women for ministry." Who in the long history of the Church has ever denied this? Yet in recent years it has become synonymous with "Women should be ordained to the priesthood." Maybe we've all brought this upon ourselves by identifying "ministry" solely with ordination. Is this sort of feminism fed by conservative clericalism (at least in the heavily clericalist churches)? It seems to me that the impetus is strongest in either churches that have an extremely low view of ordination (making it hard to say what's so important about reserving it to men) or an extremely high view (making it hard to think of ministry as possible outside it).
Women are, of course, gifted for ministry. It's just that their gifting is always, shall we say, extraordinary.
Posted by: Ethan Cordray | Nov 12, 2006 2:40:50 PM
Say, what's going on with the post title? There seems to be a bunch of random junk characters preceding it. Can other people see this, or is it just me?
Posted by: Ethan Cordray | Nov 12, 2006 5:34:50 PM
The answer to your question is "matriarch," in a "new gender-neutral Orthodox Church." There is little possibility of manhood in leadership once the charisms of gender have been conflated, or erased altogether. It has always been this way.
Sic, very sic.
"Gender-neutral Orthodox" is as oxymoronic as one could possibly get, as I am happy to have made it, with my group, into the top five. It's rather like getting into the playoffs.
Beware, however, that there are forces pledged to the feminization of the Orthodox clergy. The liberationists recognize Orthodoxy, rightly, as the motherlode. Change that, change everything. It happened once before in theology proper. Now, ecclesiology and anthropology have become the main arena for apologetical combat.
Female deacons, in their unfortunate reality, exist only for the prudent accomodation of pastoral needs, and thus exist for ministerial functions and not outside the monastery, certainly not for public liturgy.
It is getting wearisome, in the Orthodox world, to hear the rapture of the female diaconate. One wishes for a rapture of another kind altogether.
Posted by: Jonathan | Nov 12, 2006 8:37:29 PM
"And they’ve got a nearly 2,000-year track record of not ordaining women. If you can convince an Orthodox believer, you’re probably a long way towards convincing anybody else."
Amen and amen. I struggled with this question for a long time before I realized it was time for me to take my own "beliefs" out of the equation and accept the teaching and tradition of the church.
Posted by: William | Nov 12, 2006 8:44:38 PM
William,
I recall when I was in my 20s (undoubtedly because of my having been exposed to the egalitarianism of academia), having a real problem with the epistles of St. Paul, particularly on this issue. Then I came to realize that the problem was me, not St. Paul. Unfortunately, there are a lot of folks who never come to that realization.
Posted by: GL | Nov 12, 2006 9:23:05 PM
Russell, the standard line I've heard in Orthodox circles is: "What good would it be to ordain a woman as priest? Women can't go behind the iconostasis anyway." Seriously, no group is immune to deviations, I believe. But you have to look at the tremendous success women-led churches are having to at least wonder if it's a good idea. To even imagine a female "priest" behind the iconostasis is disturbing on many levels, and I would predict that altar boys (acolytes) would become scarce, and when young men become scarce in the churches, you've got a big problem. It's just the way it is.
Posted by: Jim Kushiner | Nov 12, 2006 11:07:49 PM
I am absolutely convinced that, with the exception of a very few people who see women as having a special role to play in the evangelization of women who have been abused, nobody considers the ordination of women as a matter of saving souls. I know that I'm speaking practically and anthropologically here, not theologically. Still, given the "success" that Mr. Kushiner notes above, it is remarkable that the proponents do not at least attempt to thwart the objection. Part of me suspects that it's because the proponents are concealing, perhaps unconsciously, a silent indifferentism: if they thought that evangelization was absolutely urgent, and that false or just plain dumb moves on our part might be the instruments for the loss of many souls, they would have to address that practical objection.
Posted by: Tony Esolen | Nov 12, 2006 11:28:11 PM
I'd put it differently: They think of the ordination of women as a contribution to salvation because they think of salvation as a social phenomenon, as increasing participation in a community of harmony, justice, and love. (Note how this ties in with your critique of popular hymnody.) With this soteriology, and from one angle -- that is, extrapolating from a woman's role in her family -- women may be better suited than men for administration of the community of those being saved. It's easy to confuse practical administration with governance and presidency.
The errors here are not always so obvious. Certainly, the New Testament envisions the Church as a kind of family, and women are capable administrators. As folks downplay the cultic, sacrificial foundation for Christianity, it becomes harder to show how our identity as a Church depends upon the Priesthood of Christ, rather than the reverse. In other terms, it becomes harder to show how headship in the Church is bound to a distinctively masculine priesthood.
Posted by: DGP | Nov 13, 2006 5:58:18 AM
The rationale against women being ordained into the Orthodox priesthood (which is the real reason for the interest in the female diaconate) that they would have to go behind the iconostasis is unfortunate. I, too, have heard this rationale, and it belies a non sequitur. Women cannot go into the sanctuary (the area behind the iconostasis) because of Orthodox anthropology, not (as many wish) because of Levitical hygienic concerns. Dr. Esolen's point about the saving of souls is spot on: I would hope that Orthodoxy is willing to take the faithful risk of staying true to apostolic hieratic patterns, even to the extent of disappointing thousands of hopeful altar girls (or rather, their progressive aunts) tugging at stage left.
Posted by: Jonathan | Nov 13, 2006 6:02:08 AM
>>>he rationale against women being ordained into the Orthodox priesthood (which is the real reason for the interest in the female diaconate) that they would have to go behind the iconostasis is unfortunate. I, too, have heard this rationale, and it belies a non sequitur. Women cannot go into the sanctuary (the area behind the iconostasis) because of Orthodox anthropology, not (as many wish) because of Levitical hygienic concerns.<<<
It is amazing that you actually took a JOKE that the babas make to ridicule those calling for the ordination of women as being a serious argument.
The real reason women do go in the altar during liturgy (with the exception of deaconesses, who receive at the same time and in the same manner as deacons) is that NOBODY is allowed altar who does not have a legitimate reason for being there. The reasons for being there are (1) to serve at the altar; and (2) to clean, maintain and prepare the altar for services. Since women cannot serve at the altar, they cannot be in the altar during services (with the noted exception of deaconesses while receiving the Eucharist). Women are allowed in the altar for reason No.2, which, by the way, is not a function limited to women--I myself frequently clean the altar, change the altar cloths, set the Proskomide, etc., even when I am not actually serving durng liturgy.
So, the "Women behind the iconostasis" argument has nothing to do with Orthodox anthropology (i.e., the nature of man) but is in fact tautological in nature: women cannot go behind the screen because women cannot serve at the altar, therefore women cannot go behind the screen.
Levitic purity is never brought up today as a rationale for NOT ordaining women, at least not by serious theologians (who knows what nonsense brews between the ears of the faithful, though?). On the other hand, arguments put forth during the Middle Ages for priestly celibacy are repleat with appeals to ritual purity. We don't see anything like that in the Orthodox Tradition. We're pretty certain girls don't have cooties.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Nov 13, 2006 7:13:41 AM
Your pardon, please. I used the term anthropology to include the discussion of the different charisms of man and woman, the singular priesthood of Christ and the essential female aspect of the Church. I see now that I should not have used the category so sloppily.
I do not agree with the Levitical rationale in the least, although in many circles, unfortunately, it is not a joke. The cootiness of girls is disallowed simply because the preeminent Christian is the Mother of God. I am sorry if my comments offended you, especially since you serve at the Altar.
Posted by: Jonathan | Nov 13, 2006 9:09:19 AM
>>>I do not agree with the Levitical rationale in the least, although in many circles, unfortunately, it is not a joke. The cootiness of girls is disallowed simply because the preeminent Christian is the Mother of God. I am sorry if my comments offended you, especially since you serve at the Altar.<<<
No offense is taken. I greatly enjoy my service at the altar in the relatively minor capacity of acolyte, and find myself still humbled before the awesome Mystery that takes place upon the Holy Table. This has impelled me to learn as much as I can about the liturgy, that I may serve better. I am disappointed generally by the low level of knowledge and even lower level of interest that many people have about the liturgy; it is as if they show up, go through the motions and depart. I take comfort from the fact that the liturgy is so rich that even passive exposure over time inculcates the true beliefs of the Church.
For that reason, I really have problems with what some call "Baba (or Yaya) Theology"--the stuff that you learn at your granny's knee which everyone "knows" is true, but which is invariably wrong--sometimes 180 degrees wrong. As one priest told me, "The babas are the backbone of the Church, without which we would not have survived, but they are also the bane of our existence".
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Nov 13, 2006 9:23:00 AM
During my first visit to a (women's) monastery shortly after converting to Orthodoxy, at a Divine Liturgy I was amazed to see one of the nuns go through the deacon's door. When I later asked someone about this, I was told that certain nuns are given a license from their bishop to enter during the Liturgy and perform certain functions. (I do not know what these are.) So Stuart's point about entering the altar only with an express purpose rings true. I also know of a parish in which the wife of the priest wrote all of the icons on the back wall of the altar.
On a different subject, I personally have no love loss with the women priests I knew in the Episcopal Church. With one or two exceptions, they had an agenda other than protecting and appropriately distributing the sacraments and preaching the Word the God. In one of the last sermons I heard by a woman priest, just before I converted, the gist was: We don't need big words like epicelsis and anemnesis just as long as we love and accept everyone. This sermon was delivered about two months after the election of Gene Robinson had been approved by the General Conventions
Posted by: Kathy Hanneman | Nov 13, 2006 12:50:19 PM
Tony,
Spot on! Thanks for, as usual, pointing us to the heart of the matter.
Kamilla
Posted by: Kamilla | Nov 13, 2006 4:22:12 PM
Mr. Koehl, I know this is a tangent, but if Levitical rules and the supposed cootiness of women have nothing to do with why women usually can't go back behind the Ikonostasis...
What's up with women not being allowed to help decorate the kouvouklion while menstruating? Is that a real rule or a yiayia rule, and if it's a real rule, where does it come from if not Leviticus?
Posted by: luthien | Nov 13, 2006 4:39:25 PM
>>>What's up with women not being allowed to help decorate the kouvouklion while menstruating? Is that a real rule or a yiayia rule, and if it's a real rule, where does it come from if not Leviticus?<<<
Yaya theology at its worst. And think about it--who's going to enforce it? How? Somehow I don't think the Pani is going to volunteer to be panty inspector.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Nov 14, 2006 4:55:45 AM
Yaya theology at its worst.
Menstruation, Emissions, and Holy Communion.
This article claims that women must avoid communion during their menstrual cycle, and justifies this rule quite elaborately. Evidently, so must men who have had nocturnal emissions. I know that the Orthodox Christian Information Center is the hardline conservative wing of the EO, but nonetheless this illustrates that some serious theologians believe that menstruation should bar a woman from communion, and perhaps also kouvouklion.
Posted by: JS Bangs | Nov 14, 2006 11:57:20 AM
JS Bangs - orthodoxinfo.com is beyond the hard-right fringe. Much of its material comes from schismatic groups not in communion with any of the autocephalous Orthodox churches. The article you cite is one of them.
Posted by: Matthias | Nov 14, 2006 1:01:22 PM
I'll go even further on orthodoxinfo.com -- Mr. Barnes, who runs the site, is himself part of a hyper-traditionalist splinter group that is non-canonical. I have this from both an Antiochian Orthodox priest and a Byzantine Catholic theology professor. The latter tells his students specifically to avoid the site, as it is not representative of canonical Orthodoxy. I'm not sure how one could verify this, as Barnes isn't particularly forthcoming about his Orthodox connections. But I bet with a little digging one could prove or disprove it.
Posted by: anonymous | Nov 14, 2006 4:09:08 PM
Actually Mr. Barnes states quite clearly on the site that he is a member of a particular canonical church and even identifies his parish. Look for "About the Webmaster".
Nevertheless it is a fact that a great deal of the material comes from "splinter group" sources. The article cited by JS BANGS above is an example of such, and it teaches things that I personally have never seen taught by any authority from mainstream Orthodoxy.
Posted by: Matthias | Nov 14, 2006 7:16:50 PM
>>>Yaya theology at its worst. And think about it--who's going to enforce it? How?<<
Posted by: luthien | Nov 15, 2006 3:01:06 PM
Jeepers, are we far afield. Started out on this thread with an exegesis of "neither male nor female," and its relation to ordination. And now we're smirking at Baba's, razzing the Yaya's.
Some of us were evangelized by black-dressed crones, who even suggested that demons were hanging on the lampadki. I said surely no to this (and to some other interesting data). They shrugged, saying, in ponasemu (take your pick which), undoubtedly, "he's too young, what does he know?"
That was from their reading of St. Paul's remark in 1 Corinthians on head coverings. I disagreed with them then, as I do now. I disagree with the splinter groups for being splintery. I disagree with the mainstream for going downstream.
I agree, however, with a Yaya's illiterate heart, who stayed in church, long after her more progressive progeny left for places with Starbucks and KrispyKreme. Places where there are, surely, no enforcement and no possibility of hyper-tradition. Where Yaya's and Baba's don't know where to stand, because they can't find the Cross.
Posted by: Jonathan | Nov 15, 2006 3:46:42 PM
'Actually Mr. Barnes states quite clearly on the site that he is a member of a particular canonical church and even identifies his parish. Look for "About the Webmaster".'
Thanks for this, Jonathan. I don't recall seeing that page before (although it's been a while since I was at the site), and I had it on quite good authority that he had been part of a splinter group; it seems that that has been rectified, and that is a good thing. I don't want to bear false witness. Still, the site is not a good source for Orthodox info. Much better going to one of the sites connected with a canonical juridiction, or that has been approved by one or more of those.
Posted by: anonymous | Nov 15, 2006 4:38:36 PM
sorry -- post above s/b addressed to Matthias instead of Jonathan. (see how easy it is to get things wrong?)
Posted by: anonymous | Nov 15, 2006 4:40:41 PM
Recent Comments
Bloggers
Popular Threads
Archives
OLD ARCHIVES 2002-2004
From May 2002–December 2004, Mere Comments was published via Blogger.com. Every post is still available at the link above.
Member since 12/2004