In the end most people in Britain who are not in a “Religion” don’t find Christianity relevant. Any arguments about the place of men and women in a particular denomination barely registers on their radar. It is for “religious” people to sort out. They tend to care more about misogyny in the work place , politics or maybe sport. It is just not a factor they care about. That is different for different societies.
The issue of women clergy IS about misogyny in the workplace ffs. What the fuck do you think clergy are paid for? Also, I do not see the relevance of whether or not the public care about it. The public don't care about a lot of things that matter.
Some people argued, not that it would be unwise to ordain a woman as a priest or bishop, but that whatever ritual was done, that she would still not be a priest or bishop, which is a very different position—not able to consecrate the Eucharist, nor in the case of a bishop, to genuinely ordain priests. This would make various sacraments in doubt (and in fact make the ordination of various clergy more and more in doubt as time went on, if the validity of the Holy Orders of the clergy down the line was lacking).
And where do you think this viewpoint came from in the first place? Do you think the men who invented it respected and honored women as equal and worthy in the same way as men?
I came to the conclusion that yes, women can be ordained as priests and bishops. (And I’ve met and read about various good and bad ones, with good and bad theology, just as with men.) Again, I don’t think this was some kind of moral enlightenment. Someone can think otherwise, and I don’t think it makes them less or more moral a person.
I do. Because that belief requires you to assume that women are some kind of different, inferior creature to men. There's no other explanation.
Opponents of women's ordination say that priests have to be the image (or icon, to quote Gamma) of Jesus during his lifetime/ministry. But for some reason this doesn't require them to be Jewish, or of Middle Eastern descent, or circumcised, or the oldest child in their family, or between the ages of 30 and 33. They just have to have a penis. That's the only thing about the incarnate Jesus that makes a difference.
Shoot me down in flames but I didn't see it as a denial of female humanity. I'm performing in an amateur production of a Shakespeare play. If the cast use exclusive language from the script are they setting aesthetic considerations above women's humanity?
Might there be a teensy bit of difference between performing a play known to be of its time and place and the worship of Almighty God whom we believe to be in all times and places?
As well as a difference between being part of an audience watching a play and being part of a congregation actively participating in worship, in which the words like “who for us men” are placed in everyone’s mouths?
I'd prefer the terms 'humanity' or 'people' to 'men' or 'mankind'. It would be easy enough to say, 'For us and for our salvation,' rather than 'for us men and for our salvation,' even though everyone is aware that 'men' in that context refers to humanity as a whole rather than to males in particular.
Nobody thinks the Creed refers to males and not humanity in general.
Are you really in a position to say that “nobody” thinks that? Is it just possible that a man isn’t in the best position to say how women hear and think about generic-male language?
In the end most people in Britain who are not in a “Religion” don’t find Christianity relevant. Any arguments about the place of men and women in a particular denomination barely registers on their radar. It is for “religious” people to sort out. They tend to care more about misogyny in the work place , politics or maybe sport.
Is it possible that one reason they don’t find Christianity relevant is because they see it as stuck in a misogyny that has been rejected, or is being rejected, in the workplace, politics and sport?
Possible but I don’t think it occurs to many as a problem.
Not being funny but how would you know that? As a male evangelical Christian you are not exactly best placed to know how relevant it is to people's (especially women's) reasons for not being part of Christianity. In my experience misogyny in the church is a HUGE reason for leaving it, particularly for women. It's particularly a huge motivation for those women who leave Christianity for Neopaganism.
Neither do I accept that churches which don't ordain women to the priesthood are denting women's full humanity.
I think I would agree. Because I don't think that eg. prohibiting 8-year olds from drinking, voting, or signing contracts is denying their full humanity.
BUT...
Prohibiting them from doing those things IS denying their full equality. Would you also agree that barring women from the clergy is denying THEIR full equality?
This is not the killer argument you think it is. Firstly, because the bedrock of the argument against women's ordination - once you get past 'We've always done it this way' - does in fact deny women's humanity. 'Jesus was a man, therefore only men can be priests.'
Secondly, do you have any idea how offensive the (centuries-old) comparison of women with children is? I very nearly stopped reading your post at that point. As the suffragettes repeatedly pointed out during their campaign for voting rights, adult women were treated like children incapable of making decisions. Incarcerated (male) prisoners had more political rights than they did. Anti-abortionists believe that pregnant women should have fewer rights than a corpse. These are not abstract problems or thought experiments. Over here in the UK there is a scandal brewing over medical misogyny (see https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/328/women-and-equalities-committee/news/204316/medical-misogyny-is-leaving-women-in-unnecessary-pain-and-undiagnosed-for-years/
if you're interested in reading the government report). Women are being murdered by violent exes, even after repeatedly reporting them to the police and asking for protection. These are ongoing, systemic problems that affect our everyday lives.
Finally, a number of posters have complained about Ruth's 'abrasive' posts on this topic. As this is Hell, I confess that it does occasionally irritate me as well. However, she is under no obligation to be 'nice' to people who are denying her humanity, however polite they may think they are being about it. The suffragettes tried being nice too, to begin with. Nobody listened until they started blowing up postboxes and breaking shop windows.
Just to be clear, I wasn't comparing women to children. I was comparing the belief that women are inferior to men to the belief that children are inferior to adults. Not in terms of both being true, but in terms of both being examples of a case where the PTB accept the humanity of the group, but refrain to grant them full equality.
My implied point to @Gamma Gamaliel could have been phrased as "Saying these churches accept the full humanity of women doesn't really absolve them of the charge of misogyny, if they regard women as occupying a far inferior status within humanity."
That being said, whether or not I was right to accept Gamma's characterization of those churches as accepting women's full humanity is another question. If you're arguing that their misogyny goes further than assignation of a lesser status and inti outright denial of humanity, I can easily believe that, and apologize for my original concession and any discomfort it may have caused.
@Antisocial Alto - I can't remember whether @ChastMastr started the thread about traditional vs contemporary language in worship or whether he simply contributed to it.
If I remember rightly, not all his comments were about inclusive or exclusive language but he did express views on that which were challenged by other Shipmates.
If a Shipmate starts a thread about steam trains - and there're discussions about trains I notice, or books, films or plays, does that mean they are prioritising aesthetics or hobbies over social justice, the Gospel, climate change or any other key issue?
If I start a convoluted thread about the Trinity or the filioque clause does that mean I don't give a monkey's about the earthquake in Venezuela or politics or ...
I can see what you are getting at and I didn't agree with everything ChastMastr wrote on that thread. I've already stated that I help edit an ecumenical publication which has an inclusive language policy to which I am happy to adhere.
I'd more more than happy if we ditched 'for us men and for our salvation' from the version of the Creed we say during the Liturgy in our parish. I very much doubt that anyone attending services in our parish thinks we believe that salvation is only available to men. I've met some poorly catechised people in my time but ...
That doesn't mean that we shouldn't use a non-gender specific term such as 'people' or 'humanity' or simply 'us'. I'd consider that desirable, taking into account too @Nick Tamen's comment that women would be better placed than me to assess that issue.
@Doublethink - on the issue of what I as an individual could do to encourage a global Church to review its stance on female ordination. I once heard a well-known Orthodox bishop say that he wouldn't rule it out. A few years later I heard him say something that suggested otherwise. Where to start? There are those working to reintroduce the ancient order of deaconesses - although hardline traditionalists insist they didn't play a liturgical role - a view challenged by some historians and theologians within the Orthosphere, I understand, That would be a place to start. How many centuries that would take though ...
If I remember rightly, not all his comments were about inclusive or exclusive language but he did express views on that which were challenged by other Shipmates.
If a Shipmate starts a thread about steam trains - and there're discussions about trains I notice, or books, films or plays, does that mean they are prioritising aesthetics or hobbies over social justice, the Gospel, climate change or any other key issue?
The comments were specifically about language used in worship, not random hobbies outside of church. Come on.
In the end most people in Britain who are not in a “Religion” don’t find Christianity relevant. Any arguments about the place of men and women in a particular denomination barely registers on their radar. It is for “religious” people to sort out. They tend to care more about misogyny in the work place , politics or maybe sport. It is just not a factor they care about. That is different for different societies.
The issue of women clergy IS about misogyny in the workplace ffs. What the fuck do you think clergy are paid for? Also, I do not see the relevance of whether or not the public care about it. The public don't care about a lot of things that matter.
At the time I posted my original post on the subject we had been taking about the general attitude towards the subject not the specifics we got into. I was reacting to that. The conversation then took a bit of a change. I posted just before that change point.
I know that women in Islam and more conservative forms of Judaism have limited roles due to their gender, however it seems to me that only those within those groups are really in a position to comment on what others should or should not do about it.
Some of the largest providers of healthcare in the US are Catholic. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops writes their ethical and religious guidelines. They regularly put their beliefs ahead of appropriate medical care for women. A woman who needs an emergency abortion (for example, because the amniotic sac has burst much too soon or during a miscarriage) has to wait for the fetus to die inside her, putting her health and life at risk, or go to another facility, which in rural areas is frequently not an option. They have refused to perform tubal ligations during scheduled C-sections, making women undergo a second separate operation at a different facility despite the obvious fact that it's safer to have one surgery instead of two. So you most certainly do not have to be a Catholic to comment on Catholicism's views on women.
For another thing, I think one often has to acknowledge that people are capable of having more than one contradictory idea at the same time - so accepting differential gender roles at the mosque whilst working hard to emancipate women in the secular world. I don't think we should judge to be honest.
We should judge. There is no separate religious world that stands apart from or outside the secular world. Ideas have power. They don't stay contained within the walls of the church, temple or mosque. Yes, people are full of contradictions. That it happens all the time doesn't make all those contradictions okay. I don't believe for a moment that accepting differential gender roles in one place never bleeds out into other areas.
I know that women in Islam and more conservative forms of Judaism have limited roles due to their gender, however it seems to me that only those within those groups are really in a position to comment on what others should or should not do about it.
Some of the largest providers of healthcare in the US are Catholic. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops writes their ethical and religious guidelines. They regularly put their beliefs ahead of appropriate medical care for women. A woman who needs an emergency abortion (for example, because the amniotic sac has burst much too soon or during a miscarriage) has to wait for the fetus to die inside her, putting her health and life at risk, or go to another facility, which in rural areas is frequently not an option. They have refused to perform tubal ligations during scheduled C-sections, making women undergo a second separate operation at a different facility despite the obvious fact that it's safer to have one surgery instead of two. So you most certainly do not have to be a Catholic to comment on Catholicism's views on women.
For another thing, I think one often has to acknowledge that people are capable of having more than one contradictory idea at the same time - so accepting differential gender roles at the mosque whilst working hard to emancipate women in the secular world. I don't think we should judge to be honest.
We should judge. There is no separate religious world that stands apart from or outside the secular world. Ideas have power. They don't stay contained within the walls of the church, temple or mosque. Yes, people are full of contradictions. That it happens all the time doesn't make all those contradictions okay. I don't believe for a moment that accepting differential gender roles in one place never bleeds out into other areas.
Ok, that's you. Others have a range of reasons for doing things and the groups they belong to. That's why the sociology of belonging and group dynamics and groupthink is so interesting.
Whether you believe that you should be telling other people what to do about groups they belong to is up to you, but there's no reason why anyone else should listen to you or take your lead in this incredibly stupid campaign where you lash out at anyone else you think is ethically suboptimal.
I'll focus on the fascists if it is all the same to you.
Well I find the situation that Ruth describes astonishing, shocking and shameful.
Pardon my ignorance here, this is something I know very little about. Is there no obligation on the secular powers to provide health care, up to and including hospitals in the way that they provide schooling? I don't mean "free" health care, but on the same financial basis as the Church hospitals operate. With medical decisions made according to secular law alone.
Ok, that's you. Others have a range of reasons for doing things and the groups they belong to. That's why the sociology of belonging and group dynamics and groupthink is so interesting.
Whether you believe that you should be telling other people what to do about groups they belong to is up to you, but there's no reason why anyone else should listen to you or take your lead in this incredibly stupid campaign where you lash out at anyone else you think is ethically suboptimal.
I'll focus on the fascists if it is all the same to you.
Women are literally dying from suboptimal medical care directly traceable to traditional Christian views of women, but I should be nicer. Good to know what your values are.
I didn't say anything about @Gamma Gamaliel's conversion to Orthodoxy until he exclaimed at the idea that someone would think of taking away women's right to vote. That set me off because it is so incredibly stupid and morally stunted to think you can belong to a group that views women as less than fully human without it mattering, without it having an effect somewhere.
I don't know why you're bothering to focus on the fascists. By your reasoning, you can just let them be fascist in their own groups. What's that? You say they have a negative effect on society? Earth to Basketactortale -- so does Christianity, and so do other religions. You're relying on Christianity or Islam or whatever to not be strong enough in your society to matter if you're fine with them having shitty views about women. But when certain forms of Islam are strong enough, women suffer. When certain forms of Christianity are strong enough, women suffer.
But the problem in your eyes is me lashing out. Not the real lashes to which an Iranian woman has been sentenced to because she sang a patriotic song without wearing hijab.
Ok, that's you. Others have a range of reasons for doing things and the groups they belong to. That's why the sociology of belonging and group dynamics and groupthink is so interesting.
Whether you believe that you should be telling other people what to do about groups they belong to is up to you, but there's no reason why anyone else should listen to you or take your lead in this incredibly stupid campaign where you lash out at anyone else you think is ethically suboptimal.
I'll focus on the fascists if it is all the same to you.
Women are literally dying from suboptimal medical care directly traceable to traditional Christian views of women, but I should be nicer. Good to know what your values are.
I didn't say anything about @Gamma Gamaliel's conversion to Orthodoxy until he exclaimed at the idea that someone would think of taking away women's right to vote. That set me off because it is so incredibly stupid and morally stunted to think you can belong to a group that views women as less than fully human without it mattering, without it having an effect somewhere.
I don't know why you're bothering to focus on the fascists. By your reasoning, you can just let them be fascist in their own groups. What's that? You say they have a negative effect on society? Earth to Basketactortale -- so does Christianity, and so do other religions. You're relying on Christianity or Islam or whatever to not be strong enough in your society to matter if you're fine with them having shitty views about women. But when certain forms of Islam are strong enough, women suffer. When certain forms of Christianity are strong enough, women suffer.
But the problem in your eyes is me lashing out. Not the real lashes to which an Iranian woman has been sentenced to because she sang a patriotic song without wearing hijab.
I deplore human rights abuses.
But not all women wearing the hijab are supporters of Iranian women getting lashes.
This is basic stuff, I'm surprised you don't understand it
And don't you dare compare the fight against fascism with your petty campaign against religions you do not like.
I don't regard women as less than fully human, @Ruth.
That is an interpretation you are putting on things.
I believe that God became Incarnate in human form. That doesn't mean that women aren't fully human because Jesus was male and not female.
My comment about hobby threads was a response to @Antisocial Alto who accused ChastMastr of priorising aesthetics over issues of gender equality by allegedly starting a thread about the language used in worship.
I'm not convinced ChastMastr started that thread and if you've read my post you will have seen that I'm not opposed to inclusive language.
@Doublethink I'm not involved in anything on a pan-Orthodox level in any formal way or on any issue. I'm a trustee and member of our parish council. Most of my 'outward' activities tend to be ecumenical in nature or in else in local politics, creative writing and voluntary activity in the community.
Petty? PETTY? It's not 'religions she doesn't like', it's the pervasive effect of religion, overt and covert, on the lives of women. Not only on their careers, but their health, even their civil rights.
Well I find the situation that Ruth describes astonishing, shocking and shameful.
Pardon my ignorance here, this is something I know very little about. Is there no obligation on the secular powers to provide health care, up to and including hospitals in the way that they provide schooling? I don't mean "free" health care, but on the same financial basis as the Church hospitals operate. With medical decisions made according to secular law alone.
There is no right to healthcare in the US. Cities, counties and states are not required to provide healthcare. Catholic healthcare networks are the largest non-profit providers of healthcare here. In some rural areas a Catholic hospital is the only available option, so the transfer to another facility miles away is difficult, expensive, and potentially threatening to health and life. Bleeding women have been sent away from Catholic facilities to seek care in other places. Here's one example in California, which has strong protections for abortion. Here's a more general article on what Catholic-owned healthcare means for women in the US.
The hospital closest to me is Catholic; it's where an ambulance would take me in an emergency. Years ago I had a friend who was an emergency room nurse there, and I asked him what would happen if I needed emergency reproductive care there, and he turned a little pale and said, "I don't know."
Viewing women as less than men is lethal:
Mothers living in states that banned abortion [are] nearly 2x as likely to die during pregnancy, childbirth, or soon after giving birth, compared to mothers living in supportive states where abortion was legal and accessible.
...
In 2019, the last year before the COVID pandemic spike in maternal deaths, Black mothers living in states that went on to ban abortion had been 2.2 times as likely as White mothers to die during pregnancy, childbirth, or shortly after giving birth; by the end of 2023, that disparity had grown to 3.3 times. Source: Gender Equity Policy Institute
But not all women wearing the hijab are supporters of Iranian women getting lashes.
This is basic stuff, I'm surprised you don't understand it
I do understand it, which is why I didn't condemn wearing hijab. If women want to do it, let them. Or men, for that matter. I object to the government requiring it. The point is that the Islam espoused by hard-liners in Iran is extremely bad for women (should be obvious, but I'll say it anyway). You can't just say "it's fine to have views that oppress women as long as you keep them confined to the mosque or the church" because those views don't necessary stay in the mosque or the church.
And don't you dare compare the fight against fascism with your petty campaign against religions you do not like.
Women dying isn't a petty concern. The fascists you're fighting are closely allied to the fascists killing women in the US.
Petty? PETTY? It's not 'religions she doesn't like', it's the pervasive effect of religion, overt and covert, on the lives of women. Not only on their careers, but their health, even their civil rights.
Have you actually read the thread?
Have you met Islamic women and talked to them about why they wear a burka or hijab?
In case you did not read the thread, initially it was about women in Orthodox Christianity then eventually about women in Roman Catholicism and then Islam.
Funnily enough, people are not all unthinking robots that can be judged by the things that other people do in the name of their religion.
It all admittedly looks the same to those with tragically underdeveloped levels of emotional intelligence.
I'll focus on the fascists if it is all the same to you.
In the US, where Ruth and I live, a good number of the fascists are fascists because of the ideas they've been taught in church. I won't say all of them are, because there's a groundswell of young men who got hooked on white supremacy in the nastier corners of the internet. But many American fascists are that way because of their churches, or because of national pressure groups funded by conservative churches. Minimizing the importance of churches' messages is dangerous here.
Petty? PETTY? It's not 'religions she doesn't like', it's the pervasive effect of religion, overt and covert, on the lives of women. Not only on their careers, but their health, even their civil rights.
Have you actually read the thread?
Have you met Islamic women and talked to them about why they wear a burka or hijab?
In case you did not read the thread, initially it was about women in Orthodox Christianity then eventually about women in Roman Catholicism and then Islam.
Funnily enough, people are not all unthinking robots that can be judged by the things that other people do in the name of their religion.
It all admittedly looks the same to those with tragically underdeveloped levels of emotional intelligence.
A reply totally inapposite and irrelevant to the point I was making. Which is, as @Ruth stated "Women dying isn't a petty concern."
I don't regard women as less than fully human, @Ruth.
That is an interpretation you are putting on things.
I believe that God became Incarnate in human form. That doesn't mean that women aren't fully human because Jesus was male and not female.
If women are fully human, they can be ordained. Whatever your private views, you are supporting the view of women as less than fully human by virtue of your joining Orthodoxy. What you believe in your heart I don't care about. The actions of the Orthodox Church have results in the world we all live in.
I'm not convinced ChastMastr started that thread and if you've read my post you will have seen that I'm not opposed to inclusive language.
He didn't, and I didn't say he did. He participated heavily, and he and I had a knock-down drag-out fight. He insisted on his aesthetics over women's humanity.
Petty? PETTY? It's not 'religions she doesn't like', it's the pervasive effect of religion, overt and covert, on the lives of women. Not only on their careers, but their health, even their civil rights.
Have you actually read the thread?
Have you met Islamic women and talked to them about why they wear a burka or hijab?
In case you did not read the thread, initially it was about women in Orthodox Christianity then eventually about women in Roman Catholicism and then Islam.
Funnily enough, people are not all unthinking robots that can be judged by the things that other people do in the name of their religion.
It all admittedly looks the same to those with tragically underdeveloped levels of emotional intelligence.
The thread was and still is about the support for religious view of women that lead to their oppression when those views become strong enough in a society. That you got from that to underdeveloped levels of emotional intelligence says a lot about you. How dare I object to ideas that warp and destroy women's lives!
Petty? PETTY? It's not 'religions she doesn't like', it's the pervasive effect of religion, overt and covert, on the lives of women. Not only on their careers, but their health, even their civil rights.
Have you actually read the thread?
Have you met Islamic women and talked to them about why they wear a burka or hijab?
In case you did not read the thread, initially it was about women in Orthodox Christianity then eventually about women in Roman Catholicism and then Islam.
Funnily enough, people are not all unthinking robots that can be judged by the things that other people do in the name of their religion.
It all admittedly looks the same to those with tragically underdeveloped levels of emotional intelligence.
A reply totally inapposite and irrelevant to the point I was making. Which is, as @Ruth stated "Women dying isn't a petty concern."
You don't get to tell me what is or isn't inapposite and irrelevant. No.
I'll focus on the fascists if it is all the same to you.
In the US, where Ruth and I live, a good number of the fascists are fascists because of the ideas they've been taught in church. I won't say all of them are, because there's a groundswell of young men who got hooked on white supremacy in the nastier corners of the internet. But many American fascists are that way because of their churches, or because of national pressure groups funded by conservative churches. Minimizing the importance of churches' messages is dangerous here.
That there are fascists in America that came out of churches has no relation to the issue of whether or not Orthodox churches ordain women. In the same way that women dying in monstrous ways in Iran have very little to do with women wearing burkas in Birmingham. For one thing the primary British Muslim group is unrelated to the one in Iran, just like the Orthodox Christians have almost zero relation to the Nazi churches in the USA.
@ChastMastr, I don't care at all about your scruples about liturgy, the apostolic succession, or anything else, because you think your personal preference for the exclusive language of old hymns takes precedence over women's humanity.
That’s okay—I wish you well as a human being, but after our prior conflict, I don’t care about your views on anything.
Not if you're still putting your aesthetics over women's humanity.
What do you think you achieve with your diatribes? If you have anger issues you may be better shouting at a wall rather than picking fights with people on a religious discussion forum
I did not call someone evil. I believe that to do that thing would be evil, but that’s not the same thing at all. I’ve done evil things this very day, myself. It’s why I pray for forgiveness when I’m aware of doing them, and during the confession of sin, “for things known and unknown, things done and left undone.”
... Not being funny but how would you know that? As a male evangelical Christian you are not exactly best placed to know how relevant it is to people's (especially women's) reasons for not being part of Christianity. In my experience misogyny in the church is a HUGE reason for leaving it, particularly for women. It's particularly a huge motivation for those women who leave Christianity for Neopaganism.
My apologies for coming back on this when over the four hours since, this thread has meanwhile shot off in all sorts of other directions. My apologies also if this may sound a bit simplistic, blunt or even tangential, though I do not think it is.
For many Christians - I would have thought most - the reason for being a member of the church is that one believes in Jesus, that he is Son of God and calls one to acknowledge him as Lord. That is the first order issue.
The church is the assembly of the faithful, but all of the rest of them are, for now, imperfect, just as you and me are also imperfect. Jesus does though specifically call each of us to love one another not despite the other's failings, but irrespective of them. That is sometimes very difficult to do, but it goes with the calling. Its failings, whether corporate or individual, however glaring, are second issue.
It strikes me that sad though it is that a person might choose to leave the assembly of the faithful because she, or he, does not like one specific failing, and to become a pagan, whether neo or any other sort, - or for that matter to become a humanist or a nothing - does rather suggest that Jesus was not the reason why they were there in the first place.
Some of the responses to this thread are starting to remind me of the old Tony Campolo anecdote about "You're more upset with the fact that I said 'shit' than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night.”
I certainly wouldn't dismiss Ruth's concerns as being 'petty' @Basketactortale. They are very serious.
It's also serious that some young men are imbibing toxic masculinity online and some of them are turning to conservatively theological churches because they think they'll find those ideas sanctioned or reinforced. Some rather conservative Orthodox bishops have recognised that as an issue and not before time.
It's more of a North American phenomenon but it has crossed the pond to some extent. I've met people who came into Orthodoxy from that direction but who are now abandoning those extremes or, in the case of one couple I know, actively campaigning against all that.
There have been a number of folk turning up at our parish with some very right wing views but who've cleared off because weren't obsessed with the same issues they are.
Even if they, thankfully, don't display those tendencies most enquirers and catechumens tend to be very simplistic and fundamentalist in their approach.
We've got all on dealing with that as well as the cultural and language issues that arise in multicultural congregations of whatever stripe.
As a further note to @Doublethink, the main Orthodox group working towards a restoration of the ministry of the deaconess is the St Phobe Center in the US. I don’t know much about them nor to what extent they are active here. I'd be happy to look into them in and amongst.
Doublethink asked whether the issue of women's ordination in an Orthodox context was something I feel 'called' to address. All I can say at this stage is that it's something I do feel the need to investigate further, given the head space and perhaps through what Quakers would call a 'process of discernment'.
There has been a call from Patriarch Bartholomew (Orthodox equivalent of the Archbishop of Canterbury) as recently as 2020 - a second or two ago in Orthodox terms - to progress with this agenda as soon as possible. That'll be 500 years then.
There have been some initiatives in Africa and elsewhere.
My guess would be that pressure on clergy will naturally and organically bring this about over time rather than there being any big policy push.
I'm not trying to elide or minimise these issues and in some ways it'd be better if female converts to Orthodoxy were here to comment but Josephine hasn't been around for a while and Leetle Masha is now among the 'great cloud of witnesses.'
But there aren't any Orthodox women converts here as far as I know and even if there were I'm the subject of this Hell thread and not them.
Ruth has commented on my conversion to Orthodoxy before now but not through the medium of a Hell call if my memory serves.
I can understand why she considers it a contradiction and somehow 'worse' than remaining an RC or Orthodox Christian because you were brought up in those settings.
What I don't accept is that by becoming Orthodox I'm denying women's full humanity any more than I am doing so by believing that Christ was Incarnate as a male rather than a female human being.
But I'm never going to convince her of that unless I de-Orthodox and join a different church.
Not if you're still putting your aesthetics over women's humanity.
What do you think you achieve with your diatribes? If you have anger issues you may be better shouting at a wall rather than picking fights with people on a religious discussion forum
Anger at the ideas that contribute to and underwrite the oppression of women is entirely legitimate. A religious discussion forum labeled "Hell" is a great place to fight with people subscribing to those ideas.
I certainly wouldn't dismiss Ruth's concerns as being 'petty' @Basketactortale. They are very serious.
I appreciate you saying this, thank you.
What I don't accept is that by becoming Orthodox I'm denying women's full humanity any more than I am doing so by believing that Christ was Incarnate as a male rather than a female human being.
No one is questioning that he was male. The problem lies in viewing being male as essential to the Incarnation and therefore essential to being ordained. More elaborate explanations go into God's incarnation being male and the church being the bride of Christ, an analogy that privileges a particular kind of marriage (cishet,naturally) that makes the second-class view of women undisputable, with the male representation of God and the female representation of God's people.
Petty? PETTY? It's not 'religions she doesn't like', it's the pervasive effect of religion, overt and covert, on the lives of women. Not only on their careers, but their health, even their civil rights.
Have you actually read the thread?
Have you met Islamic women and talked to them about why they wear a burka or hijab?
I've had one direct email exchange with a woman who did(full face-covering IIRC), and also read about half a dozen to a dozen defenses of the practice by women. And the reason given was usually something along the lines of "We live in an overly sexualized society, and this is my way of rejecting that."
Personally, I am not all that disturbed by the level of sexualization in society, and to the extent that I might think it's a problem, women covering up their faces would not be my go-to solution. I obviously can't(and, indeed, shouldn't) control what they think or do, but I will say that their apologia, to my mind, rather belied the then-circulating(2000s) notion that Islamic dress for women was some sort of feminist protest against the corporate patriarchy. Overall, their worldview seemed somewhat conservative, albeit not in a way that has been entirely alien to the west.
Ideas have power. No one would bother with them if they didn't.
Nobody becoming a nazi in America does it because unrelated Orthodox Christians do not ordain women. Don't be ridiculous.
That's not the way the connection runs; Churches can sometimes serve as a refuge for those who believe their extremist views are acceptable within a particular group, and there's often a transitive property where a slightly less than rigorous attitude to policing such things leads from pastors who like being loudmouths to parishoners who take all those things rather more seriously.
It's why the OPC keeps having to deal with kinism or why the racist lutheran podcaster popped up in the denomination whose president was ranting against DEI and praising DOGE.
All I can say at this stage is that it's something I do feel the need to investigate further, given the head space and perhaps through what Quakers would call a 'process of discernment'.
That is a step in the right direction, but it is only a step.
When you are in a church body with a 2,000 year history. That is certainly going against the tide.
I remember one time trying to swim across what appeared to be a small creek that was emptying out a rather large lake. I was amazed at how strong the current was. If I had continued to cross the current I would have likely drowned. Fortunately, I had the presence of mind to swim at an angle with the current and was able to safely get across.
Just saying I have an idea of how strong (and here I am using little t) 2,000 year tradition can be for just one person to swim against it.
@Gamma Gamaliel I did a quick google search this afternoon and came up with two possible books for your study.
Women and Ordination in the Orthodox Church: Explorations in Theology and Practice
Editors: Gabrielle Thomas & Elena Narinskaya
Publisher: Wipf & Stock (2020)
This is the most comprehensive modern Orthodox volume examining whether women could be ordained—including priests and bishops. It gathers essays from major Orthodox theologians (Behr, Louth, Cunningham, Ware, Frost, FitzGerald, Hinlicky Wilson, Ladouceur, etc.)
Women and the Priesthood
Editors: Alexander Schmemann, Kallistos Ware, Thomas Hopko, Georges Barrois, Nicholas Afanasiev, Kyriaki FitzGerald, Deborah Belonick, and others
Publisher: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press (1983; updated edition available)
While most contributors oppose ordaining women as priests, the book squarely addresses the theological arguments for and against and acknowledges that Orthodox tradition is not infallible and may require re‑examination.
Did you catch that last sentence? This book acknowledges that Orthodox tradition is not infallible and may require re-examination.
I believe you might have options in promoting equality for women within the Orthodox Church. Studying current thought is one step. Engaging with your local priest maybe requesting adult education discussions on women in the early church. Are there academic or ecclesiastical conversations like discussions at your seminaries you can participate in? You have already mentioned a movement to restore the female diaconate. I hope you can support that. And, finally, you can work for cultural change within your own parish--I think you had previously mentioned this as well All are these are just steps to the final goal.
Discernment is good, but discernment eventually asks us to decide what we're willing to swim against and why.
The need to escape from various prejudices is a global challenge. Sexism and its more intense form misogyny exemplify the general problem.
Christianity is not alone in having sexist and even misogynistic prejudices embedded in its Book and Traditions. It has generally escaped from its historical prejudices about racism and slavery by finding deeper moral imperatives in its roots.
Anti-racist and anti-slavery Christian proponents were, historically, described by some conservative Christian voices as dangerous liberals departing from what were perceived as biblical and traditional roots. And historically some anti-racist and anti-slavery voices were still infected with a superior paternalism. That been a long and continuing story.
The escape from sexism and misogyny is also a long and continuing story within Christianity and the wider world. Personally I find deeper moral imperatives within Christianity to justify my own active stance. But I understand those who see the infection as too deep to be eradicated. On that issue I was a rebel before I decided to be an active reformer. To use older terms, I think there are large sections of Christendom which require both purification and repentance from the diseases and errors of sexism and misogyny. They have caused great harm and damage.
I revisited very recently Ann Bronte’s “The Tenant of Wildfell Hall”. Ann Brontë was deeply Christian and yet morally very aware of the disease. It took some time after her untimely death at 29 for the truth of that to be unearthed and recognised. I celebrate her insight and am glad it is now more generally recognised. There are good voices to listen to, be changed by, and actively respond to. I do think active response is a moral imperative and have tried to live that out. It’s a long job.
Thanks @Gramps49 for the book recommendations. I appreciate the care and attention you put into posts like those.
I don't want anyone to get the impression that I'm heroically setting out on a single-handed mission to challenge or 'reform' Orthodox Tradition or praxis. Neither is it the case that I dismiss or disregard the concerns or views of Christians of other traditions or those of people of other or none.
It's not Gamaliel contra mundum.
There are a lot of misconceptions about the Orthodox view of Tradition. We see it as a work in progress thing, but not in a semper reformanda kind of way. It's easy to replace forms of biblical fundamentalism with a 'Church fundamentalism' and there's a lot of that at the moment.
What I can and will do is acquaint myself with current debates within Orthodoxy in order to be better informed and to engage with these issues to some degree- alongside with all the other issues there are to deal with.
Our deacon's wife is quite feisty and I've seen her deal effectively with some culturally misogynist shit from time to time.
That said, although certainly not fundamentalist, she probably has a more conservative view of Tradition than I might.
Ruth and others of course will maintain that Orthodoxy is institutionally misogynist and beyond redemption. They may say that about Christianity per se. I don't know.
I'm not going to be able to satisfy some of you in any way, shape or form. That doesn't mean I'm going to tell you all to sod off and go 'La la la la! I'm not listening!'
Will I call-out toxic masculinity or far-right views if I encounter them among converts, enquirers or 'cradle' or 'ethnic' Orthodox. Yes.
I don’t know much about what's happening at seminary level here in the UK. I can find out.
I have no idea how I'm 'being called' as it were and neither do I want to 'force' any issue - of whatever kind. I do feel the need to undertake more serious theological study, not necessarily in order to perform some kind of 'official' role, but for my own 'spiritual formation' that I may be of benefit to others.
I don’t want to become so immersed in churchy things that I'm not involved with anything else, nor do I want to get involved in any single-issue crusade.
As @Gramps49 says there are ways to swim across a creek. First we have to get into the water. It took me 25 years to convert to Orthodoxy. The calluses on my arse from fence-sitting haven't quite disappeared yet, but my cheeks are feeling more supple. They should do. I talk out of them enough at times ...
It remains to be seen whether they have affected my ability to swim.
'Save us and help us and keep us Lord, by thy grace!'
It’s challenging to get off one’s arse, despite the calluses. Actually, it’s not any easier to leave and point fingers, given that we mostly value belonging somewhere. It may not be possible for some of us to cry “Woe to you, Scribes and Pharisees” for their exhortations of tradition and indifference to the consequential suffering which follows not lifting a finger to help the disadvantaged.
By the way, that’s one of the sources of moral imperatives in favour of those disadvantaged by prejudices that I find in the Book and the Traditions.
Since it’s recently been revived in my mind, some of the really telling dialogues in “The Tenant of Wildfell Hall” are between the victim of male misogyny and a female who endorses sexism in the bringing up of children. It’s not just men who have been deceived.
@Ruth, I did not say that maleness was 'essential to the Incarnation'. What I said was that a belief that God became incarnate as a man doesn't diminish the humanity of women.
If it did then all women who believe in the incarnation would be misogynists irrespective of whether they attend churches which ordain women or not.
But that would better be discussed on an 'own voice' level by women on either side of the ordination debate.
I'm certainly not dismissing linkage between traditional and conservative views on some of these issues and toxic or inappropriate male behaviour.
There was a shocking report on BBC Radio 4's 'Sunday' programme this morning about the increase in domestic violence during major soccer tournaments and how some of the perpetrators - even those without a Christian faith - often cite religious or quasi-religious justification.
It's not that they quote chapter and verse necessarily. 'Saint Paul said, "Wives, submit to your husbands ..."
But they do draw on assumptions based on wooden applications of those kind of texts.
So I'm not denying that these influences are there and should be challenged.
How we do that will depend on a whole range of factors.
@Barnabas62, I’m not quite sure why your post was addressed to me, and my situation for the coming days only allows a quick response. But in this case quick is easy, as I agree with what you said.
…
Opponents of women's ordination say that priests have to be the image (or icon, to quote Gamma) of Jesus during his lifetime/ministry. But for some reason this doesn't require them to be Jewish, or of Middle Eastern descent, or circumcised, or the oldest child in their family, or between the ages of 30 and 33. They just have to have a penis. That's the only thing about the incarnate Jesus that makes a difference.
It's not so much the absence of a penis, but the presence of a womb, and the idealisation of childbirth and motherhood.
@Gamma Gamaliel I do remember you saying your congregation strives for equality. It is good to know your deacon's wife is a strong voice in the congregation. That suggests an open congregational discussion on women in the holy offices would be possible. Definitely follow her lead.
Yes, I imagine change in the Orthodox tradition is a very slow process. In 1872, for instance, there was a General Synod that passed a resolution condemning ethnophyletism which is a technical term meaning aligning the church along ethnic groups, and yet the Orthodox still align along Greek, Russian, Ukrainian groups. Not sure how it is in the UK, but it is my belief the Orthodox Church in America is one of the few bodies that have done that.
I have heard change in the Orthodox Church takes several steps. The Patriarchs accept it, the bishops accept it, the priests accept it, the monastics accept it, and then the laity accept it. Something tells me it is as slow as molasses on a very cold day. Orthodoxy can make changes through synods but those changes only when the entire church accepts them. It is a slow, organic, consensus driven process rooted in the continuity with the past. While I listed the gradual steps from the top down, I also think change can happen from the bottom up. An example of one such change would be the use of the vernacular liturgical language. I think you also alluded to the growing acceptance of women as readers, chanters, theologians and teachers.
I am not suggesting you need to be Don Quixote chasing windmills in Spain, nor do I think you would be the only one out there that is open and possibly willing to work for change. Takes one step, though.
…
Opponents of women's ordination say that priests have to be the image (or icon, to quote Gamma) of Jesus during his lifetime/ministry. But for some reason this doesn't require them to be Jewish, or of Middle Eastern descent, or circumcised, or the oldest child in their family, or between the ages of 30 and 33. They just have to have a penis. That's the only thing about the incarnate Jesus that makes a difference.
It's not so much the absence of a penis, but the presence of a womb, and the idealisation of childbirth and motherhood.
It's a twisted amalgamation of horror at the lack of a penis and the presence of a uterus, idealization of childbirth and motherhood, and whatever weird thing was going on in theologians' heads about female virginity.
@Ruth, I did not say that maleness was 'essential to the Incarnation'. What I said was that a belief that God became incarnate as a man doesn't diminish the humanity of women.
I don't believe I put those words in your mouth, but I'm on my phone and just starting on my first cup of coffee, so I'm not going to scroll back and check. Believing that God became incarnate as a man is not the problem. Believing that Jesus being male was somehow essential and therefore being male is essential to the priesthood is the problem. God incarnate probably had to be either male or female (though if anyone knows anything about what intersex people have said about this, believers or not, I'd love to get the references). Requiring that priests be male makes it obvious that being male is somehow essential to the Incarnation. But it's not the Incarnation that diminishes women's humanity. It's the insistence that priests be male.
Also, what @chrisstiles said about the transitive property of ideas. Ideas cannot be successfully fenced off. And if you think ideas are good, why would you want to? If an exclusively male leadership is such a great thing in the church, why not carry that across to other areas of life? The human institution that is the church is not so different from every other institution. But you know from experience that it's wrong and bad to discriminate against women, so you try to wall off the church's discrimination. Unsuccessfully.
Finally, a thought about anger and abrasiveness. I will not apologize for expressing anger or for using terms of abuse for people who defend ideas and the institutions that promulgate them which have warped my life and that of every girl and woman who has ever lived. @Antisocial Alto cited the Tony Campolo quote about using the word "shit" -- it's quite apt. Moreover, I will point out that you'd probably hear my tone differently if I weren't a woman. Women are allowed all the emotions but one: anger. If I were a man, I'd be aggressive and assertive and confident. Relentless. And abrasive, but you'd probably be more okay with it even if you don't like abrasive men. It might surprise you to learn that men regularly interrupt and talk over me. I can't be interrupted here -- might be why I still post -- but in person I am not loud enough, relentless enough, or abrasive enough to prevent men from cutting me off mid-sentence.
How does anyone know whether I'd find Ruth telling me to 'fuck off' any more or less abrasive because she's a woman than I would if she were a man?
I can't have been that upset or offended otherwise I wouldn't still be posting amicably here.
I use the Tony Compolo thing about saying 'shit' fairly often and remember hearing him say it at Spring Harvest back in 1981.
I think it was only @Enoch who objected to the use of the word 'fuck'.
This is Hell. I've used the term here myself but try not to these days not because I'm squeamish but because I upset someone unnecessarily by using it once and that over a trivial issue not a serious one like this.
@Gramps49 - sure, but I don’t think our deacon's wife would advocate female priests but neither would anyone close down discussion over the issue.
I'm 65 and few men in my family have lived to a ripe old age. My Dad dropped dead from a heart attack at my age but he smoked like a chimney and drank like a fish, so, God willing I hope to be around a while yet.
I do find Ruth's posts and tone abrasive and 'direct' at times but that may be a cultural thing at times. My posts can appear cutting and sarcastic at times, I'm sure.
Mostly they probably appear bewildering. Often convoluted.
I know that women in Islam and more conservative forms of Judaism have limited roles due to their gender, however it seems to me that only those within those groups are really in a position to comment on what others should or should not do about it.
Some of the largest providers of healthcare in the US are Catholic. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops writes their ethical and religious guidelines. They regularly put their beliefs ahead of appropriate medical care for women. A woman who needs an emergency abortion (for example, because the amniotic sac has burst much too soon or during a miscarriage) has to wait for the fetus to die inside her, putting her health and life at risk, or go to another facility, which in rural areas is frequently not an option. They have refused to perform tubal ligations during scheduled C-sections, making women undergo a second separate operation at a different facility despite the obvious fact that it's safer to have one surgery instead of two. So you most certainly do not have to be a Catholic to comment on Catholicism's views on women.
For another thing, I think one often has to acknowledge that people are capable of having more than one contradictory idea at the same time - so accepting differential gender roles at the mosque whilst working hard to emancipate women in the secular world. I don't think we should judge to be honest.
We should judge. There is no separate religious world that stands apart from or outside the secular world. Ideas have power. They don't stay contained within the walls of the church, temple or mosque. Yes, people are full of contradictions. That it happens all the time doesn't make all those contradictions okay. I don't believe for a moment that accepting differential gender roles in one place never bleeds out into other areas.
Ok, that's you. Others have a range of reasons for doing things and the groups they belong to. That's why the sociology of belonging and group dynamics and groupthink is so interesting.
Whether you believe that you should be telling other people what to do about groups they belong to is up to you, but there's no reason why anyone else should listen to you or take your lead in this incredibly stupid campaign where you lash out at anyone else you think is ethically suboptimal.
I'll focus on the fascists if it is all the same to you.
Sorry but this is such a shitty and misogynistic response to a woman talking about RC hospitals in the US denying women healthcare. On what planet are the USCCB not fully in bed with fascists if not fascist themselves? They certainly don't mind letting women die on the operating table.
... Not being funny but how would you know that? As a male evangelical Christian you are not exactly best placed to know how relevant it is to people's (especially women's) reasons for not being part of Christianity. In my experience misogyny in the church is a HUGE reason for leaving it, particularly for women. It's particularly a huge motivation for those women who leave Christianity for Neopaganism.
My apologies for coming back on this when over the four hours since, this thread has meanwhile shot off in all sorts of other directions. My apologies also if this may sound a bit simplistic, blunt or even tangential, though I do not think it is.
For many Christians - I would have thought most - the reason for being a member of the church is that one believes in Jesus, that he is Son of God and calls one to acknowledge him as Lord. That is the first order issue.
The church is the assembly of the faithful, but all of the rest of them are, for now, imperfect, just as you and me are also imperfect. Jesus does though specifically call each of us to love one another not despite the other's failings, but irrespective of them. That is sometimes very difficult to do, but it goes with the calling. Its failings, whether corporate or individual, however glaring, are second issue.
It strikes me that sad though it is that a person might choose to leave the assembly of the faithful because she, or he, does not like one specific failing, and to become a pagan, whether neo or any other sort, - or for that matter to become a humanist or a nothing - does rather suggest that Jesus was not the reason why they were there in the first place.
That 'one specific failing' is killing women. Is it not sadder that a woman felt so unsafe in the church that she felt that she had to leave?
Comments
The issue of women clergy IS about misogyny in the workplace ffs. What the fuck do you think clergy are paid for? Also, I do not see the relevance of whether or not the public care about it. The public don't care about a lot of things that matter.
Done Dafyd Hell Host
And where do you think this viewpoint came from in the first place? Do you think the men who invented it respected and honored women as equal and worthy in the same way as men?
I do. Because that belief requires you to assume that women are some kind of different, inferior creature to men. There's no other explanation.
Opponents of women's ordination say that priests have to be the image (or icon, to quote Gamma) of Jesus during his lifetime/ministry. But for some reason this doesn't require them to be Jewish, or of Middle Eastern descent, or circumcised, or the oldest child in their family, or between the ages of 30 and 33. They just have to have a penis. That's the only thing about the incarnate Jesus that makes a difference.
Not being funny but how would you know that? As a male evangelical Christian you are not exactly best placed to know how relevant it is to people's (especially women's) reasons for not being part of Christianity. In my experience misogyny in the church is a HUGE reason for leaving it, particularly for women. It's particularly a huge motivation for those women who leave Christianity for Neopaganism.
Just to be clear, I wasn't comparing women to children. I was comparing the belief that women are inferior to men to the belief that children are inferior to adults. Not in terms of both being true, but in terms of both being examples of a case where the PTB accept the humanity of the group, but refrain to grant them full equality.
My implied point to @Gamma Gamaliel could have been phrased as "Saying these churches accept the full humanity of women doesn't really absolve them of the charge of misogyny, if they regard women as occupying a far inferior status within humanity."
That being said, whether or not I was right to accept Gamma's characterization of those churches as accepting women's full humanity is another question. If you're arguing that their misogyny goes further than assignation of a lesser status and inti outright denial of humanity, I can easily believe that, and apologize for my original concession and any discomfort it may have caused.
If I remember rightly, not all his comments were about inclusive or exclusive language but he did express views on that which were challenged by other Shipmates.
If a Shipmate starts a thread about steam trains - and there're discussions about trains I notice, or books, films or plays, does that mean they are prioritising aesthetics or hobbies over social justice, the Gospel, climate change or any other key issue?
If I start a convoluted thread about the Trinity or the filioque clause does that mean I don't give a monkey's about the earthquake in Venezuela or politics or ...
I can see what you are getting at and I didn't agree with everything ChastMastr wrote on that thread. I've already stated that I help edit an ecumenical publication which has an inclusive language policy to which I am happy to adhere.
I'd more more than happy if we ditched 'for us men and for our salvation' from the version of the Creed we say during the Liturgy in our parish. I very much doubt that anyone attending services in our parish thinks we believe that salvation is only available to men. I've met some poorly catechised people in my time but ...
That doesn't mean that we shouldn't use a non-gender specific term such as 'people' or 'humanity' or simply 'us'. I'd consider that desirable, taking into account too @Nick Tamen's comment that women would be better placed than me to assess that issue.
@Doublethink - on the issue of what I as an individual could do to encourage a global Church to review its stance on female ordination. I once heard a well-known Orthodox bishop say that he wouldn't rule it out. A few years later I heard him say something that suggested otherwise. Where to start? There are those working to reintroduce the ancient order of deaconesses - although hardline traditionalists insist they didn't play a liturgical role - a view challenged by some historians and theologians within the Orthosphere, I understand, That would be a place to start. How many centuries that would take though ...
The comments were specifically about language used in worship, not random hobbies outside of church. Come on.
At the time I posted my original post on the subject we had been taking about the general attitude towards the subject not the specifics we got into. I was reacting to that. The conversation then took a bit of a change. I posted just before that change point.
Some of the largest providers of healthcare in the US are Catholic. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops writes their ethical and religious guidelines. They regularly put their beliefs ahead of appropriate medical care for women. A woman who needs an emergency abortion (for example, because the amniotic sac has burst much too soon or during a miscarriage) has to wait for the fetus to die inside her, putting her health and life at risk, or go to another facility, which in rural areas is frequently not an option. They have refused to perform tubal ligations during scheduled C-sections, making women undergo a second separate operation at a different facility despite the obvious fact that it's safer to have one surgery instead of two. So you most certainly do not have to be a Catholic to comment on Catholicism's views on women.
We should judge. There is no separate religious world that stands apart from or outside the secular world. Ideas have power. They don't stay contained within the walls of the church, temple or mosque. Yes, people are full of contradictions. That it happens all the time doesn't make all those contradictions okay. I don't believe for a moment that accepting differential gender roles in one place never bleeds out into other areas.
Ok, that's you. Others have a range of reasons for doing things and the groups they belong to. That's why the sociology of belonging and group dynamics and groupthink is so interesting.
Whether you believe that you should be telling other people what to do about groups they belong to is up to you, but there's no reason why anyone else should listen to you or take your lead in this incredibly stupid campaign where you lash out at anyone else you think is ethically suboptimal.
I'll focus on the fascists if it is all the same to you.
Pardon my ignorance here, this is something I know very little about. Is there no obligation on the secular powers to provide health care, up to and including hospitals in the way that they provide schooling? I don't mean "free" health care, but on the same financial basis as the Church hospitals operate. With medical decisions made according to secular law alone.
Women are literally dying from suboptimal medical care directly traceable to traditional Christian views of women, but I should be nicer. Good to know what your values are.
I didn't say anything about @Gamma Gamaliel's conversion to Orthodoxy until he exclaimed at the idea that someone would think of taking away women's right to vote. That set me off because it is so incredibly stupid and morally stunted to think you can belong to a group that views women as less than fully human without it mattering, without it having an effect somewhere.
I don't know why you're bothering to focus on the fascists. By your reasoning, you can just let them be fascist in their own groups. What's that? You say they have a negative effect on society? Earth to Basketactortale -- so does Christianity, and so do other religions. You're relying on Christianity or Islam or whatever to not be strong enough in your society to matter if you're fine with them having shitty views about women. But when certain forms of Islam are strong enough, women suffer. When certain forms of Christianity are strong enough, women suffer.
But the problem in your eyes is me lashing out. Not the real lashes to which an Iranian woman has been sentenced to because she sang a patriotic song without wearing hijab.
I deplore human rights abuses.
But not all women wearing the hijab are supporters of Iranian women getting lashes.
This is basic stuff, I'm surprised you don't understand it
And don't you dare compare the fight against fascism with your petty campaign against religions you do not like.
That is an interpretation you are putting on things.
I believe that God became Incarnate in human form. That doesn't mean that women aren't fully human because Jesus was male and not female.
My comment about hobby threads was a response to @Antisocial Alto who accused ChastMastr of priorising aesthetics over issues of gender equality by allegedly starting a thread about the language used in worship.
I'm not convinced ChastMastr started that thread and if you've read my post you will have seen that I'm not opposed to inclusive language.
@Doublethink I'm not involved in anything on a pan-Orthodox level in any formal way or on any issue. I'm a trustee and member of our parish council. Most of my 'outward' activities tend to be ecumenical in nature or in else in local politics, creative writing and voluntary activity in the community.
Have you actually read the thread?
There is no right to healthcare in the US. Cities, counties and states are not required to provide healthcare. Catholic healthcare networks are the largest non-profit providers of healthcare here. In some rural areas a Catholic hospital is the only available option, so the transfer to another facility miles away is difficult, expensive, and potentially threatening to health and life. Bleeding women have been sent away from Catholic facilities to seek care in other places. Here's one example in California, which has strong protections for abortion. Here's a more general article on what Catholic-owned healthcare means for women in the US.
The hospital closest to me is Catholic; it's where an ambulance would take me in an emergency. Years ago I had a friend who was an emergency room nurse there, and I asked him what would happen if I needed emergency reproductive care there, and he turned a little pale and said, "I don't know."
Viewing women as less than men is lethal:
I do understand it, which is why I didn't condemn wearing hijab. If women want to do it, let them. Or men, for that matter. I object to the government requiring it. The point is that the Islam espoused by hard-liners in Iran is extremely bad for women (should be obvious, but I'll say it anyway). You can't just say "it's fine to have views that oppress women as long as you keep them confined to the mosque or the church" because those views don't necessary stay in the mosque or the church.
Women dying isn't a petty concern. The fascists you're fighting are closely allied to the fascists killing women in the US.
Have you met Islamic women and talked to them about why they wear a burka or hijab?
In case you did not read the thread, initially it was about women in Orthodox Christianity then eventually about women in Roman Catholicism and then Islam.
Funnily enough, people are not all unthinking robots that can be judged by the things that other people do in the name of their religion.
It all admittedly looks the same to those with tragically underdeveloped levels of emotional intelligence.
In the US, where Ruth and I live, a good number of the fascists are fascists because of the ideas they've been taught in church. I won't say all of them are, because there's a groundswell of young men who got hooked on white supremacy in the nastier corners of the internet. But many American fascists are that way because of their churches, or because of national pressure groups funded by conservative churches. Minimizing the importance of churches' messages is dangerous here.
A reply totally inapposite and irrelevant to the point I was making. Which is, as @Ruth stated "Women dying isn't a petty concern."
If women are fully human, they can be ordained. Whatever your private views, you are supporting the view of women as less than fully human by virtue of your joining Orthodoxy. What you believe in your heart I don't care about. The actions of the Orthodox Church have results in the world we all live in.
He didn't, and I didn't say he did. He participated heavily, and he and I had a knock-down drag-out fight. He insisted on his aesthetics over women's humanity.
The thread was and still is about the support for religious view of women that lead to their oppression when those views become strong enough in a society. That you got from that to underdeveloped levels of emotional intelligence says a lot about you. How dare I object to ideas that warp and destroy women's lives!
You don't get to tell me what is or isn't inapposite and irrelevant. No.
That there are fascists in America that came out of churches has no relation to the issue of whether or not Orthodox churches ordain women. In the same way that women dying in monstrous ways in Iran have very little to do with women wearing burkas in Birmingham. For one thing the primary British Muslim group is unrelated to the one in Iran, just like the Orthodox Christians have almost zero relation to the Nazi churches in the USA.
Please get a logic transplant.
Nobody becoming a nazi in America does it because unrelated Orthodox Christians do not ordain women. Don't be ridiculous.
That’s okay—I wish you well as a human being, but after our prior conflict, I don’t care about your views on anything.
What do you think you achieve with your diatribes? If you have anger issues you may be better shouting at a wall rather than picking fights with people on a religious discussion forum
I did not call someone evil. I believe that to do that thing would be evil, but that’s not the same thing at all. I’ve done evil things this very day, myself. It’s why I pray for forgiveness when I’m aware of doing them, and during the confession of sin, “for things known and unknown, things done and left undone.”
For many Christians - I would have thought most - the reason for being a member of the church is that one believes in Jesus, that he is Son of God and calls one to acknowledge him as Lord. That is the first order issue.
The church is the assembly of the faithful, but all of the rest of them are, for now, imperfect, just as you and me are also imperfect. Jesus does though specifically call each of us to love one another not despite the other's failings, but irrespective of them. That is sometimes very difficult to do, but it goes with the calling. Its failings, whether corporate or individual, however glaring, are second issue.
It strikes me that sad though it is that a person might choose to leave the assembly of the faithful because she, or he, does not like one specific failing, and to become a pagan, whether neo or any other sort, - or for that matter to become a humanist or a nothing - does rather suggest that Jesus was not the reason why they were there in the first place.
It's also serious that some young men are imbibing toxic masculinity online and some of them are turning to conservatively theological churches because they think they'll find those ideas sanctioned or reinforced. Some rather conservative Orthodox bishops have recognised that as an issue and not before time.
It's more of a North American phenomenon but it has crossed the pond to some extent. I've met people who came into Orthodoxy from that direction but who are now abandoning those extremes or, in the case of one couple I know, actively campaigning against all that.
There have been a number of folk turning up at our parish with some very right wing views but who've cleared off because weren't obsessed with the same issues they are.
Even if they, thankfully, don't display those tendencies most enquirers and catechumens tend to be very simplistic and fundamentalist in their approach.
We've got all on dealing with that as well as the cultural and language issues that arise in multicultural congregations of whatever stripe.
As a further note to @Doublethink, the main Orthodox group working towards a restoration of the ministry of the deaconess is the St Phobe Center in the US. I don’t know much about them nor to what extent they are active here. I'd be happy to look into them in and amongst.
Doublethink asked whether the issue of women's ordination in an Orthodox context was something I feel 'called' to address. All I can say at this stage is that it's something I do feel the need to investigate further, given the head space and perhaps through what Quakers would call a 'process of discernment'.
There has been a call from Patriarch Bartholomew (Orthodox equivalent of the Archbishop of Canterbury) as recently as 2020 - a second or two ago in Orthodox terms - to progress with this agenda as soon as possible. That'll be 500 years then.
There have been some initiatives in Africa and elsewhere.
My guess would be that pressure on clergy will naturally and organically bring this about over time rather than there being any big policy push.
I'm not trying to elide or minimise these issues and in some ways it'd be better if female converts to Orthodoxy were here to comment but Josephine hasn't been around for a while and Leetle Masha is now among the 'great cloud of witnesses.'
But there aren't any Orthodox women converts here as far as I know and even if there were I'm the subject of this Hell thread and not them.
Ruth has commented on my conversion to Orthodoxy before now but not through the medium of a Hell call if my memory serves.
I can understand why she considers it a contradiction and somehow 'worse' than remaining an RC or Orthodox Christian because you were brought up in those settings.
What I don't accept is that by becoming Orthodox I'm denying women's full humanity any more than I am doing so by believing that Christ was Incarnate as a male rather than a female human being.
But I'm never going to convince her of that unless I de-Orthodox and join a different church.
Anger at the ideas that contribute to and underwrite the oppression of women is entirely legitimate. A religious discussion forum labeled "Hell" is a great place to fight with people subscribing to those ideas.
I appreciate you saying this, thank you.
No one is questioning that he was male. The problem lies in viewing being male as essential to the Incarnation and therefore essential to being ordained. More elaborate explanations go into God's incarnation being male and the church being the bride of Christ, an analogy that privileges a particular kind of marriage (cishet,naturally) that makes the second-class view of women undisputable, with the male representation of God and the female representation of God's people.
I've had one direct email exchange with a woman who did(full face-covering IIRC), and also read about half a dozen to a dozen defenses of the practice by women. And the reason given was usually something along the lines of "We live in an overly sexualized society, and this is my way of rejecting that."
Personally, I am not all that disturbed by the level of sexualization in society, and to the extent that I might think it's a problem, women covering up their faces would not be my go-to solution. I obviously can't(and, indeed, shouldn't) control what they think or do, but I will say that their apologia, to my mind, rather belied the then-circulating(2000s) notion that Islamic dress for women was some sort of feminist protest against the corporate patriarchy. Overall, their worldview seemed somewhat conservative, albeit not in a way that has been entirely alien to the west.
That's not the way the connection runs; Churches can sometimes serve as a refuge for those who believe their extremist views are acceptable within a particular group, and there's often a transitive property where a slightly less than rigorous attitude to policing such things leads from pastors who like being loudmouths to parishoners who take all those things rather more seriously.
It's why the OPC keeps having to deal with kinism or why the racist lutheran podcaster popped up in the denomination whose president was ranting against DEI and praising DOGE.
That is a step in the right direction, but it is only a step.
When you are in a church body with a 2,000 year history. That is certainly going against the tide.
I remember one time trying to swim across what appeared to be a small creek that was emptying out a rather large lake. I was amazed at how strong the current was. If I had continued to cross the current I would have likely drowned. Fortunately, I had the presence of mind to swim at an angle with the current and was able to safely get across.
Just saying I have an idea of how strong (and here I am using little t) 2,000 year tradition can be for just one person to swim against it.
@Gamma Gamaliel I did a quick google search this afternoon and came up with two possible books for your study.
Women and Ordination in the Orthodox Church: Explorations in Theology and Practice
Editors: Gabrielle Thomas & Elena Narinskaya
Publisher: Wipf & Stock (2020)
This is the most comprehensive modern Orthodox volume examining whether women could be ordained—including priests and bishops. It gathers essays from major Orthodox theologians (Behr, Louth, Cunningham, Ware, Frost, FitzGerald, Hinlicky Wilson, Ladouceur, etc.)
Women and the Priesthood
Editors: Alexander Schmemann, Kallistos Ware, Thomas Hopko, Georges Barrois, Nicholas Afanasiev, Kyriaki FitzGerald, Deborah Belonick, and others
Publisher: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press (1983; updated edition available)
While most contributors oppose ordaining women as priests, the book squarely addresses the theological arguments for and against and acknowledges that Orthodox tradition is not infallible and may require re‑examination.
Did you catch that last sentence? This book acknowledges that Orthodox tradition is not infallible and may require re-examination.
I believe you might have options in promoting equality for women within the Orthodox Church. Studying current thought is one step. Engaging with your local priest maybe requesting adult education discussions on women in the early church. Are there academic or ecclesiastical conversations like discussions at your seminaries you can participate in? You have already mentioned a movement to restore the female diaconate. I hope you can support that. And, finally, you can work for cultural change within your own parish--I think you had previously mentioned this as well All are these are just steps to the final goal.
Discernment is good, but discernment eventually asks us to decide what we're willing to swim against and why.
Peace be with you.
The need to escape from various prejudices is a global challenge. Sexism and its more intense form misogyny exemplify the general problem.
Christianity is not alone in having sexist and even misogynistic prejudices embedded in its Book and Traditions. It has generally escaped from its historical prejudices about racism and slavery by finding deeper moral imperatives in its roots.
Anti-racist and anti-slavery Christian proponents were, historically, described by some conservative Christian voices as dangerous liberals departing from what were perceived as biblical and traditional roots. And historically some anti-racist and anti-slavery voices were still infected with a superior paternalism. That been a long and continuing story.
The escape from sexism and misogyny is also a long and continuing story within Christianity and the wider world. Personally I find deeper moral imperatives within Christianity to justify my own active stance. But I understand those who see the infection as too deep to be eradicated. On that issue I was a rebel before I decided to be an active reformer. To use older terms, I think there are large sections of Christendom which require both purification and repentance from the diseases and errors of sexism and misogyny. They have caused great harm and damage.
I revisited very recently Ann Bronte’s “The Tenant of Wildfell Hall”. Ann Brontë was deeply Christian and yet morally very aware of the disease. It took some time after her untimely death at 29 for the truth of that to be unearthed and recognised. I celebrate her insight and am glad it is now more generally recognised. There are good voices to listen to, be changed by, and actively respond to. I do think active response is a moral imperative and have tried to live that out. It’s a long job.
I don't want anyone to get the impression that I'm heroically setting out on a single-handed mission to challenge or 'reform' Orthodox Tradition or praxis. Neither is it the case that I dismiss or disregard the concerns or views of Christians of other traditions or those of people of other or none.
It's not Gamaliel contra mundum.
There are a lot of misconceptions about the Orthodox view of Tradition. We see it as a work in progress thing, but not in a semper reformanda kind of way. It's easy to replace forms of biblical fundamentalism with a 'Church fundamentalism' and there's a lot of that at the moment.
What I can and will do is acquaint myself with current debates within Orthodoxy in order to be better informed and to engage with these issues to some degree- alongside with all the other issues there are to deal with.
Our deacon's wife is quite feisty and I've seen her deal effectively with some culturally misogynist shit from time to time.
That said, although certainly not fundamentalist, she probably has a more conservative view of Tradition than I might.
Ruth and others of course will maintain that Orthodoxy is institutionally misogynist and beyond redemption. They may say that about Christianity per se. I don't know.
I'm not going to be able to satisfy some of you in any way, shape or form. That doesn't mean I'm going to tell you all to sod off and go 'La la la la! I'm not listening!'
Will I call-out toxic masculinity or far-right views if I encounter them among converts, enquirers or 'cradle' or 'ethnic' Orthodox. Yes.
I don’t know much about what's happening at seminary level here in the UK. I can find out.
I have no idea how I'm 'being called' as it were and neither do I want to 'force' any issue - of whatever kind. I do feel the need to undertake more serious theological study, not necessarily in order to perform some kind of 'official' role, but for my own 'spiritual formation' that I may be of benefit to others.
I don’t want to become so immersed in churchy things that I'm not involved with anything else, nor do I want to get involved in any single-issue crusade.
As @Gramps49 says there are ways to swim across a creek. First we have to get into the water. It took me 25 years to convert to Orthodoxy. The calluses on my arse from fence-sitting haven't quite disappeared yet, but my cheeks are feeling more supple. They should do. I talk out of them enough at times ...
It remains to be seen whether they have affected my ability to swim.
'Save us and help us and keep us Lord, by thy grace!'
By the way, that’s one of the sources of moral imperatives in favour of those disadvantaged by prejudices that I find in the Book and the Traditions.
Since it’s recently been revived in my mind, some of the really telling dialogues in “The Tenant of Wildfell Hall” are between the victim of male misogyny and a female who endorses sexism in the bringing up of children. It’s not just men who have been deceived.
@Ruth, I did not say that maleness was 'essential to the Incarnation'. What I said was that a belief that God became incarnate as a man doesn't diminish the humanity of women.
If it did then all women who believe in the incarnation would be misogynists irrespective of whether they attend churches which ordain women or not.
But that would better be discussed on an 'own voice' level by women on either side of the ordination debate.
I'm certainly not dismissing linkage between traditional and conservative views on some of these issues and toxic or inappropriate male behaviour.
There was a shocking report on BBC Radio 4's 'Sunday' programme this morning about the increase in domestic violence during major soccer tournaments and how some of the perpetrators - even those without a Christian faith - often cite religious or quasi-religious justification.
It's not that they quote chapter and verse necessarily. 'Saint Paul said, "Wives, submit to your husbands ..."
But they do draw on assumptions based on wooden applications of those kind of texts.
So I'm not denying that these influences are there and should be challenged.
How we do that will depend on a whole range of factors.
It was support for and expansion on your excellent post here.
Sorry I didn’t make that clear.
Yes, I imagine change in the Orthodox tradition is a very slow process. In 1872, for instance, there was a General Synod that passed a resolution condemning ethnophyletism which is a technical term meaning aligning the church along ethnic groups, and yet the Orthodox still align along Greek, Russian, Ukrainian groups. Not sure how it is in the UK, but it is my belief the Orthodox Church in America is one of the few bodies that have done that.
I have heard change in the Orthodox Church takes several steps. The Patriarchs accept it, the bishops accept it, the priests accept it, the monastics accept it, and then the laity accept it. Something tells me it is as slow as molasses on a very cold day. Orthodoxy can make changes through synods but those changes only when the entire church accepts them. It is a slow, organic, consensus driven process rooted in the continuity with the past. While I listed the gradual steps from the top down, I also think change can happen from the bottom up. An example of one such change would be the use of the vernacular liturgical language. I think you also alluded to the growing acceptance of women as readers, chanters, theologians and teachers.
I am not suggesting you need to be Don Quixote chasing windmills in Spain, nor do I think you would be the only one out there that is open and possibly willing to work for change. Takes one step, though.
It's a twisted amalgamation of horror at the lack of a penis and the presence of a uterus, idealization of childbirth and motherhood, and whatever weird thing was going on in theologians' heads about female virginity.
I don't believe I put those words in your mouth, but I'm on my phone and just starting on my first cup of coffee, so I'm not going to scroll back and check. Believing that God became incarnate as a man is not the problem. Believing that Jesus being male was somehow essential and therefore being male is essential to the priesthood is the problem. God incarnate probably had to be either male or female (though if anyone knows anything about what intersex people have said about this, believers or not, I'd love to get the references). Requiring that priests be male makes it obvious that being male is somehow essential to the Incarnation. But it's not the Incarnation that diminishes women's humanity. It's the insistence that priests be male.
Also, what @chrisstiles said about the transitive property of ideas. Ideas cannot be successfully fenced off. And if you think ideas are good, why would you want to? If an exclusively male leadership is such a great thing in the church, why not carry that across to other areas of life? The human institution that is the church is not so different from every other institution. But you know from experience that it's wrong and bad to discriminate against women, so you try to wall off the church's discrimination. Unsuccessfully.
Finally, a thought about anger and abrasiveness. I will not apologize for expressing anger or for using terms of abuse for people who defend ideas and the institutions that promulgate them which have warped my life and that of every girl and woman who has ever lived. @Antisocial Alto cited the Tony Campolo quote about using the word "shit" -- it's quite apt. Moreover, I will point out that you'd probably hear my tone differently if I weren't a woman. Women are allowed all the emotions but one: anger. If I were a man, I'd be aggressive and assertive and confident. Relentless. And abrasive, but you'd probably be more okay with it even if you don't like abrasive men. It might surprise you to learn that men regularly interrupt and talk over me. I can't be interrupted here -- might be why I still post -- but in person I am not loud enough, relentless enough, or abrasive enough to prevent men from cutting me off mid-sentence.
I'm not a Swiftie, but I do like this one song: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AqAJLh9wuZ0
Excellent video.
How does anyone know whether I'd find Ruth telling me to 'fuck off' any more or less abrasive because she's a woman than I would if she were a man?
I can't have been that upset or offended otherwise I wouldn't still be posting amicably here.
I use the Tony Compolo thing about saying 'shit' fairly often and remember hearing him say it at Spring Harvest back in 1981.
I think it was only @Enoch who objected to the use of the word 'fuck'.
This is Hell. I've used the term here myself but try not to these days not because I'm squeamish but because I upset someone unnecessarily by using it once and that over a trivial issue not a serious one like this.
@Gramps49 - sure, but I don’t think our deacon's wife would advocate female priests but neither would anyone close down discussion over the issue.
I'm 65 and few men in my family have lived to a ripe old age. My Dad dropped dead from a heart attack at my age but he smoked like a chimney and drank like a fish, so, God willing I hope to be around a while yet.
I do find Ruth's posts and tone abrasive and 'direct' at times but that may be a cultural thing at times. My posts can appear cutting and sarcastic at times, I'm sure.
Mostly they probably appear bewildering. Often convoluted.
Sorry but this is such a shitty and misogynistic response to a woman talking about RC hospitals in the US denying women healthcare. On what planet are the USCCB not fully in bed with fascists if not fascist themselves? They certainly don't mind letting women die on the operating table.
That 'one specific failing' is killing women. Is it not sadder that a woman felt so unsafe in the church that she felt that she had to leave?