I personally participated in getting changes to attitudes re women preaching, teaching and leading in my local congregation. The church eldership is 50/50 males female and women preach about half of the weekly sermons. But it’s an independent congregationalist church
So that pace of reform doesn’t work with large institutional churches. There the weight of tradition is too heavy.
I don’t fully understand how church life works in the US. As best I understand things from a distance, I’d be quite happy to be a member of a church functioning under Bishop Mariann Budde’s progressive leadership. I’m sure there are lots of others I wouldn’t join.
I wouldn’t presume to analyse Ruth’s reasons for leaving the church altogether. But I do understand there are moral imperatives to be taken into account if we decide to stay.
I struggled with that issue for almost 18 months some 45 years ago, but decided in the end, at least for a period, that I would try being inside pissing out rather than outside pissing in. As things have turned out I’m content with that decision.
Ok, a few brief points before I turn in. I may make a few observations tomorrow once I'm hopefully less hot and tired. I've had an amateur dramatics rehearsal and am pretty bushed.
Firstly, welcome @Gramps49. I won't bite your head off, nor anyone else's I hope.
Secondly, yes, as it happens I do historically see the Orthodox Church (and the RCs and Oriental Orthodox) as immediate descendants of the early Church - because that is what those bodies are in chronological terms.
So I do find it a bit rich to be told what's in the Bible because the rest of Christendom only has the Bible in the first place because, put simplistically, we wrote it. 😉
When I say we I mean what developed into the 'Apostolic' Churches from which all other Christian churches have evolved or separated from at some time or other.
And @stetson no, I don't regard these other churches as other 'Faiths' but all participants in the Christian faith but in different expressions of it. Nor do I deny them the right to interpret the 'Apostolic deposit' that we all share as they see fit.
Before the Great Schism the terms Orthodox and Catholic were coterminous. Yes, there were different emphases and regional variations but essentially Eastern and Western Christianity were the same Church - although there were also the non-Chalcedonian and the Syriac churches of course.
Which is why the Orthodox venerate pre-Schism Western Saints. The only reason Orthodoxy is Eastern is because the Patriarchates of the Eastern part of Europe remained in communion with one another but not with Rome.
It was messy and by no means clean cut. There were people in Croatia who weren't aware for several centuries that a Schism had taken place.
Anyway ... I said I'd be brief. Must try harder.
In response to Stetson's second point, yes, the Orthodox Church does put a strong emphasis on 'The Myrrh-Bearing Women' as the first witnesses to the Resurrection and on female Saints - such as St Nina Equal-To-The-Apostles.
We also place a strong emphasis on Mary as the Theotokos - 'God-bearer' of course.
I sometimes wonder whether if we'd had Matriarchates rather than Patriarchates issues like the Great Schism may never have arisen or at least been more speedily resolved.
I've heard the claims by some historians that there were female priests back in the second history but they were expunged from history and I'd be interested in looking into that more closely. I must admit that I'm always a tad suspicious of 'everything was lovely until X when the nasty Constantine or Whover Else messed everything up' - which isn't to say I endorse everything these guys did.
When I say there are differences between 'Eastern' and 'Western' ways of doing theology, I mean precisely that. I'm not talking primarily about differences between Romanian peasant culture and Western culture, although we have tensions around issues like that within our multicultural parishes here in 'the West'.
That's why Orthodox Christians and other Christians often end up 'talking past each other.' We often take a different approach to the same issues. Sometimes there's complete congruence. Other times less so.
Finally for now, we've been asked to steer clear of 'Roe vs Wade' here in Hell yet it's still being mentioned.
That's an issue for Epiphanies.
I don't expect this post has resolved anything and it may well raise more questions than answers. Which is fine. Happy to address those in Purgatory, Ecclesiastical or wherever else is appropriate.
I'll take flak here but won't get into a slanging match as I try to avoid those these days.
It'd be similar in that respect to the approach @ChastMastr describes and from which he has now moved.
Not necessarily — I’m not sure my reasons before necessarily map onto those (but I don’t know the details) nor that my reasons after are ones in which I’ve moved from the approach Orthodoxy takes. But that likely need to be its own thread, and I’m not even sure a thread about the various positions regarding women’s ordination to the priesthood and episcopacy has a place on the current Ship at all. I miss Dead Horses.
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
Not in my case, but I may be an odd case. There can be emotions involved to a degree, though. Lately I’ve genuinely wondered if it might behoove me to get involved with an additional church (maybe one with more gay guys?) just to kind of get to know people there that I might have more in common with than the church that I’m at. But I don’t easily fit into any one category in general in any of the groups that I’m connected to, sadly… not that I expect to find a social group that is both Christian and gay and geeky (SF, fantasy, animation, comics, Japanese stuff, etc.) and leathery, of course. But I often feel like I’m too Christian for this group and too gay for that group and too geeky for another group, and the leather thing is its own thing… But for me, the Eucharist and the theology are the main things I look for when picking a new church, so it’s more of an intellectual choice, in my possibility unusual case.
I have long avoided this thread, primarily because my head has been bitten off by both antagonists.
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.
Really, if it's necessary for us to leave every church with which we have a disagreement, we're going to wind up with a world of a couple billion churches--all with a membership of one.
And @stetson no, I don't regard these other churches as other 'Faiths' but all participants in the Christian faith but in different expressions of it. Nor do I deny them the right to interpret the 'Apostolic deposit' that we all share as they see fit.
Okay. Let's do it like this.
...you are talking to someone from the Tradition that gave us the story of the women being the first to share the Good News.
First question. When did this "giving of the story" happen?
Second question. What would you call the Tradition that gave us the story?
Really, if it's necessary for us to leave every church with which we have a disagreement, we're going to wind up with a world of a couple billion churches--all with a membership of one.
You know I didn't say people should leave over every disagreement. And you wouldn't merely "disagree" with a theology that said your husband couldn't be ordained because he isn't white.
When the SAVE Act makes it harder for many married women to vote because their last names don't match their birth certificates, don't complain about it.
So I do find it a bit rich to be told what's in the Bible because the rest of Christendom only has the Bible in the first place because, put simplistically, we wrote it. 😉
When I say we I mean what developed into the 'Apostolic' Churches from which all other Christian churches have evolved or separated from at some time or other.
Not the best laugh I've had today, but one of the better ones. "We wrote the Bible," even with the explanation, is hilarious. You don't own the Apostles and their works any more than other Christians do.
Correct me if I am wrong, but is Ruth suggesting a specific, identified causal link between not ordaining women and violence against women. Even more she seems to be suggesting that membership of a church that does not ordain women is a tacit support of violence against women.
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.
Speaking on my own behalf, not to speak for Ruth - European shippies may not understand the tremendous influence of the Catholic church and various evangelical groups in American politics. Although I feel like it's been explained multiple times before.
American Catholic, evangelical and LDS churches - namely, the churches that don't ordain women - pour vast amounts of money and activism into the anti-abortion and anti-birth control movements at the state and federal levels. If you give money to one of these churches in the US, some part of it is going to support anti-abortion/birth control activism. Plus since many of our hospitals are Catholic-owned, their ethics policies impact the general public every day.
Decreased access to abortion and birth control leads directly to deaths, either from pregnancy/childbirth complications or from partner violence. The number one cause of death during pregnancy is spousal abuse. Which is also connected to the patriarchal view of wives as subject to their husbands, and restrictions on divorce.
All these statistics are well known in the US and easy to google. Ruth doesn't need to explain it to anybody. The bottom line is, if you give money to the Catholic church in the US, some part of it will be used to endanger women's health and lives.
Really, if it's necessary for us to leave every church with which we have a disagreement, we're going to wind up with a world of a couple billion churches--all with a membership of one.
You know I didn't say people should leave over every disagreement. And you wouldn't merely "disagree" with a theology that said your husband couldn't be ordained because he isn't white.
When the SAVE Act makes it harder for many married women to vote because their last names don't match their birth certificates, don't complain about it.
You're making a helluva lot of assumptions here, some of which have to do with my marriage, as well as my own view of myself. Which I find obnoxious, but I can't correct you, because I'm not about to wind up in Epiphanies--especially when I've already said there are subjects I refuse to discuss on the Ship.
So this is basically your invitation to say what the hell you like, given that I won't be answering you.
Really, if it's necessary for us to leave every church with which we have a disagreement, we're going to wind up with a world of a couple billion churches--all with a membership of one.
You know I didn't say people should leave over every disagreement. And you wouldn't merely "disagree" with a theology that said your husband couldn't be ordained because he isn't white.
When the SAVE Act makes it harder for many married women to vote because their last names don't match their birth certificates, don't complain about it.
So I do find it a bit rich to be told what's in the Bible because the rest of Christendom only has the Bible in the first place because, put simplistically, we wrote it. 😉
When I say we I mean what developed into the 'Apostolic' Churches from which all other Christian churches have evolved or separated from at some time or other.
Not the best laugh I've had today, but one of the better ones. "We wrote the Bible," even with the explanation, is hilarious. You don't own the Apostles and their works any more than other Christians do.
I didn't say we 'owned' it but that it derives historically from the oldest Christian groups that developed into what we now call the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches.
You may have missed the winking emoji just as you have failed to read for comprehension.
You've overlooked the comment I made about groups being free to interpret the 'Apostolic deposit' as they see fit.
And @stetson no, I don't regard these other churches as other 'Faiths' but all participants in the Christian faith but in different expressions of it. Nor do I deny them the right to interpret the 'Apostolic deposit' that we all share as they see fit.
Okay. Let's do it like this.
...you are talking to someone from the Tradition that gave us the story of the women being the first to share the Good News.
First question. When did this "giving of the story" happen?
Second question. What would you call the Tradition that gave us the story?
I'd call it Holy Tradition.
The 'giving of the story' started as soon as the first disciples began to witness to these things. Gradually they began to write down what they believed as part of that process, part of a living Tradition that carries on today.
None of us would be Christians otherwise whatever form of Christianity we espouse.
@Antisocial Alto - the Orthodox do believe in the 'priesthood of all believers' in the sense that all of us have a role in the 'royal priesthood' - or what we might call the 'common priesthood' - and yes, 'in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, slave nor free but all are one in Christ Jesus.'
There is a synergistic relationship between that and what we might call the 'ministerial priesthood' - which, like it or loathe it, is currently restricted in Orthodoxy to men ordained to the role and in what we'd regard as Apostolic Succession.
Other Christian churches do things differently of course. Some don't have any formal ordination at all. That's their prerogative.
You also make some comments about the Roman Catholic Church in relation to issues that Hosts have asked us to take to Epiphanies rather than explore here in Hell.
@ChastMastr - I speculated that your sacramental views were 'similar' to Orthodoxy's not that they were identical necessarily. As a Christian with a sacramental approach you'd be closer to the Orthodox position in that respect than, say, someone from a Christian tradition which didn't have a 'high' view of the sacraments.
That doesn't mean that a Christian from a less sacramentally focused tradition wouldn't share other things in common with Orthodoxy and may well be closer to it in other respects.
However we cut these things there are points of intersection, overlap and areas we all share in common.
Not that it all boils down to intellectual assent to a set of theological propositions. It's about the life of Christ expressed in each and every one of us whether we are 'ordained' or 'lay' or however we understand and practice those things - or not as the case may be.
God works everywhere and in and through all things. It's not as if he restricts his grace to particular people, ceremonies or expressions of faith.
That doesn't mean he's absent, as it were, from those ceremonies or expressions of faith either, of course.
The Orthodox Church does things in a particular and prescriptive way. That doesn't mean God doesn't work anywhere or everywhere else.
@Antisocial Alto - the Orthodox do believe in the 'priesthood of all believers' in the sense that all of us have a role in the 'royal priesthood' - or what we might call the 'common priesthood' - and yes, 'in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, slave nor free but all are one in Christ Jesus.'
There is a synergistic relationship between that and what we might call the 'ministerial priesthood' - which, like it or loathe it, is currently restricted in Orthodoxy to men ordained to the role and in what we'd regard as Apostolic Succession.
There's no reason to restrict ordination to men which doesn't imply, or say straight out, that women are inferior. None. Give me one, I dare you.
And saying that the priesthood of all believers somehow gives women a role is laughable. What, because we're baptized? So are babies. Let me know when the "priesthood of all believers" means we get to control any money or make any decisions that affect men.
This is very clearly a Hell thread and we will not be moving it to Epiphanies, but it will be closely watched.
The central thesis seems to be that if you join a church you share moral responsibility for what it preaches and what it does. This is to some extent different from the theology of priesthood.
As someone said upthread, the question is why teaching X is not a dealbreaker.
If you agree with it, that might be a theological position - but people on thread seem to be arguing they joined a church bits of whose teaching they don’t agree with including refusing female priesthood, but this was not sufficient to be a dealbreaker.
I’m thinking about Hans Kung, for example. who remained within Catholicism but was openly and deeply critical of some central aspects of Tradition.
There’s a kind of prophetic element to that. A challenge to authority from within seems strongly demonstrated by OT and NT writings.
I’m not clear that leaving is the only option. Speaking out from within has its place. Let others, particularly those in authority, determine whether expulsion or silencing are merited.
I don't think that Gamaliel joining the Orthodox Church in the UK is going to materially impact women in the US. I think that it's possible to recognise the good things done by denominations that don't ordain women. But you (general you) can recognise those things without joining those churches - supporting those churches with your time and money is materially benefitting the causes those churches support, whether you agree with those causes or not.
Opposing women's ordination is fundamentally opposing women being able to do a particular job. Being a vocation doesn't make being a priest or bishop not a job, even if it is an unpaid role - unpaid work is still work. Denying a woman a particular job specifically because she is a woman is rightly illegal in most cases in the UK and US, and I don't believe that churches or any religious group should be allowed an exemption to that. I am very well aware of the ways in which different Christian oppositions to women's ordination differ from each other theologically, but sexism with less malicious intentions is still sexism. Churches that are members of the Society are a lot more pleasant to be part of than Doug Wilson's church, but they still believe that God wants to exclude women from particular jobs Just Because. That's just not acceptable, sorry.
Also, I note that none of the churches that deny women ordination suggest that there are any jobs within the church that men shouldn't do. If it's not misogyny, why is it only women that are denied here? This also affects trans men of course but because said churches see them as women.
@ChastMastr when you disagreed with women's ordination (and I do recognise and appreciate that you changed your mind), did you think that there was any role within the Church that should be only for women?
Speaking generally here (ie not specifically to ChastMastr), I don't think that women's ordination is something for men to opine on. It's just not any of your business if God calls a woman to ordination. I don't see what there is for a man to wrestle with here, it doesn't affect you. Women who disagree with women's ordination (I have known many!) should be an intra-community topic of discussion and not for men to stick their oar in.
Of course there is prejudice to be found in Tradition. There must be. You don’t need to be much of an historian to recognise the prejudices which were a normal, even regarded as beneficial, aspect of the beliefs of previous cultures. Cultural blind spots.
Of course there is prejudice to be found in Tradition. There must be. You don’t need to be much of an historian to recognise the prejudices which were a normal, even regarded as beneficial, aspect of the beliefs of previous cultures. Cultural blind spots.
I wonder what ours are?
I don't see any conflict between knowing that you are a human with human biases and blind spots and working on unlearning them, and seeing opposition to women's ordination as unacceptable.
To put it another way - I really dislike WATCH [Women And The Church, a Church of England pressure group] and some of their prominent members for various reasons, which are mostly Epiphantic so I won't get into them here. There are plenty of pro-women's-ordination churches I wouldn't attend and plenty that I have felt uncomfortable in. Those facts don't change the correctness of their pro-women's-ordination views even if I don't want to hang out with them.
I don't think that Gamaliel joining the Orthodox Church in the UK is going to materially impact women in the US.
Not in a direct way, no. But @Gamma Gamaliel apparently had no any idea that the attitudes toward women that his church espouses are the attitudes toward women of the people who want to take away my right to vote and who have already taken abortion rights away in some states.
Ideas can be powerful. The UK has its own extreme right-wing nonsense. I didn't think 10 years ago that my own right to vote would ever be a subject of discussion, but it is now. If things get bad for women in the UK, the ideas that nurture those developments will have had a reservoir in his church.
Everyone who belongs to an organization that discriminates against women -- as @Pomona points out so clearly, other employers can't legally do this, for good reason -- should understand that they are supporting some of the most pernicious ideas in our societies. Dress it up in language about culture and tradition and the Theotokos* all you want -- it's still wrong and dangerous.
*Do not trot out veneration of Mary as evidence for a church's tremendous regard for women. The virgin mother is an impossibly perfect standard of womanhood, a literal impossibility that is more cudgel than ideal.
Sexism should be a deal breaker. @Barnabas62 discusses his admirable work 45 years ago to make change from inside. 45 years ago most people couldn't choose a church that ordained women because there were so few. But because he and people like him did the hard work, now it's a choice.
@Antisocial Alto - the Orthodox do believe in the 'priesthood of all believers' in the sense that all of us have a role in the 'royal priesthood' - or what we might call the 'common priesthood' - and yes, 'in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, slave nor free but all are one in Christ Jesus.'
There is a synergistic relationship between that and what we might call the 'ministerial priesthood' - which, like it or loathe it, is currently restricted in Orthodoxy to men ordained to the role and in what we'd regard as Apostolic Succession.
There's no reason to restrict ordination to men which doesn't imply, or say straight out, that women are inferior. None. Give me one, I dare you.
And saying that the priesthood of all believers somehow gives women a role is laughable. What, because we're baptized? So are babies. Let me know when the "priesthood of all believers" means we get to control any money or make any decisions that affect men.
Who says women don't get to control money?
Women serve on parish councils in churches that don't ordain women to the priesthood and make decisions that affect the parish/congregation as a whole, men, women and children alike.
There are a lot of assumptions on this thread, both about what priesthood entails in an Orthodox context and what my own views might be.
I'm not here to pontificate about what other churches may or may not do. I don't think @Barnabas62 was 'wrong' for instance to press for female preachers in his particular context, for instance. That is fully in keeping with his tradition.
I may differ with him on what he understands by Big T Tradition to some extent but that's by the by.
There are female theologians and theological teachers/professors and so on who are Orthodox. I've heard some of them speak at conferences. You don't have to be a man nor a priest to do that, nor most functions in an Orthodox context.
The simple answer to the question I've been 'dared' to answer is that the reason the Orthodox Church doesn't ordain women to the priesthood is because it's not part of our Tradition to do so.
Whether that may change at some point in the future - the very distant future knowing how slowly the wheels turn - remains to be seen.
Whether it means the Orthodox Church will go into terminal decline due to Tradition as Barnabas62 suggests or as others may wish again remains to be seen.
There's no guarantee of longevity for any individual church or congregation of course. Orthodox parishes fizzle out just as churches in other Christian traditions do.
But if we believe that God will build his Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it then there are grounds for hope. Which doesn't mean that everything will stay as it is now.
There are anomalies all ways round.
Orthodox hierarchs often say that it is no business of theirs what other churches decide to do, then cut up rough because the Anglicans ordained women to the priesthood without consulting them or waiting for the RCs and Orthodox to do so at the same time.
As if that was going to happen ...
At other times they will say appreciative things and express gratitude for the insights of non-Orthodox theologians and Bible scholars and so on.
It'd be lovely if all the Christian churches were in step but sadly things are messy and we are far from that. 😞
Whatever our views are about the Orthodox Church I'm sure there are riches here from which all Christians can draw. I've heard Dr Rowan Williams say that. Does that make him 'complicit' with sexism and misogyny?
There's a guilt by association thing here at times. If someone is a Communist in Australia say, assuming they have them there, does that make them complicit with Stalin's crimes? I wouldn't say so. But neither would I consider their ideology desirable, unless it was tempered or 'humanised' in some way.
If someone is a neo-Nazi does that imply they are giving tacit approval to Hitler's genocides? Yes. I would contend it does. And apologies for bringing Godwin's Law into play but you take my point.
For my own part, I got to the point where I felt I could best draw from the riches I saw in Orthodoxy ' some of them set in the mud - by becoming Orthodox myself. That doesn't mean I despise or discount the good things I gained from my previous affiliations - many of which are shared in common across the Christian spectrum.
It doesn't mean either that I am unaware of the blotches, glitches and blind-spots within my adopted ecclesial home, any more than I'm unaware of things that need fixing around my house. Clutter to be decluttered. Dark corners to clean.
I'm not going to satisfy everyone with my answers nor do I pretend to know all the answers.
I may wake up dead as it were and find that the atheists were right all along. Who knows what will happen?
I may be posting here in a few years time saying I've lost my faith. That's happened to others here from a range of Christian backgrounds. Again, who knows? I hope not but there's no guarantee.
Barnabas62 asks what blind-spots we all may have. A good question and one I wouldn't presume to answer on any other group's behalf - there'll be aspects of the Baptist tradition I admire for instance and may seek to emulate, other matters I may disagree with. Likewise with the Pentecostals, Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, Anglicans and anyone else.
I wish I could express myself more briefly and cogently and with better grace than I do at times but those are some thoughts. There may be others.
I'm not saying there aren't right-wing cranks within Orthodoxy and one of the things that concerns me greatly is how many right-wing conservative evangelicals in the US are coming into it because they see it as a conducive home for their neo-Confederate shit-arse views.
I know people in the US who have jumped ship from the Orthodox Church to other sacramental settings such as the Eastern Catholics because they didn't think their bishops were doing enough to stop it.
If there were moves from within the Orthodox Church to stop women voting then I'd hope there was enough sanity to clamp down on that. It'd scare me shitless if there wasn't.
I knew there'd be a reaction to my mentioning of the Theotokos.
FWIW I regard her as an exemplar and model and only wish I could follow her example more closely.
<snip> The simple answer to the question I've been 'dared' to answer is that the reason the Orthodox Church doesn't ordain women to the priesthood is because it's not part of our Tradition to do so.
<snip>
I suppose that is a response to the question, but it doesn’t amount to much of a reason. Effectively it says “We don’t do it because we haven’t done it before.”
But even Orthodoxy has experienced development and change. Its practices now are not the same as they were in the second century, let alone the practice of the Apostles. It has also taken on board other aspects of cultural change and technological progress.
So why, in the past, did Orthodoxy not ordain women to the priesthood, and why does Tradition still cling to that practice?
Abstract from Mary and femininity: A psychological critique:
This essay uses Freud to interpret the symbolism and theology of Mary in modern Catholicism. In her role as the mother of believers, Mary functions to place the Christian in the position of a child who receives illusory gratification from the mother. In her role as model for Christians to emulate, Mary functions to place the Christian in the position of receptivity and dependence which Freud associated with femininity. Reinterpreting Freud from a feminist perspective, I suggest that the kind of femininity Mary represents serves to perpetuate patriachal social structures and to inhibit full psychological maturity.
Yes, @BroJames of course Orthodoxy has changed and developed. I'm not one of those Orthodox fundamentalists who believes that everything has remained identical to how things were on the Day of Pentecost.
I once met an Orthodox Archbishop from France who observed that the greatest threat to 'all the churches' came internally from fundamentalism, not externally from atheism.
I'd suggest there are other ways of approaching Mary than that article seems to suggest and there's a whole body of work out there across the Christian spectrum which explores that issue.
FWIW and at the risk of blowing my cover, I've recently returned to local politics after I'd stepped aside for what I thought might be forever in response to attempts by a certain far right party to get more places on the local council.
On a second attempt I succeeded.
I'm no great shakes and I'm not after a pat on the back for that.
At no point has my parish priest tried to dissuade me or influence me but rather I have done so with his blessing.
All he'd expect is that I do my best for the community and adhere to the principles and standards required.
Perhaps the Theotokos and all the Saints and your holy prayers Shipmates can help me with that.
I don't say this to elide criticism or avoid the heat here in Hell. I quite expect more criticism or scrutiny.
Odd thing, church membership. Lamb Chopped is right about the compromise involved, to avoid the two billion different churches nonsense.
But we have to try somewhere. Else all we hear are the echoes of our own mind. And I don’t think shopping for a fit is without dangers. I’ve met quite a few consumer Christians who seem to go through this well known cycle.
Enthusiasm
Confusion
Disillusionment
Search for the guilty
Punishment of the innocent
Move on
There is indeed a tipping point. I really did get very close to mine. And Fundamentalism and misogyny were the twin issues which brought me to the edge.
(The curious echo with Gamaliel’s political choice is that, looking back at it. I chose the reform journey, not the rebel journey.
But not Reform! What a mislabelling that is! As many folks will now discover to their cost.)
As has been hinted at differently countries behave differently. None Americans need to understand that things are different in the US and Americans need to understand that the other countries are different.
Here in Great Britain there seems not to be the connection about violence to women that Ruth is calling out. We are a different society. Church attendance and membership is low. Violence against women (and men) is not judged the same. There is famous case of a female politician being murdered because of the way she was portrayed. We have a tendency to see acts of violence as acts of violence. That may be because of political, faith or any other reason. We are much more atheistic as a nation. Understanding is a two way street.
I have been following this thread but have been very cautious to engage with it, partly because it is a hell thread and partly because, @Ruth you do come across as both dogmatic and very abrasive. The one reason that has prompted me to take the risk of engaging is the threat now hanging over this thread that it might be moved to Epiphanies. I want to get what I want to say in before it does.
I get that you do not agree with @Gamma Gamaliel but I do not think that gives you - or anyone else for that matter - the right to be downright abusive, and to use words, at least one of which is not in polite use and until very recently was rarely written down in full, just to demand that he, and anyone else you disagree with, has all the same priorities as you do, evaluates the world and takes their decisions according to your parameters rather than their own.
There may, in your eyes, and possibly even in the current conditions in your country - I do not know and do not see why I should - be a connection between a perceived threat to women's voting rights and which churches do and do not ordain women. But people join churches for all sorts of reasons. What do you may be a first order issue of praxis which would unequivocally preclude you from joining one rather than another might well be a second, third or even fourth order issue to somebody else with different priorities and in another part of the world.
Even within your own country, as @Lamb Chopped has said, there is no automatic equation between who a church lets do which sorts of ministry and misogyny, oppression or worse. And besides, to demand otherwise is to demand that when society does jump your way, that everyone else does so immediately and at the same time.
Has it also perhaps ever occurred to you that to expect foreigners to organise their lives to fit in with the current social and political issues in the USA rather than their own countries, comes over elsewhere as imperialism? Those of us elsewhere find that offensive when your President and Vice-President tell us what our politicians ought to think or who we ought to vote for. It is not that much different when US citizens do the same in respect of their particular vision of what I believe is referred to as 'the city on the hill'. You in your country may have your battles to fight, but other people in other countries have theirs, not yours.
Clericalism is an identified issue in the RCC, often warned against by Pope Francis. He took a different view of the role of women in the RCC, specifically in the Vatican, where several women are in roles where clerics (including bishops and cardinals) are subordinate to them.
The top three jobs in the Dicastery for Consecrated life are filled by women, the personal who runs the Vatican City state is a woman, The secretary (number 2) in Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development is a woman, the undersecretary of the Synod of Bishops is a woman with full voting rights. Across the world in dioceses women run important departments.
Is is possible to have women in positions of responsibility with real authority and the power to influence teaching and the direction of travel without clericalising them. And there is a danger (often seen in the RCC) of having a mentality that is so priest-ridden that it becomes something that colours too much of a persons thinking.
As an aside, I have been warned in the past by Mods about the dangers of pond wars. The OP seems to be sailing close to the wind in this regard.
Expecting women to be able to have the same jobs as men is not clericalism. It doesn't matter how many other jobs women can do if they are excluded from one specific job simply because they are a woman.
I have been following this thread but have been very cautious to engage with it, partly because it is a hell thread and partly because, @Ruth you do come across as both dogmatic and very abrasive. The one reason that has prompted me to take the risk of engaging is the threat now hanging over this thread that it might be moved to Epiphanies. I want to get what I want to say in before it does.
I get that you do not agree with @Gamma Gamaliel but I do not think that gives you - or anyone else for that matter - the right to be downright abusive, and to use words, at least one of which is not in polite use and until very recently was rarely written down in full, just to demand that he, and anyone else you disagree with, has all the same priorities as you do, evaluates the world and takes their decisions according to your parameters rather than their own.
There may, in your eyes, and possibly even in the current conditions in your country - I do not know and do not see why I should - be a connection between a perceived threat to women's voting rights and which churches do and do not ordain women. But people join churches for all sorts of reasons. What do you may be a first order issue of praxis which would unequivocally preclude you from joining one rather than another might well be a second, third or even fourth order issue to somebody else with different priorities and in another part of the world.
Even within your own country, as @Lamb Chopped has said, there is no automatic equation between who a church lets do which sorts of ministry and misogyny, oppression or worse. And besides, to demand otherwise is to demand that when society does jump your way, that everyone else does so immediately and at the same time.
Has it also perhaps ever occurred to you that to expect foreigners to organise their lives to fit in with the current social and political issues in the USA rather than their own countries, comes over elsewhere as imperialism? Those of us elsewhere find that offensive when your President and Vice-President tell us what our politicians ought to think or who we ought to vote for. It is not that much different when US citizens do the same in respect of their particular vision of what I believe is referred to as 'the city on the hill'. You in your country may have your battles to fight, but other people in other countries have theirs, not yours.
Gender equality is an extremely basic human right. It is misogynistic to bar women from a particular job simply because they are women - that is what opposing women's ordination fundamentally is. Your whole comment is deeply misogynistic in the way that you frame politeness as more important than issues which are killing women in the US and which are endorsed by many on the far-right in the UK. You should be aware of the things that impact your fellow human beings. Ignorance is not something to boast about.
The US President and VP don't represent Ruth as she didn't vote for them and strongly opposes their policies. I am confused by your reference to "foreigners" because most of the people pushing these views in the US are US-born white people. I think if you see the Orthodox Church or whoever as inherently "foreign" that's a you problem.
As has been hinted at differently countries behave differently. None Americans need to understand that things are different in the US and Americans need to understand that the other countries are different.
Here in Great Britain there seems not to be the connection about violence to women that Ruth is calling out. We are a different society. Church attendance and membership is low. Violence against women (and men) is not judged the same.
What do you mean by "violence against women (and men) is not judged the same"?
As an aside, I have been warned in the past by Mods about the dangers of pond wars. The OP seems to be sailing close to the wind in this regard.
Where do you see even the hints of a Pond War in the OP? @Ruth didn't say "Gamma, how the hell can you criticize American politicians when you Brits are worse?" Her critique was based on @Gamma Gamaliel's personal choice to join Orthodoxy.
Also - I do not understand the claims by @Alan29 and @Hugal that this is some kind of pond issue. Kemi Badenoch (the leader of the UK Conservative Party for those unaware) just attended the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC) conference in London alongside US anti-abortion activists and far-right misogynists (and Kemi herself wants to slash UK maternity leave and pay). The same institutional misogyny as in the US is already being promoted in the UK, not least due to Farage's US links. This is an issue for everyone. Classroom misogyny is a huge issue in the UK too.
Has it also perhaps ever occurred to you that to expect foreigners to organise their lives to fit in with the current social and political issues in the USA rather than their own countries, comes over elsewhere as imperialism? Those of us elsewhere find that offensive when your President and Vice-President tell us what our politicians ought to think or who we ought to vote for. It is not that much different when US citizens do the same in respect of their particular vision of what I believe is referred to as 'the city on the hill'. You in your country may have your battles to fight, but other people in other countries have theirs, not yours.
I don't think the issue as stated by @Ruth is "Non-Americans should avoid misogynistic groups because we have problems with misogynistic politicians in America." Rather, it's that anyone who belongs to a misogynistic church shouldn't be too self-righteous about criticizing other people for misogyny. With no countries specified either way.
Here in Great Britain there seems not to be the connection about violence to women that Ruth is calling out. We are a different society. Church attendance and membership is low. Violence against women (and men) is not judged the same.
Easy for you to say. Church attendance and active membership is low, but a lot of the population still describe themselves as 'Christian' on the census even though they have never darkened the door of a church. These people often hold views that have more in common with the Church's historic positions on sexism and racism (and homophobia). The far right have been trying to hijack (a narrow, bigoted version of) our faith to define our national identity!
Violence against women certainly isn't judged the same, I agree with you there. This is not a good sign. When a certain prominent right-wing politician calls for 'pure, cold rage' after (he finds out about) the murder of a young man but his reaction to the murder of that female politician you mention (I assume you mean Jo Cox) was 'I hope this isn't going to put people off voting for Brexit,' there is an obvious conclusion to be drawn about the relative importance of men and women in his mind.
From my own perspective, I became more hardline on opposing the opposition to women's ordination precisely because open misogyny in both the US and UK has risen so precipitously, and it is a sincere threat to women's lives. I personally think that someone can be a member of a misogynistic church or institution without being misogynistic themselves. I don't think that Gamaliel is a misogynist and I don't make any assumptions about his views on women's ordination. However, choosing as an adult to join an institution that opposes it is aligning yourself with that viewpoint whether you personally approve of it or not, and is part of upholding institutional misogyny. There is a reason why the hashtag #EmptyThePews accompanies people talking about misogyny and abuse in churches.
Joining a particular church isn't like eating XYZ otherwise boycotted food because it was the only thing available at the service station on a long motorway journey. It's fully optional.
Also - I do not understand the claims by @Alan29 and @Hugal that this is some kind of pond issue. Kemi Badenoch (the leader of the UK Conservative Party for those unaware) just attended the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC) conference in London alongside US anti-abortion activists and far-right misogynists (and Kemi herself wants to slash UK maternity leave and pay).
And the entire thing is funded by one of the largest backers of the HTB wing of the CofE and run by someone prominent in NFI (as was) circles.
At some point members of both organisations are going to have to decide what they do with that information.
Also - I do not understand the claims by @Alan29 and @Hugal that this is some kind of pond issue. Kemi Badenoch (the leader of the UK Conservative Party for those unaware) just attended the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC) conference in London alongside US anti-abortion activists and far-right misogynists (and Kemi herself wants to slash UK maternity leave and pay). The same institutional misogyny as in the US is already being promoted in the UK, not least due to Farage's US links. This is an issue for everyone. Classroom misogyny is a huge issue in the UK too.
The OP was claiming a link between not ordaining women and denying votes for women which is a USA phenomenon if I have understood her correctly. They then implied that membership of such a church in the UK made people complicit, thereby pointing the finger at us for a USA phenomenon.
How is that not sailing close to yhe wind when it comes to a pond war? It is almost begging for one.
Your stretching it just a tad, Alan29. Tell me what in this writing of Ruth's is pond warrish?
"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."
Also - I do not understand the claims by @Alan29 and @Hugal that this is some kind of pond issue. Kemi Badenoch (the leader of the UK Conservative Party for those unaware) just attended the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC) conference in London alongside US anti-abortion activists and far-right misogynists (and Kemi herself wants to slash UK maternity leave and pay). The same institutional misogyny as in the US is already being promoted in the UK, not least due to Farage's US links. This is an issue for everyone. Classroom misogyny is a huge issue in the UK too.
The OP was claiming a link between not ordaining women and denying votes for women which is a USA phenomenon if I have understood her correctly. They then implied that membership of such a church in the UK made people complicit, thereby pointing the finger at us for a USA phenomenon.
How is that not sailing close to yhe wind when it comes to a pond war? It is almost begging for one.
No, she did none of that. She pointed out that given that Gamaliel chose as an adult to join a church which does not ordain women, he has no right to be horrified by other types of Christian misogyny such as opposing women's right to vote. Misogyny is not "a USA phenomenon" - I can guarantee that there are UK churches and church leaders that agree with Doug Wilson that households should get votes rather than individuals. The US just has more people in general, so more people who may agree with this.
The Eastern Orthodox Church is an international church and not a UK-only church, and Ruth has given links to the US branch making statements detrimental to women's rights in the US.
Also - I do not understand the claims by @Alan29 and @Hugal that this is some kind of pond issue. Kemi Badenoch (the leader of the UK Conservative Party for those unaware) just attended the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC) conference in London alongside US anti-abortion activists and far-right misogynists (and Kemi herself wants to slash UK maternity leave and pay). The same institutional misogyny as in the US is already being promoted in the UK, not least due to Farage's US links. This is an issue for everyone. Classroom misogyny is a huge issue in the UK too.
The OP was claiming a link between not ordaining women and denying votes for women which is a USA phenomenon if I have understood her correctly. They then implied that membership of such a church in the UK made people complicit, thereby pointing the finger at us for a USA phenomenon.
Suppose in 1970 an American Mormon were to say:
Can you believe how horribly Blacks are treated in apartheid South Africa? I get sick just thinking about that.
And then a South African(let's assume anti-apartheid, to make it parallel to Ruth) comes back with:
Don't act so shocked. You belong to a faith that teaches Blacks are inherently inferior to whites because they stayed neutral during the war against Satan.
I wouldn't assume that the South African was saying American Mormons share a direct responsibility for apartheid by virtue of their membership in LDS. Just that there is an inconsistency between their professions of outrage about apartheid, and their continued membership in that particular church.
FWIW I didn't think @Ruth was attempting to start a Pond War and I'm surprised her OP and subsequent posts have been interpreted that way.
I might not like how she phrased her challenge but this is Hell and I've posted abrasively at times myself.
So much so that I once apparently drove someone from the Ship, something I deeply regret even though it happened many years ago.
I don’t like Ruth's posting style nor her 'guilt by association' tactics but she's raised some important points as has @Pomona and other posters, some who've 'defended' my decision to become Orthodox others who haven't.
Also - I do not understand the claims by @Alan29 and @Hugal that this is some kind of pond issue. Kemi Badenoch (the leader of the UK Conservative Party for those unaware) just attended the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC) conference in London alongside US anti-abortion activists and far-right misogynists (and Kemi herself wants to slash UK maternity leave and pay).
And the entire thing is funded by one of the largest backers of the HTB wing of the CofE and run by someone prominent in NFI (as was) circles.
At some point members of both organisations are going to have to decide what they do with that information.
Fwiw her husbands church seems to have become independent of NFI possibly about a decade back.
The US has more people, and Christianity is a lot stronger. We are overall more religious than the UK and Europe. [Edit: This is just tacked onto the comment about there being more people here agreeing with Doug Wilson.]
I have been following this thread but have been very cautious to engage with it, partly because it is a hell thread and partly because, @Ruth you do come across as both dogmatic and very abrasive. ...
I get that you do not agree with @Gamma Gamaliel but I do not think that gives you - or anyone else for that matter - the right to be downright abusive, and to use words, at least one of which is not in polite use and until very recently was rarely written down in full, just to demand that he, and anyone else you disagree with, has all the same priorities as you do, evaluates the world and takes their decisions according to your parameters rather than their own.
@Pomona has ably answered the rest of your post, so I will just take this part.
Which of your human rights is threatened? Who are you to police the tone I take to address someone who supports an ideology that threatens women's human rights, my right to vote and my bodily autonomy?
Yes, people don't share all my priorities. In a lot of areas it doesn't matter, and in plenty of areas they shouldn't, being different people in different situations. But I will not be polite in Hell to people for whom my humanity is not a priority.
Everyone telling me to be polite, everyone silently wishing I'd be nice about this, should seriously reconsider their priorities. If politeness is a higher priority for you than defense of the humanity of more than half the people on the planet, you are in error. If I were still a practicing Christian, I'd venture to call it a sin. You're placing etiquette ahead of women's personhood.
If you lived in the time of the women's suffrage movement, you'd be saying they were too abrasive.
Correction: I withdraw my use of the word 'tactics' as that implies bad faith on @Ruth's part.
I am not accusing her of bad faith.
Quite the contrary.
What I should have written is:
'I understand but do not full accept the accusation that belonging to a church that does not ordain women to the priesthood means I have no right to deplore attempts to restrict women's voting and other rights here or anywhere else in the world.
Nor do I accept the 'guilt by association' links with the likes of Wilson, Hegseth or Islamist theocratic.
Neither do I accept that churches which don't ordain women to the priesthood are denting women's full humanity.
I fully accept that there are clear and present dangers of right-wing politicians and dictators trying to co-opt traditional and more conservatively theological forms of Christianity for their own ends. See Farage and Lowe. See Putin.
That is something that those of us in such churches should resist.'
I don't see what there is for a man to wrestle with here, it doesn't affect you.
I am going to disagree on this one. It can affect our spiritual formation. We are given the opportunity to hear Scripture interpreted through a different set of life experiences. We can encounter pastoral care shaped by different emotional and social insights. We are able to receive spiritual wisdom from someone who is not "like us."
It models equality for boys and young men. When boys see women preach and lead, they grow up with healthier expectations of women. They are less likely to internalize sexist assumptions (I think this is one key point Ruth is getting at). They learn to collaborate with women as equals. They are more comfortable with female authority in workplaces and society.
Above all else it reduces the psychological burden of patriarchy on men, and it provokes theological growth.
Comments
So that pace of reform doesn’t work with large institutional churches. There the weight of tradition is too heavy.
I don’t fully understand how church life works in the US. As best I understand things from a distance, I’d be quite happy to be a member of a church functioning under Bishop Mariann Budde’s progressive leadership. I’m sure there are lots of others I wouldn’t join.
I wouldn’t presume to analyse Ruth’s reasons for leaving the church altogether. But I do understand there are moral imperatives to be taken into account if we decide to stay.
I struggled with that issue for almost 18 months some 45 years ago, but decided in the end, at least for a period, that I would try being inside pissing out rather than outside pissing in. As things have turned out I’m content with that decision.
Firstly, welcome @Gramps49. I won't bite your head off, nor anyone else's I hope.
Secondly, yes, as it happens I do historically see the Orthodox Church (and the RCs and Oriental Orthodox) as immediate descendants of the early Church - because that is what those bodies are in chronological terms.
So I do find it a bit rich to be told what's in the Bible because the rest of Christendom only has the Bible in the first place because, put simplistically, we wrote it. 😉
When I say we I mean what developed into the 'Apostolic' Churches from which all other Christian churches have evolved or separated from at some time or other.
And @stetson no, I don't regard these other churches as other 'Faiths' but all participants in the Christian faith but in different expressions of it. Nor do I deny them the right to interpret the 'Apostolic deposit' that we all share as they see fit.
Before the Great Schism the terms Orthodox and Catholic were coterminous. Yes, there were different emphases and regional variations but essentially Eastern and Western Christianity were the same Church - although there were also the non-Chalcedonian and the Syriac churches of course.
Which is why the Orthodox venerate pre-Schism Western Saints. The only reason Orthodoxy is Eastern is because the Patriarchates of the Eastern part of Europe remained in communion with one another but not with Rome.
It was messy and by no means clean cut. There were people in Croatia who weren't aware for several centuries that a Schism had taken place.
Anyway ... I said I'd be brief. Must try harder.
In response to Stetson's second point, yes, the Orthodox Church does put a strong emphasis on 'The Myrrh-Bearing Women' as the first witnesses to the Resurrection and on female Saints - such as St Nina Equal-To-The-Apostles.
We also place a strong emphasis on Mary as the Theotokos - 'God-bearer' of course.
I sometimes wonder whether if we'd had Matriarchates rather than Patriarchates issues like the Great Schism may never have arisen or at least been more speedily resolved.
I've heard the claims by some historians that there were female priests back in the second history but they were expunged from history and I'd be interested in looking into that more closely. I must admit that I'm always a tad suspicious of 'everything was lovely until X when the nasty Constantine or Whover Else messed everything up' - which isn't to say I endorse everything these guys did.
When I say there are differences between 'Eastern' and 'Western' ways of doing theology, I mean precisely that. I'm not talking primarily about differences between Romanian peasant culture and Western culture, although we have tensions around issues like that within our multicultural parishes here in 'the West'.
That's why Orthodox Christians and other Christians often end up 'talking past each other.' We often take a different approach to the same issues. Sometimes there's complete congruence. Other times less so.
Finally for now, we've been asked to steer clear of 'Roe vs Wade' here in Hell yet it's still being mentioned.
That's an issue for Epiphanies.
I don't expect this post has resolved anything and it may well raise more questions than answers. Which is fine. Happy to address those in Purgatory, Ecclesiastical or wherever else is appropriate.
I'll take flak here but won't get into a slanging match as I try to avoid those these days.
Not necessarily — I’m not sure my reasons before necessarily map onto those (but I don’t know the details) nor that my reasons after are ones in which I’ve moved from the approach Orthodoxy takes. But that likely need to be its own thread, and I’m not even sure a thread about the various positions regarding women’s ordination to the priesthood and episcopacy has a place on the current Ship at all. I miss Dead Horses.
Not in my case, but I may be an odd case. There can be emotions involved to a degree, though. Lately I’ve genuinely wondered if it might behoove me to get involved with an additional church (maybe one with more gay guys?) just to kind of get to know people there that I might have more in common with than the church that I’m at. But I don’t easily fit into any one category in general in any of the groups that I’m connected to, sadly… not that I expect to find a social group that is both Christian and gay and geeky (SF, fantasy, animation, comics, Japanese stuff, etc.) and leathery, of course. But I often feel like I’m too Christian for this group and too gay for that group and too geeky for another group, and the leather thing is its own thing… But for me, the Eucharist and the theology are the main things I look for when picking a new church, so it’s more of an intellectual choice, in my possibility unusual case.
Amen! And prayers for the midterms and 2028…
All the more reason for them to ordain women, then 🤷♀️
Okay. Let's do it like this.
First question. When did this "giving of the story" happen?
Second question. What would you call the Tradition that gave us the story?
You know I didn't say people should leave over every disagreement. And you wouldn't merely "disagree" with a theology that said your husband couldn't be ordained because he isn't white.
When the SAVE Act makes it harder for many married women to vote because their last names don't match their birth certificates, don't complain about it.
Not the best laugh I've had today, but one of the better ones. "We wrote the Bible," even with the explanation, is hilarious. You don't own the Apostles and their works any more than other Christians do.
Speaking on my own behalf, not to speak for Ruth - European shippies may not understand the tremendous influence of the Catholic church and various evangelical groups in American politics. Although I feel like it's been explained multiple times before.
American Catholic, evangelical and LDS churches - namely, the churches that don't ordain women - pour vast amounts of money and activism into the anti-abortion and anti-birth control movements at the state and federal levels. If you give money to one of these churches in the US, some part of it is going to support anti-abortion/birth control activism. Plus since many of our hospitals are Catholic-owned, their ethics policies impact the general public every day.
Decreased access to abortion and birth control leads directly to deaths, either from pregnancy/childbirth complications or from partner violence. The number one cause of death during pregnancy is spousal abuse. Which is also connected to the patriarchal view of wives as subject to their husbands, and restrictions on divorce.
All these statistics are well known in the US and easy to google. Ruth doesn't need to explain it to anybody. The bottom line is, if you give money to the Catholic church in the US, some part of it will be used to endanger women's health and lives.
You're making a helluva lot of assumptions here, some of which have to do with my marriage, as well as my own view of myself. Which I find obnoxious, but I can't correct you, because I'm not about to wind up in Epiphanies--especially when I've already said there are subjects I refuse to discuss on the Ship.
So this is basically your invitation to say what the hell you like, given that I won't be answering you.
I didn't say we 'owned' it but that it derives historically from the oldest Christian groups that developed into what we now call the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches.
You may have missed the winking emoji just as you have failed to read for comprehension.
You've overlooked the comment I made about groups being free to interpret the 'Apostolic deposit' as they see fit.
I'd call it Holy Tradition.
The 'giving of the story' started as soon as the first disciples began to witness to these things. Gradually they began to write down what they believed as part of that process, part of a living Tradition that carries on today.
None of us would be Christians otherwise whatever form of Christianity we espouse.
@Antisocial Alto - the Orthodox do believe in the 'priesthood of all believers' in the sense that all of us have a role in the 'royal priesthood' - or what we might call the 'common priesthood' - and yes, 'in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, slave nor free but all are one in Christ Jesus.'
There is a synergistic relationship between that and what we might call the 'ministerial priesthood' - which, like it or loathe it, is currently restricted in Orthodoxy to men ordained to the role and in what we'd regard as Apostolic Succession.
Other Christian churches do things differently of course. Some don't have any formal ordination at all. That's their prerogative.
You also make some comments about the Roman Catholic Church in relation to issues that Hosts have asked us to take to Epiphanies rather than explore here in Hell.
@ChastMastr - I speculated that your sacramental views were 'similar' to Orthodoxy's not that they were identical necessarily. As a Christian with a sacramental approach you'd be closer to the Orthodox position in that respect than, say, someone from a Christian tradition which didn't have a 'high' view of the sacraments.
That doesn't mean that a Christian from a less sacramentally focused tradition wouldn't share other things in common with Orthodoxy and may well be closer to it in other respects.
However we cut these things there are points of intersection, overlap and areas we all share in common.
Not that it all boils down to intellectual assent to a set of theological propositions. It's about the life of Christ expressed in each and every one of us whether we are 'ordained' or 'lay' or however we understand and practice those things - or not as the case may be.
God works everywhere and in and through all things. It's not as if he restricts his grace to particular people, ceremonies or expressions of faith.
That doesn't mean he's absent, as it were, from those ceremonies or expressions of faith either, of course.
The Orthodox Church does things in a particular and prescriptive way. That doesn't mean God doesn't work anywhere or everywhere else.
There's no reason to restrict ordination to men which doesn't imply, or say straight out, that women are inferior. None. Give me one, I dare you.
And saying that the priesthood of all believers somehow gives women a role is laughable. What, because we're baptized? So are babies. Let me know when the "priesthood of all believers" means we get to control any money or make any decisions that affect men.
The central thesis seems to be that if you join a church you share moral responsibility for what it preaches and what it does. This is to some extent different from the theology of priesthood.
As someone said upthread, the question is why teaching X is not a dealbreaker.
If you agree with it, that might be a theological position - but people on thread seem to be arguing they joined a church bits of whose teaching they don’t agree with including refusing female priesthood, but this was not sufficient to be a dealbreaker.
Doublethink, Admin
There’s a kind of prophetic element to that. A challenge to authority from within seems strongly demonstrated by OT and NT writings.
I’m not clear that leaving is the only option. Speaking out from within has its place. Let others, particularly those in authority, determine whether expulsion or silencing are merited.
Opposing women's ordination is fundamentally opposing women being able to do a particular job. Being a vocation doesn't make being a priest or bishop not a job, even if it is an unpaid role - unpaid work is still work. Denying a woman a particular job specifically because she is a woman is rightly illegal in most cases in the UK and US, and I don't believe that churches or any religious group should be allowed an exemption to that. I am very well aware of the ways in which different Christian oppositions to women's ordination differ from each other theologically, but sexism with less malicious intentions is still sexism. Churches that are members of the Society are a lot more pleasant to be part of than Doug Wilson's church, but they still believe that God wants to exclude women from particular jobs Just Because. That's just not acceptable, sorry.
Also, I note that none of the churches that deny women ordination suggest that there are any jobs within the church that men shouldn't do. If it's not misogyny, why is it only women that are denied here? This also affects trans men of course but because said churches see them as women.
Speaking generally here (ie not specifically to ChastMastr), I don't think that women's ordination is something for men to opine on. It's just not any of your business if God calls a woman to ordination. I don't see what there is for a man to wrestle with here, it doesn't affect you. Women who disagree with women's ordination (I have known many!) should be an intra-community topic of discussion and not for men to stick their oar in.
The seven last words of the church are;
We’ve
Never
Done
It
This
Way
Before
Of course there is prejudice to be found in Tradition. There must be. You don’t need to be much of an historian to recognise the prejudices which were a normal, even regarded as beneficial, aspect of the beliefs of previous cultures. Cultural blind spots.
I wonder what ours are?
I don't see any conflict between knowing that you are a human with human biases and blind spots and working on unlearning them, and seeing opposition to women's ordination as unacceptable.
To put it another way - I really dislike WATCH [Women And The Church, a Church of England pressure group] and some of their prominent members for various reasons, which are mostly Epiphantic so I won't get into them here. There are plenty of pro-women's-ordination churches I wouldn't attend and plenty that I have felt uncomfortable in. Those facts don't change the correctness of their pro-women's-ordination views even if I don't want to hang out with them.
Not in a direct way, no. But @Gamma Gamaliel apparently had no any idea that the attitudes toward women that his church espouses are the attitudes toward women of the people who want to take away my right to vote and who have already taken abortion rights away in some states.
Ideas can be powerful. The UK has its own extreme right-wing nonsense. I didn't think 10 years ago that my own right to vote would ever be a subject of discussion, but it is now. If things get bad for women in the UK, the ideas that nurture those developments will have had a reservoir in his church.
Everyone who belongs to an organization that discriminates against women -- as @Pomona points out so clearly, other employers can't legally do this, for good reason -- should understand that they are supporting some of the most pernicious ideas in our societies. Dress it up in language about culture and tradition and the Theotokos* all you want -- it's still wrong and dangerous.
*Do not trot out veneration of Mary as evidence for a church's tremendous regard for women. The virgin mother is an impossibly perfect standard of womanhood, a literal impossibility that is more cudgel than ideal.
It was @Arethosemyfeet.
Sexism should be a deal breaker. @Barnabas62 discusses his admirable work 45 years ago to make change from inside. 45 years ago most people couldn't choose a church that ordained women because there were so few. But because he and people like him did the hard work, now it's a choice.
Who says women don't get to control money?
Women serve on parish councils in churches that don't ordain women to the priesthood and make decisions that affect the parish/congregation as a whole, men, women and children alike.
There are a lot of assumptions on this thread, both about what priesthood entails in an Orthodox context and what my own views might be.
I'm not here to pontificate about what other churches may or may not do. I don't think @Barnabas62 was 'wrong' for instance to press for female preachers in his particular context, for instance. That is fully in keeping with his tradition.
I may differ with him on what he understands by Big T Tradition to some extent but that's by the by.
There are female theologians and theological teachers/professors and so on who are Orthodox. I've heard some of them speak at conferences. You don't have to be a man nor a priest to do that, nor most functions in an Orthodox context.
The simple answer to the question I've been 'dared' to answer is that the reason the Orthodox Church doesn't ordain women to the priesthood is because it's not part of our Tradition to do so.
Whether that may change at some point in the future - the very distant future knowing how slowly the wheels turn - remains to be seen.
Whether it means the Orthodox Church will go into terminal decline due to Tradition as Barnabas62 suggests or as others may wish again remains to be seen.
There's no guarantee of longevity for any individual church or congregation of course. Orthodox parishes fizzle out just as churches in other Christian traditions do.
But if we believe that God will build his Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it then there are grounds for hope. Which doesn't mean that everything will stay as it is now.
There are anomalies all ways round.
Orthodox hierarchs often say that it is no business of theirs what other churches decide to do, then cut up rough because the Anglicans ordained women to the priesthood without consulting them or waiting for the RCs and Orthodox to do so at the same time.
As if that was going to happen ...
At other times they will say appreciative things and express gratitude for the insights of non-Orthodox theologians and Bible scholars and so on.
It'd be lovely if all the Christian churches were in step but sadly things are messy and we are far from that. 😞
Whatever our views are about the Orthodox Church I'm sure there are riches here from which all Christians can draw. I've heard Dr Rowan Williams say that. Does that make him 'complicit' with sexism and misogyny?
There's a guilt by association thing here at times. If someone is a Communist in Australia say, assuming they have them there, does that make them complicit with Stalin's crimes? I wouldn't say so. But neither would I consider their ideology desirable, unless it was tempered or 'humanised' in some way.
If someone is a neo-Nazi does that imply they are giving tacit approval to Hitler's genocides? Yes. I would contend it does. And apologies for bringing Godwin's Law into play but you take my point.
For my own part, I got to the point where I felt I could best draw from the riches I saw in Orthodoxy ' some of them set in the mud - by becoming Orthodox myself. That doesn't mean I despise or discount the good things I gained from my previous affiliations - many of which are shared in common across the Christian spectrum.
It doesn't mean either that I am unaware of the blotches, glitches and blind-spots within my adopted ecclesial home, any more than I'm unaware of things that need fixing around my house. Clutter to be decluttered. Dark corners to clean.
I'm not going to satisfy everyone with my answers nor do I pretend to know all the answers.
I may wake up dead as it were and find that the atheists were right all along. Who knows what will happen?
I may be posting here in a few years time saying I've lost my faith. That's happened to others here from a range of Christian backgrounds. Again, who knows? I hope not but there's no guarantee.
Barnabas62 asks what blind-spots we all may have. A good question and one I wouldn't presume to answer on any other group's behalf - there'll be aspects of the Baptist tradition I admire for instance and may seek to emulate, other matters I may disagree with. Likewise with the Pentecostals, Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, Anglicans and anyone else.
I wish I could express myself more briefly and cogently and with better grace than I do at times but those are some thoughts. There may be others.
I'm not saying there aren't right-wing cranks within Orthodoxy and one of the things that concerns me greatly is how many right-wing conservative evangelicals in the US are coming into it because they see it as a conducive home for their neo-Confederate shit-arse views.
I know people in the US who have jumped ship from the Orthodox Church to other sacramental settings such as the Eastern Catholics because they didn't think their bishops were doing enough to stop it.
If there were moves from within the Orthodox Church to stop women voting then I'd hope there was enough sanity to clamp down on that. It'd scare me shitless if there wasn't.
I knew there'd be a reaction to my mentioning of the Theotokos.
FWIW I regard her as an exemplar and model and only wish I could follow her example more closely.
You don't have to feel the same.
But even Orthodoxy has experienced development and change. Its practices now are not the same as they were in the second century, let alone the practice of the Apostles. It has also taken on board other aspects of cultural change and technological progress.
So why, in the past, did Orthodoxy not ordain women to the priesthood, and why does Tradition still cling to that practice?
I once met an Orthodox Archbishop from France who observed that the greatest threat to 'all the churches' came internally from fundamentalism, not externally from atheism.
@Pease - so I'm infantile. Thanks Freud.
I'd suggest there are other ways of approaching Mary than that article seems to suggest and there's a whole body of work out there across the Christian spectrum which explores that issue.
FWIW and at the risk of blowing my cover, I've recently returned to local politics after I'd stepped aside for what I thought might be forever in response to attempts by a certain far right party to get more places on the local council.
On a second attempt I succeeded.
I'm no great shakes and I'm not after a pat on the back for that.
At no point has my parish priest tried to dissuade me or influence me but rather I have done so with his blessing.
All he'd expect is that I do my best for the community and adhere to the principles and standards required.
Perhaps the Theotokos and all the Saints and your holy prayers Shipmates can help me with that.
I don't say this to elide criticism or avoid the heat here in Hell. I quite expect more criticism or scrutiny.
And I understand what you escaped from.
Odd thing, church membership. Lamb Chopped is right about the compromise involved, to avoid the two billion different churches nonsense.
But we have to try somewhere. Else all we hear are the echoes of our own mind. And I don’t think shopping for a fit is without dangers. I’ve met quite a few consumer Christians who seem to go through this well known cycle.
Enthusiasm
Confusion
Disillusionment
Search for the guilty
Punishment of the innocent
Move on
There is indeed a tipping point. I really did get very close to mine. And Fundamentalism and misogyny were the twin issues which brought me to the edge.
(The curious echo with Gamaliel’s political choice is that, looking back at it. I chose the reform journey, not the rebel journey.
But not Reform! What a mislabelling that is! As many folks will now discover to their cost.)
Here in Great Britain there seems not to be the connection about violence to women that Ruth is calling out. We are a different society. Church attendance and membership is low. Violence against women (and men) is not judged the same. There is famous case of a female politician being murdered because of the way she was portrayed. We have a tendency to see acts of violence as acts of violence. That may be because of political, faith or any other reason. We are much more atheistic as a nation. Understanding is a two way street.
I get that you do not agree with @Gamma Gamaliel but I do not think that gives you - or anyone else for that matter - the right to be downright abusive, and to use words, at least one of which is not in polite use and until very recently was rarely written down in full, just to demand that he, and anyone else you disagree with, has all the same priorities as you do, evaluates the world and takes their decisions according to your parameters rather than their own.
There may, in your eyes, and possibly even in the current conditions in your country - I do not know and do not see why I should - be a connection between a perceived threat to women's voting rights and which churches do and do not ordain women. But people join churches for all sorts of reasons. What do you may be a first order issue of praxis which would unequivocally preclude you from joining one rather than another might well be a second, third or even fourth order issue to somebody else with different priorities and in another part of the world.
Even within your own country, as @Lamb Chopped has said, there is no automatic equation between who a church lets do which sorts of ministry and misogyny, oppression or worse. And besides, to demand otherwise is to demand that when society does jump your way, that everyone else does so immediately and at the same time.
Has it also perhaps ever occurred to you that to expect foreigners to organise their lives to fit in with the current social and political issues in the USA rather than their own countries, comes over elsewhere as imperialism? Those of us elsewhere find that offensive when your President and Vice-President tell us what our politicians ought to think or who we ought to vote for. It is not that much different when US citizens do the same in respect of their particular vision of what I believe is referred to as 'the city on the hill'. You in your country may have your battles to fight, but other people in other countries have theirs, not yours.
The top three jobs in the Dicastery for Consecrated life are filled by women, the personal who runs the Vatican City state is a woman, The secretary (number 2) in Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development is a woman, the undersecretary of the Synod of Bishops is a woman with full voting rights. Across the world in dioceses women run important departments.
Is is possible to have women in positions of responsibility with real authority and the power to influence teaching and the direction of travel without clericalising them. And there is a danger (often seen in the RCC) of having a mentality that is so priest-ridden that it becomes something that colours too much of a persons thinking.
As an aside, I have been warned in the past by Mods about the dangers of pond wars. The OP seems to be sailing close to the wind in this regard.
Gender equality is an extremely basic human right. It is misogynistic to bar women from a particular job simply because they are women - that is what opposing women's ordination fundamentally is. Your whole comment is deeply misogynistic in the way that you frame politeness as more important than issues which are killing women in the US and which are endorsed by many on the far-right in the UK. You should be aware of the things that impact your fellow human beings. Ignorance is not something to boast about.
The US President and VP don't represent Ruth as she didn't vote for them and strongly opposes their policies. I am confused by your reference to "foreigners" because most of the people pushing these views in the US are US-born white people. I think if you see the Orthodox Church or whoever as inherently "foreign" that's a you problem.
What do you mean by "violence against women (and men) is not judged the same"?
Where do you see even the hints of a Pond War in the OP? @Ruth didn't say "Gamma, how the hell can you criticize American politicians when you Brits are worse?" Her critique was based on @Gamma Gamaliel's personal choice to join Orthodoxy.
I don't think the issue as stated by @Ruth is "Non-Americans should avoid misogynistic groups because we have problems with misogynistic politicians in America." Rather, it's that anyone who belongs to a misogynistic church shouldn't be too self-righteous about criticizing other people for misogyny. With no countries specified either way.
Easy for you to say. Church attendance and active membership is low, but a lot of the population still describe themselves as 'Christian' on the census even though they have never darkened the door of a church. These people often hold views that have more in common with the Church's historic positions on sexism and racism (and homophobia). The far right have been trying to hijack (a narrow, bigoted version of) our faith to define our national identity!
Violence against women certainly isn't judged the same, I agree with you there. This is not a good sign. When a certain prominent right-wing politician calls for 'pure, cold rage' after (he finds out about) the murder of a young man but his reaction to the murder of that female politician you mention (I assume you mean Jo Cox) was 'I hope this isn't going to put people off voting for Brexit,' there is an obvious conclusion to be drawn about the relative importance of men and women in his mind.
Joining a particular church isn't like eating XYZ otherwise boycotted food because it was the only thing available at the service station on a long motorway journey. It's fully optional.
And the entire thing is funded by one of the largest backers of the HTB wing of the CofE and run by someone prominent in NFI (as was) circles.
At some point members of both organisations are going to have to decide what they do with that information.
The OP was claiming a link between not ordaining women and denying votes for women which is a USA phenomenon if I have understood her correctly. They then implied that membership of such a church in the UK made people complicit, thereby pointing the finger at us for a USA phenomenon.
How is that not sailing close to yhe wind when it comes to a pond war? It is almost begging for one.
"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."
No, she did none of that. She pointed out that given that Gamaliel chose as an adult to join a church which does not ordain women, he has no right to be horrified by other types of Christian misogyny such as opposing women's right to vote. Misogyny is not "a USA phenomenon" - I can guarantee that there are UK churches and church leaders that agree with Doug Wilson that households should get votes rather than individuals. The US just has more people in general, so more people who may agree with this.
The Eastern Orthodox Church is an international church and not a UK-only church, and Ruth has given links to the US branch making statements detrimental to women's rights in the US.
Suppose in 1970 an American Mormon were to say:
And then a South African(let's assume anti-apartheid, to make it parallel to Ruth) comes back with:
I wouldn't assume that the South African was saying American Mormons share a direct responsibility for apartheid by virtue of their membership in LDS. Just that there is an inconsistency between their professions of outrage about apartheid, and their continued membership in that particular church.
I might not like how she phrased her challenge but this is Hell and I've posted abrasively at times myself.
So much so that I once apparently drove someone from the Ship, something I deeply regret even though it happened many years ago.
I don’t like Ruth's posting style nor her 'guilt by association' tactics but she's raised some important points as has @Pomona and other posters, some who've 'defended' my decision to become Orthodox others who haven't.
Fwiw her husbands church seems to have become independent of NFI possibly about a decade back.
@Pomona has ably answered the rest of your post, so I will just take this part.
Which of your human rights is threatened? Who are you to police the tone I take to address someone who supports an ideology that threatens women's human rights, my right to vote and my bodily autonomy?
Yes, people don't share all my priorities. In a lot of areas it doesn't matter, and in plenty of areas they shouldn't, being different people in different situations. But I will not be polite in Hell to people for whom my humanity is not a priority.
Everyone telling me to be polite, everyone silently wishing I'd be nice about this, should seriously reconsider their priorities. If politeness is a higher priority for you than defense of the humanity of more than half the people on the planet, you are in error. If I were still a practicing Christian, I'd venture to call it a sin. You're placing etiquette ahead of women's personhood.
If you lived in the time of the women's suffrage movement, you'd be saying they were too abrasive.
I am not accusing her of bad faith.
Quite the contrary.
What I should have written is:
'I understand but do not full accept the accusation that belonging to a church that does not ordain women to the priesthood means I have no right to deplore attempts to restrict women's voting and other rights here or anywhere else in the world.
Nor do I accept the 'guilt by association' links with the likes of Wilson, Hegseth or Islamist theocratic.
Neither do I accept that churches which don't ordain women to the priesthood are denting women's full humanity.
I fully accept that there are clear and present dangers of right-wing politicians and dictators trying to co-opt traditional and more conservatively theological forms of Christianity for their own ends. See Farage and Lowe. See Putin.
That is something that those of us in such churches should resist.'
I am going to disagree on this one. It can affect our spiritual formation. We are given the opportunity to hear Scripture interpreted through a different set of life experiences. We can encounter pastoral care shaped by different emotional and social insights. We are able to receive spiritual wisdom from someone who is not "like us."
It models equality for boys and young men. When boys see women preach and lead, they grow up with healthier expectations of women. They are less likely to internalize sexist assumptions (I think this is one key point Ruth is getting at). They learn to collaborate with women as equals. They are more comfortable with female authority in workplaces and society.
Above all else it reduces the psychological burden of patriarchy on men, and it provokes theological growth.