You support sexism, Gamma
You need to lie down at the thought that some people support repealing women's right to vote? You signed up for a church that doesn't ordain women. You weren't baptized into it before you were making your own choices. You joined as a grown-ass adult who should know better. Whatever is passing for theology in churches that don't ordain women is full support for the idea that women's humanity is not equal to men's.
You're complicit. You don't get to take to your fainting couch.
You're complicit. You don't get to take to your fainting couch.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
But you are entitled to it.
You are not entitled to tut tut or exclaim at the pastors who want to take away my right to vote. Fuck off.
FWIW I wouldn't tut tut at any church that ordained you as a priest. They would be perfectly at liberty to do so if that's what you wanted and what their polity permitted.
I can see why you've called me to Hell but it's not for you to determine what I am 'entitled' or not 'entitled' to do.
What am I supposed to do? Withdraw my disapproval of Doug Wilson's apparent views on women's right to vote just because you think that's inconsistent with membership of a Church which doesn't ordain women to the priesthood?
Where am I supposed to 'fuck off' to? Off the Ship entirely?
It's none of anyone's business if I chose to abandon the Christian faith, say, and go and live in an ashram, any more than it's any business of mine what church or denomination any Shipmate chooses to join or not to join, or whether they choose to belong to another religion or have no faith whatsoever.
So I'll fuck off from here and continue to post elsewhere on these boards and reserve the right to do so unless I breach the rules.
Overturning Roe was a major project of the US right for decades. Not that I think you should know this, but it came up again and again in Supreme Court justice nomination hearings. It was still a shock to me, but not a surprise.
And while I'm at it -- the Orthodox Church in America celebrated the decision that overturned Roe v Wade.
The OCA would probably argue that they are upholding the humanity of the unborn by celebrating the over-turning of Roe vs Wade but that's a matter for Epiphanies, I think.
Meanwhile, FWIW it's not as if I became Orthodox because of their polity on women's ordination and I certainly don't regard my daughter's marriage as 'invalid' because it was celebrated by a female Anglican priest a few months ago.
If Orthodoxy is about anything it should be about the full humanity of everyone. Whether it always lives up to that is open to debate of course.
At least you've not 'dehumanised' me by calling me an 'asshole.' That's a part of the human anatomy we all share in common.
I've intentionally stayed away from the women's ordination discussion on the Ship from the beginning, along with a number of other subjects, and I'm not going to break my personal policy here. But it seems to me like cowardice to let Gamma Gamaliel take all the heat for what has been the historical opinion of almost all Christian groups from the beginning, and which remains the same for some groups like the Orthodox and the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod.
Pity I don't smoke. Something before the firing squad commences would have been nice.
As would many far-right Christian nationalists. Hence, the self-applied label "pro-life", and the claim that people involved in abortion are "murderers". Whether we take those moral protestations at face value is another question.
Dafyd Hell Host
And mine for continuing the tangent.
I think there is a meaningful distinction between a long-established affiliation and a recently chosen conversion, but while I think that male-only ministry is rooted in misogyny I think it's a mistake to assume that even a convert to a particular historic denomination shares that root ideology. It's a bit different with the smaller protestant factions, though, because you pretty much can pick and choose which one reflects your own views, and it's hard to believe Hegseth has much objection to what his pastor teaches.
Oh please. You're not a martyr.
In Canada, I know there were quite a few progressives who made a big stink about PM Stephen Harper's conversion to Christian and Missionary Alliance, because that faith promotes sexist ideas and so(they reasoned) we can assume that Harper will do the same in the political realm, but were generally unperturbed about Justin Trudeau's membership in the Roman Catholic Church, even though the RCC is as sexist as the CMAlliance.
I think a lotta the distinction might boil down to Harper actively converting to CMAlliance, presumably to get votes from like-minded people, whereas Trudeau was just born into Catholicism and decided to stay there. But something about that kinda reminds me of people who profess to be horrified at right-wing incels spewing misogynistic hate on the internet, but excuse similar attitudes from their favorite uncle with "Oh, he's just from a different era, that's all." I CAN kinda see the distinction, but I am rather agnostic about how far I would wanna take it.
Still hurts of course.
I'm a member of a political party that takes a very liberal view of various issues that tend to be discussed in Epiphanies.
I'm a convert to a Church which doesn't ordain women.
I'm currently commissioning two articles for an ecumenical publication I'm involved with. One on the role of women, and particularly women preachers, in a Protestant movement that was an 'early adopter' of that here in the UK.
The other is by a woman who used to be a priest in another church who converted to Orthodoxy and adjusted her views on women priests whilst maintaining that women's ministry is not 'incidental' but part of the Tradition.
She might be called to Hell to face the firing squad if she was here but that's her view and the editor is interested in hearing that alongside other perspectives.
Does that mean the editor is a misogynist?
Or complicit in misogyny by carrying the article?
Part of their argument is that the Orthodox view of these things doesn't map neatly across onto 'Western' concepts and controversies nor indeed 'Western' views of ordination.
From the 'inside' and as someone who became Orthodox from a 'Western' Christian background I can see what she means, but equally can see that 'Ah, but we're Orthodox, we don't see things in the same categories as other churches,' can sound obscurantist and irritating.
I wasn't aware that @Lamb Chopped's particular Lutheran Synod didn't have female ministers, but I was aware that it is pretty conservative compared with other Synods within Lutheranism.
Heck, for a good while I'd assumed that Lamb Chopped was an ordained minister of some kind. She'd make a very good one if she was, and a very good non-ordained minister if she isn't.
As far as Orthodoxy goes, what was I supposed to do? Write to the Ecumenical Patriarch and say, 'I'm interested in joining your Church but I won't do so until you ordain women as priests.
I might have been waiting 500 years or ...
The charismatic evangelical group I belonged to didn't have female elders but gradually allowed women to preach. I was in a Baptist church for a while after that and had a good time in that setting. The Baptists here have women ministers but they are fewer and further between than one might expect. I was involved in an Anglican parish when I moved here and before I became Orthodox.
In the Orthodox Church women aren't ordained to the priesthood of course but they can and do teach in theological seminaries and so on.
None of which is going to get me out of Hell, I don't suppose.
In my experience, those kinds of culture-based arguments for inequality usually equate to complementarianism, dressed up in exotic non-western garb.
"In Wherevian culture, we don't have the same idea of equality that westerners do. When we make women sit at the back of the church, it's to show that they are the backbone of society."
Not saying that's what your Orthodox apologists for male-only clergy were saying, though to be honest, I'd be surprised if it wasn't.
My church does ordain women to the priesthood and the episcopacy, and after years of wrestling with it, I concluded that their ordination was valid about 25 (?) years ago—there was a thread on the old Ship about it.
But before that, from sincere doctrinal concerns, I was not convinced of it. And I understand those who are not and don’t think they are bad people for it.
If I ever believed I had to leave the Episcopal Church and/or the Anglican end of the spectrum, I think I’d go back to the Roman Catholic Church, which I chose to be baptized in when I became a Christian in high school (which I have always considered to be a decision made as an adult, at least intellectually an adult; whether I’m emotionally an adult, even now, over 40 years later, could be up for debate…).
So I’m going to add my own “I am Spartacus!” to @Lamb Chopped in support of @Gamma Gamaliel. ❤️
@stetson, I'd rather wait and see what my correspondent, a female Orthodox theology-teacher actually writes than jump to conclusions as to what their argument might be based on your assumptions.
Whatever they write it will be based on their understanding of scripture and the Fathers (and Mothers) in the context of Tradition rather than, 'this is what happens in Greek / Russian / Whatever Else culture.'
Although the way we do theology is shaped of course by our cultural contexts.
There are certainly cultural issues and baggage that people from Eastern Mediterranean and other countries with a large Orthodox presence bring with them. The same would apply if you or I went to live in another part of the world.
That's not primarily what I'm taking about though. There are certainly cultural and other traditional practices that Orthodox Christians in 'Western' societies don't observe and I know clergy who refuse to observe some of them.
That doesn't mean I don't come up against practices or attitudes that rankle or cause me concern. Of course I do.
I've sometimes come across the view that people convert to Orthodoxy from non-Orthodox backgrounds because they want to be 'different' or go against the grain.
The late Tom Smail once said that to me about the late Fr Michael Harper who converted to Orthodoxy from an Anglican 'renewal' background - much to my late mother-in-law's annoyance and distress. Harper had been the one to introduce her to the charismatic renewal and she assumed his conversion to Orthodoxy was a denial of that.
Heck, my late wife thought there was an element of that in my interest in Orthodoxy. Yes, I'd accept there was. It seemed exotic and both alluring and repellent at one and the same time.
FWIW we married in an evangelical charismatic context that was highly 'complementarian' in the way it taught about human relationships and the expectations it had of them and which it fostered and encouraged.
In practice though, even though I made so so many mistakes I'd like to go back and rectify, I think I can safely say our marriage was an equal partnership. It wasn't a case of 'The Stepford Wives' or me having the final say on any issue. We made joint decisions and the one time I did try to force an issue and over-ride that I caused both of us considerable pain and anxiety. I was glad I was able to ask her forgiveness for that and other failings before she died.
I didn't become Orthodox while she was alive nor did I do so immediately after her death. Had I done so it may well have created some tensions but not I think in terms of how we related to one another in terms of decision-making and so on.
I do think there is a difference between Orthodox views on gender roles within the Church and what we might encounter in conservative evangelical circles. I can't speak for conservative Lutheranism, I suspect it may be different again.
In the Orthodox Tradition it's more mystical, to use a slippery term, and sacramental - and based on tradition as well as particular scriptural references.
It'd be similar in that respect to the approach @ChastMastr describes and from which he has now moved.
I can think of quite a few issues in 'Eastern' theology and practice that don't map easily across onto 'Western' approaches to these things. And vice versa. We are less 'Augustan' for a start. Arguably less 'Scholastic'. Equally, we are a lot less innovative.
Whatever the case it isn't an approach that says, 'This is how they behave in rural Bulgaria so we are going to replicate it in urban Birmingham...'
Or at least it shouldn't be.
Fire away if you wish.
Basically I have found in my personal experience that jumping from the stance of a group an individual belongs to, to that individuals personal stance is fraught with problems if the group is not a single issue organisation.
Apologies for stating the obvious.
The difficulty there, surely, is that "The Society" *is* a single issue organisation, even if its affiliated churches are not.
I suppose the challenge here is "what is a dealbreaker"? Would any of us tolerate, no matter how good everything else it did, a church that taught that only white people could be ordained? Why are some things tolerable but others not?
Whatever our views are on the ordination of women - or ordination per se, some churches don't recognise that concept - they don't drop out of the ether. It's not as if someone woke up morning in the 3rd or 4th century and said, 'No here's an idea ...'
That's not to say that we shouldn't test or challenge traditional teachings or assumptions and if someone's operating in a 'reformed' tradition - Big R or small r - then of course all these things are open to continuous evaluation within certain agreed parameters.
For hundreds of years Russian Christians weren't allowed Slavic bishops. All their bishops came from the Eastern Mediterranean. There was nothing in scripture or tradition to say that this should be the case, in fact quite the opposite. So, what happened when the Muscovites were finally allowed to ordain Russian clergy? It pretty much coincided with the Fall of Constinople and a combination of factors led to the rise of a very nationalistic form of Orthodoxy that reacted against the Byzantine-centricity that preceded it.
Ok, I'm simplifying things to make a point. The existing Caesaro-Papism of the Byzantines passed onto the Tsars. We see the deleterious results of this today.
Can we draw parallels between that and the issue of female ordination? Yes, I think we can. How various churches tackle that is going to differ according to a whole range of factors.
It's like ecumenism. There are a range of views on how that should work. I've come across people in what might be considered 'sectarian' groups who are far more eirenic than others I've met in 'historic Church' settings where ecumenism is meant to be on the agenda.
We can find people with apparently contradictory views in every setting.
There were (are?) Anglo-Catholics who are highly in favour of gay clergy, for instance, but who'd fight tooth and nail to prevent women being ordained. A conservative might say they were wrong on one count but not the other, a more liberally inclined person would say they were completely inconsistent and should support both.
But you know all that ...
I guess what I'm saying is that in my experience the church you end up joining is an emotional and a call-by-God thing rather than an intellectual choice, and that might include accepting some things.
And because it's emotional, I should hate to move church - if I did it would have to be because I thought God was calling me to be somewhere else, probably as a result of the teaching having become/turned out to be something I believed God thought was wrong. It's all very tricky.
And yet there have been churches that taught that the Curse of Ham meant that Black people were destined to be hewers of wood and drawers of water. You and I might think their justifications for this so much hokum, but I rather think the same of justifications for institutional misogyny and homophobia.
I already knew you to be a sexist jerk from your opinions about inclusive language in hymns.
Says a lot about both of you if you're fine with sexism and misogyny in polite language about culture and belief. Good to know.
You are supporting sexism. If and when women's rights are challenged in the UK, you'll be part of the reason why that can happen.
I thought about saying something along these lines earlier. None of the people defending their affiliations with sexist organizations here would join an organization with a racist theology.
Every one of you posting long discussions of your reasons for belonging to sexist organizations is rationalizing the sexism that leads to the things happening to women in the United States right now. I started this thread because Gamma needed to go lie down at the thought that people would take away women's right to vote. How do you think things like this happen? Roe v Wade was overturned four years ago. Maternal deaths have gone way up in the US states that don't have abortion rights. Pete Hegseth is getting rid of anyone who's not a white man in the high ranks of the military. He'd love to get women out of the military altogether. Meanwhile, the Southern Baptist Convention is working toward banning women from preaching and teaching. When they get that far, both the first- (Catholic Church) and second-largest (SBC) bodies of Christians in the US will treat women as second-class.
Women around the world are jailed, beaten up, and killed (including in the US -- don't forget about the maternal deaths) because of the ideas that you're supporting, even if you have reservations about those ideas. You belong to those groups. You shouldn't. Leave. It's morally wrong to support groups that promulgate ideas that lead to anyone's oppression if you have the ability to leave them.
That strikes me as odd. If I felt I should agree with "my group", and I didn't, then I'd either have to decide it didn't matter after all, or leave the group. I certainly wouldn't be able to change my view, any more than I can look out of the window and decide the grass is blue because someone says it is. I'd need a good, cogent reason that I hadn't heard before and found unconvincing.
But our emotions include things like our responses to institutionalised sexism, surely? I mean, when I've objected to things like the Joshua genocides or conscious eternal torment or the sacrifice of Isaac I've sometimes been accused of emotionalism!
There's also nothing in scripture that suggests only men be ordained. A woman (or several women, depending on the account) was the first to learn the Good News of Christ's triumph over death and be told to preach it to others.
Of course all of us in the western world live ethically compromised lives. It's extremely difficult to buy groceries or home goods that were produced without slave labor or other human rights violations, so most of us (including me) just try not to think about it. But it's not that hard to find a church that ordains women, or if you're deeply attached to the tradition you were raised in, to fight for change from within.
Nasty, nasty, Ruth. I’ve been following your posts for 20+ years and you can do better than this diatribe. It achieves nothing, especially as you have fuck-all idea where any of the other posters are coming from.
It pays to have a thick hide on this leaky old vessel.
On the first bit, if I remember there were two factors in play. One of which was that I was young and not all of my views were formed and (startlingly for a teenaged autistic) I let myself be guided by others.
The other factor is I'd read that bit of the Screwtape letters where Screwtape is mocking the new convert for seeking a church that "suited him" rather than just turning up and learning from those already in The Church, and had taken it literally. (Teenaged autistic, not that I knew I was autistic at the time.)
On the second bit, I was meaning to convey that I came to the church and God through something that wasn't an intellectual choice. So I didn't - before being converted - assess whether what I already thought fitted with the church. I came to the church out of emotion (or coming to faith if that's a better expression), and then had a look round to see how much of the church fitted with my intellectual preconceptions. I feel outraged about the Joshua genocides, but they're in the Bible and I can't come to God without the Bible, so I find myself stuck with them. I don't have to like them - they're just there. I'm not going to walk out because of them.
Yes, Christianity is very large and it contains people whose views are wildly incompatible with each other, but that does not mean they are morally equivalent or that they belong in the same more category.
Ruth's anger comes from wanting to protect women from harm. Wilson wants to restablish male hierarchy and restrict women. These are not parallel positions, even if they fall under the historical umbrella of Christian.
Ahem ... you are talking to someone from the Tradition that gave us the story of the women being the first to share the Good News.
And also the Tradition that developed the concept of ordination.
Where do you think these ideas came from?
Now, that isn't to say that traditional views on these things shouldn't be questioned, challenged or redefined any more than it means that people in churches which hold traditional practices in these matters are cool about women being denied civic and other rights.
Yes, although as far as I am aware Ruth no longer professes a faith position.
Which she is perfectly entitled to do. Not that she needs my 'permission' or anyone else's for that matter.
The broader point to me is that they both fall under the current umbrella of Christianity.
The stance arises from much deeper roots. Some I do accept, some I do not accept and some I am in decided on. Certainly the congregation I was with it had a lot to do with it's understanding of the validity of the sacraments. I loved that it cared about these things while not being persuaded by the criteria. It comes from their understanding of Church, which I disagree with as too Roman centric and worried over authority, but I can still honour. It's theirs not mine and mine allows me to be generous. It comes from the way they read scripture which I think is misguided on this topic but I am well aware there are probably planks in my own eyes. These arguments don't lead simply to this one topic, they also lead to high sacramentalism, they lead to a concern for the poor, they lead to much I can appreciate.
As to whether I would join a church that only ordained white people, or black people. I would need to see what the wider context was. If other things being equal it was a choice between one that exists and connect with people around them in a poor predominantly black neighbourhood I live in or travelling to a safe middle class white congregation that technically permits it, guess which way my head is telling my feet to go. So often in my experience that is the choice.
I knew a black woman Baptist minister who faithfully attended a Baptist church that would not recognise her ministry. It was where in her tradition she felt she best fitted at the time. That didn't make her anti-woman's ordination did it?
Or ask yourself should a pacifist ever vote for a party that would keep nuclear weapons. The answer is yes.
You mean the Christian Tradition? Because occupying some of the same geographic area doesn't give the Eastern Church exclusive ownership of scripture and its transmission.
Either @Gamma Gamaliel regards the authors of the gospel as Orthodox(IOW Orthodoxy is the direct successor to the early church), or more likely(I'd imagine), Orthodoxy moreso than other Faith's places some special emphasis on the fact that it was women who first learned about and announced the Resurrection.
Maybe I have misunderstood. Maybe Ruth could clarify that specific train of thought and if necessary specify the actual causal link and maybe point me in the direction of any studies that might shed light on the causality. Because as she has phrased it I feel that she is personally blaming me for violence against women. Therefore I feel entitled to call her out.
Other posters are tolerating, rationalizing and/or supporting ideas that get women killed in some parts of the world, including the US, but I'm the nasty one? American democracy is in such deep decline that taking away rights from over half the adult population is a thinkable, sayable thing, posters here support ideas that help.make that possible - and your complaint is about how I discuss that. You need to rethink your priorities.
If you (the general you) live in an historically Christian-majority country where women's rights are reasonably secure, and you can't imagine that people are trying to figure out how to keep women from voting, it's partly because Christianity is in such retreat that it can't be leveraged enough in ways that jeopardize women's rights.
I can tell that @Gamma Gamaliel is very passionate about his Orthodox tradition.
I can equally tell @Ruth is very passionate about her defense of the status of women in society and also within the church.
Paul does say in Gal 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (NIV)
Then, too, in our Declaration of Independence, Americans also have the principle; "These truths are self-evident: all men (i.e. persons} are created equal.
These two principles are ideal. Neither one has been fully achieved since they were first proposed..
Now, I could argue that there is indeed evidence of women priests going all the way back to the second century. Consequently, I do not buy @Gamma Gamaliel's take that the Orthodox position there have only been male priests is historically correct.
Then too, in American history we can trace 250 some years of the development from all men are created equal to the ideal all persons are created equal. But we still are not at the goal line even on this.
Still, it is neither black or white either in the church or in the state. Some denominations have opened the way for restoring women to the ordained clergy. The ELCA has just celebrated 50 years of that achievement this past year. Yet, one rather large significant Christian body has retrenched its position on women ministers. I certainly will continue to pray for them.
Ruth, though, is very concerned about the rights of women in secular society. It is sad that the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade. It is alarming we have people the likes of Doug Wilson wanting to do away with women's rights all under the guise of religion. (Note to @The_Riv--I personally think Wilson epitomizes the devil in sheep's clothing).
For me, though, the good news is, when it comes to politics, there will eventually be a turning. We have the mid-terms coming up, then, once that is settled we move on to the next general election in 2028. With the recent primary wins of the Democratic Socialists of America, I believe there is reason to hope, the ship will eventually be re-righted
When it comes to the church, I think there will continue to be a wide spectrum of beliefs concerning women in the church. There will be some that have rejoiced in working under female leaders of the church (half our bishops in the ELCA are women, and we have had one female national bishop (about the same level as an Anglican Archbishop) and we will continue to have people who will insist that the ordained priesthood should continue to remain male.
But perhaps we can begin by recognizing what we share before we attack what divides us. And perhaps we can keep addressing the role and dignity of women—in both church and society—with steadiness, humility, and a commitment to the long work ahead. None of this will be solved in our lifetime, but that doesn’t mean the work isn’t worth doing.